StaticNoise 10 points ago +10 / -0

You've got such "I'm so over everything" energy and seriously I am here for it

StaticNoise 14 points ago +14 / -0

That breakdown of how absurd the story is, was brilliant.

When you laid it out like that in plain English with the bullet points, it becomes crystal clear.

When I read it just as written, part of me thought "this may be true cause leftists are crazy and people are scared of being ''''''transvestitephobic'''''

But then when you highlighted the details it revealed how ridiculously retardedly fake the story is.

StaticNoise 5 points ago +5 / -0

Im not a developer and never will be (probably....I don't know the future), but does Godot support VR like Unity?

I like VR gaming more than regular gaming and most VR games were developed in Unity.

StaticNoise 10 points ago +10 / -0

Sunken cost fallacy.

Sunk too much into this, gotta stick with it.

That's why on kitchen nightmares those restaurants are in the shape they are. Too much time effort and money going in one direction, gotta stay on that direction, even though that direction is not working. Easier said than done, but yeah.

StaticNoise 9 points ago +9 / -0

You get paid when you go to work!

That's why I've tapped out for the most part of modern gaming. It feels like 90% work and I ain't getting paid.

That's why with gaming I'm mostly gravitating to old school games and VR games. Older games and VR are similar in that by and large they don't make demands of your time. They're either fun from the get go or they're not fun.

I'm tired of having to continue out of compulsion for that tiny gaming sweet spot where it's fun.

I think the standard should be, if you play for 30 minutes would you have as much fun as if you played for four hours? For most retro and arcadey/ VR games the answer is yes.

For most modern gaming, the answer is no, you need to work for it before we throw you a bone.

StaticNoise 10 points ago +10 / -0

I've thought about this same concept. I don't know where I heard it, or if I came up with the term myself, but I call it the "cult of the new"

I'm sure I didn't come up with it. I'm sure I read it somewhere and it stuck.

StaticNoise 7 points ago +7 / -0

Dang man, Lionsgate was my favorite modern movie production company. They were like the only company in the modern day making some stuff that wasn't full on woke. Like, if there was a movie that the primary demographic would be men, like Expendables, chances are it was Lionsgate that published that.

My mom had me put in the digital codes for the movies she bought. She and my dad are old school. They both like to see men be men and women be women.

I'd say 7 or 8 out of 10 movies that I entered the digital codes for were Lionsgate movies. Because simply they made more masculine movies.

StaticNoise 15 points ago +15 / -0

Yep, Elon Musk is not leading things in a good direction. They were going in a bad direction before, he's just leading in a different bad direction.

WeChat is what the elites wanted anyways, it would have gotten there eventually. Total control is what totalitarians want. I just don't like that Elon Musk is trying to speed up that process.

StaticNoise 12 points ago +12 / -0

Fair point, I guess it's more accurate to say "he was a Marxist back then too"

StaticNoise 21 points ago +21 / -0

Gonna play Devil's Advocate here. I thought this was a recent letter, and then I read it was from 1982 and it's also full of psuedo spiritual ramblings that don't make sense. He was like 21 or 22 at the time.

I cringe when I see the stuff I wrote when I was 24, much less 21. We know he was a Marxist in college. This is just as likely the pretentious ramblings of a guy who just took some philosophy classes. If you look at the context of the letter, he's talking about trying to separate from the earthly way of viewing things and see people as one thing rather than male and female and other such weird pretentious ramblings you'd expect from a college marxist being pumped full of strange ideas. Essentially he was espousing gnosticism, which is a pretty common belief system for "intellectuals" when they're college aged and immature.

I'm no fan of Obama, but a 40 year old letter from when he was college aged full of bizarre and pretentious ideas that he could have written while he was high or drunk is not what's wrong with Obama.

StaticNoise 5 points ago +5 / -0

I mean the prequels are poorly written. I don't think this is really the case with the OT. The OT prior to special edition changes are the only versions I care about/like.

StaticNoise 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ah, now I know. Razorfist and Sargon were playing MechWarrior a week or two ago, and this guy was there.

I don't know anything about Warhammer 40k or MechWarrior/ battletech but I know there's some crossover with fandom. Similar sort of fans. That's why I imagine he was there.

StaticNoise 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why is this guys voice so familiar?

I know this voice but not his face. Where do I know the voice from?

StaticNoise 1 point ago +1 / -0

I phrased it improperly. Atheist used to mean "Believes there is no God" whereas they now make it like a neutral term, a mere lack of belief so they don't have to defend the position of "believing there is no God".

If you say there is no God, then that's a belief claim that can be challenged, if you try to say "I merely lack a belief in God" it's a weak way of making it seem like you're not taking a position. It's like a "fluid" sort of position. It positions you for whichever argument is convenient at the moment.

StaticNoise 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah I think it's got a better message than It's a Wonderful Life.

In it's a wonderful life the message is "don't kill yourself because the world would be worse off without you".

That's not a good message actually for why not to kill yourself.

In this episode, the message is actually to change your perspective, to appreciate and be grateful for even the small things we take for granted.

StaticNoise 8 points ago +8 / -0

"well, that's what some atheist, me included, think about religion... atleast, some religion. which is another reason why some, not all do it."

That is proof that you have an affirmitive belief, an alternative belief that is your presupposed starting point. You may be aware of that presupposition, or you may not be aware of it, but you do have it.

For you, your pre-supposed belief may be that "Science" and "scientists" and the claims they make based on their observations are trustworthy, unbiased, not agenda driven, etc.

Or your pre-supposed belief may be that the current moral beliefs of our day are correct and that's why the "Bible is evil".

