Lurker > adjl

It was entertaining, but I never felt much incentive to switch up my party or try any different strategies, so the whole game felt kinda samey. When I ended up losing one boss battle once (Baby Bowser, which I think is 4-5 maps before the end), I put it down because I didn't feel like trying again immediately, and I just haven't gone back to it since.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

IronBornCorps posted...

The only SJW agenda going on is that companies realized cisgender straight white men are a "small segment of the population", and started including themes and characters relevant to other experiences.

Eh, that's debatable. Cishet white men and women are still the majority, so if there's any one demographic worth catering to, it's generally going to be them. The difference isn't that they've become a minority, or even that other demographics have grown enough to be a significant commercial force, it's that cishet white people are now sufficiently accepting of those other demographics and therefore it won't cost companies their business to include them. From a corporate standpoint, it is still just the same, cynical look at the bottom line, not any sort of new awareness of untapped demographics or a moral commitment to inclusion.

Kegran posted...

Societal pressure also makes up a chunk of our actions. A trend is societal pressure.

When it comes to actually dating someone, social pressure really only ever discourages that, rather than encouraging it. People frequently choose not to date somebody because of social pressure against it (see: every closeted gay person that doesn't homosexually date), but the only times you'll really see people choose to date just because of social pressure in favour of it are closeted gay people in straight relationships (which is exactly the opposite of your concern), and instances where a friend has set them up with somebody and they stick it out to be polite (in which case, those relationships generally don't last all that long).

Quite simply, you don't get people getting into gay relationships because it's cool. Trends and social pressure promoting homosexuality are not a concern at all.

Kegran posted...

However, you'd be more accepted if you were normal, meaning closer to the mean average personality.

So change what "normal" means so people aren't ostracized for their sexual orientation. Which, conveniently, sounds like a fantastic definition for that whole "normalize homosexuality" phrase that's been floating around. Wow!

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kegran posted...

No there's something inherently wrong with it.

If that's what you truly believe, you should be able to demonstrate that inherent wrong. Hop to it, or change your beliefs to something you can actually substantiate.

Kegran posted...

Maybe not having children is the problem with it. Maybe attempting to pass gay culture down to not your children through children's media is part of my problem with this situation.

So the problem has shifted from "gay people don't pass culture on because they don't have kids" to "gay people pass on their own culture"? Yeah, this is sounding more and more like you're just being homophobic for homophobia's sake, not like you have a legitimate point. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you have failed.

Kegran posted...

What gay cartoons did you watch as a child and how unacceptable do you believe yourself to be?

None. My acceptance of homosexuality (et al) was a product of a tolerant upbringing and peers that were okay with it. Even so, it took longer than I might have liked to arrive at how accepting I currently am, and I don't doubt that that was a consequence of a lack of exposure. Had gay characters been more than just a punch line (if they were present at all) in the media I consumed growing up, I would have arrived much more quickly at my current position.

Kegran posted...

What advantage is there to normalizing homosexuality? Why should something that is statistically not normal be normalized in the first place and especially to children?

Normalizing something simply means accepting it as part of your normal experience, not establishing it as the statistical norm. Yes, being gay is an abnormal state, statistically speaking. The problem is not acknowledging that, it's that "abnormal" has a bunch of pejorative connotations attached to it that frequently get applied to anything that deviates from our typical experience. To that end, having more depictions of "abnormal" people in the media we consume regularly makes them part of our typical experience, which in turn makes it less jarring to encounter actual people that fit those molds and reduces the likelihood of negative reactions.

Basically, if you get used to weird stuff, it stops bothering you. As for why that's important, people being bothered by homosexuality has been the basis for countless past and present atrocities, and at the very least, makes gay people feel needlessly uncomfortable. So... stop it. It's pointless, and pointlessly hurting people is always stupid and bad.

Kegran posted...

Essentially it's important indoctrination to you and that's why adults should inject homosexuality into children's media.

