Lurker > Gaawa_chan

I have to hold the controller weirdly, but yes. Hurts, though.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/80032479

But yeah, interesting how happily the conservative justices spit on the Constitution. I don't know how anyone can interpret this ruling as anything less than preparation for a fascist takeover. I personally consider this to be a worse decision than overturning Roe Vs Wade.

hypnox posted...

Yeah I mean why have anything nice when the absolute basic of anything is perfectly adequate.

I'm not going to waste money on something I neither need nor want.

I'm not interested in having one. Expensive waste. Just use a bus, bike, or feet.

Um... my favorite sandwich is a breaded chicken club-ish sandwich with a red pepper cream cheese. I only had it once, though, and I don't even remember the bread type. Man, it was good...

Italian is my default answer, though, since it's pretty common and is usually decent quality no matter where you go.

Fam_Fam posted...

does the same apply to all mentally ill people?

... To clarify, you mean that people who have an illness that causes them to be unable to differentiate between video game violence and irl violence, and then they go out and shoot people? What, due to some sort of hallucination or delusion? and that somehow causes them to magically become mass shooters?

Evidence of your positive claim then, if you please.

You know what the most common attributes are between all mass shooters are? It's not any given mental illness. It's abuse/hatred against women, and/or animal abuse. Put the two together and those two BEHAVIORS account for over 90% of ALL mass shooters and intersect heavily with the common denominators of serial killers and indeed, these semi-random mass shootings are considered to be a variation of serial killing by many.

And yet, you aren't arguing that we should stop arming wife-beaters or animal torturers. You're demanding proof of a negative against violent video games in general, without even a correlation to show that any of this has any connection AT ALL.

Every country has violent video games in it. Why, then, are there proportionately so few mass killings in other countries compared to the USA? Hmm?

Insomnia correlates with dementia, so I sure fucking hope not, because if I live that long I will probably have forgotten how to eat manually.

It's been fairly well-proven that people can easily differentiate between video game violence and irl violence, and I'm sick of people insinuating we can't at this point.

You have to prove positive claims, not negative ones.

I like spice right up to the point that it starts interfering with my ability to enjoy flavor (which is, I admit, at a pretty low level of spice). If the spice is overwhelming other elements in the dish, I don't care for it.

DrPrimemaster posted...

Do you have an opinion on why a person might kill themselves vs. a violent outburst?
Anecdote,
There was a guy at my high school nicknamed "twist". I played on the same football team as him, but never really interacted with him. All I remember is that he was kind of a dick, but wasnt bullied. He was mostly just left alone.
He ended up shooting himself, so he obviously had mental health issues and access to a gun. So I wonder why he didnt attack the school. Would that change today?
Are a lot of these shooters today people that would have gone quietly 20 years ago.

Don't conflate mental illness in general with some sort of propensity for violence against others. People with mental illnesses are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators, and those who struggle with a will to live... that isn't something that is typically externalized into violence against others. It almost always manifests in harm against the self in some way, for obvious reasons. There's a difference between depression and nihilism.

Violence against others is (usually) a behavioral/personality issue that is typically rooted in something learned. For example, there is a large intersection in the USA between gun violence and misogyny; 2 women are murdered in domestic violence situations every day on average in the USA. Misogyny is not ingrained in people; it is learned. People like to scapegoat mental illness to avoid admitting that many of these shooters were acting off of beliefs that many non-violent people share with them. These carefully constructed manifestos these murderers make are deliberately designed to incite more people to commit mass shootings. They aren't flipping some sort of "mental illness switch"; they're convincing people.

If you are looking for solutions that don't involve gun control (and I support a multi-faceted approach, including gun regulation), one thing that could be done would be to give generic, mandatory classes in public school on Cognitive behavior therapy and Dialectical behavior therapy, to make sure everyone has BASIC skills for managing emotional and behavior issues, as well as more heavily focusing on critique/critical analysis in basic education. It would result in people being less likely to fall for bullshit fearmongering and give them some standard tools for managing emotions and deconstructing harmful behaviors, which is something that EVERYONE, not just mentally ill people, can benefit from.

Dmess85 posted...

It seems every battle is trying to figure out how to break the enemy's defenses and hit them when they are vulnerable.

... Yes, that is how combat typically works?

agesboy posted...

