Lurker > Kyuubi4269

ZangsBeard posted...

You think objectification is polite... That tracks.

You think making mindless comments like this are necessary... That tracks.

papercup posted...

If you did all of your weekly challenges every single week, it would take 5 years to get enough currency to unlock all of Kiriko's cosmetics. Why the fuck are people defending this. Someone told me I was being greedy and expecting to get everything for free. Yeah. I fucking am expecting to get this for free. Because I already fucking paid for the game 6 years ago, and they've always done free content updates.

The cosmetics are how they fund continuous updates. You may as well say "I have to play for 8 hours to warm up my pizza rolls on my PC, this is a scam!", because that simply isn't how they're meant to work. You can do it, but you'd be fucking stupid to try. It's enough for broke people like you to get your favourite skin by putting in a meaningful amount of hours, they're not meant to be treated like achievements or collectibles.

It's the polite form of fuckable

They publicly announce it

Skyrim was a buggy mess, if they had decent developers it might have been okay

You're gonna have to show your workings on this one, chief.

Ferarri619 posted...

Telling a developer what they can and can't put in their game is advocating for censorship.
I fucking hate woke culture and I do think it's a toxic stain on society. That being said though, if you don't like something being included from a game whether it's a pride flag or MAGA hat or whatever, you don't get to complain about it because it's the artists vision that should always get their say. If you don't like it, you don't have to play it.
Besides, this is an option. you don't HAVE to have the facepaint so it's obviously not a big deal. I'd be saying the same thing if it was a conservative facepaint/accessory.

With spiderman, someone made a mod to load UAE textures so the rainbow flag got swapped with stars and stripes and they got banned lmao

hera posted...

someones gonna post the receipts now lmfao

disingenuous gaslighting has literally never worked on anyone on this board my dude, don't know why you and your ilk keep trying it

I don't know why you need me to explain to you over and over what your "reciepts" are lmao I get you enjoy clique-y behaviour because you're usually the victim of social shaming, but it's pretty damning of your character.

hera posted...

better than being blatantly racist and bigoted like you though~

lmfao

Slander doesn't make you look any less silly

lmfao

hera posted...

add another swing and a miss to kyubs record

Remind me, why are you on a new account when you blocked me on your other? You can go back to putting your fingers in your ears.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I don't know that they would. I think the outrage comes when someone feels like something they like has been changed in the name of social responsibility/wokeness. For instance, if I build a game from the ground up that's about gay people, no one's gonna be bothered. If I as a developer have frequently put gay stuff in my games and other things that I make, no one's gonna be bothered.

But if Mario and Luigi all of a sudden are like "Protect trans kids also sorry about Tomodachi Life that one time" people are gonna be like "Why is Mario doing this thing now? He didn't before, so he shouldn't now."

I think there's a clear social disconnect between "I am not hetero" and "I am LGBTQ, I love rainbow shit" and so people don't associate the rainbow flag with queerness, instead it's associated with awkward activists who spent their teenage years jacking it to furry porn on Tumblr. It's pretty cringe to show allegiance to those uncomfy people so people don't like the flag in media.

That's essentially the core issue with most of them, and they all have ways to get you levelled up quickly.

Reminder: the worst parts of use of the internet are expressions of the worst parts of humanity. The internet doesn't hold a unique problem, it merely amplifies humanity's traits, the most vile amongst them also.

Portable Ops, Peace Walker, Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain have got your back.

Why is the age a concern? In the UK we have thatched roof houses. The technique is older than the iron age. They're still viable houses.

https://www.placebuzz.com/property-for-sale/details/33539677?utm_source=Trovit&utm_medium=CPC&utm_campaign=t-premium

This is from the 14th century. Old houses are fine.

Dikitain posted...

I have heard the phase before, but outside of the edgiest of edge-lords, no one is using it in common speech.

A better (and more common) phase would be calling it a "powder keg" or something similar.

Maybe in the states, but that's just more damning of the US education system than anything.

Gaawa_chan posted...

No guarantee of armament rights for abusers, rapists, etc (basically the people most likely to go on murder sprees). Certainly a less egregious form of rights restrictions of felons than the forced labor the 13th amendment permits, and this one actually serves the purpose of harm reduction.

Out of curiousity, back when the US was founded, would rapists have been hung? Because that seems like an obvious reason to allow it for all people,.if those people would be dead so it would be unnecessary.

Ozmose posted...

