Lurker > Sad_Face

Ruvan22 posted...

D) Why does "f you have someone or some persons who look up to you, you should be a good role model for them, which Elon should do." not apply to public tweets?

Because he's human just like us and you're asking the world for him to he not make any mistakes, even stating an opinion on a topic in a public setting. Public tweets are just public opinions.

You say that having more influence =/= he's greater than us. Fine, but he's still human. He's not infallible, he still mistakes, he still fucks up. If you acknowledge he's no better than the rest of us, then you must respect his right to fail.

Conversely, if someone looks up to him, that person should still apply critical thinking and qualify his opinions and the same must be said for any person and their heroes.

Your A,B,C statements mess me up because it doesn't seem like you understood my points or you're just disagreeing with me outright without elaboration, but I'll go back to D. As someone trying to make it as a blockchain engineer, it is an abuse of his influence in my eyes and frustrating to watch him push Doge coin because that was a total joke coin and he knew it yet he got people to push and pump the price and he spread information about doge coin that I knew and I know for goddamned sure he knew were not true (doge being any form of a sustainable currency beyond being for memes). Here, I think his intentions were poor and he wasn't playing a good role model with his abuse of his influential position.

Now regarding a public tweet, he's stating an opinion of how he never heard a good experience with a drug and thinks it's bad. How is this a problem? I don't notice any ill intentions there, and on top of that there are people right there correcting him. If you say Elon fans out there might get the wrong impression, then in my eyes (doesn't matter to me if you think differently) you're infantilizing them and I'm inferring from your action that you feel these people need to be protected from bad influences. If I am to treat them as adults, they can read the conversation for themselves and draw their own conclusions. If Elon employs predatory tactics and I recognize he is intentionally abusing his influence, then I'll agree that he's abusing his position and being a bad influence.

But there's nothing inherently wrong with being wrong. What matters is the context in which you're wrong. Stating an opinion formed from your experiences on some random topic that people are discussing for the day and won't remember 2 weeks from now is not a problem.

Ruvan22 posted...

Ahh gotcha

To bring this full circle then, if I followed your previous post correctly, you *do* feel Musk has some responsibility to vet information ?

If you want people to take you seriously, you have to vet your information, which Elon should do. If you have someone or some persons who look up to you, you should be a good role model for them, which Elon should do.

But having a twitter conversation where you say X, and there's a reply button with the conversation continuing where people correct you with sources? So what? If some dude who's that star struck by you that can't take an extra moment to follow, that's his ass. He's a big boy, a functioning adult, he'll figure things out. I'm not going to infantilize him and treat him as less than a man. If Elon Musk used predatory tactics to sway people, then I'd call him out for it. But making incorrect claims on his daily shitposting routine? Then that would imply that he's not our equal and he's greater than us, and his gungho followers who obey his every word are not our equals, but are lesser than us and need to be protected. I'm not going to entertain that possibility. Therefore, for this instance, it's no big deal what Elon did.

I assume OP is agitated over the "correlation =/= causation" concern, in this case the tweeter is blaming abortion rights for the trends he listed.

pegusus123456 posted...

It's also just gross that she bought a historical Marilyn Monroe dress, probably didn't even fit into it even with that lost sixteen pounds - I've seen a picture of her ass hanging out of the back - and undoubtedly stretched the seams that she did fit into just so she can wear it on the red carpet and immediately change into a replica.

Had to dig this up for research.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/8/AAWh3OAADNDQ.jpg

https://style.nine.com.au/latest/met-gala-2022-marilyn-monroe-dress-facts-kim-kardashian/f8c0aee7-cb31-4708-b667-f2b9ff74d871

Yeah that booty is pretty big. I wondered why she didn't just order a bigger dress just from reading the topic title. Makes sense given the historical value of the dress.

gunplagirl posted...

The thing about hypothetical questions is, the answer is usually irrelevant if you never get to test it. Sadge.

