This is my position too. I don't need hot girls in games, and I even get annoyed by them if they're inappropriate for the setting and tone. I don't even mind 'normal looking' (as in non-supermodel) women. But games with deliberately uglified or mannified women like the new Fable and the second Horizon game? REMAKES that make the women uglier like Dead Space? I don't want to touch those games.
black April O'Neil
Oh yeah, raceswapping goes in the trash too.
Stop letting old people be politicians.
They're fine if they're competent. Stop keeping them past their expiration date, I say.
from his entire scheme being click-baitey "wealth bragging"
This, and the exploitation of the people he's helping to boost his own profile, explains why I don't like him even though he does good things. It's not really 'generous', it's a business model that cynically monetizes hope and kindness to his own benefit, and it only ever makes him richer. It benefits others as well, but in a way that's more concerned with sensationalism than impact.
He's smart, he's got great business sense and he makes good things happen. Maybe he even has some genuine compassion. He also feels like a slimy narcissistic politician.
But as usual, the left is completely insane. Their entire ideology is driven by appeal to emotion, so they should be his biggest supporters.
The point that stands out to me is that she was in the process of climbing over/through the barrier when she got shot, and there were a lot of people behind her who likely would have followed. I can understand feeling like you have to shoot in that circumstance.
But I still wouldn't put it past them to have planned murder in advance, in order send a message. Everything else about that day was staged after all.
But murder in defense of the rich and powerful is always justified. I'm no John Brown supporter, but he said it exactly right.
Agreed. There's far too big a divide here when there shouldn't be one at all. If a civilian had done the same thing, in the same circumstances, the response would be very different.
and want to give a medal to the guy who murdered Ashli Babbitt, a short, unarmed woman who was no threat to anyone
I've always thought it wasn't completely unreasonable for him to shoot, but no way should he get a goddamn medal for it. Any call to give him one is politically motivated and is essentially saying 'it's virtuous to shoot right wingers'.
Which shouldn't be a big surprise from the 'Punch a nazi!/You're a nazi!' crowd.
The fact that they think 'X information is dangerous' is an acceptable reason to censor valid findings tells you everything you need to know about their so-called authority - and exactly how much credence you should give them when they tell you to 'trust the science'.
It's bought and paid for - has been for a while - and even if it wasn't, it's quickly brought to heel in the face of ideological pressure and hysteria. The more they do this, the more they destroy their own credibility, and, unfortunately, the credibility of scientific inquiry in the long term. Those among them who really do believe in destructive climate change are doing precisely everything they can to destroy their own narrative.
I haven't watched the video, but as to the question you're posing, it's not so black and white. But yes, because cops monopolize force and use it against you to protect the interests of the state. Very few of them break ranks when they're told to oppress citizens.
Cops are necessary and they're not bad in a political vacuum, if kept in check with regulations, but under a hostile regime they are little more than troops mobilized against the citizens they're supposed to protect.
Australia is currently trying to ban (the purchase of) old farm equipment (40/50+ years old), under the guise of “accidents”, so that’s an appropriate point!
I hear the Australia is like that, always trying to ban shit for 'your own good'. It's so interfering and condescending. Whatever happened to individuals willingly assuming risk on their own behalf? Or does the Australian government think you're its property?
(I was going to fix 'the Australia' but I decided to leave it in because it's funny)
This is too much concentrated dunning-kreuger NPCism. My disgust is reaching dangerous levels.
If it was just 'she/her' you could make the argument it's peer pressure and appeasement, something a friend convinced her would be a nice and loving and wonderful gesture.
But 'they/them' as well? This person is 100% on the progressive train and the game will inevitably suffer as a result.
Coincidences are bound to happen when you spend your every waking hour consuming race grifting delusions.
This sounds a lot like that 'implicit bias' I keep hearing about, but that can't be. That's something only white people do to every other race!
Dishonest media tactic #425: It's 'landmark' when they approve and 'unprecedented' when they don't.
Anyway, this is what happens when communists are in charge.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
It's specifically because it's anti-LGBT. Hatred is starting to outpace pragmatism, and thus resistance is going to turn into vengeance. It was inevitable; the pendulum was always going to swing back in a big way. I can't blame people for feeling that way but I still don't like to see it.
Enforcing community standards isn't "oppression". Neither is enforcing against indecency or obscenity.