You have no understanding of the 2nd amendment whatsoever.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You appear, like most of the anti 2A people, to just pretend the second part does not exist, as well as the context in which it was written. The whole point is to have a well armed populace, that can at any time assemble a militia if needed, and any attempt to prevent that is a violation of the constitution. People like to argue that they didn't intend for them to have heavy armaments, well that's bullshit. They made full use of privateers at the time. Private citizens that literally had war ships decked out with cannons stem to stern. The idea was that the people would be an army in and of itself, with the ability to assemble and fight anyone that would attempt to deny them the rights acknowledged in the constitution. Enemies foreign, and domestic.

Did you not read what I wrote, or are you illiterate? Not a single thing I said infringed on any people keeping and bearing arms. The second ammendment isn't the right to use arms at a carnival game, not the right to shoot other citizens for any reason, it is not the right to show off that you have arms. The second ammendment doesn't defend a right to shoot at the government legally, it defends having the means to break the law to do it should the people deem it necessary. You don't need to shoot bucks to have a militia, you don't need to brandish it in public, you definitely don't need to shoot people on your property as an individual to act as a militia when necessary.

You haven't made a single point against anything I said, just ran your mouth because you're butthurt you want to dick about with guns for any other reason than the creation and maintaining of a well-regulated militia.

https://imgur.com/a/GQYwRjL

No, this is awful.

SunWuKung420 posted...

No they don't.

Buddy, you bragged about the speed you could knock out crap and your pub pizza.

Revelation34 posted...

Lol.

Do you not know your own laws, buddy?

The US should just follow the ammendment exactly as laid out, and no further.

You don't get concealed or open carry permits, you don't have a use for it in general life. If you are transporting a gun, it must be for the purpose of militia necessities i.e. training or storage. No hunting, no self-defense laws, no laws to shoot trespassers, no entertainment use. You are allowed guns so that you may have a well-trained militia, if it cannot be proven to be for precisely that purpose then it should be expressly illegal.

I don't buy a shit tonne of 0.99 Indie games nobody actually wants to play because they're cheap, so obviously it's not going to be bloated like that..

grimhilde00 posted...

that's illegal in Scotland even from parents

Scotland just leads in neglect for child abuse.

streamofthesky posted...

Nope. This whole thing is a disgusting tax on the poor and the responsible.

What is needed is to make all future student loans dischargible in bankruptcy.
That in turn means banks won't be willing to loan out large sums.
That in turn means students won't have a bottomless pit of cash to spend.
That in turn means colleges actually have to slash their admin and facilities spending to make themselves affordable.

But we can't do that, the college industrial complex is too deep in Congress's pockets.

Except all that would happen is colleges would be filled with wealthy idiots. There's more than enough wealthy people to not need loans at all, and the colleges give out full scholarships to students who they actually want using their facilities.

You mean in the last 20 months? It's probably not even the best in this month.

While I'd very much like the idea of Hamas being banned from the internet, in my mind the internet isn't a single entity and should continue to be treated as such. I'm fine with say, the US banning people they ban entering the country from entering their sites, but I also don't like the idea of forcibly tracking identities online.

I think that social media things that actually involve IRL/internet interfacing should identify users so such bans can be put in to place, but otherwise I think it should be a matter of the site owner deciding for themselves, like a club with a blacklist. I don't think that it's any more appropriate to put trackers on people's internet usage than it is to bug someone's car irl.

adjl posted...

Most actual mansplaining happens in contexts where there hasn't yet been an opportunity to demonstrate competence.

...and the reasonable assumption of someone you've never seen do anything isn't that they know these things. When you haven't demonstrated competence, there's no reason to assume you have it. It's the sensible move to start from scratch, and incorporate what they know as they show it. I know you like to patronise people and surround yourself with yes men, but that's not how things are everywhere.

adjl posted...

There was a picture that circulated a year or so back of a woman shooting a pistol, and a very significant number of comments on it were men saying things like "she should be holding it with both hands" or otherwise providing completely unsolicited advice, obviously labouring under the assumption that the woman in question had no idea what she was doing. The woman in question was an olympic gold medalist, pictured at the olympics, competing in an event where her displayed technique was perfectly in line with the rules of the event.

This is applied to both genders. This is a perfect example of taking a bad faith assumption when it's inappropriate. In this instance they were ignorant of the circumstances, however their advice was accurate as far as their knowledge informed them. You're also talking about randoms on the internet talking at a picture, where it's standard to speak first, think later. You picked a pretty poor example there.

adjl posted...

A friend of mine was once discussing makeup with a colleague, and when she mentioned highliighter, one of her male colleagues who happened to overhear interjected with "no, you're thinking of eyeliner, highlighters are markers." She was, in fact, talking about neither eyeliner nor markers.