The has to be the most anti-intellectual statement I've encountered in quite some time. It's a process to come up with ideas that are testable, and it first starts with asking questions and coming up with ideas, and like everything else, they're not very good and poorly thought out when you're first starting out.

Ruvan22 posted...

I think I agree with this, but just to clarify you *don't* mean equality in knowledge, right? (ie everyone is not equally knowledgeable about farming)

I suppose I'll use equality as in the current societal meaning that we both have equal rights to ownership of our property. In other words, if you own X plot of land, Elon Musk doesn't have the authority to impede on your property and do as he pleases. Your rights must be respected. Similarly you on his property.

I suppose a more... idealistic use of equality would mean that I could be X millionaire and pay significant amounts in taxes as my contribution to society but compared to a guy who lives from paycheque to paycheque, I am no more deserving of him of the right to life.

bsp77 posted...

I know part of the problem is that I have kids and I also actually have a social life. Much of CE doesn't, so this doesn't impact a lot of you at all.

If I had kids, I would have taken them out of school and they would be home schooled. But I recognize I would be socially stunting them, ruining their childhood, and ultimately making them unprepared for adulthood. I see my neighborhood kids who are losing school days for X,Y, and Z reasons influenced by the pandemic and it's heartbreaking. Their parents aren't covering to make up for their lost education and they're falling behind. How are they going to support themselves in the future?

I still mask up and socially distance, and stay at home when I can, but I recognize the demand to "stay at home" is very, very difficult for most people. I'm sure we've all heard of the Myers-Briggs personality tests, but Extroverts CRAVE human interaction, it's not easy for them sit at home and away from people the way people like us do on this message board. This is where the major damage to their "mental health" is coming from. And this is not including the need to continue their life to keep the lights on and the general hopelessness people feel about the new normal, how it won't end.

CyricZ posted...

Murder is quite literally just the unlawful taking of a life with intent. It self-defines and is carried based on what society interprets as "unlawful". In ever murder case, the case has to be made that something is judged to be murder. There's no scientific definition. Only a legal one.

While there are laws against murder, there are no blanket laws against taking a life in general. There's permissibility with regards to killing in self-defense, killing in defense of another, wartime situations, medical termination, and execution by the state.

For abortion to be murder you'd literally have to make it unlawful. So as it stands, abortion is not murder in the United States.

You're playing semantics here. The point is a woman is a position to end the life of a baby and people deem that murder. Yes. It's legal, lawful or whichever word you prefer, but there's a population that doesn't want it to be so. Hence the hot topic.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


My issue with this is that you're making the assumption you're getting a worldly and well rounded view. You're not. Academic institutions generally lean left. You're going to get a liberal view. Getting an education isn't going to inherently inform you on what an ideal family is for society and how it benefits society, nor what was tried has failed across history. And I already explained the economic incentives to support a pro-choice view.

My argument for pro choice is this..

It's our bodies and it's our right to choose. My choice regarding my body doesn't effect you. Whether I want an abortion isn't your business. Even if another woman is pro life? Good for her. If she gets pregnant she can choose to conceive. She shouldn't dictate her beliefs or rights on someone else.

And this is fundamentally not true. I'd be walking on egg shells elaborating so I'll point out that there are a number of movements that were created and popularized because there are disgruntled groups, that we're all aware of and are feared and villified by society, that failed to adapt and find success within the new cultural dynamics of the 2010's. Said cultural dynamics were established by persons individually making choices behind closed doors that ended up in the position we're in now.

ScazarMeltex posted...

At no stage does life magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a fetus. We do not, and cannot know when life begins. We can however know when death occurs. Death is the permanent loss of capacity for consciousness and all brainstem functions, when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases.
Worldwide standards and regulations of death found brain death to be the universal legal and medical measure accepted across the globe.
So lets work backwards from that. If life ends there, then life begins when those things begin to occur.

This is a well said point. But you're making an argument on based on a foundation people don't agree with. Hence what makes this discussion so tricky.

