Lurker > CyricZ

I can see how you'd interpret it that way.

Distinction here is that the easiest way to prove me wrong is to provide examples of what I believe that the indicated "no one" is doing.

SHRIKE posted...

To be fair youve spoken for everyone multiple times today.

When?

You didn't ask a question. If you believe you did, you can ask it again.

Which GameFAQs user was that KanWan?

hyperskate65 posted...

Ah, so you DID misinterpret my words. Got it.

I didn't declare myself anything - that was the entire point. Through that you assume I was saying "I have no opinion regardless" whereas what I meant was "in the sake of the post here trying to explain the everyman view, I am keeping my bias out of it".

What everyman view. It's just your view. You don't speak for everyone. You don't speak for anyone but yourself.

And you're speaking of trans fatigue.

Perhaps the problem is that I interpreted what your post really meant, instead of how you prefer to be viewed.

What specific question am I dodging. No one's even asked a question.

And I CAN'T LINK TO IT because it's got a TOS violation in the YT URL.

https://twitter.com/MattMcMuscles/status/1647631783410671617

hyperskate65 posted...

that's a really weird interpretation for someone trying to objectively point out an observation of what seems to be the general consensus

You could have said nothing instead of declaring yourself a fence sitter on the subject of human rights.

You could have said nothing.

hyperskate65 posted...

Mind you I'm not saying I feel one way or the other before everyone here starts to misinterpret my words.

This is the interpretation:

CyricZ posted...

Because we're in a time of trans genocide, the lines are more clearly drawn. If one cannot find it in themselves to fight this genocide, then they will be thought of as anti-trans.

DOOM-64 posted...

I am doom 64

That's incorrect.

The answer is:

You are no one.

DOOM-64 posted...

you have no legitimacy to talk about this.

Sorry who are you and why should I care what you think?

Sad_Face posted...

And I bring it up because you guys are making it out to be a person "Crow" problem while calling him a troll, joke account, joke, and not worthy of a response. So how many guys have to go through the same experience to recognize it's not a personal problem or there might be factors out of his control that didn't exist 30-50 years ago?

If someone is going to enter this community and make judgments of an entire gender, they will be addressed accordingly. Perhaps it is a cry for help, but this is not the place for that, and it's arrogant to expect a community to bend over backwards to coddle someone's insults.

If a person is seeking help and support, there are places for that. If they're just looking to cause strife, they will have it.

Akagami_Shanks posted...

it's a small community so it's always funny. Don't take it so seriously.

Don't do this.

SHRlKE posted...

It's a cultural issue as much as anything. I agree restricting guns should be one of ways to solve the issue however that isn't the only thing that should be done and it's certainly not going to solve the cultural issue around gun ownership on its own.

So demand a new culture, and don't be so willing to give up because it's a big problem.

Thousands of people are standing up in their local legislatures. It's the reason those Democrats in TN were expelled. Nothing will happen if we don't demand it happen.

All it takes is a matter of will.

No one can tell me there aren't people on this site specifically targeting her.

Not in any way I'd believe.

For calling out the reason she got a ban.

No one can tell me there aren't people against her specifically.

Not in good faith.

SHRlKE posted...

People shouldn't get a free pass just because you agree with their views on one area. It's entirely possible to support someone's stance on A while still being critical of them on their views on B. Life isn't black and white.

This statement has nothing to do with what I mentioned.

Cheetaluv posted...

When its not your cult.. I mean party with the idea it becomes questionable no matter what it is, even on extreme cases like this one. Dark times.

Looks like we've found a new "same thing both sides".

justaguy3492 posted...

It's wild how obtuse you're being. "Just take the guns" is the most ivory towered/sheltered take there is to dealing with this issue. Posting your platitudes on a message board won't do anything but move your nose further into the air.

No platitude more empty than "if I could go back in time and not have a 2nd amendment".

Abolish the death penalty.

KillaHarkan posted...

Good thing it won't be up to the state. It'll be up to juries.

Juries that no longer need to be unanimous. Florida is now the second state to allow a death penalty recommendation with 8 out of 12 votes.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2023/04/13/death-penalty-florida-parkland-desantis

justaguy3492 posted...

So you know what the word means and you think "just take the guns" is the solution that is actually feasible?

The fact that this hasn't even entered your head as a pragmatic solution shows where your mind is on the issue.

If you make the presumption that we will never as a society find a way beyond guns, then you've already given up.

No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

justaguy3492 posted...

Do you not know what the word pragmatic means?

Yes.

I think maybe you're the one who doesn't.

justaguy3492 posted...

but pragmatically dealing with inner city gun violence requires different methods than stopping the stereotypical "mass shooters".

No it doesn't. It requires the removal of guns first.

If you want to solve every problem that gang violence is associated with then yes, to bring everything to perfect harmony, there are multiple issues to address.

If you want to stop inner city gun violence, you go for the guns. That is easily the most pragmatic action to take.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The problem is that people keep bringing up the incident.

justaguy3492 posted...

IF this was actually gang related then it's incorrect to treat teenage gang violence and mass shootings such as Uvalde/Buffalo supermarket as one in the same.

