No, bitch. We wanted a satisfying ending. You can't argue that the journey is more important than the ending when the ending spits in the face of the entire journey.
Yeah, there's a moment right before the end where your guy gets shot in the back, and he needs to push a button to save the day, but he can't because he's on the ground dying. Just for a second I entertained the possibility that that might actually be the end, and I was okay with it. Refreshing to actually have some fiction where the main character gets lethally hurt, and doesn't power through it through a sheer effort of will or the desire to protect his loved ones or the power of friendship or some similar shit. To have a message that sometimes, you can try hard and it doesn't matter. You know, like in real life. Aaand then he gets up for exactly one of those bullshit reasons and my eyeballs rolled so far back into my head I missed most of the rest of the ending, thankfully.
So yes, I would have even been okay with an ending much darker than they included, where literally everyone dies, but the ones they did instead were just so lazy on top of railroading the player into agreeing with some pretty stupid philosophy at the end.
Reddit is trash, but it's also where the people are. People like us leaving and allowing them to maintain their left-wing echo chamber is exactly what they want. Their censorship makes it almost impossible to fight back, but retreating to this tiny corner of the internet and letting them dominate the eyeballs of their much larger audience with their propaganda uncontested is not a good solution either.
When a virus spreads only to the white people of Los Angeles, the black community must save itself when it realizes these Zombies don't want brains: They want melanin.
Because if they did want brains, they wouldn't be targeting blacks? Interesting position to take.
Just wait a day or two after release and type in "Let's play <game name> 10". Preferably on Duck Duck Go or something like it so you get some random guy and not whoever is winning the search engine wars at youtube and is therefore more likely to be manipulated by PR people. Seeing someone playing a game, who has actually played the game for more than a couple hours, and is competent enough at playing games that they put footage of it up for everyone to see, is much, much more reliable than anything a "journalist" is ever going to write. Everything else is pointless- industry news is largely nonsense written by someone with a political axe to grind, pre-release stuff is pointless because the game isn't out yet and their opinions are always based on too little play time and the reviewer is probably an idiot anyway, and what else is there? News about how some game has been delayed or company X has announced something you won't be able to play for months or years?
Let's play videos of games that are out, everything else is pointless or unreliable.
Even when they're trying to do "equal pay for equal work", the categories are basically always complete bullshit, and effectively always in women's favor.
The categories are always nonsense because that makes it easier, and it is actually true that you can't categorize every job perfectly, but they're often laughably broad, like saying a social worker and a stock broker are in the same category because they both require a major in social sciences (that is a real example).
It's effectively always in women's favor because, across the board, men choose higher paying fields, so when you start lumping random jobs together, the chances of lumping low-paying women-favored professions with high-paying men-favored professions is extremely high.
So even when they're trying to compare the same jobs, it's complete anti-man lies. When they're not even pretending to care that the jobs are the same, it's going to be on a whole extra level of fiction.
Maybe his chances of each state isn't that great, but if Trump can conclusively prove through the court even 1 state to be systematically fraudulent, that would give him more than enough weight with conservatives to do literally anything with the election.
It's unclear exactly what you mean by "prove through the court", but I predict the supreme court won't do much. They tend to take the position that once something's done, it doesn't matter how fucked up it was, it's too late now. So the correct time to legally challenge a vote obviously isn't before it happens because it hasn't happened yet, and after it's happened it's too late (especially if the counters destroy evidence while they're counting, like by throwing out envelopes or interfering with observers), and while it's happening you have way too small a window to collect evidence and get a case through the courts. The American voting system is basically unaccountable.
You've said it yourself, I'm pretty sure- women have a bias towards women, and men also have a bias towards women. Have a male and female actor take turns pretending to be a couple and beat each other up, and men will rush to the defense of the woman when it looks like she's being hit, but will ignore it when it's the man who's being hit (The women will largely not take much actual action in either case because they know men will do it for them, but they do tend to openly laugh at the man being hit, and wonder aloud what he did to deserve it, which they obviously don't do for the woman). Or look at men caring about female genital mutilation happening to women on the other side of the planet more than they care about the same thing happening to their own sons. Or the reaction to men attending college more than women decades ago, vs. women attending college more than men now- the first is a tragedy, the second is a cause for celebration. Or how awful it would be to force a woman who doesn't want to be a parent be a parent anyway, when that happens to men every day. It's all the same thing: Most men just care more about women than they do about men. There's an empathy gap. Democrats are able to openly be female supremacists not just because it's what almost all women want, but because it's also what most men want.