Again, as far as his knowledge told him, that was accurate. He was unaware of that, and heard a disjointed sentence as far as he knew. Nothing here suggested he went "She's a woman, she must be confused", it's simply "I know what a highlighter is, that's not a highlighter.".

It's like you're unaware that stupid people exist, and how much their mouths run on autopilot.

adjl posted...

No, unsolicited bad advice is not exclusively a sexist thing, but it is something that women experience very often due to the prevailing attitude of "if I think a woman is making a mistake, she must be making a mistake." It's often not a deliberate act of sexism, but it is behaviour that's generally more tolerated in that form than vice versa, which is why there's a push to explicitly call it out.

This is an assumption, an extremely pervasive one. Yes, men are probably more likely to run their mouths like this, no it is not exclusively or substantially targeted at women.

Here is the problem; it's something that happens to everybody, but certain women take it personally and say a stupid, sexist assumption to bite back. Everybody else can just brush it off as stream of consciousness reactions and never think about it again. There is no "mansplaining", just self-conscious, bitter women perpetuating whatever gives them an excuse to be aggressive.

adjl posted...

Alternatively, you can try to resist the urge to offer unsolicited advice and/or make sure you understand the situation completely before thinking that you know what advice might be appropriate. Those are, after all, fairly simple adjustments to make that will improve pretty much everyone's experience whether they explicitly have a problem with your behaviour or not.

I will never understand people who wilfully resist making trivial changes to themselves and their behaviour that will make them a better person and help improve the world around them.

I will never understand people who will willfully play along with a malicous delusion to appease someone who's being aggressive. Shitty people deserve a shitty behaviour in kind, to make clear that aggression will not be tolerated, particularly to imaginary threats.

adjl posted...

I've moved in so many different circles (including the sort of tradespeople among which you count yourself) throughout my life that I'm completely confident that's baseless nonsense you're making up to pretend you didn't just try to generalize your extremely narrow personal experience.

The irony here being that you accuse me of extremely narrow personal experience, while simulatenously saying you've never offended anybody by questioning their experience.

adjl posted...

Knowing how you be, I consider both possibilities substantially more likely than that every single person I've encountered has somehow been anomalously more open-minded than the majority of the world.

Does the majority of the world call people mansplainers? No? Then maybe you're confused because you're looking at irrelevant information. This is about the few people who use the term, not the general public. It's not especially difficult to spend your life without coming across these 70 and below IQ people.

adjl posted...

The takeaway for you is to try to be cognizant of when you're assuming ignorance inappropriately and to avoid being patronizing or condescending when explaining things to people. In the event that somebody does call you out for it in the moment, listen to them. Start from the assumption that they have a valid point, and only conclude that they don't after determining for certain that they're just trying to deflect from being wrong.

This, again, is beautifully ironic. I'm going to assume you're aware why.

adjl posted...

The important thing to remember is that, like most microaggressions, an individual instance of mansplaining generally isn't going to be a big deal. The analogy I see tossed around a lot is that microaggressions are like mosquito bites: One is annoying, but not really a big deal. By the time you get up to a few dozen, though, you're ready to personally rip the proboscis off of any mosquito that even looks at you. When somebody gets mad at you for mansplaining or any other microaggression, they're not mad at you for committing some grievous fault, they're mad at a broader problem that has been bothering them for a while and which you have become a part of. Rather than defending yourself and insisting that their response is unreasonable, try to stop being part of the problem and instead sympathize with their frustration. Insisting that you're only one straw isn't going to fix the camel's back.

The important thing to remember is that if you constantly go through life with people questioning what you know, it's much more likely to be you not demonstrating competence than tHe SyStEm oppressing you. I'm sure people who lack self-esteem do take offense from every little thing even when it has nothing to do with them until they snap and say some stupid shit like this. It doesn't, however, make the complaint any more valid.

It's literally the perception of someone who feels sleighted based on information they aren't privy to. When people who make these claims actually back how they're being treated differently and how it isn't fair in these circumstances, we can have a conversation about avoiding it. Until then, I'm going to treat it exactly as it is presented, presumptuous and ill-intended.

adjl posted...

In 33 years of being smarter than pretty much everyone I've ever interacted with, I've never had a single person become offended or annoyed by me checking what understanding they have of a concept before I answer their question or try to explain something to them. If you have, I'm completely confident saying that it's because you were condescending or derisive in asking and that that is the reason people didn't like it.

I am completely confident it is because we move in different circles. I'm sure there are lots of reasonable people, and good on you on being in professions where you're surrounded by slow people who are high enough up to practice good social etiquette.

adjl posted...