Yes, I do think "gay people shouldn't be treated as sub-human" is something everyone should be "indoctrinated" with. Anyone who doesn't is, as mentioned before, utter trash, because that's just called being a decent person.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kegran posted...

If homosexuality is a trend, how many were homosexual just to be trendy (I think this is actually why more women identify as LGBT bi since "guys think it's hot").

I'm pretty sure people make decisions about who to date based on who they're attracted to, not on how trendy that person's genitals are. You seem to be conflating a couple of drunk girls making out while frat boys cheer with actual relationships, which is terribly silly.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

At the most fundamental level, it is pretty easy. If a company lives the value -- particularly when it comes to sacrificing profits to keep that value -- you can feel pretty confident that it's not just pandering. That or if the value is built into the company's mission statement and has been there since the beginning.

If it's an issue that it's just taking up all of the sudden, it's more just marketing or pandering. Right now social issues are very deliberately being used as marketing, with companies picking up token issues as a way to get over with people.

Example:
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/858/258/3bd.jpg

There is definitely a large-scale problem of companies "talking the talk" of supporting causes while doing almost nothing to actually support them (or, in many cases, actively working against them) outside of token PR gestures. Disney is openly embracing Pride month, but continues to demand that all LGBTQ characters in their media be inconsequential so they can be scrubbed out when they dub them in Russian and Mandarin.

Zeus posted...

Oh, and what are they doing exactly? Are they refusing to sell their products in states where they disagree with the voting laws? Because I didn't hear anything about that, bud.

They're accepting that people are upset by their condemnation of the laws and that they're therefore losing sales. Sure, they're more likely to see an overall increase in revenue from that statement than a loss, but the fact that they haven't walked it back means they were prepared for this loss.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kegran posted...

No you misunderstand what I believe a contribution is. A contribution doesn't have to be substantial or something invented or achieved. And normally I wouldn't present something I can't explain properly, but, as you can see, it's usually dismissed as "homophobic" outright so I've never been able to use the words I need.
Let me try again. A society is a collection of people with a similar culture. A contribution is passing your culture down to the next generation. Homosexuals statistically do not have a next generation despite outliers, and have no need or use to contribute to the continuation of a culture.

Protip: If your position is based on something vague, undefinable, and impossible to measure, and somebody asks you if you consider your position to be defensible, the answer is "no." What you have is a hunch: a vague sense that there might be a problem here, though you're not sure exactly why and you're doing your best to come up with an explanation that fits that hunch. That's not a defensible position. That's you trying to reconcile the cognitive dissonance between the intellectual realization that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, and a homophobic gut reaction that says it must be wrong to show gays to children.

Furthermore, generational culture transfer happens on a far, far greater scale than just between parents and their children. It happens in schools, it happens between adults and their friends'/families' children, it happens through the media... The notion that somebody not having kids means they can't pass on their culture is very obviously nonsense. Even if you could come up with a way to make that measurable so you could test your hypothesis, there is no reason to believe that you'd find a significant difference.

Kegran posted...

You know, we're talking about children's media, right? Do gays really need to be presented in children's media and why?

Because what we experience as "normal" during our formative years has a huge impact on what we consider to be acceptable as adults. Media is far from being the only influence there, obviously, but it is a major one. The presence of LGBTQ characters in children's media goes a long way toward normalizing it and guarding against homophobic biases that they might otherwise grow into.

Kegran posted...

No, children's media not representing gays does not explicitly mean telling anyone they are wrong or evil. Why would you believe this?

Because when you take away all the sources that say it's okay to be gay, all you're left with are the ones that say it's not okay. Not saying it's okay doesn't explicitly tell people it's not okay, but it does dramatically increase the chances that they end up being convinced of that by the remaining voices that are explicitly saying telling them that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Grischnak posted...

You don't pay child support to kids. You pay it to the moms.