Why not. It's still someone believing they have the right to kill others. Using a readily available, easy to use, and extremely effective means.

When we start treating these scenarios from the focus of what we want to do about them, it's actually extremely clear where the real focus needs to be.

Motives are ultimately irrelevant, because there exist as many motives to harm someone as there are stars in the sky.

It's not about padding statistics it's about children dying to guns.

And the fact that people argue in this direction show what they value more.

Like holy shit what does it say about a person's mind when they're like "oh how disappointing it wasn't an adult killing eight-year-olds instead it was teenagers shooting other teenagers. I can't properly dispense my thoughts and prayers if I'm morally conflicted on how I want to judge these people I've been conditioned to believe are basically bad adults".

Like.

Holy shit.

Cheetaluv posted...

Stop being offended by what he said and attacking him

How about you fuck off. You don't get to decide what people get offended by.

AmericaTheBrave posted...

Just saying trying to tie this to mass shootings is a bit misleading. Even if it is technically a mass shooting, it's indicative of a different problem.

Same problem.

Access to guns is still the issue.

You're the one trying to mislead.

AmericaTheBrave posted...

Misleading topic. Topic title makes you think of some innocent 6-year-old's party in a cul-de-sac was terrorized by gun violence.

This was gang shit in the inner city.

Teenagers are still children.

This is the same attitude that views black teenagers as fully grown adults and "no angel" to justify their being gunned down.

Is that your attitude? Are we going to hear from you next how these kids somehow deserved being gunned down?

justaguy3492 posted...

but the birthing person thing certainly set off social media a few weeks back

Through misunderstanding and presumptions, as well as good old fashioned lies by bad actors.

Socially, no one is calling women "birthing persons". No one.

The term is entirely focused around medical and clinical issues.

You can just see their little faces.

Mocking you.

averagejoel posted...

it's quite similar to the "this bernie supporter was kinda rude to me one time, so I'm going to vote for trump now" nonsense from 2016.

What happened then, and what we're seeing now in comparison, is less "I'll vote against them" and more "I won't vote at all", which always favors the oppressor.

Rika_Furude posted...

Like who is the tojo clan and who is the dojima clan and who is the omi alliance

Tojo Clan - Ruling power in the Kanto region, headquartered in Tokyo. Basically a conglomerate of dozens, if not hundreds, of local yakuza families that are ostensibly working together and not getting in each other's way.

Dojima Family - A former family within the Tojo Clan. Kiryu's old family. Patriarch was Sohei Dojima and his death kicked off the first (Kiwami 1) Yakuza story. Now currently dissolved.

Omi Alliance - Ruling power in the Kansai region, headquartered in Osaka. Larger in manpower and area covered than the Tojo Clan, but Tojo has more centralized and metropolitan influence.

Rika_Furude posted...

how the fuck do i do the crane game in chapter 4

Get good.

Ten years ago, five years ago, we'd have long 500 post topics about how trans people were being deceptive, or how parents of trans children should be arrested by CPS.

Two years ago we'd have arguments about sports and dating trans people.

Now we're having arguments about whether trans people deserve to continue living in society.

So the arguments have become much more critical, even if it seems like fewer people are participating in direct opposition.

Because we're in a time of trans genocide, the lines are more clearly drawn. If one cannot find it in themselves to fight this genocide, then they will be thought of as anti-trans.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

bad actors could in theory get in there.

Bad actors could do a lot of things "in theory".

Bad actors, including other cis women.

Just accept it man.

If you have no emotional connection to Mario, then it's literally every Illumination movie.

If you do, then it's a lovely treat.

Someone has a Sad_Face that no one cared to engage them.

....

Yes.

Did I mention the squid I got that a weird pulsing sac on it?

What's a graveyard hate?

EDIT: Ohhhhh.

No Dredge is a video game. It's about fishing.

I'm playing Dredge!

I fished up a little guy with extra eyes!

Baby!

Crow0000 posted...

Men and women aren't the same

This one you keep coming back to.

Buddy, no one's the same.

Hey Crow maybe it's you.

Awesome. :)

au_gold posted...

I guess journalists should always give softball interviews to politicians.

Every journalist should go as hard as Jon Stewart does. This kind of confrontation should be the norm, not the exception.

But they don't, because money. Money gained from having their exclusives. Exclusives granted because the politicians know they will not be held to task.

Smiffwilm posted...

No, Lavos blew the Chrono Trigger away, not sucked him in.

This.

Lavos was not meant to be "a villain". It's meant to be an inevitability. It's the falling moon in Majora's Mask. It's the heat death of the universe. Something that humanity can't comprehend because it has a longevity and a power level well beyond anything most could conceive.

The goal of the narrative is to understand Lavos, why it does what it does, why no one can control it, and why it must be destroyed to save the future.

The only bummer of the narrative is that none of that knowledge becomes all that useful to actually beat Lavos. You just need to be strong.

viewmaster_pi posted...

rest in peace el gato or whatever

That 15 silver points wasn't worth it. ;_;