The electoral college representatives provide the wiggle room there. You aren't really even voting for president, you're voting for your party's elector, and they vote for president on Dec 14. So yes, there is no day on which a presidential candidate could die which would make the votes invalid.
Twitter had $117,179 left in the bank, and donated half to the NALEO Educational Fund, a nonpartisan non-profit that works for boost Latino participation in politics, and the Ross Initiative in Sports for Equality, which focuses on ending racial discrimination in athletics.
Gotta make sure none of your money accidentally helps white people.
The internet was suppose to be a way of free communication, get away from the rules of elites that want to tell people what to think and how to act
I remember when the internet was new. People, especially social science professor types on the left, loved it- it would give a voice to people without one, let people connect across the world, bypass the interference of The Man, it seemed like it would be the best tool in the world for the proletariat to connect and overthrow their bourgeois oppressors, because as far as the left was concerned, the poor downtrodden masses were basically all democrats anyway, right?
And then they found out that there were people on the internet who actually did NOT agree with them, and holy shit, shut it all down. Ends up if you let anyone say anything, some of it is stuff social science professors don't agree with, and that just can't be allowed. From "Finally, letting anyone speak without a filter" to "Jesus Christ, more filters now! Filters everywhere! Pull the funding from anyone without the proper filters in place! The masses must not be allowed to speak!"
It depends on if you're using the left's own reasoning or not. If you are, then the idea of one group being "statistically intelligent and productive" is absolutely not acceptable, and the only acceptable explanation is that their success is due to massive discrimination against others. You know, the way they reason about whites. That's the point, that everything they say about whites, which they then use to justify racism against whites, applies even more so to Jews, but they'll never accept that simple argument because they hate the conclusion.
However - I can't justify taxing people and not letting them vote. I definitely can't justify them not paying taxes because they can't vote.
I don't know why you're bringing taxes into it. 12 year olds still pay sales tax, and probably most other taxes too, if applicable. Regardless, check the 26th amendment. Lowered the voting age to 18, based largely on the argument "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote", since 18-year-olds could be drafted. 18 year old MEN, of course. So women should get to vote at the same age as they register for the draft, just like men. At the age of...
Someone might bring up the points that women lack physical strength and probably aren't great for unit cohesion to begin with, and will definitely get pregnant if they don't want to go to war, and society definitely doesn't have the nerve to either force abortions or force birth control or send pregnant women to war, so women are effectively undraftable. I acknowledge all that, and I think there's a workable forced factory work for minimum pay alternative (which should then be made an option for both genders), but that's all besides the point, as the current system doesn't even try, women get the right of voting and don't get the responsibilities.
Several points:
No one in California has ever owned a slave. No one in California has ever been a slave. This whole thing is bullshit. Everyone has ancestors who got fucked over. Holding all people of one skin color responsible for something just because some of the people who did that thing had the same skin color is the most racist thing I can imagine.
If you want to calculate how much whites owe blacks, make sure to figure in that whites statistically pay more in taxes than they get in services, and blacks get more in services than they pay in taxes. Whites have effectively been paying reparations for decades and probably will continue to do so for the rest of time.
The group is expected to consider the ways in which slavery has benefitted private and public institutions and led to lasting disparities related to wealth, education, employment, health and incarceration.
Cool, now include all the welfare paid to those blacks beyond what was received back in taxes, and include all the crime generated by those blacks. I also like how these people just don't give a fuck about generational poverty of whites. If you're black and poor it's because of slavery, if you're black and you're in jail it's because of slavery, if you're black and you kill someone it's because of slavery, but if you're white and you do any of those things and it's because you're scum, because there is not a single white person born with poor parents anywhere in the country.
California has a long history of allowing slavery and discrimination, dating back to before it gained statehood.
LOL, California is genuinely in the process of striking down a law that says it can't be racist in government dealings, so that it can BE racist against whites in college admissions and government contracts. A law which was only put on the books in the first place because Asians complained about being screwed over in favor of blacks, because whites basically aren't allowed to complain even when they're being fucked over by racist democrats. So tell me more about how racial discrimination is wrong, you affirmative action loving piece of shit.
The state of Florida paid more than $2 million in reparations to survivors of the 1924 Rosewood massacre, in which white mobs destroyed the Black community and killed at least six people.
So less than blacks have killed in race riots THIS YEAR ALONE. Hell, probably in the last month alone.
California law says that state reparations would not be considered a replacement for reparations at the federal level, which have failed to advance for over a century.