And, in turn, it's used to support the kids. Yes, the payment went to the mom, but there's really no way the kid isn't going to see this behaviour and think her dad doesn't resent supporting her, regardless of whether his intent was to spite her or her mother.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kegran posted...

If so, then why is promoting deviant sexual behavior important to them in children's media?

Because they're going to be homosexual whether you tell them it's okay or not. Telling them it's okay just makes them less likely to kill themselves than if they spend their lives being told that the feelings they've developed are wrong and evil.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kegran posted...

Turing? Not to minimize, but Germany was screwed either way, but that's a different story.

Most likely, but he was the reason Europe and America remained dominant instead of having the Soviets steamroll the Nazis and keep moving west to pick up what they left behind of the rest of Europe. His contribution really cannot be understated, which makes it even more disgusting that he was treated so poorly.

Kegran posted...

I don't think I have the words to describe how this isn't what I mean at the moment.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean. You believe that, without children to directly benefit from their contributions, people are less motivated to do anything meaningful with their lives that might make for a better future, and that non-reproductive lifestyles therefore should be discouraged during children's formative years to maximize their motivation to be productive.

Of course, that's a belief you could substantiate, if there were any merit to it. Randomly select a sample of a few dozen people that have made major contributions to the betterment of humanity throughout history, find out whether or not they've had children (preferably before making their contributions, but that data may be tricky to come by), and compare that to contemporary statistics for the general population to see if there's actually a significant difference in reproductive rate between those that contribute significantly to society and those that don't. If you want to make this claim, go do that so you have some actual data to back you up.

To save you some time, though, I'll point out that people are perfectly capable of caring about people that aren't their own children, and most people have already commited to the careers that ultimately lead to them making major contributions by the time they actually have kids. There's very little reason to suspect that having children is a prerequisite for making contributions to society. In turn, there's very little reason to believe that having more people reproduce would change much about the fact that the vast majority of people (parents or no) will never make particularly significant contributions to society. I encourage you to test your hypothesis regardless, since science rules and whatnot, but I don't expect you to find a significant trend there.

Kegran posted...

I'm even for gay marriage so I don't disagree with any rights or anything.

You just don't think that media should present anything other than reproductive heterosexuality as being legitimate, which would inevitably have serious negative effects on the treatment and rights of gay populations because it would reinforce the idea that they're bad and shouldn't exist. Didn't really think that one through, did you?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I should really finish the first one. I fizzled out quite close to the end.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kegran posted...

Yes I do. Do you think you'll be able to go toe to toe against my position without calling it homophobic to immediately dismiss it?
Gay people have no investment in the future. There's no interest to leave a better society for their children. It's all about the here and now.
"But, what about small number of gay people who adopt or otherwise have children!?"
It's an unsurprisingly insignificant amount.

WWII was all but single-handedly won by a gay man.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I ran into a similar issue buying airpods for my mom, who's totally deaf in one ear. Sadly, there wasn't any way to buy just one pod, but I really didn't expect there to be. That's a very niche demand that stores aren't in a good position to deal with. If that's going to happen, it needs to be at the supplier end, particularly since so much of the cost of actually selling the product comes from the distribution chain and not the item itself, and even then you aren't going to see the savings you might expect because the item itself isn't the whole cost.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kegran posted...

If gay children are real let them figure out they'll be net non-contributing members of society for their entire lives by themselves.

Gay people don't contribute to society? You legitimately think that's a defensible position?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

There are bugs and framerate issues in the released JP version. The delay in the Western release is presumably not because they want more time to patch those problems, but because they've hit snags in localizing it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

hypnox posted...

If I said "I found my new favorite sub", would you expect me to mail you a sandwich of it too?

Mailing a sandwich is considerably less practical than telling people the name of a song.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

W-what are you doing, step-jaws of life?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

its many adults that seem to have a lot of resistance to the idea of some people being different from one another and it being okay

Resistance which, in many cases, is because that idea conflicts with what they learned as children and they have trouble adapting to the new information. Expose them to the idea as children, and it becomes a lot less unfamiliar.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

dragon504 posted...