Legally enforcing community standards isn't an inherent good, it's a sometimes-necessary action that needs to balance individual freedoms with the needs of the community. Whether or not it's oppressive really depends on the law itself. It very well could be oppressive if it's overly broad, disproportionate in its punishment, or invasive (as in, violating citizens' privacy and prosecuting private behavior instead of public behavior).
Another question is what good comes from having sodomy be legal?
Admittedly, it doesn't provide much (if any) benefit except for freedom itself. But freedom is an important consideration. The test for whether something needs to be banned ought to be whether it's causing harm, not whether allowing it provides benefit. The latter position leads to things being banned by default, which inverts the burden of proof, as it were. A society that functioned that way would inevitably become oppressive.
Degeneracy is allowed because "discrimination" is illegal or if not illegal it is a considered a civil tort. If people could be fired and kicked out of leases for being gay then faggots would go back into closet and we would go back to our reasonable equilibrium that we had for centuries.
I agree with this completely. That's why I think the best way forward is fewer laws and de-facto laws, not more. Instead of banning things (except where absolutely necessary) allow people to discriminate and society will sort itself out. The people should be able to decide what they will tolerate via their culture, rather than have their will haphazardly filtered through incompetent/corrupt/flawed politicians and then be dictated to by the state.
If sodomy isn't against the law then it is a signal that sodomy is tolerated.
This is a good point, however. Laws aren't only about restriction and punishment, they represent a society's values and signal its intent. Sometimes a law can solidify an official position but not be rigidly enforced, and sometimes that's preferable.
Well gee, I hope you don't hold opinions about anything at all happening in countries other than your own because, according to you, that would just be you trying to impose your morality on others.
You've been trying to define my position for me from the beginning, which is actually quite dishonest in itself, and now you are now accusing me of arguing in bad faith. I get that there are a lot of dishonest people on the internet but people like you, who decide that everything you don't agree with is bad faith by default, are just as bad. Please learn to actually hold a rational discussion instead of leading with smug, bad faith assumptions about your intellectual and ethical superiority.
Now compare every 'oppressed' minority in the west to their counterparts in the Middle East etc and see how long your video lasts.
No way. Games like Baldur's Gate 3 are too 'horny', they built the entire game around it. But it's the kind of 'horny' that avoids healthy sexuality, romance and attraction, and goes straight for the degenerate cooming.
It does make sense. You are not allowed to own things or have power, only your betters and their fake-people (golem?) corporations are allowed that.
it assumes you think YOUR moral attitude superior
I think my moral position is correct, as does anyone advocating for a moral position, including you.
It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.
The will of the government is quite often not the will of the people.
Even if it is the will of the people, the tyranny of the majority is a very real phenomenon. Does having a majority consensus mean any action is fair game and morally valid?
Malaysia is also the country of the people who are being arrested for owning these watches. I very much doubt they want to be arrested. Why can't they do whatever they like?
I think a healthy society can do the job with encouragement and discouragement without needing to resort to oppressive laws. Oppression is the problem even now; this LGBT stuff is being upheld through regulatory capture, propaganda and the suppression of dissent.
I don't agree with locking people up for owning or wearing things, even if ridicule may be appropriate. If something's bad enough to require prohibition, then the sale of it should be restricted and the sellers who break those restrictions should be punished (which I still don't totally agree with), not the buyers.
I do support pushback against the destructive forces of progressivism and the LGBT cancer, but I'm not always going to agree with the form or severity of that pushback.
You know a lot more about watches than I do but it sounds like an awful trend of people wasting their money on status symbols, much like people who regularly line up for the latest iPhone. Consoomers gotta consoom.
Unfortunately for your worldview, THAT IS THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY. Their culture of morality is as valid as yours.
Your argument assumes I consider all the laws and 'morals' of my own country valid. Sometimes laws are wrong. Sometimes social norms are wrong.
Authoritarianism is bad, even if it's on our side. It is NOT any government's business to tell people they can't perform mutually consensual acts. Libertarianism is flawed in that it lacks many of the defenses that a healthy society requires, but it is fundamentally true that the state has no greater right to dictate my actions than I myself do.
Restrictive laws like this are only ever, at best, a necessary evil. They are not to be celebrated.
In part, but don't underestimate the amount of actual white people debasing themselves and selling out their own.
I thought that was the whole point of an election. Have we stopped pretending that's the case?
(Or is the article is talking about an armed takeover or something? I can't seem to access it.)