I'm admitting my starting point for my belief. My pre-supposed belief, the belief that informs all other beliefs is that the Bible is God's word, that it's trustworthy, it's true, and so anything else in life is filtered through that belief.

So it comes down a difference in competing worldviews. It's not a belief vs reason. We both have starting points that shape how reasonable our view of the world is.

There is no reasoning in a vaccuum. You need to have starting ideas in order to reason in the first place. You're only as reasonable as your initial presuppositional belief. My belief is in God and His word being true and trustworthy. If God and His word is not true and trustworthy then I'm the fool.

If your belief, or starting point that God is not true and that the Bible is merely a superstitious backwards book written by neanderthals is false, then you are the fool.

How reasonable each of us is is all dependent on the foundation, the rock upon which we're trusting to be true. God's word or man's word. That's why Jesus says the man who trusts in Me is like a man who builds his house on a rock and when the waters come, his house remains standing.

And the man who doesn't trust Him is like someone who builds his house on sand and when the water comes, the house crumbles and is washed away.

You see here with these verses that your life and soul is only as strong as the foundation that you trust. If you trust in the rock (Jesus), your soul will be sustained, if you trust in sand (anything else) your soul will be destroyed.

Everyone has a belief about the world by which everything else they believe is filtered through. Again, I'm admitting my worldview is informed by the belief in God and His word and Jesus.

I'd just ask you to be honest about the actual beliefs that inform your worldview. Nothingness is not a belief or a starting point. If nothingness was truly your starting point, we couldn't even have a conversation. You'd be the human equivalent of a grey wall. You have pre-supposed beliefs whether you're aware of them or not.

StaticNoise 15 points ago +16 / -1

Atheists did a slight of hand with the term of atheism. If it used to mean disbelief in God, and now they've just turned it into a redundant word which they claim means "lack of belief in God" aka agnostic.

So then they say everyone is an atheist by default as it's the default position of not knowing (The Bible disagrees and says everyone inherently knows there's a God even by just looking at creation, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness), it's absence a belief they say.

Funny that they're so adamant about attacking Christians and the Bible when they merely lack a belief in something. I only find that type zeal in belief systems, not apathy.

I don't attack the ideas of feminism and BLM because I merely lack a belief in their ideologies and I'm apathetic. I attack them because I very sincerely believe they are evil damaging beliefs and I can rely on the beliefs I do hold to defend why I would attack false ideologies.

These new atheists who have redefined the term atheist when it's convenient as a shield against their actions don't behave like neutral parties, they behave like ideologues and then spout their "definition" in order to shield from criticism.

It's very similar to how when you attack feminists beliefs, they simply spout their "definition" of feminism which they say is "for the equality of the sexes" to silence their critics, but in practice we know that the definition of feminism is not that at all, but is a movement of maximizing all things that are pleasurable and desirable for feminist women while minimizing all responsibilities that would normally come with the benefits of the things they're pushing for. We know the definition of feminism by their practices, not by their words.

Likewise the definition of atheism is defined by the actions of those who adhere to the belief, not merely what atheists claim the definition is, and if you look at the actions of atheists, not what they claim the definition is, then atheism is not some neutral "lacking of a belief", it's a clearly driven ideology because only ideologies and actual beliefs can cause people to go on the attack of beliefs they disagree with.

Normies who aren't informed don't attack feminism, they just go about their day not thinking about it. It's red pilled people who attack feminism.

Likewise it's not your generally apathetic "just want to live my life and party" type people who go on the attack of Christianity and the Bible, it's self described atheists.

So watch what people do, not what they say. Atheists' actions define atheism, not what they've been conditioned to repeat the definition of atheism is.

StaticNoise 2 points ago +2 / -0

I thought the first one in that more recent Halloween reboot was terrible anyways. I saw what they were doing even in the first one.

There's a scene where a character in a car says she's a lesbian "or I'm going to see my girlfriend" or it was a guy saying "he's going to see his boyfriend", can't remember which.

And it was the most out of nowhere thing ever. No context before or after. Literally just the screenwriting equivalent of someone riding in a car and then saying "I like the color blue" out of nowhere.

Didn't watch any after that one.

StaticNoise 7 points ago +7 / -0

And the person possessed will be a "poc" or a woman, and the white male will be a stand-in for everything they portray MAGA people to be. He'll be arrogant, saying things like "she was promiscuious so that's why she got possessed and she deserves it", you know dialogue like that so that the liberal audience can't wait to see him die.

And then the other tribal religions with voodoo kill him and everyone cheers, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the thing that cures the exorcism.

StaticNoise 2 points ago +4 / -2

Thank you!

I'm always too lazy to do it. I know I should use an archive link, but I forget how to do it.

Plus I always use adblocker so I feel like I'm not giving them any money anyways and I assume everyone else here is using adblocker, but still, better to view through the archive link, so thanks for posting it.

StaticNoise 7 points ago +8 / -1

I'm not married and I don't plan on getting married, so it's not a one size fits all, not everyone's called to the same thing.

Apostle Paul said that in his opinion, people shouldn't get married because the times are short (the end is near) and when you're married your interests are divided.

Jesus also said for some people, they should be like a Eunech.

Some people it's their call to be married, and some people it's their call to be unmarried. I believe I'm not meant to be married, but I'm open to marriage at the same time. If God wants me to, then it will be clear when the time comes.

Either way we're meant to be celibate as unmarried, which is very difficult. I don't have sex, but I still struggle with lust and pornography, which I have faith that God will sanctify me throughout my life and through Him I can overcome that addiction.

view more: Next ›