Yes, they're dumping huge amounts of money to try to build their userbase.

Pretty much. They're throwing money around to give away free games (splurging on higher-profile titles and more frequent freebies during sales and whatnot), as well as to buy exclusivity deals. Personally, I'd rather see them putting that money toward making a service that's actually competitive instead of taking the P2W route to make their competitors weaker, but in the mean time, I'll happily take some free games off their hands while continuing to shop on Steam.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

I like the series - I think a delay might be good for it, take your time

It's already out in Japan. Has been for about 3 weeks. This is a localization delay, not a production one.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Monopoman posted...

Didn't we hear about this story like 2-3 months ago?

I could of swore some random dude brought a fuck ton of pennies as a payment for child support back then.

It happens fairly frequently that somebody that's bitter about having to make a payment of some sort makes it in pennies to spite the recipient. Wouldn't surprise me if it was a completely different story. It also wouldn't surprise me if Duckbear also reported on it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

T0ffee posted...

Hopefully with the delay, this gives the game a bit more time to sort those issues out before coming over here.

I wouldn't get your hopes up on that. More than likely it's just Covid-related delays in getting localization work done, not an effort to buy more time to patch issues. Major bugs may be patched in that time frame anyway, but stuff like framerate issues generally don't get ironed out post-launch because that's buried so deep in how the game has been made, and if they launched it despite being really buggy, they may not be committed to fixing that.

Shame, RF4 was amazing, and I was hoping RF5 could live up to that legacy.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

I just don't think this stuff has any place on nickelodeon. Kids under 10, by and large, don't really understand this stuff. We shouldn't be pushing sexuality on kids that young at all imo. I understand pushing for acceptance but I don't think that's how to do it really.

So kids need to reach a certain age before they're made aware of the existence of queer people? That's the "agenda" you're worried about?

There's a pervasive attitude that saying "being gay is okay" actually means "you should be gay," and I really don't know where that comes from. Nobody's pushing sexuality on kids (no more so than most media already does with heterosexuality, anyway). What is being pushed is the idea that it's okay that LGBTQ people exist, and frankly, anyone that thinks that agenda shouldn't be pushed is garbage.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

The list of things that don't look awesome with Holding Out for a Hero playing in the background is pretty short.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Metalsonic66 posted...

That looks more like one of those thingies optometrists use than a weapon.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sounds like the US needs to...

*Sunglasses*

Ketchup to our chip flavours.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

eating4fun posted...

God, how do people just keep making and playing the same action adventure games with guns.

*plays yet another roguelike game*

To be fair, roguelikes aren't really a genre of their own so much as they are a way of structuring gameplay loops within other genres. Just about any genre can be turned into a roguelike.

To be less fair, a considerable majority of them are 2D or isometric action games.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Blightzkrieg posted...

The conclusion of her beliefs is that God can't cause evolution, but humans can

Sounds like heresy to me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXhU9zacjzw

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

I was also going by the assumption you were using Indigo as a place name, not a store chain.

That's fair. It was not exactly an accessible joke to non-Canadians.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sarcasthma posted...

Guys I think adjl might actually be Vaati.

Shhhhh...

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

The difference in distance is most likely going to be negligible.

Assuming you're in Amsterdam (very much an assumption, but it doesn't change these measurements by much), you're looking at about 5500 km to Montreal (I don't actually know if there are any Indigo stores in the Atlantic provinces, or if they're all still Chapters/Coles/whatever other subsidiaries Indigo has that I'm forgetting), and about 9200 km to Victoria. That's a 67% difference, which is actually quite substantial. That gets even bigger if we use St John's instead of Montreal, because then you're comparing 4000 to 9200, or a 130% difference.