It's a really good book. Admittedly it paints Reggie as a shining herald of all these amazing decisions who can do no wrong as his few failures at Nintendo boiled down to "Aw man I didn't good enough job convincing them do things my way". But it also paints Iwata as an incredible leader. Iwata is incredibly humble that even as the president of globally renowned company, he's willing acquiesce and trust the new guy, a filthy gaijin, with major decisions even if he disagrees with them.

CyricZ posted...

Do you think the thought sprung into their heads fully formed? It's weird of you to separate the concept of education and economic savvy like the latter doesn't come from the former.

Gladius is arguing that it's because of the education, the knowledge from learning at X institution, they'd come to share her opinion. I'm arguing it's the economic opportunities they don't want to lose that influence their pro-choice support. Hence the hypothetical scenario of culture that celebrates pregnancy with laws that support it.

Also, the beginning of life question comes into play because there are laws against murder. There are people who believe life begins at conception, there are those who believe in the kid's rights at the first heartbeat, and there are those believe it should be when the kid can survive with today's technology out of the womb. Whatever that point of what life has considered to have begun, it abortion laws allow for termination after said point that people can't agree on, would that not be considered murder by logic? Hence the discussion on where life begins.

bigblu89 posted...

It's a religious issue.

Murder originally became a crime because murder is a sin.

The concept of "Sin" is based on religion.

What successful society allows for someone to go shoot someone in broad daylight with no repercussions?

Gladius_ posted...

Yeah. It's called tokenization. Those are the "good ones." They get there the same way minorities do. By throwing their gender and ethnicity under the bus to appease their base. The same base that will strip their rights and toss them out once they've won. There was a term used in the 50's and is still used by mostly european countries.

Useful idiots.

I think my point above addresses your grievances so I'll skip to this. It's not tokenization at all. They've been overrepresented in these positions of power relative to their population percentage from long before the big push for diversity and inclusion.

Gladius_ posted...

You also missed I pointed out that percentage goes up even higher the more educated the woman is. Regardless it's obvious if education was free, student loan wasn't a thing, and more people pursued education.. pro choice sentiment would sky rocket and even less of these anti choice laws would pass.

I transferred to a high tier university for undergrad. One thing I noticed from my old school is that you'd rarely every see any woman pregnant on campus. And a major reason for this was that there was a rule in place that an undergrad girl were to get kicked out of school if she gets pregnant. On top of that, as you climb the educational ladder, those types of girls tend to be more career driven. Having a kid would throw a wrench on the momentum they have in climbing the ranks. Heck, I recall some woman creating a movement "Freeze your eggs, free your career".

So I'd argue highly educated girls are economically influenced to prefer pro-choice rather than education. Suppose not only were there proper laws in place but culture wholly supported and celebrated pregnancy, would women be more pro-choice or pro-life?

You are also ignoring that many woman are still being taught to this day that to be a woman we need to wear dresses, please our man, have as many babies as possible, and our place is in the kitchen.

We literally only had "equal" rights for less than a century. So there's many woman actively being taught that's wrong and we shouldn't or aren't yet ready for that change.

Realize the arguments you are making aren't dissimilar to arguments for slavery and segregation in the past. They aren't valid arguments.

There's a major religion out there that teaches women are to be subservient to their men, and yet I see a considerable number of those practitioners at top leadership positions, including women, across a number of highly competitive industries. It appears we're not getting the full story, partially why I ignored this line.

CyricZ posted...

Yeah that's why people are touchy on abortion. You nailed it. It's because of the disagreement.

Fair, let me rephrase.

People can't even come to a consensus on any beliefs that they're building their arguments on. Where does life "begin"? How do we assign value to how much the right to abortion affects, the woman, the child, the father, society? Is there a combination that justifies overriding the most valuable or should the most valuable be prioritized?

Gladius_ posted...

I am aware Adam is equally at fault. You think I am attacking religious people. I am not. I prefaced every post discussing religion that I am talking about extremists.

