Not that it matters. If a survey says 85% of gamers are men, they say "This proves games are sexist, so we should have more women in games and game development."
If a survey says 55% of gamers are women, they say "This proves women are the most important audience for games, so we should have more women in games and game development to serve that audience."
No matter the input, the output is the same.
That's hard to understand, because it seems like that would tremendously compound their limitations. You can't read signs at stores telling you what things are, 99% of the internet is unusable, computers are mostly unusable in general, you can't read for pleasure or read textbooks to learn so your education is going to be very limited, you can't watch TV shows or movies unless they have special ASL versions, the vast majority of jobs would be simply beyond you- office jobs are out entirely and even a lot of manual labor stuff is extra dangerous if you can't read warnings or instructions, and that's just off the top of my head. It just seems like it would be hard to ever live independently while being illiterate and deaf, but it's not very hard at all to imagine living independently while only being deaf. It makes sense that it would be harder to learn, particularly at first, but the cost of being illiterate is probably higher than the cost of being deaf, especially these days that more stuff can be done through text via the internet, so surely it would be worth nearly any effort to avoid having not one but two significant disabilities.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it's a person over a big square background on the side of the screen signing along to what's being said. It's definitely not immersive.
This is a game that already has arm and leg prosthetics options for racecar drivers and sign language options in cutscenes. Not captions, an actual guy doing sign language. It is so incredibly woke it's pretty much it's own parody. That's why.
"As we stated earlier, we would not tolerate any conduct that would make a student-athlete feel unsafe. That is the reason for our immediate response and our thorough investigation.
No, fuck this shit. "Feel unsafe" is a 100% subjective, personal, feelings-based standard which the left will move further every few months. Was she ACTUALLY unsafe? Have there been lynchings of volleyball players at BYU in the last couple of years? No? Then tell her to shut up and play.
To be fair, skulls on military stuff is not exactly uncommon
Looks like you finally discovered the concept of a 'subset'. You could have done so earlier if you hadn't dropped out in middle school.
I discovered the concept of assuming that what you say is what you mean. I'm sorry that quoting things you said is inconvenient when you want to hide how much of a simp you are.
You're amazingly mad on the internet.
NO U
No, you dimwit extraordinaire, alimony makes sense when one marriage partner takes care of the home and the children, forgoing wages, work experience, etc. - leaving that one worse off in case of a divorce, while the benefits accrue to the household as a whole.
So one side provides services which are simultaneously so valuable they add up to half the value of the marriage, while also so valueless they are completely worthless in the job market, and also even when the woman stops providing any of those services, the man still has to pay her. Yeah, that makes sense. Simp harder.
That is why alimony is appropriate. 'Course, you can't think beyond "WOMENZ BAD", so you rave like the lunatic you are.
See, that's the difference between you and me, I only have to quote what you actually say to make you look like a moron, you have to make shit up and strawman me.
Just what we need: fewer men taking care of their children, so your fat ass can wholly be without responsibilities (not that you are able to get a girl to begin with, so you claim to 'go your own way').
If your arguments weren't all so pathetic, you wouldn't have to make up an entire life's story about me to protect your feelings.
Yes? Once you're carrying a fetus, you can decide on the abortion in the first few months. God damnit, you're dumb.
If you're a woman. But not if you're a man. Equal playing field! God damnit, you're retarded.
Oh wait, so for all of recorded history, it was OK to draft just men - but when "guns" were introduced, it became wrong? So you're seething about basically every war for the past 150 or so years? Here I was thinking you were just mad on the internet. You're mad in real life too!
It was wrong then, and it's more wrong now. As long as physical fitness tests are plausible, which is always, the only reason not to draft women is if you think protecting them is more valuable than protecting men. But tell me more about your pointy stick strategies.
Why didn't Scipio recruit them?
Stop picking and choosing what parts of extinct civilizations you want to apply to today based on whether they agree with you or not.
Your life is worthless. But not because you are male. Because you're a goddamn idiot, a self-pitying seeting loser, who thankfully will be a genetic dead end.
Once again rational thought fails you and you project so hard passing airline pilots are blinded by the light. Also, tell me more how mad I am.
Since always, because that which has withstood the test of time is superior to what you made up five minutes ago. And look at the results of ignoring the past.
So you genuinely think that anything that was good for a while is good for forever, you continue to impress.
You couldn't produce anything, and every one of your supposed points was completely demolished. So phonily declaring victory was all that was left to you.
