I have no idea why you're getting bagged, you're completely right.
Steam aids and abets this too. They make it incredibly easy to be positive and nice (and globohomo) but if you're critical or normal or anti-degenerate, you're battling uphill.
Holy nuts those comments. That is a remarkably insane group of people. If they're even speaking truthfully, which who knows, because they're nucking futs, I'm very glad they don't want to darken our doorstep with their lunatic delusional selves.
Games done quick, games done slow, games done up your ass, I don't give a shit. Stay the fuck home and don't bother anyone, you terminal-line losers. Die alone gracefully.
We are simply not compatible. You're seeking maximum statistical optimality without a shred of spirituality or humanity. You talk of likely outcomes like a lolbertarian talks about GDP--as if efficiency was the over-arching goal. I used "icky" because it's childish, because your position here is very stunted. In your schema, all this "humanity" stuff is just externality. This is either stupid or sociopathic, neither or which interests me, not even as casual conversation.
You either accept and adapt to reality in order to master it, or you ignore it and wait for the day it inevitably victimizes someone you actually care about, even if that's only yourself
No thanks man. I'll side with decent civilization. You go have fun with pogrom-ing or whatever. Being actually good comes with tangible benefits--you're less likely to get guillotined or colombian neck-tie-ed by those undesirables and browns you kicked because you didn't like the cut of their chromosomes.
Yes, it is, but you're obviously willing to put your head in the sand before engaging with that.
Whatever you like. I'm not allowing my part to drift into hard eugenicism. You can take that or leave it.
That is objectively not true. We protect some of them, and leave millions more to suffer predation and degradation from all levels of society. Files documenting some of those most high profile failures to protect have been national news for months now so don't pretend not to know that, not to mention the long history of documented failures around the school system, foster care system, etc. Because the truth is the resources aren't there to protect everyone, and if we're not going to protect everyone then I'd chose not spend those efforts first on the genealogies most likely to grow up into future predators, but rather last.
We protect all we know about and can reasonably do something about. "Leaving to suffer" is a matter of knowledge, never a cold calculation of resource allocation. Just because we can't win them all, just because there are failures, doesn't in any way mean our intent, as civilized folk, is to leave babies and children at the mercy of malicious adult behavior, because we've noted their genetic heritage and find it icky.
This is nasty stuff.
This isn't a matter of norms or statistical means here. We started with, the context is, who gets protected from mutilation and/or death. The answer is people. My answer is, people, regardless whether they're black or poor or Chinese or whatever. In the United States, in the white Christian world, we protect the young, vulnerable, innocent--we protect children and babies from degradations and predations. We don't assign babies genetic probabilities of being undesirable, then say okay you're fair game for whatever from whomever. That's barbarous.
George Takei, Patton Oswalt, Wil Wheaton, Felicia Day
Kurt Russel, John Voight, Kelsey Grammar, Gary Sinise, Tom Berringer, Denzel Washington, Adam Sandler, Kristy Swanson.
Okay? If they have meetings or fundraisers or whatever, I've never been invited. I don't know enough about it know whether it resembles me or not, or if you think you're being insulting here.
This is basic observation about human behavior, ethics, morals, backed by myriad cases, instances, and ten thousand stories across every media. On your end, is only, and I mean solely, some kind of fucked-up belief that our fates are absolutely coded before our births, which doesn't gibe with Christianity, Western values, science (the real one, not "The Science"), biology, genetics, or...anything, really. Hell, it goes against everything known about nutrition and how it affects growth and hormone activity, both of which can't be disentangled from what makes a person, and what makes them act this way or that.
We also have thousands of instances from our elders about overcoming the patterns and hardships of rotten circumstances or an ill-favored birth. "The ancients," whoever they are, covered both ends of this in depth and breadth.
I'm not sure what kind of bonkers I'm dealing with here. Genetic/biological determinism, obviously. Failure to recognize genotype vs. phenotype? Yeah that too. Biological mechanism?
Just a generally fucked-up, uncharitable attitude, is what I say. It's an insult to anyone who ever achieved despite being given shitty odds. This sort of "You'll never rise above" attitude is how we get to Canada's demonic MAID system.
Then what kind of subversion is unadulterated determinism? It's just as fucking stupid. Genetic heritage gives living things predilections and potential and tendencies. It does not determine behavior, nor does it come anywhere even close to the neighborhood of predicting "good" vs. "bad."
