GoodEye8

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

My biggest gripe is also the power level. Witcher 3 already sets her potential way above Geralt which means for Witcher 4 they most likely will nerf her powers to not make her a, living god. Personally I would've preferred if they hadn't used Ciri in the first place because it's bound to create retcons.

Or if they wanted to make a story about Ciri they should've focused on who she is (someone with elder blood) not on who she isn't (an actual Witcher). She doesn't need Witcher powers, her innate powers are already way stronger than what a Witcher gets.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

I always felt iffy about their pro-XYZ stance as well. I'm not against bringing awareness to bullying or burnout or supporting marginalized groups, but it feels so disingenuous when your game (Destiny) is obviously predatory. I guess getting people addicted and organizing their lives after the game is not something to oppose.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Yeah, that's not the best example. I think the ac-130 mission is a much better example because I don't remember it getting a lot of controversy despite it being pretty non-chalant about you decimating the ground forces like it was just another day in the office (or rather in the air). It's the ultimate "dehumanize the enemy" mission because you could replace the targets with pretty much anyone and the mission would play exactly the same.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

My guess is that Trump is collecting "protection" money. It's not racketeering of he's the president, right?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

The thing is Linux doesn't need to topple Windows. Linux just needs a big enough market share for companies to go "maybe we should also offer official support for Linux?"

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I find it hilarious that cops are going to start driving around with dildos in their car. You know, in case they need to plant one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The innocent man also says "I'm not guilty" and my point is that anyone saying they're not guilty is not an indicator of whether they're actually guilty or not. An innocent person is just as likely to say "I'm not guilty" as a guilty person would be. So really the only dumb comments here are yours. You believe a false premise which led you to a false conclusion and instead of accepting you're wrong you're doubling down on that stupidity.

You're free to take your anecdotal evidence and believe stupid shit, but if you're going to say it out loud you better be prepared for the public dunking you're inevitably going to get, because while we can't make you not believe it we can tell you it's a stupid thing to believe.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

So what does an innocent man say? "I'm guilty"?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Assuming all of those things are inflicted by republicans, how can they get away with it? You're supposed to have grit and take back power, but somehow you're letting republicans run wild? How doesn't this rub of on all Americans?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

You're doing the country equivalent "I'm not pathetic, look at how big my muscles are". Doesn't matter if you have shitty public education, shitty public transportation, shitty worker rights, shitty health care and a shitty political system that makes change impossible, you can beat the shit out of anyone calling you pathetic.

Such a simplistic view I can absolutely believe you're American.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Because these people don't see the bigger picture. They see they could get $35 if they didn't have to pay the union. What they don't see is that the union is the reason they're "getting" $35 and without the union they're definitely not going to get $35. And obviously any non-monetary benefit (such as more days off) goes way over their heads.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

No idea. It looked really weird on his onboard. Half like he knew Lawson was coming, because he positioned himself on a really weird part of the track, and half like he didn't know Lawson was coming because he suddenly jolted his steering when Lawson got close. I guess technically he was off the racing line? And from Lawson point of view it's hard to estimate if he was actually impeded or not because he had to break anyway. Probably came down to whoever had to make the decision as there's enough gray area to go either way.

That said, had the roles been reversed Russell would've complained all the way to the stewards to penalize Lawson. I'm not against Russell not getting a penalty but i would've found out far more satisfying if he did get a penalty.

view more: ‹ prev next ›