Simp more, simp. Maybe if a woman sees you protecting her virtue with other men's lives, she'll touch you.
Maybe look at the context where that is said. Replying to a guy who claims that single men are victims. So of course I'm going to fling that part of the result of a 'bachelor tax' in his face.
"Stop reading what I write, clearly when I explicitly and deliberately and repeatedly say we should tax men, I actually meant we should tax men and women."
What you 'write' is just nonsense.
You only think that because you're retarded, I'm afraid I don't have enough time to help your reading comprehension at this point.
And no, 'alimony' is just leveling the playing field, not an undue provision for anyone. But keep playing the victim, boy.
Alimony only makes sense if you think women are incapable of working a job or you think men have an obligation to provide for them. For you it's obviously the latter. Pretending it's an "equal playing field" is retarded. Which is obviously what I expect from you, but it should be pointed out.
What happens to that unborn child if it is not aborted, dumbass? Yes, it comes a born child, which you in your derangement and mirror image feminism think you should be able to opt out from supporting.
And in your world, women could be free to abort such a child if the man declared his intention not to support it. Which would result in more children with two parents who actually want them instead of just one. And wait a second, I thought you JUST said you supported an "even playing field". Guess not.
The term 'pathetic weasel' was famously used by JBP to refer to those losers who call themselves MGTOWs. No, I'm not going to forgive you for ignoring that in order to push your agenda.
Oh, well, if some minor internet celebrity once said a thing, and that person hasn't been mentioned at any point anywhere on the page, and you don't in any way indicate it's a quote, and you also make it completely clear that you agree with it, that means when you say it, it doesn't count. Holy shit, you're retarded. But tell me more about my "agenda", mind readers are in such short supply.
Are you also mad at Publius Cornelius Scipio, boy?
When the US army starts issuing pointy sticks and swords instead of guns, I'll take you seriously.
Or when the strongest woman on earth is weakest than the weakest man.
Or when we decide to abolish all physical standards and for some reason, so that this isn't just an obvious symptom of the fact that you value women's lives hugely more than men's.
Or remind me, did women vote in Rome? Or are you selective about what ancient traditions you think are the cornerstone of civilization and which aren't, based solely on whether they agree with what you already think?
Or has "We always did it this way in the past" ever been a good argument for anything? Can you think of anything we did in the past that we don't do now? Do you see your barber for medical advice?
There, there. I know you must be mad that you're a genetic dead end, but that is no reason to lash out at me.
It should really embarrass you what you have to make up about anyone who disagrees with you to make yourself feel better. Is this projection? Do you simp and simp and simp and you still can't find a woman to touch your penis? But thanks for making it obvious once again that you think a man's only value is in whether he's providing for a woman or not, because that is literally my entire point, you practically couldn't admit I'm right any harder.
Has nothing to do with 'men having to protect women'. In case you didn't know, women can be single too.
My mistake, I made the rookie error of actually reading your text and assuming you know what words mean, because you specifically say men, not women. "while single men pay their fair share". Whoops, maybe stop lying about your own beliefs when you get caught blatantly advocating against men.
Again, nothing to do with your bizarre gender obsession.
Maybe try reading what I actually write. I know reading is almost as hard as writing, but try for me. Here's the sentence you might want to take to a friend to have him explain it to you:
Basically, all your views together add up to trapping men into providing for women whether they want to or not.
You think that not being able to opt out from supporting your own child that you voluntarily created is 'men having to protect women'? You are beyond deranged.
An unborn child, moron. You support abortion, so obviously they don't count. Holy shit, you are beyond deranged.
No, not 'single men'. Try again without the strawman this time.
Forgive me once again for reading your words, this is a direct quote from you about a law aimed at single men: https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/13zg9afh6y/ive-seen-this-page-circulating-a/c/
WOW! Really got me there! What every society has done throughout recorded history, draft single men to fight in wars. It's all for the womans!
You want to sacrifice single men to protect women while the women sacrifice nothing, having all the rights of the men who are dying. You are feminist scum. Hopefully there's a war nearby you can go and fight in while your feminist allies safe at home at REDUXX laugh at your likely death.
What IGN said, but in this case, it's specifically unmarried men he's talking about, not both men and women.
You you think a bachelor tax is a good idea, you support alimony, you're for abortion but against any way for men to opt out, you apparently think single men are "Pathetic weasels afraid that they might have to actually contribute to society."
