After Fentanyl Floyd, do you really think they're going to make that mistake again, especially in leftist central that is NYC? Nah, this man was clearly the most innocent victim out there and dindu nuffin wrong. That is always the intended narrative, and they're not going to fuck up like they did with Floyd.
It should be noted, in most places around the world, that's already been achieved. Both the UK and Australia are infamously bad for this. For example in Australia, if you have ANYTHING that you admit is for self defence, you will be prosecuted. The only time you may use an object as a weapon for self defence is if it's an object of opportunity. You have a moment to pause and get a weapon? Not an object of opportunity. You have a moment to fashion a makeshift weapon (like rolling a newspaper into a club)? Not an object of opportunity.
The state HATES the idea of people capable of defending themselves, because people that can defend against common criminals can defend against the career criminals that are the state itself. Self-Defence is hated by the state because it can be used against the state. It's that simple.
People will call things controlled opposition and then be blinded by some of the most obvious examples out there. Fox News has been neo-con trash (aka controlled opposition) for at least a decade, if not longer.
It's just another in the long line of compromises that the Right has become accustomed to over the many decades. The Republicans of today are the Democrats of yesterday, and contrary to the assertions of retards, that's not because of some mythical party switch.
Nearly 3 years of hormones, and still can't lose that jawline.
A fair few piracy jokes in here, but this is a really good example of why right to repair/right of ownership is such an important fucking thing.
If I buy that car, I own it. Nobody else should get to dictate what I can or cannot do with my property so long as it doesn't intentionally bring physical harm to an innocent. But the government loves giving corporations more and more power through regulations which never benefit the end user.
It's not piracy to utilise what I own to its full potential.
Because he got outed as a fed.
With a chin like that, it looks like the only hard work this guy has ever done is get out of bed in the morning.
You're not facing off against your peers, chubby. You're facing off against the people that overwhelmingly engage in actual physical activity.
Cash bitches for the pharma industry aren't going to do anything with their several layers of fat and endless amounts of depression.
Nah, it was a pretty standard """immersive sim""". The start is a little harder than average, but once you get the shotgun and some semi-regular ammo for it, it becomes ridiculously easy, balancing it out to be a pretty standard affair.
And even then the start isn't that hard either, it's just more focused on the stealth aspects before you can start running and gunning everything you come across.
Mate, I'm going to be direct here and it's not (at least solely) to dunk on game journos: Most of you are not experts. And I only use most because I'm sure there are a tiny fucking handful of independents out there that have some handle of what they're talking about, but they're few and fucking far between.
And this shit gets shown time and again. From Dean Takahashi and his infamous Cuphead bullshit, to Polygon with Doom 2016, to just recently with IGN playing Redfall, game journalists have a prolonged history of being absolutely inept when it comes to gameplay.
You're not experts. And the funny thing is that nobody expects everyone to be experts at gaming. Yeah, yeah, git gud and all that other meme-y shit, but you're not even fucking proficient half the time. "Expert" is not a word I would EVER describe a game journalist as.
Maybe you should have made yourself have a bit more skill and rep and you wouldn't have gone the way of the fucking dodo if you didn't have some sort of industry connection to get exclusive bullshit from. Maybe if you weren't the most abrasive and egotistical subhumans on the planet, general audiences might want to still give you some attention.
But that would require being principled human beings and not consumerist shills hoping they get some cushy publisher job they can leech off of.
How can corporations be socialist?
Well, it's very simple. You see, under a socialist or communist system, corporations aren't disbanded. They're either "seized" or they're incorporated into the state (Hint: it's the same fucking thing). That means that the corporation doesn't actually dissolve, but is taken and strengthened through government dictates, and more importantly, through government protections.
Corporations LOVE the idea of becoming a part of the state. Dipshits will call it "crony capitalism" or "state capitalism", but at the end of the day, it's all the same fucking thing as socialism, but these fuckwits don't like it so it's now bad.
Corporations yearn for the secure paycheck of government. It means they never have to work hard ever again. Competition goes away, and ineffectiveness replaces it.
This isn't complicated, but commies truly think corporations that routinely lobby for government market intervention support the free market, despite never doing so.
