Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Jan 13, 2018, 12:08:

Eirikrautha wrote on Jan 13, 2018, 10:48:

Funny you pick coal towns as your example. I've been to Chicago and Detroit (and Philly and Baltimore). You're more likely to encounter a shithole area in a city than in the country. But it's not like you have your own biases...

Wait, I thought the charitable explanation for why people support Trump is that it had nothing to do with race and solely to do with economics: that rural, ex-industrial areas are economically depressed, and that their residents feel left behind and looked down upon by the thriving urban areas. If you contend that in fact rural America is better off than urban America -- laughable but lets run with it -- then why exactly do you support Trump? Because he'll call predominantly black and brown countries shitholes and can can sexually assault women and get away with it?

Who says I support Trump? I just dislike leftist ideologues more (they've led to the death of way more people, especially in the 20th century). Secondly, having lived and worked in suburbs, small Appalachian towns, and in large, urban cities (including teaching in majority minority schools), the sheer danger to the resident of any small town is nothing compared with the slums of Baltimore, Shitcago, or Detroit. The primary difference is the arrogance of the urban elites. Somehow they feel they can look down from their upper middle-class enclaves (I guarantee neither you nor Beamer have ever lived in a place like Anacostia, DC... but I don't bother challenging him about this because he'll just make shit up, as usual) and moralize about the rural U.S. It's a little like being lectured on morality by Hollywood and all it's sexual predators. Physician, heal thyself...

Beamer wrote on Jan 13, 2018, 09:20:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 13, 2018, 04:46:

opie wrote on Jan 13, 2018, 00:23:
Something the Left doesn't understand, most people don't give a shit what was said. Hell, some would agree with him.
This only makes people that like him, like him more. And those that hate him, keep on hating. Nothing changes.

I believe Trump is a result of the PC left pushing too hard, too fast and the country saying "no more". But this is just my opinion.

What is funny on this forum, is that the seemingly liberal posters will always be the first to drop to personal attacks. Way to keep it classy.

In 1970, the US population was 90% white. Today is is approaching 50% and falling. The election of Trump has nothing to do with the "PC left" and everything to do with whites feeling that they're "losing" the country to "the other." It's the last gasps of white privilege and the idea that, to be American one must be white, preferably male. I say that as a white male living in a region that is only 25% white, yet is economically thriving with almost no racial strife. Humans are humans, and the thing that makes a strong economy is education level. When humans have a good education, they become moral, secular, and qempathetic, regardless of race.

I believe this is much of it. Especially in white concentrated areas where it truly is the other. There's a reason big cities care less - we're already surrounded by other, we know them, we see them daily, we eat at with them, etc.

Also, let's not pretend America isn't full of shitholes. I know plenty here have been to coal towns.

Funny you pick coal towns as your example. I've been to Chicago and Detroit (and Philly and Baltimore). You're more likely to encounter a shithole area in a city than in the country. But it's not like you have your own biases...

Good comment, but don't expect nuance or more then 2-dimensional thinking from that crowd. It's like arguing theology with a cultist: they start off with the assumption that their beliefs are correct and every additional data point is interpreted only in a context that will affirm it. It would never cross their mind that people, having seen a spectacular failure in crowdfunding, might be less likely to fund other kickstarters (which has already happened). Or that people have a discrete amount of disposable income and that they constantly choose between options of what to spend it on. I know of at least two indie Wing Commander/Tie Fighter style games that didn't even bother to go the kickstarter route, because they assumed the funding was already going toward SC...

Meaning that many other games that could have been funded have had the available funds siphoned away to support this vaporware. How many more Cupheads or other indie games of a smaller and more successful scope could have been funded? SC really will drive the final stake through the heart of crowdfunded video games...

Pigeon wrote on Dec 27, 2017, 19:31:

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 27, 2017, 18:53:

Choobeastia wrote on Dec 27, 2017, 18:34:
So far, I haven't met anyone who hasn't liked Bright. It's not the best movie, and it has its flaws, but it's fun. I feel like the critics were watching a different movie, and I wonder if their review copy really was different somehow.

I enjoyed bright and the price was right.

Same. Better story/characters than half the shit Hollywood shovels out as blockbusters. It's not amazing by any stretch, but unless you can't stand Will Smith playing a Will Smith character, it's entertaining to watch.

I'm not the conspiracy theory type, but I do think that it is slightly suspicious that many of the critics and columns with a negative view of the movie are also dependent on Hollywood (not Netflix) for their livelihood. Not the most unbiased observers...

jdreyer wrote on Dec 27, 2017, 14:07:

ForgedReality wrote on Dec 27, 2017, 12:10:
All you're doing with electric cars is offsetting the energy cost. It is still there, just out of sight and out of mind. Batteries are toxic as hell too, so I have to wonder about the long-term environmental cost. All these leaking nuclear reactors is bad enough already.

Batteries can be recycled. Carbon monoxide can't.

Congratulations, that has to be the most scientifically illiterate statement I've read today. And, considering I just finished debating a creationist online a while ago, that's saying something...

