Lurker > ItsKaljinyuTime

Donald Duck, specifically from Kingdom Hearts 3

Leisure Suit Larry

Ratchet

Teepo From Tales of Xillia?

wait what...

there typically aren't any video game characters that are enthusiasts of other video game characters... maybe Travis Touchdown I guess

Duke Nukem?

Egoraptor

Admittingly I've been sorting things out for the last month or so. I was conflicted but we started talking last night, and we got a lot of things out in the open.

Thank you. When I post my ass on here, or tell people I used to turn tricks. It's fun. You think some of the Johns weren't married? Please clutch your pearls because I kissed someone I like, likes me, and didn't do it for money. Pro hoe until someone does some hoe shit.

Forums are dead. You aren't likely to see anything on them.

Except no, the opposite of that. In other words, the "times" weren't what you thought they were even when you thought they were.

And now, it's not the "times" that have changed, only your perception of them.

So webcomics aren't dead, and the only thing that has really changed is you.

did Sony show anything other than GoW?

The problem is, Charles will bring stability for a generation, William would bring stability for an era; the longer it takes for William to ascend it creates potential exponential threats to him being able to.

But the converse of that is that you only think they're dead because you don't go out and see them. So it's still on you.

Except I never really experienced what you're describing even then. I can honestly say I almost never saw people post webcomics anywhere at any point in the last 20+ years. I almost only ever found them when people I knew said "X is good, you should read it", or by following ad links or recommendations from comics I already read, or by seeing something mentioned on a site like TV Tropes and becoming curious about the comic. I always went straight to the comic's own site and read their daily/weekly/etc updates (I didn't even use RSS feeds). I actually used to have a topic on my own website (gone now) that had all the links on it that I could click one after another to see each comic (and now I just use the preset pins in Firefox's start page).

Granted, that might be because I wasn't a teenager hanging out on kid forums or specific game forums (even on GameFAQs I tend to avoid the hell out of the game boards unless I have a specific question), which might be where that sort of thing was way more common. But it was never really much of a thing any of the places I generally hang out. And I'd say comics are about as likely to be posted here on PotD as they ever were, because it was never all that likely in the first place (it might happen occasionally, and it still does).

To use your own example, I have literally never seen an Awkward Zombie comic posted anywhere. I only ever found it myself and read through it on its own site. I never knew it as "that one webcomic with the Smash Bros. characters in it that wasn't Brawl in the Family" because I never went to where anyone would talk about it that way. I don't go to Smash Bros sites because I don't like the games. And if Awkward Zombie was literally just a Smash Bros comic, I probably never would have read it (and in fact, I've never read or even seen Brawl in the Family, either).

With most webcomics that reference games, I'm more likely to know the comic itself from reading it than I am the games it's referencing.

Which, if anything, may have just answered your question - if your perception is that webcomics are dead because you don't see them on forums anymore, it's probably because forums aren't as popular as they used to be. Webcomics haven't changed, you're just no longer going to the sort of places you used to.

Nothing happened to it, it's still there.

You.

You find a boring hole.
Enter?

Nothing happened to them. Its like any other internet based creative work, some die unfinished, some get finished and the creator moves on, some update sporadically, and some continue on for years and years.

https://explosm.net/comics/i-like-your-bangs

https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=4871

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/meta-2

https://www.woodenplankstudios.com/fake-monday/82-manteon/

https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20220826 (start of a mini arc while they break from the main story)

Edward's sin was being a Nazi sympathizer who married an American Nazi sympathizer shortly before a massive global war broke out where England was going to be on the opposite side from Germany. So there was a HUGE motivation on the part of many people in government to use pretty much any pretext to get him the fuck out. Plus, he was kind of a dick who no one liked, and even his own dad thought he was a complete fuck up who would pretty much ruin everything if he got to be king.

Though just in and of herself, Wallis Simpson was waaay worse than Camilla. She was an American (!) and a commoner (!!), and if you want to talk about living ex-husbands, she had two (!!!). The whole Nazi thing was mostly just the shit cherry on top of the fecal sundae.

Not to mention that the world is a very different place in 2022 than it was in 1936. The Church's stance on divorce in general has radically changed since then, and the exact context of the problem then (that such a marriage could potentially be bigamous) wouldn't actually apply in Camilla's case today.

The main drawback to Charles getting the throne is that a) he's not all that charismatic and people don't like him, and b) people who don't like Camilla mostly don't like her because she's not Diana (and how dare Charles cheat on Diana?! Waaaah). So people have been talking about him stepping aside in favor of William for years... but he doesn't necessarily seem like he's all that overly keen on the idea, and he has nowhere near the impediments standing in his way as Edward did.

If anything, the main question now is whether or not the British want the monarchy to continue at all now that Elizabeth is gone. Plenty of people have been calling for it to be abolished for a while now, and a massive period of discontinuity is going to spur a stronger push in that direction regardless of whether or not Charles or William are on the throne (though the pushback will probably be harder if it's Charles).

https://imgur.com/luIZkuB

Beasts attack

It happened again.

The Wi-Fi went out at work just now.

There are certain people who would say no games are allowed to have them

The Carrington Event was an extreme geomagnetic storm that occurred in 1859. It caused auroras visible in Hawaii and southern Mexico. Telegraph operators were able to send messages for several hours even with the power sources disconnected, and some received electrical shocks from their equipment.

If this storm had occurred in modern times with our more sensitive equipment, it probably would have caused massive outages and severe damage to transformers, generators, and other parts of the power grid.

they hit earth directly every few years or so

oh god if it only kills one person please let it be me

Or Twitter, which is what was said earlier.