There are extremists in every corner. What matters more is what percentage that population is and how much of a detriment is on the success of society. To give an example, where I live, there are government subsidies for single mothers as well as the general subsidies for housing. But what you come to find is that there are a number of women who find it more economical to have more kids to better take advantage of the program and not need a job to live as opposed to finding a job and looking to get married and start a family. The question is, is this abused enough to justify nixing the program kill the opportunity for the honest single mothers that need a push? Or is it something that the government can overlook as the overall effect of the programs are positive?

This is why I said in the second post, that regarding the passing laws, the process should be what kind of vision for the lifestyle you want and values you want to instill, then you need to understand how the laws will affect people's lives as they'll naturally tread the path of least resistance to maximize their own success, then adjust accordingly.

Secondly, you're making the assumption that if they knew what you knew, they'd share your opinions too. That is incorrect. You brought up the 68% of educated women beyond HS education are pro-choice. That's not 100%. You're ignoring that just a touch under a 1/3rd of the women don't share your stance here.

There's a reason why abortion is such a touchy subject, people can't agree on virtually anything about the subject as evident by this topic.

Gladius_ posted...

It isn't being elite to have a highschool education.

I grew up homeless in florida living in a woman's shelter for most of my childhood. This is literally weak bait where you are trying to discredit me based on your pre-conceived notions you made up about me. In any organized debate you would be laughed out.

Thanks for playing.

Also thanks for the strawman too.

Your childhood struggle isn't a factor in you being considered "elite". You think you're better than those "extremely religious" women and that they're poor brainwashed souls that need saving from this supposed rhetoric that women are evil monsters that need to be tamed. Realize that Adam was right there listening to the entire conversation Eve had with the snake. The first recorded murder in the bible was carried out by a male. Both genders have their fuck ups.

I still believe the US is the greatest country in the world, but our values aren't the only way to live or decisively the best way to live.

Abstracting things out, if you look at abortion rights along with other laws as pieces of a puzzle to influence a lifestyle and set of values for a society while attempting to regulate how most citizens walk the path of least resistance to extract the most resources out of society, things get more complicated and what is seemingly the easy answer isn't as it's difficult to predict the trends born from game theory regarding the new environment you enforced with your laws.

Ruvan22 posted...

I want to make sure I follow your argument - you believe a speaker, especially one with a large figurative megaphone and perceived to have knowledge the common person doesn't, has no responsibility for incorrect/false messages he spreads?

If I am to respect you as a man where we're all equal, then the onus is on you to vet information no matter who it comes from. I have a mantra where when money is on the table, or someone stands to benefit from withholding information or spreading false information their words cannot be trusted and they must prove their innocence.

Now if we're working with the stance that not all persons are equal and some need to be protected, then Elon Musk needs to keep his influence in check. People always look for someone or something to worship, idolize, or look up to, and this leaves them vulnerable to manipulation which can drag down society as whole.

Note that my argument is contingent on the fundamental belief on the equality of humans.

AirFresh posted...

Arya's got a different look too now

She was never a looker to begin with. But holy shit Sophie Turner. MY GOD.

Noirespanties posted...

Who the fuck is Mike Fukuda?

Manabu "Mike" Fukuda. He led the product development division of NoA and but was essentially an NCL employee and routinely communicated with NCL developers and executives.

Godnorgosh posted...

Miyamoto fucked up Paper Mario because he doesn't like fleshed-out stories and unique characters in his properties. I appreciate what the man has contributed but it's time for gramps to retire and stop making creative and business decisions.

Miyamoto also pushed the Splatoon team to create a mascot for the project (at the time they were paintball shooting bunnies) with the threat that if they couldn't figure out a unique character design, they'd have to use Mario.

He's human but he's one of the most legendary developers for a reason. That being said, the dude living his retirement life on Ninty paycheques making movies now. He doesn't make games nowadays.