Was hoping you'd linked to this song. Was disappointed...

Cutter wrote on Dec 15, 2017, 17:43:
Much as I don't care about VR an much as I didn't really care for this game I would actually like to try it out in VR. Walking around 1940s LA in VR would be pretty sweet. LA Confidential or Mullholland Falls come to mind.

Forget it, Cutter. It's Chinatown...

"Cocaine is God's way of telling you you are making too much money." -- Robin Williams.

Mr. Williams, I give you ... Star Citizen!

Darks wrote on Dec 14, 2017, 10:23:

Prez wrote on Dec 14, 2017, 09:29:
Wow Playerunknown seems to have less and less of a clue every time he opens his mouth.

Yea, right prez. Thats why hes sold over 20 million copies of his game. I guess he has no fucking clue right!!!

If money/business success was a measure of intelligence, Trump would be the founder of MENSA. Your move.

In fact, business success is only an indicator that you might be knowledgeable about how to succeed in business. Might...

I must be getting old. I can't even tell what is happening, what with all the rainbow-colored effects flashing across the screen at near epilepsy-inducing frequency. Why would I want to play a game where I can't even see the game?

Damn millennials and their ADHD attention spans. Now get off my lawn!

Beamer wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 18:03:
Want to reiterate, in general, that I'm not arguing that I want games to be more expensive (and no one seems to think I am, but that surprises me.)

I just feel like we're on borrowed time with this pricing and recommending people enjoy it. It's one of those times where you realize you're kind of getting away with something and it won't last.

Nah. Games are a luxury good. This is why the price for them is less, comparatively, than in the past. There is far more competition for the entertainment dollar than ever before. Beyond a certain price-point, consumers will find another good they feel is more economical and stop buying games. This is the reason for "collector's editions," etc. Gamers expect additional content to justify expenses beyond the standard $60 they pay (in the US).

In fact, game prices are not going to go up for the foreseeable future. At the most, when the economics no longer support a "AAA" game at $60, you will see the death of the "AAA" game before you see the increase in standard price.

AAA game companies are still making gigantic profits from the $60 price points. But they'd already charge you $100 a game if they thought you'd buy it. If you won't buy it at $60, they'll either start selling it at $40, or they'll stop making it. This is why games go on sale way more often today than in the past.

All this talk of game value structure borders on economic illiteracy. Game prices will be the maximum the market will bear. And if they can nickle and dime you with loot boxes, too, they will...

Cutter wrote on Nov 17, 2017, 17:27:

jacobvandy wrote on Nov 17, 2017, 14:10:
It's gonna be like Hunger Games, where all the plebs have nothing to do but live off the land or entertain the ultra rich.

No, actually it'll be more like Red October or the French Revolution with the elites getting their fucking heads cut off and the wealth redistributed to the people. I'd actually like to see that. Viva la Revolucion! Viva Che! Power to the People!

Yeah. Except the wealth never got redistributed to the "people," just to the new elites. Who then sent all of the people who helped them revolt to the guillotine next. Great plan, there...

Beamer wrote on Nov 12, 2017, 09:03:

NKD wrote on Nov 11, 2017, 13:58:
.

I don't know why so many people seem to think that you have to be convicted of a crime before people are allowed to think you're a piece of shit.

It generally seems to be self-identifying MRA weirdos who are afraid of innocently doing something they're latter being accused of being gross for. Which is what Louis is claiming happened, but saddened about his judgment, not that it was late found to be creepy.

It's pretty easy to not unintentionally do something others find creepy, but...

Tell that to George Takei. Ooops, narrative wrecked.

Darks wrote on Nov 1, 2017, 09:04:

Pigeon wrote on Nov 1, 2017, 08:34:

Luke wrote on Nov 1, 2017, 06:07:

NamecaF wrote on Nov 1, 2017, 00:16:
All this knee-jerk over-reaction and PC, social media bullshit is getting out of hand. Netflix have just lost a lot of respect with their handling of all this.

That's what happens when people have waaaaaay to much spare time

Flush men is the new black so followwww

So people not wanting to work with a child molester is out of control PC? The fact it happened years ago doesn't change what happened. It also means he got away with it for years, and it only came out now because an environment exists where the victim won't automatically be stiffled.

I dont condom any of this type of crap. but the real question is, why is this now just coming out? Thats what urks me to no end.

Whats the real motive behind this coming out so late and now?

Most likely he tried to extort Spacey for money and he refused. and didn't get the payout he wanted.

A couple of things. First, it's a snowball effect. People have known for decades about people like Weinstein and Spacey. The predatory behavior in Hollywood is legendary (Corey Feldman has been shouting from the rooftops for years about the way directors have been abusing young boys, ditto that for Rose McGowan and Weinstein). And the vast majority of the people who would normally focus the outrage haven't cared, because of the power, influence, and politics of the people doing it.