I'm honestly boggled that you and the other guy have managed to wedge yourselves into a head-space where literally all cultivation, all rearing, all education, all training, is worth zero, while chromosomes somehow call all of the shots. It sounds so frankly and obviously stupid. I expect this from subcontinent Indian Brahmins, not white Westerners.
People aren't nits. People aren't lice. People are people. Scientifically, spiritually, even genetically, there's no reason to think what makes a human being bad is a result of parental determinism.
Kids of bad people can grow up to be good people.
C'mon, you know this. Don't be silly.
Hard disagree. Transitioning your child is devil's work, and anyone who would violate the Hippocratic Oath to perform that work should be in a gibbet.
There are a couple of wings to the fight against trans bullshit. One is going after the medical people, from counselors to clinicians to surgeons. This is the clear and morally superior tactic, as these people are monsters and what they do should be illegal at the Federal level.
The other wing is "parental rights." This is far murkier, and therefore a riskier and more morally gray (to lawyers, and deviants) tactic, but it is emotionally effective, therefore far easier to gather popular support for. This is the one that good-hearted, simple folks will show up for. This tactic has been very successful at the State level.
"Without the express consent of the parents" is boilerplate language tacked onto anything and everything tailored to appeal to the parental rights crowd.
It's very disingenuous to paint this nod as some kind of blanket support for what's on the table; in this case, trans mutilation of minors. This is punching right for stupid semantic reasons divorced from the political reality.
These Bluesky-fed LLMs are getting bananas.
Aww... an attempt was made.
I know. We know. This is you trying your best, as unbelievable as that is.
I care precisely as much as your 'representatives' do. Now go seethe some more in your corner dedicated to your pedo protector.
NO BLOOD FOR OIL! THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN! IN THE EPSTEIN FILES ONE BAJILLIONTY TIMES!!!
What's the difference between a sheriff and a gay sheriff.
The cocks in your mouth and ass obviously, idiot faggot.
Don't care, neocon.
There's literally nothing you care about more than the political opinions of Americans.
Oikophobia, general woman-ness, and perceived underdog syndrome. Many such cases. If it wasn't islam it would be some other nutty cult, maybe scientology or landmark foundation.
Some kids, under either the tutelage or the active neglect of their parents, obviously. But let's return to what you said a moment. What's with that stuff about it being somehow different if she was restrained or lured?
U rappin' AWFUL
Unless they held the girl down or lured her over to be raped it's not really comparable.
Uh, I'm not sure exactly where you're going with that, but you might recall they put fucking rocks in her mouth to stop her screaming. That doesn't fit easily into whatever kind of bizarre sliding scale of culpability you're using, but it's in the neighborhood I would think.
Campbell's Soup. Cracker Barrel. Pretty much every company that exists today.
Hey, faggot. Stop trying to act like some kind of gay sheriff of opinion on this board. Literally nobody respects you, let alone to the point where you can consider yourself some kind of representative of mainstream opinion here.
It's a bad idea even (especially) in a society that is civilized and functioning. The whole philosophy leads to people ignoring their own purview and coming up with other stuff to do that is supposed to be other peoples' purview. The net result is chaos and decay.
Best-case scenario, that's horribly inefficient to the degree that it can lead to cascade failure, as things that previously could be assumed to be managed attentively, simply aren't, because the curators are off chasing stuff they'd rather be thinking about, easier stuff.
Worst-case scenario (<-- you are here) it's a dodge for the incompetent, Peter-Principled, nepotistic, DEI, women, and other assorted goblins, to not even pretend to diligently shepherd the things under their care, and instead spend their time Praying in Public, touting their own virtue from the rooftops, while looting everything they can get their hands on, and participating in widespread faux-moral mania.
Whether "stakeholder theory" is the chicken or the egg, it's everything gone wrong with human civilization today. It's the longhouse, it's the amoral elite, it's the captured, corrupted political leadership, it's mouse utopia, it's feminism and race communism, it's the open door that the juden use to elevate their own and fuck things for everyone else. It's everyone faffing about, stealing what's not nailed down, while everything rots.
"Indie" never reaches the $60+ mark that AAA does, but the titles are often at the $5, $10-15, and $20 price point.
A higher price than the quality warrants should be grounds for a downward ding.
A surprisingly low price shouldn't give bonus positive review points to slop. Food for pigs is food for pigs, no matter how cheap it is.
In this context, we're talking about the latter. So...
No.