Just finished the book yesterday. It was very insightful. Reggie also came up with the idea to come up with a rewards program when Iwata flubbed up with the pricing on the 3DS. He also brought to the table the idea to include sudoku in the localization of Brain Age training and pestered Iwata for months to make it happen.

One thing that stood out to me was how incredibly humble Iwata was. There were a few rare instances where Iwata and Reggie vehemently disagreed on a decision and ultimately Iwata relents and trusts Reggie's decision. As the global president of one of the most renowned companies to defer to a filthy foreigner who has barely been in the company and is not a game developer, that speaks for itself of his humility and strength as a leader.

This isn't to say that Iwata always listens to Reggie, as Reggie recommended a $199 price point that Iwata rejected in favor of a $225+ price point (which ended up at $249 since retailers would have priced it at $249 if the MSRP was $225), but Iwata takes full responsibility for his decisions and but also places a lot faith and trust in Reggie's abilities.

CrimsonAngel posted...

Why do you care TC?

Personally, I'd be terrified if being "poly ethically-non monogamous" is an expected preference for the average girl.

AssultTank posted...

To say COVID is over and we shouldn't be taking all the precautions we can now, while the spread is low, in order to prevent another spike is frankly one of the stupidest things you can possibly say about COVID. It's literally what the people who were chugging horse paste will recommend. It's literally what the alt-right grift machine is pushing. They want to continue the pandemic so they can continue their grift.

You've literally fallen for the propaganda from the right wing, and more and more people are falling for it every day because the people who were fighting it have frankly gotten tired of fighting back against the misinformation, the ignorance, and the selfishness.

I live in a staunchly blue region. The government dropped the mask mandate, most restaurants dropped mask requirements, and we just had Carnival. A friend of mine came down here and remarked the pandemic is over and got annoyed that he wasn't allowed in one lone restaurant that still required masks. Also he got annoyed with me double masking. Tourists come down here vaccinated and double/triple/whatever boosted and think they're the hot shit and generally don't wear their masks.

Anecdotally speaking, it seems most people regardless of their stance on politics don't care about the pandemic anymore.

FaultyCircuitry posted...

People with a platform like his should not be saying stupid s*** because what happens is his f***ing knob slobbers will read only that and run with it. They them spread the disinformation.

Sure, some people will read further into the thread, but sure as f*** not enough.

Also - stating factually incorrect things is not "having an opinion" on something

The issue I have with this is that you're insinuating that Elon is not equal to the common man and his so called "knob slobbers" are beneath thinking adults. I'm going to sweep under the rug the first inference I'm making and hide it with my belief that all men are equal. But I don't agree with looking down on people who worship him and treating them as less than adults. If they run rampant with incorrect ideas, they have to own up to it, not Elon.

Looking through the tweet conversation, he says one thing, people question it, and some expert in the field pulls up a research paper detailing a study where there were "no significant differences" over concerns of suicidal behavior.

What's the problem? You want only people to have an opinion on something if they're deemed an expert? Because that thought process is used and abused from finance to politics, wherever there's information asymmetry can causes problems than this scenario where X rich guy with a soapbox says something incorrect and people right below his statement are correcting him.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Not in Liar Liar. It forces you to include context details even if you try to even mislead with the truth.

OHO, now this makes things interesting. But this deal ABSOLUTELY needs to include the media and bit tech companies. There's no point in politicians being super honest if they're only engaged by media outlets who engage with them beforehand on rehearsed questions and the times when they slip up, the stories are censored. Else, affiliate 3rd parties will be speaking for certain entities.

Chose Liar Liar mode, but let's be real, you can lie by omission, and you can lie by statistics.

Gladius_ posted...

Those were really my only 5 criterias.

Fair criteria. And the CE posters telling you to restrict to 5'10'' and up were leading to the same selectivity trap that a lot of girls find themselves in.

But to think your position as a girl is worse than being an average guy, in the dating world in the West, that's not true. At least you're a blip on the map compared to most guys who are invisible and never get any chance.