Actual mansplaining entails assuming that a woman doesn't know anything and needs it all explained to her, which is nothing to do with her ego. That's just an annoying waste of time that could be completely avoided by the guy being less wrapped up in his own ego and taking a moment to figure out whether or not she's actually as ignorant as he assumed.

The issue being with that, is that nobody says that they are mansplaining, a "victim" of it assigns that reasoning on to it, when they have no way of knowing it. It's a term by people who have been offended to retroactively change the narrative to feel justified in anger. It's thrown around a lot, but I don't think I've ever seen it justified or used in a non-heated circumstance.

JigsawTDCII posted...

interesting that you chose that one specific part of my post to justify a vaguely misogynistic viewpoint instead of acknowledging I gave a multifaceted mansplation of mansplaining

You elaborated on how people make wild assumptions about others in bad faith. You are a good example of one of those people.

adjl posted...

Depends a lot on the context. Starting out with "how much background to you have?" before trying to explain a concept instead of just defaulting to assuming they know nothing can often save quite a lot of time and aggravation for everyone involved.

That brings up the same issue, people get offended when asked what they know as it questions their knowledge on the subject. People are stupid and act up when their ego is hurt, people who complain about mansplaining have a weak ego.

JigsawTDCII posted...

just my two cents as a male, but theres a difference between mansplaining and explaining. The former assumes vast ignorance on the part of the explainee and comes from a place of condescension, rather than helpfulness, and is rooted in an assumed superiority of the male gender role. Women and betas would know this if they would just pick up a book.

It's good practice to assume the person is ignorant so you can define terms and even if they don't agree with you, they know what you mean when you say what you say. It just sounds like some women are salty that people don't know what they know, despite not expressing knowledge to them in the first place.

I like how TC refuted the part of the insult attacking his maths skills, inadvertently confirming the "not well adjusted" part through silence.

Count_Drachma posted...

Pretty sure people with food outlive people who starve to death.

Literal starvation is extremely rare with food banks. Those food banks would stop being around if KFC was doing the legwork.

Lokarin posted...

Wouldn't it be better to just prove guilt first and then let Sentencing decide if it was 1st or 2nd or whatever?

That would be common sense, so no, the US legal system isn't going to do that.

streamofthesky posted...

How is this 2nd-degree? Sounds very premeditated to me.

The US legal system is mentally handicapped, so if they try to push for first degree and the evidence isn't perfect, they could get away with it. By going for the lesser charge, they can prove it more definitively to get a conviction. The US has never heard of just charging people with what they're found to have done.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

clearly the answer is to condemn all religion equally

Except the vast majority comes from Christianity and Islam. Judaism, Buddhism and a whole array of Pagan practices are innocuous, people who do bad in those religions are typically more subject to political leaders that happen to fly the banner than any tenets of the religion in the first place.

The other 5% would go in to KFC stocks and the poor would die of malnutrition.

You ever heard of bookmarks?

Being gay isn't offensive, and you're promoting homophobia by trying to censor it. "Rude" is derogatory, you canot use derogatory terms under any circumstances.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Corporations engaging in "wokeness" is just a byproduct of capitalism. Anti-wokers need to grow the fuck up; if you don't think a product appeals to you for reasons as shallow as "it has a woman main character" "it has a poc supporting character" "it has a gay/trans background character," don't buy it. Creators are under no obligation to exclusively make products that only appeal to whiny bigots.

It's actually the imperitive of buyers to voice their displeasure. They're not just not paying up, they're making clear to the seller what they will buy so they can correct. This applies to both sides, you can't only complain when it's your opposition doing it.

You new to earth? People have always sucked, that's just how it is.

Not a great selection, probably for the best it sank.

Catalytic converters are like 300 and it's like a 15 minute welding job. Sell the broken cats for material value, hire a welder to stick in an aftermarket one. There's sensors in the exhaust, you'll want cats to avoid fucky behaviour.

NeoSioType posted...

Crash team racing was a fun game. It was hard though and I don't think I ever 100% it as a kid.

CTR was genuinely a great kart game

If you blur your eyes a bit, it can help since it helps separate the burn in from the previous colour from the next panel

My monitor's on HDR mode, I got 56, purple was occassionally a crapshoot.

I don't game with a mouse ever and I got 142.

A rocket would be kind of ideal for that stuff tbh

HornedLion posted...

That looks like one of those National Inquirer type magazines. Nice to see they subscribe to the same BS we do here in the States.

That's The Sun, it's a tabloid, and what you're describing is Tabloid Journalism.

Mine's 15, you're not special

That sounds atrocious. Oreos are barely food.