Of course, one could still say it's negligible because you're equally unwilling to travel both distances, which would be fair.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

So I guess with the caveat "if you invest everything you feasibly can," the million would be enough to retire on assuming that a person's debts don't vastly exceed the national average. When I heard "retire on a million," this wasn't where my mind was going. Colloquially, when people say that, they mean just living on that money and maybe whatever assets they already have, which would be difficult for younger people.

I don't think anyone with a modicum of financial sense means "I'm just going to take all the money I have now and hope it lasts me until I die" when they talking about retiring. It's a given that any retirement plan involves investment so you have actual income to keep you going and your savings can do more than just sit there uselessly until you reach the bottom of the barrel. That's not to say that nobody tries to retire like that, but it's very clearly not a good idea, and most people at least understand that the concept of investing exists.

Zeus posted...

So subtract [...] $90k to get out of debt.

That's not necessarily a prerequisite for planning retirement (or whatever) around receiving a large lump sum. If the interest you're paying on that debt is lower than your RoI, you may actually be better off investing the money and making minimum payments on the debt. Other factors can come into play, like improving your debt:income ratio to get better terms on a mortgage, or simply the peace of mind that comes from being debt-free, but defaulting to "I must pay down my debt before anything else" isn't always the optimal course of action.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

So many colours in that song, but where is indigo?

There are several in most major cities in Canada. I recommend using Google Maps to find the closest one.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

shadowsword87 posted...

I can't wait for someone to go through frame by frame of the stuff and speculate.

"The hand seen at 0:53 looks suspiciously similar to the hand seen at 0:46 in the third trailer for Dark Souls 3, leading me to conclude that this creature is a reincarnation of the Ashen One when he failed to link the fire after also linking the water."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Do they know that drag queens are generally not trans, or...

It's generally a miracle if these people can string together enough syllables to get the word "indoctrination" out. I wouldn't expect too much more from them than that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

On the flip side, found pet stories are fantastically uplifting. A friend of mine had his 16-year-old cat go missing, and after a few weeks, presumed him dead. Six months later, he gets a call from a family that had taken in the apparent stray and only just then found the missing cat poster, so he got his cat back. Said cat only lasted another 6 months or so after that anyway, because old, but it was still a great story.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Hemidactylus posted...

Outraging wouldn't be the right word for it, but I mislike the trend of showing children that being gay or trans makes you special.

It's less saying that they're special and more saying that it's okay if they are and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

No more so than usual.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ReggieTheReckless posted...

The majority lottery winners are idiots for sure, as are people that don't think they can retire on a mil.

No one is forcing you guys to live in downtown east coast/west coast areas where you can't even buy a house for that much.

Assuming the million offered here is tax free initially, 8% on a mil invested is 80 grand, and even the laziest of investors can make 8% a year in stable years. Let's say you don't let it sit and instead take it out and it's taxed as income instead of long term capital gains, so you're left with maybe 63k after taxes

My wife and I combined make less than that now after taxes (we clear like 58k),and we live EXTREMELY comfortably in Central Florida and never want for anything and buy whatever we want and get annual Disney passes and take at least 2 vacations a year.

Maybe you guys... Just suck with money?

You can retire on a million, you just shouldn't expect it to mean you don't have to limit yourself in order to do so. That's the takeaway there.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

jiffdiff posted...

Being radiation proof is also an unexpected and awesome benefit, though.

Though, as people pointed out earlier, this power likely wouldn't protect you from the radiation before you ate it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

If it's a girl, the entire country will be swallowed up as the ground opens into a massive, yonic chasm. If it's a boy, a giant stone dong will emerge from the deeps, thrusting miles into space.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

Whats the title of that game where you can play as just one geese

Untitled Goose Game? They added co-op, so now you and one friend can both be horrible geese.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

It has its issues, but I'd still say it was a good game. Certainly worth playing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

About that. The first three letter are sexual orientations. The fourth is gender identity. I don't know what type of thing Q is, I have no concept for it. Then they got race involved somehow. What do any of these have in common?