Then Harvey Weinstein's brother wants to eject Harvey from the company they founded, primarily because they hate each other and the company is tanking. A story that has been spiked 2 times earlier gets the green light (with leaked info) and Harvey is in the spotlight. You have real victims like Rose McGowan (who has been consistent in her allegations for years, but no one would listen) to back it up, and suddenly, now that his power is gone and he's no longer a gateway to stardom, Harvey gets in the crosshairs.

Here's where it gets interesting. Along with the obvious victims who have been vocal all along, you start to get the victims who were too afraid to talk. Everyone in Hollywood knows about Harvey and his sleaziness, so now the spotlight is on the other actresses who have worked with him. That's when you see the pile-on happen. What actress is going to say, "Of course I blew him for a part in his movies! Five minutes of discomfort have translated into a lifetime of wealth and fame that you couldn't dream of!"? All of the women who worked with him now have to position themselves on the side of "disturbed, but afraid to talk" as opposed to "willing to tickle his balls for fame." Thus the flood of accusations, as everyone wants to position themselves in the best light. And thus the normal holier-than-thou screechers (who were perfectly willing to ignore him so long as he was "their guy" ... see Clinton, Bill) now have the green light to condemn it all.

The problem with this kind of thing (for Hollywood) is that you can't direct an avalanche. As soon as the revelations start drawing news coverage, everyone who has been afraid to talk starts getting braver, and then it starts taking down the other pervs who are still profitable. Hence Kevin Spacey. And there will be more, because Hollywood is a cesspool. Wait until the pictures of Brian Singer (who is not shy about being photographed with boy-toys of questionable age) or the stars of Nickelodeon start appearing on the nightly news with stories of what they had to do at 14 or 16 to keep their jobs. Hopefully the coming flood will flush all of the human garbage out of Hollywood...

Beamer wrote on Oct 13, 2017, 19:31:

Redmask wrote on Oct 13, 2017, 18:56:

Beamer wrote on Oct 13, 2017, 16:31:

There are times that race matters. Being "color blind" is as bad as being racist, as it just enforces the status quo. Yeah, I know, you're saying I'm as bad as the racists and I'm saying you're as bad as the racists and it comes across as me echoing you, but I've seen your posting history here and, honestly, I'm pretty certain you prefer white people, so I'm done even talking to you and your horrible, unrealistic ideas that probably often strike you as "real" due to it being "race realism." At the very least you feel white people are the most persecuted in America and have it the hardest.

Sure why actually confront your own conflicting statements when you can vaguely dismiss him. We'll just all pretend you weren't a massive hypocrite.

What's conflicting? His post doesn't spell it out, and his posting history is full of white panic. The fact remains that being black in America leads to drastically different experiences. Is that right? No. Is it true? Yes. And if your company needs the perspective of black people, being all white won't help. Period.

Ironic ad hominem (a sure sign of defeat), coming from someone whose posting history is full of collectivist racialism. Dodge all you want, the only difference between your ideas and Stormfront is that they admit they are being racist. Your fart-sniffing airs of noblesse oblige just mask your internal certainty that the poor POCs out there need your protection. See how easy it is to assign motives to those you disagree with (the difference is that mine almost certainly hits closer to the mark)?

If you want to pursue cultural and/or experiencial diversity, then I'm all for it. When you simplistically (and racistly) assert that such diversity is simply a matter of skin color, then you have gone beyond the pale. Asians can't experience poverty? Hispanics can't experience urban blight and discrimination? White people can't know what it's like to be visible minorities? That's what you are asserting when you limit your hiring to black applicants based on your logic. If you are looking for bigotry, I'm sure there's a mirror nearby...

Beamer wrote on Oct 13, 2017, 15:31:
Yes, in general, being black makes you more likely to know how to appeal to black people and more likely to appeal to black people.

Beamer:

"So you see, folks, your skin color defines you. It determines your culture, your tastes, your interests, and your ability to communicate and empathize. No white person could ever understand a black person's concerns. No black person could ever truly be the same as a white person."

Reading your mental gymnastics is like watching a confused medium channel a Klan member. It's not just stupid, it borders on evil.

Either we are individuals, or we aren't. Either our differences are due (partly or wholly) to our race, or they aren't. If race is just the color of our skin, then culture and social influences explain our differences, and, consequentially, we can ALL understand each other, because our differences are the product of experience, not kind. That's where I stand.

Your statements above would be agreed with by any racial supremacist out there. It posits that racial divisions are uncrossable and unbridgeable, because they are the product of race itself. Otherwise color wouldn't matter, just lived experience. That's a pernicious idea, and one you should not be comfortable holding...

An expansion for EUIV? That's surprising...

jdreyer wrote on Sep 29, 2017, 12:25:
A while ago we had a similar discussion, and came to the conclusion that eventually you'd pay full price for an essentially empty game: all the necessary components would be available via microtransaction/DLC.

DCS is pretty much this already, though the base "game" is free (source: am flight sim fan)...

I read this title totally differently. My LawBreakers-Free Weekend is underway, meaning that I won't so much as see the game for the entire weekend...