It certainly seems like Twitter + hashtags replaced forums.

it's simple

jontron was funny and his videos were entertaining

gamegrumps is an entirely different type of show, and it's heavily dependant on several factors

to condense a whole giant thing i typed, it's becoming more and more obvious that danny only used game grumps to push his music career and now that that could stand on its own he's becoming more and more checked out

arin tried to do too many things, hired too many people for roles that have no purpose, general burnout from being the only one actually playing the games ever.

gamegrumps suffered pretty much entirely because arin doesn't really know how to run a business, and because danny is useless.

lol gamegrumps isn't that popular

There are people who define a child as a fertilized egg. That is the level we are talking about (or that we should be right now given what's about to happen to our laws), not "baby goes on the chopping block".

So... nothing that will ever directly impact you, and for some reason you think that opinion is equally valid to that of those that are directly impacted. You don't really have a horse in the race, you're just watching the race on TV and arbitrarily picking a favourite without putting anything at all on the line. My point stands.

I've never been a fan of that approach. Whatever line is drawn is inevitably going to be highly subjective and mostly arbitrary. Instead, I prefer to start from the premise fetuses are humans and that killing humans is bad, but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. Then, you start examining when killing somebody is okay, because there are countless circumstances in which people are justifiably killed every day and it's not at all difficult to fit abortion into that. In my mind, the most relevant comparison is taking somebody off of life support: You choose to end their life because you have reason to believe that their quality of life would be too poor and the burden they would place on others too great for them to want to survive. "What they would want" becomes a little harder to determine for pre-conscious people, but it's easy enough to make reasonable guesses.

Of course, having said that, I recognize that my opinion means jack all because nothing gives me the right to enslave a woman for the purposes of producing a baby I've decided to care about. Saving a life isn't an excuse, otherwise we'd forcibly extract blood from everyone that could withstand it and save countless lives in the process. People's right to autonomy over their own bodies trumps whatever good could be done by stripping them of that autonomy, and given the choice between respecting the autonomy of a conscious person and the autonomy of a pre-conscious one with zero chance of ever having a problem with that infringement, I'm going with the conscious person every time. I'm in favour of inducing premature labour instead of performing abortions after viability is reached, since at that point it's a pretty similar process with similar risks to the mother and there's therefore very little reason to kill the baby (medical necessity aside, of course, but I feel like that exception is a given when discussing the matter among competent people), but late term abortions are exceedingly rare to begin with. The vast majority of the abortions people actually want access to happen much, much earlier than that, and that's where most of the discussion is happening (as much as many pro-lifers like paint a picture of fully-formed babies being hacked to pieces).

Ah yes the infamous "Oh I care so deeply about every child and- *child is born* OH WE NEED TO SEND THAT MOOCHER STRAIGHT TO HELL!" line.

So compelling.

It's not that they can't have an opinion. It's that their opinion is irrelevant and largely amounts to a matter of arguing for hypothetical argument's sake with people who are actually affected by the issue, which is a massive dick move.

I'll still be asking the same question then. This is not a position born of temporary outrage in response to a horrible development. I don't know why you might think it would be, given that I've stated exactly the same things every other time the subject has come up.

In part I am genuinely curious how you can ignore an entire person like that, but mostly I already know and I just want you to confront that cognitive dissonance for yourself instead of "solving" this moral dilemma by pretending the other half of the issues doesn't exist.

So again, I ask you: Why do you act like pregnant women aren't people whenever you discuss this issue?

And this is why I say pro-life men need to stay out of this discussion: This is not "just wanna fight." You will never have a horse in this race, so you view it as just trying to win an internet argument, but this is a very serious issue that stands to very adversely affect millions of women. There are real-world consequences at stake in this debate, and *that* is what people are fighting against.

I say again, there is no morality in demanding that other people make a sacrifice you will never have to consider. You are a coward joining other cowards in a self-righteous circle jerk over winning an argument that will only ever be hypothetical for you while others suffer the real-world consequences of your opinion. This is not about winning a fight or arguing for argument's sake. Pay some goddamn attention.

Which means it's not a community, most of it doesn't communicate with the rest, these are separate ecosystems. Just like on Earth, everybody in a single country doesn't share a single community, it's a collective of them. If you can't track the bits you follow, you're not in those communities.

You are perfectly capable of following all these groups independently, you don't have to stick to one platform if not all of your communities live on it. It's fucking weird to latch on to something as arbitrary as the platform, it has nothing to do with the people who use it, it's the format, the aesthetic on top, which can change with zero consequences.

Twitter isn't going down and it wouldn't be a loss even if it did since Twitter is trash.

Facebook groups have existed for years.

I am really not sure what you mean by "community" in this case because it is very well known that MySpace died because Facebook was better. Everyone that was on MySpace moved to Facebook. Yes, MySpace is still around hence my mention that some people stick around "until the bitter end". However, ask anybody who used to have a MySpace page what they did after they left and the universal answer is "Went to Facebook".

Twitter is no different, it is popular now, but it has been around 15 years. It is very likely something better will replace it and people will move to that.

If you're not in touch with the community enough to have an idea where the community wants to migrate, either it isn't that important to you, or you aren't really part of that community.

Not different, evolving. People moved from MySpace to Facebook because it was better in most ways. Sure, some people insist on sticking with it until the bitter end, but most people moved off of it because Facebook was the new thing and it was the better platform.

Not really, they will just migrate somewhere else.

IRC, AIM, MySpace, Facebook, all stuff that connected people back in the day, all stuff that people moved off of and picked different platforms. Twitter is no different.

When people say "Twitter bad" we understand it is not Twitter's fault, it is just humanity in general. Give people a platform where they don't have the ability to read their audience and cast the widest net possible and it is just going to bring out the worst in people. Twitter is just the biggest example of that currently.

Shit communities

The negatives far outweigh the positives

Or you can say them to someone else