Lunar_Savage posted...

Thankfully, they're still optional...

Just because it exists doesn't mean it has to be used. Only way to break anything under a capitalist system is to tank it financially.

Damn near impossible. Dating apps are held up by the layman desperate to find a relationship. They're the ones funding those apps, not the ladies, and not the minority of guys getting most of the matches. You'd need to create a more sustainable platform that would more consistently benefit the larger population for them to stop funneling money into those dating apps. And the hook up culture isn't going away because of there's no immediate risk or consequences to hooking up. Until you remove the insane accessibility that connects people (dating apps) and create consequences to hooking over getting commitment to a relationship first, or just create a platform that generates more relationships for the mass majority altogether, those dating apps are here to stay.

And I'm convinced if Gladius posted made a topic on dating app adventure, where CE chooses her swipes and tells her what to text, she'd have a metric ton more success. The guy CE matches her up with just won't a heartthrob though.

NCloud posted...

that probably seems like a life changing amount of money.

This reminds me of my last job. Not even 7 months in, I told the founder of the company I was a horrible fit for the job and he needed to find someone else. He gave me some sympathetic comment, then when he flew back to the main branch, he laughed at my comment over a drink with one of my supervisors and said I was never gonna leave the company since they paid me far more ($35K salary at the time) than all my previous jobs.

I stayed at the company for 4 years.

Can't say it was totally wasted since it funded my internet funny money hobby and gave me a metric amount of time to dedicate to figuring my next career move but man is it's not something I'd recommend doing.

She has incredible mindshare now and it's not like her political career will die any time soon, so I'd say years down the road there's the chance for the stars to align for her presidency as long a she plays ball with the DNC.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/3/1/AAWh3OAADL9n.jpg

30+ year old CEmen, why is this not you?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Another thing I noticed with my friend's obsession with KS is the need for role models. After his relationship of almost a decade ended where he would have been married had it not been for no judges being available during the window in which they were trying to get married, he went on mad a rush of researching relationships and women to prevent another failed relationship. He's in his early 30's and he doesn't have relationships with any strong male role models in his life (he looks down on his dad and basically acts as the head of his household) so he relies on KS to fill this void. So I can understand why there's strong rallying people types like Jordan Peterson.

Another friend of mine and I try to nudge him to Jordan Peterson because of the recognition for this void he needs to fill and because at, the very least, Peterson doesn't disrespect the female gender. I don't want to touch into this on what KS says cause someone could miscontrue his words for my own and then I get modded, but to say the least KS does not think highly of the female gender in the least. Not difficult to see why when you see the kinds of unsavory ladies that flock to his show.

I have a friend who watches him religiously and parrots a lot of his talking points while simultaneously claiming he's not heavily influenced by him. Granted, there's a massive problem where a lot girls are setup to inevitably die unmarried and he's doing good work trying to tackle this issue, but he tends to lead women on into answering the questions the way he wants answered so he can rag on them with his justification.

What also bothers me is how he is a bit contradictory in preaching familial values but also letting the boys in the back know that once they hit "high value male" status, they can cheat all they want, have a side chick, have their mistress, whatever. We know that at the upper echelons, there's a good deal of infidelity among the guys since they're in the position of power to abuse it, but you don't normalize these things. Societies generally thrive under monogamy and are safer for women when every guy has a shot at raising their own family. And there will be guys who don't meet Samuels' objective HVM criteria but will still feel like a big shot relative to his peers in how he's treated, so he could take Samuels' teachings as a greenlight to go gallivanting across his community and fail to exercise "dick discipline".

Overall I have mixed feelings on him, he's challenging a massive societal problem that needs to be challenged, but the same time, I'm not a fan of his style. But admittedly, I would have believed a lot of the girls who call in are hopeless.

Prestoff posted...

Worst part about TCG's for me was I got addicted to opening packs and getting that ecstatic feeling pulling rare's. It's one of the reasons I think lootboxes/gacha's (arguably) tcg's need to have some form of label as gambling. But that is another can of worms all together.