"Queer" has been adopted as a sort of general-purpose term for any non-conforming gender identity or sexuality. Basically, anyone that isn't cis/straight is queer, with further subdivisions as needed. It's effectively the "other" part of LGBTQ (which I feel makes it kind of silly to keep adding new letters after that, but that's another discussion).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This video doesn't help to understand it any better. Is each color suppose to correspond with one of the letters? That holds up with the race but the other colors are used to reference some sort of wellness concepts.

The standard rainbow is the original Pride flag, generally meant to convey a message of "look at all these colours that are different but they're still happily together," since the underlying goal of Pride is the acceptance of diversity. White, pink, and pale blue are the trans pride flag, which I couldn't tell you the specific origins of, but it's pretty common practice now to incorporate it into the general Pride flag. Black and brown are in there to recognize that Pride has kind of been taken over by white people, which is a problem because A) A disproportionate number of the LGBTQ people that began the fight for gay rights were not white, and B) Because LGBTQ PoC's generally have a much harder time than white ones do, even more so than what you'd get by just adding racial discrimination on top of the anti-LGBTQ stuff.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ReggieTheReckless posted...

the mil, duh

"hurr durr a million dollars isn't a lot"

attn morons that think that: please understand that you are idiots brainwashed by your six figure salaries to think that's the norm and that anyone can get to where you are with hard work and dedication

A million is a lot more money than most people will ever have at their disposal at once, and suddenly getting that much is clearly going to be life-changing, but it's still "not that much" in the sense that it doesn't mean you'll never have to worry about money again. Depending on where you are, that might not even be enough to buy a decent house, let alone a fancy one while still having enough left for any other luxuries.

Basically, you're doing pretty well if you've got a million to your name, but you've still got a ways to go before you can really be rich. This is part of why so many lottery winners blow their winnings so quickly: They think of a million dollars as being an incredible amount of money, not realizing just how quickly it can disappear if you aren't sensible about it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SomeUsername529 posted...

But since this apparently is super power level "eat literally anything in any amount and be fine" I'd be a fool not to take it. The first thing that came to mind is that I could eliminate nuclear waste and probably make a ton off government contracts doing so.

The only stated benefit is that you won't suffer adverse effects. It doesn't mean you magically eliminate everything you ingest; your poop would be just as radioactive as the waste you took in.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Full Throttle posted...

"Do you understand the amount of questions parents are going to get after that?"

Oh no, parents are going to have to answer questions from their children about aspects of the world they failed to adequately explain. However will they cope.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Also I thought they didn't like to be called the Q-word. Is this one of those situations where they took it back and changed the meaning so that's it's no longer offensive to say?

For about as long as it's been LGBTQ, which I'd believe happened over a decade ago.

OhhhJa posted...

I personally love when political agendas are forced on children

I'm going to join the chorus of people asking you to explain what agenda you think is being forced here. I encourage you to just say the first thing that comes to mind, since there's pretty much no chance that thinking about it for any length of time is going to help you come up with a better answer.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Cacciato posted...

I suspect those countries knew that long before COVID-19.

Eeyup. It's pretty common knowledge that the best bioterror agents aren't necessarily the most lethal. They just have to be easy to spread and cause common symptoms such that infrastructure is paralyzed by people panicking because they think they might have been exposed. Send a dozen people envelopes containing anthrax and another million people envelopes containing flour, and you've got yourself a successful terror attack without having to actually kill much of anyone (disclaimer: do not actually do this it would be mean).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

if you make a sextape with someone, you shouldn't be surprised if it gets uploaded to the internet w/o your knowledge

Do you think those responsible for uploading it shouldn't be held accountable for that? And that those victims should have no recourse to try and get it removed?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

You're being disingenuous if you suggest the term isn't applied with negative connotations to label people as crazy.

And you think it shouldn't be? Forming theories without evidence isn't exactly the pinnacle of rational thinking, after all.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.