Remember, the only thing preventing people from hunting pedophiles for sport is the government.
Equally so, the government is what makes executions so unreasonably expensive. There's no need for it to be that expensive other than government ineptitude.
He almost has a point, at least with regards to schooling. Why should he give a flying fuck about who someone else wants to love? And if it doesn't matter, why are so vehemently pushing this shit in schools and making it a big fucking deal?
The answer of course is that for these creeps, it is a big fucking deal because they know they cannot reproduce. So they must go down the social contagion path instead.
There's a reason leftists target media and education. They know how important indoctrination is.
Women also couldn't vote when the 2nd Amendment was written
That's not at all true. Voting wasn't universal even for men back then. Still isn't universal for men technically. But back then, voting rights were tied and dependent on land ownership. This meant that women who owned land, which there were some (admittedly overwhelmingly widowers), were allowed to vote.
This same rule applied to men until it later changed, and in the US, men still don't have universal suffrage, as their vote is tied to signing their body away to the Selective Service (AKA the draft), which is also tied to a bunch of other things like their Social Security Number and all else that entails a person to.
Unless you own land, an originalist reading of the Constitution would probably strip you of your voting rights as well.
How many do you think are going to start a fire fight when they know their opponent is armed?
It's all well going "But Them™ will also have guns, what about Us™?", but it doesn't really mean a whole lot when talking about defence. They're armed and they decided to assault you? Then you shoot the fuck back. It's that simple.
"its enough"
Now do black men.
Now do immigrants.
Now do muslims.
Now to any demographic that is socially unacceptable to openly hate.
It's not "angry men", it's people that see you for the truly hateful sad sacks you are. Your problems aren't caused by men, your problems are overwhelmingly caused by yourself. And yes, even in the cases of predators, you should still be looking to defend yourself through any means possible. You own yourself, not society. That means you should be defending yourself. That's what self ownership entails.
condemns Christianity for taking over "indigenous lands"
"Happy Islamic Holy Month"
I wish these freaks could live in the world they advocate for, because I know it's not the world they ultimately want. I truly wish they personally could experience the hell they support.
How many hours played, and how long ago was the purchase? Because if it's under 2 hours and within 2 weeks, it's refundable as per their policy. If you politically charged the message to Steam though, they can negate that refund as it's not deemed "legitimate grounds".
They don't actually need to know why you're refunding it. Just state "this is not what I wanted" and that's it. If they want to know more, it's their obligation to ask.
Trump also outlined a very similar technique for business in his book The Art Of The Trade. It's basically "I want $10,000. Ask for $100,000, and work down to the $10,000 to make myself seem rational and reasonable".
Over demand and then anything being walked back from there seems reasonable. It makes it look like you compromised, when at the end of the day you got exactly what you needed all along.
And then after that, with Tesla, he made his money through government grants.
The idea that Musk is a "self made man" is always hilarious, because his history is just "leech off transactions or use the state".
Even with the unfinished story, I still prefer KOTOR II. It's also a really good contrast between the writing skills of Obsidian (KOTOR II) and Bioware (KOTOR).
The funny thing is that he's almost got a point, but not in the direction he thinks.
Yes Dale, the government is your enemy, and every single issue you have outlined here was made objectively worse via government interference. Every. Single. One.
Nah, it wasn't what I was thinking, just not super knowledgeable about the finer details of US legal proceedings. But thanks for the information.
Isn't that a good way to ensure a re-trial though? I don't know enough about the specifics of law to know for certain, but that seems like a surefire way for an appeal to get granted for a re-trial.
For all the talk of "jury nullification", the inverse is also true. There's nothing to stop a jury from finding an innocent person guilty if they so desire.
A lot of people store their sports gear under their bed for this purpose. Not just their bat or whatever, but all of it. Storing it separately is a sign of preparation, and makes it not a weapon of opportunity. Storing it where it actually belongs is a legitimate thing though.
Regardless, it's still fucked to the very core that self-ownership (and therefore the defence of self) is illegal. If you don't own yourself, you don't own anything. Which is, of course, the entire point of trying to outlaw self defence.