It has all the psychological elements of gambling. I don't understand why (I do know why, money) the government is taking so long to crackdown on gacha and lootboxes.

divot1338 posted...

Twitter has never made a profit. Obviously this is a fool and his money situation.

Being in control of one of the most influential information hubs was never priced in tbqh. It's a good deal.

It's solid. I thought the final boss was definitely one of the more interesting final boss fights since starting the series in 3U. That being said, it was made by a smaller team with a pure focus on heavy experimentation with the gameplay in maximizing the potential of the opportunities afforded by the new silkbind mechanic; rebranding hunter arts to be more... realistic and natural to the world of Monster Hunter, evolving mounting so that it's FINALLY fun after their failed attempts of not making it a slogfest since it was introduced in MH4 in 2013, and adding a new gameplay mode in Rampage mode that's basically tower defense.

Overall the gameplay is considerably faster and more snappy thanks to the insane mobility the wirebug affords. It's the best innovation we've had since MH4's ledges and verticality play and it makes all the experimentation done from the Generations titles worth it.

THAT BEING SAID, this is a high rank game and Gen 5 is developed around accessibility. Rise kicks this up a couple notches unnecessarily from World, making it easier, so don't expect to be battered and abused like in your introductory Monhun title.

The other thing to note is that if you're coming from World/Iceborne, know that World was developed as a AAA big budget immersive experience where you feel like you're truly in a living and breathing... world. This was Capcom's big gambit to hook players in in their move to home consoles as it's paramount to compete in graphical fidelity and immersion.

Rise, as great as it looks, is developed for the Switch, a handheld, and is built for quick, pick up and play, arcadey experiences that made Monhun so successful. So don't go expecting to feel any immersion. It won't look as good or as grand as World. The other thing to note is that World's DLC up to Iceborne's launch, Capcom supported it heavily where you had big events and crossovers every other week or so.

Rise? It felt like an after thought (some of that stuff we got was supposed to be in the base game but they had to rush the game out to make it for the end of the fiscal quarter), and what few DLC content we do get is more barebones and a far cry from what we got from MH4(Ultimate which is a bit disingenuous to compare to). At this point, unless you enjoy the gameplay for the sake of the gameplay, you'll get bored with next to no endgame in Rise beyond farming for material to try your luck for the ultimate charm that isn't necessary for great armorsets.

TL;DR, if you want more Monhun gameplay and purely just the gameplay Rise is fantastic. If you're looking for a complete package after being "wow'd" by World, you'll be disappointed so wait for MH6 next year.

God_Of_Entirety posted...

and what are your thoughts on that?

No matter how negatively you may think of a person who prioritizes video games over politics, remember, he can still vote.

DrizztLink posted...

That data is from the V-Dem Institute so it's obviously biased.

My other problem with the tweet is that it doesn't also talk about the views directly, and only focuses on the elected members. We're talking about the general populace.

Stewman_Magoo posted...

You don't think the right has gone further to the right? Like at all? Because that seems to be the case to me. Especially in Murica.

Right pushes back on anything new that progressives introduce. They want everything to be how it was 50 years back, no? They resist change, no? I don't see that as going further right.

Shablagoo posted...

And the Sun sets in the evening, whats your point lol

The point of the topic is Elon is pointing out that what's considered far left has pushed farther and farther over the course of a decade and what was considered just left of center is now considered just right of center.

Stewman_Magoo posted...

Elon's not gonna f*** you dude.

The point is to not marginalize another guy's accomplishments. It's not easy to accomplish what he did.

Shablagoo posted...

Its wild how jumbled the right has managed to make peoples brains. Disney having a black Little Mermaid has absolutely f***ing zero to do with government policy, yet you have people screeching about the insane extremism of the left even as conservatives are using actual government apparatuses to ban abortion.

Dude, banning abortion has always been on the conservatives' to-do list.