There will never, ever be an end. The left will never say whites have paid enough. As evidence, look at gender in colleges. Women outnumber men almost 2 to 1, and they reached the break-even point in the early 80s. So for my ENTIRE LIFETIME, women have outnumbered men getting degrees. But women STILL receive almost all gender-specific scholarships. It will be the same for blacks: Even if they take so much money from whites that blacks are actually richer than whites, even significantly richer, even that won't be enough, they'll just continue moving the goalposts. Not to mention that money won't even make things better- it's like winning the lottery. Give a poor person a ten million dollars, they spend it on moronic junk for a few years and end up broke again. There will never be an end, just an increasingly large funnel of white money going into black pockets forever.
Weber said the intent of the California law is for the task force to prioritize potential reparations for African American people who are “descendants of enslaved people or those who were impacted by slavery.”
WHO WERE IMPACTED BY SLAVERY
NOT EVEN DESCENDANTS
It's not about people who were slaves, it's not about people who kept slaves, it's not even about people who had ANCESTORS who were slaves, it is literally just taking money from whites and giving it to blacks. Forever.
That's surprising. It does say:
Among heterosexual males, an estimated 3.5% reported being sexually victimized by another inmate In comparison, among males who were bisexual, 34% reported being sexually victimized by another inmate Among males who were homosexual or gay, 39% reported being victimized by another inmate
For women it's 13 / 18 / 13 straight/bisexual/gay abuse instead of 3.5 / 34 / 39 for men. So I find it extremely suspicious men are so much lower than women overall, and that straight men are ten times lower than bisexual or gay men when straight women aren't much lower than bisexual women and the same as gay women.
And considering this:
Following their release from prison, 72% of victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization indicated they felt shame or humiliation, and 56% said they felt guilt
I strongly suspect the rate of reporting for straight men is significantly falsely low, because they don't want to admit they were raped in general, especially by a man. Men who already consider themselves bi or gay are less reluctant to admit they had sex with a man, obviously, and therefore the numbers are much higher there. Table 17 confirms that about 60% of them never reported it to any officials, then you check table 18, listing "reasons for not reporting sexual victimization", and see 70% saying they didn't want anyone to know. Wouldn't such a high percentage saying they didn't report it to anyone because they didn't want anyone to know suggest that... a lot of them would take it that logical one step further and also not report it on the surveys this report is based on, therefore not showing up in either table?
Do you think that when they have all that... they want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by solving the issues and coming to accept stuff?
It works that way from the "research" side, too: we have "Women's Studies" and "African and African American Studies", and no voice counter to them in academia, and do you think the "research" will ever say the issues don't exist? The conclusion is baked right into the fields, they will never, ever, ever say that discrimination doesn't exist, and anyone who disagrees would never go into that field in the first place. So we have a field composed strictly of people who believe they're oppressed so strongly they decide to devote their careers to it, who are dependent on convincing others they're being oppressed to maintain relevance and funding, and whose conclusion to every bit of research they might do is already set by the core beliefs of their entire field, and there is no field that exists to give a counterpoint.
But instead, the national conversation is questioning the concept of codified legal systems.
...that apply to blacks. Everyone seems to be okay with it when it applies to whites, especially white men. There definitely wouldn't be rioting if Breonna Taylor were white. Hell, while Obama was in office Biden managed to get the country's colleges and universities to effectively declare men guilty until proven innocent if accused of sexual misconduct, and there weren't any riots about that. The country might even elect that man president, they certainly will if the very same people who are rioting about this alleged injustice have anything to say about it. So it's not about justice systems as a whole, it's just about having them apply to blacks.
Sure, but the left doesn't allow anyone else to admit that without having their life destroyed, so why should they be an exception? The only way they'll ever realize their rules are retarded is if their rules apply to them and not just their enemies.
Which is pretty much already what is happening, and is actually why they always stop at "earnings". What is the point of money? Not earning it. Just having money is pointless if you don't spend it: the point of money is the ability to buy things that are actually useful. And what do the majority of men do after earning this money? Spend it largely on behalf of women. Compared to how much money women earn, then SPEND hugely more, and that money comes from men, either their fathers or their husbands, or even their alimony paying exes who get nothing back or child support paying exes who never wanted a child. So how, exactly, does this add up to women being oppressed?
Because Biden is only a white male, while Mrs. Affirmative Action Hire is a black woman. I actually wrote that out before reading the article, which ends with:
So yeah, I was right, it's because of the left's ongoing hatred of white men and unconditional love for blacks and women.