Basically, all your views together add up to trapping men into providing for women whether they want to or not.
But probably #1 argument without wasting too much of my time finding a better one would be this:
TheImpossible1: "Draft women".
You: "Draft single men"
If that's not literally demanding men be required to protect women, I don't know what is.
There a reason you don't archive Reduxx?
He deliberately doesn't, because he likes it. He's generally pretty far gone in terms of "Men should be required to protect women", so it makes sense he'd ally himself with TERFs.
Pay murderers not to murder?
That's not far off, if it's not here already. I've definitely read articles somewhere making the argument, "Well, criminals don't commit crimes as much if we give them money, so we should have a tax-funded program to give money to convicted criminals to reduce crime."
Nice offer, but I should have been a bit more clear: gog-games.com is not official GOG, it's a site that hosts the GOG installers for free. It's a piracy site. The official GOG site doesn't list the original BG games any more, but gog-games still does.
Currently, only the "Enhanced Edition" of Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 seems to be for sale anywhere, a version updated in 2013 of a game that came out originally in 1998. I think it's highly arguable whether it's actually better than the original + a couple of mods. What makes it worse is that Beamdog- the company who "enhanced" it, not the company that originally made it- are SJWs and injected their own characters and writing into the game instead of just updating it for current computers, and then proceeded to take down sales of the original so you can't even buy it except their version. New characters include a character who announces himself as trans in the three dialogue lines you have with them. So they took a classic game, added their own shitty shoehorned agenda-driven writing, and removed the originals from sale.
So pirate the originals in good conscience. You can get them from gog-games.com.
The good news is that Larian are developing Baldur's Gate 3, after having made Divinity: Original Sin 1 & 2, the best RPGs to come out in the last ten years.
Remember, the FBI statistics are about people who are caught and convicted. Given the "snitches get stitches" thing common in black culture and the demographics of where the unsolved homicides tend to be, it's extremely reasonable to conclude that blacks are even more significantly over-represented perpetrators among unsolved murders. So a lot of black homicide perpetrators are undetected. Whereas the number of undetected homicide victims are basically zero.
I recall that something like that actually happened with the Street Fighter series, when it went through basically that series of pictures, trying to find the right combination of one guy punching another guy on the sides of their arcade cabinets that wouldn't get them called racist.
I did say "summary" for a reason. I did not literally mean a one sentence approach. But the solution to "If you're confused you're trans" is not just more information, because no amount of information will solve such an emotional problem. The solution must include stopping teachers from lying to children by teaching "confusion or not 100% lining up with gender stereotypes = trans", and disallowing them from hiding what the kids are doing in school, like changing their name or pronouns, from their parents. You can't expect parents to address problems that the school is creating and then trying to conceal from them.
something needs to be done to address the issue with kids who are too young to understand what is going on and properly explain it to their parents.
Yeah, and that "something" could be summed up as "You might feel weird and confused, but everything will be okay, and you'll grow into the changes happening to you", but instead what they're getting is "If you feel weird or confused, it probably means you're trans and should start taking drugs and having operations that will stop those changes from happening and wreck your body forever, also you should go join a chat room/echo chamber full of trannies who will all be your friends but only if you're also trans, and anyone who opposes any of this is a bigot, and make sure you don't tell your parents about any of this".
First of all, great to see feminists admitting that the only thing most women have to offer men is sex. Second, the best thing that could happen to society would be for women to so thoroughly abstain from sex that men stop being such goddamn simps. Not that that will ever happen, but it's a nice dream.
Scenario: Republicans somehow pass an amendment to the constitution that makes it legal for blacks to have abortions, but not whites.
Outcome: The left calls it racist against blacks, because it must be motivated by a desire to fewer blacks, or that black lives are not worth protecting.
Alternative scenario: Republicans pass the same amendment, but now only whites are allowed to have abortions.
Outcome: The left will still call is racist against blacks, because now whites have more rights.
Mandatory birth control, the sort where it's an injection once a month. While we're at it, since apparently forcing people to have injections against their will is now totally okay, we should do the same for anyone on any kind of welfare. If you can't even afford to support yourself, you sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to have a kid. The fact that this isn't a mainstream belief, at least amongst republicans, shows what an iron grip the left has on all public discourse.
There are probably businesses still being run out of someone's garage that are "multi-million" businesses. And one person in the right place could definitely tank a business a lot bigger than that. That on top of what you pointed out, it's a whole lot of wrong in not a lot of words.