13 gets good in the final few hours, but it's not worth trudging through the rest of the game for it

Yeah, it takes way too long and even after it opens up it still has serious problems. One it doesn't get nearly enough shit for is how if the lead character dies, it's instant game over. I just don't understand that decision at all.

13-2 fixes basically every problem i had with the first game

13-2 gets so much shit but I thought it was like... 1000 times better than the first game. I hated Lightning Returns as well, so 13-2 is my favorite of the three, which isn't a massive accomplishment, but it was definitely a pleasant surprise after the massive amount of shit-talking I'd seen other people give it.

I think it depends on the bread and if you're putting anything else in it, tbh, which is perhaps a weaselly answer, but there you go. XD

Lokarin posted...

Oney did a playthrough of about half of that... those types of games always seemed really interesting (also The Hobbit, which apparently is a shit game but a speedrunners dream)

Speaking of Tolkien, there's a SNES game loosely based off of Fellowship that is absolute trash, but it has some shockingly good tunes in it. It also had multiplayer, which helped mitigate the appalling AI. Was fun to watch my parents play it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIVqh8vNFeU

hypnox posted...

Honestly yes, gun control is a problem, but I believe this stems from the lack of mental health accessibility and screenings. His teachers should have been able to see something wrong with him long before this. But even if they had, the ability to get mental health isn't that accessible for most. Hell even with my "good" insurance seeing someone would be 40 dollars. And with most of them wanting to see you once a week that's 160 dollars. Not everyone can afford that.

It's an intersection of multiple factors, and you are right that for-profit health care is one of those factors.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It depends on the shooter's motive. Some of these people can be treated. Some of them cannot be treated but can be *stopped.* The Buffalo shooter could not be treated, but he could have been stopped.

Blightzkrieg posted...

The idea that these shooters fall under the typical scope of mental illness is largely bunk. Shooters often aren't diagnosed with any mental illnesses, and when they are, these illnesses aren't usually typified by mass violence.

You cannot paint mass shooters with broad brushstrokes, that's true. But I think you misunderstand a bit. Ready access to mental health care is a long-term preventative measure that *everyone,* including those who do not have mental disorders, benefits from.
You're working backwards, too. "shooters aren't often diagnosed with any mental illnesses" That's part of the issue. People have material needs that are not being identified and met.

adjl posted...

whole post

This.

teddy241 posted...

main stream lifestyle today.
The issue isnt guns. Its mental health.

Why does it only happen in the USA then? Why doesn't Canada have the same rampant issue?
Don't be so reductive. This is an intersection of problems that is most heavily facilitated by easy access to weapons (and armor) of war.

I can easily name like... five things off the top of my head we could do to reduce this shit (and most of them are actually multiple points):
1 universal health care that includes mental health care and prescriptions.
2 gun legislation, so background checks, red flag laws, psych evals, and stricter teaching of gun safety
3 invest in political deradicalization efforts with a particular focus on misogyny, as it is one of the greatest common denominators found among mass shooters.
4 promote healthy gun culture. Guns are not extensions of your masculinity and ego, they are not idols, they are not the solution to all your political woes. They are tools. If you want to learn how to safely use one, go right ahead, but if you don't understand that, you aren't mature enough to handle them.
5 Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
6 Investing in local communal services and reworking our urban planning to promote communal activity/interaction (this would actually solve a fuck-load of other issues the USA has).

It's 21 dead now, 18 kids and 3 adults.

:(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hdX1MUOgQw

Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest. *shrug*

In Shinn v. Ramirez and Jones, two men on Arizonas death row raised claims in habeas corpus proceedings that their trial attorneys were constitutionally ineffective one for failing to investigate evidence suggesting his client could not have committed the crime, and the other for failing to investigate her clients intellectual disability, which could have spared him the death penalty. Although the Supreme Courts 2012 decision in Martinez v. Ryan permitted defendants to raise such claims for the first time in federal court, on Monday the court ruled 6-3 that they cannot develop evidence to support those claims.

Before delving into the opinions, a little background: Defendants convicted in state court must first raise any constitutional infirmity with their conviction in state court. Failure to do so procedurally defaults the claim, and a federal court cannot review it. In Martinez, however, the court recognized an equitable exception to this strict procedural default rule: If a state allows a prisoner to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in post-conviction proceedings (i.e., after the direct appeal concluded), a lawyers ineffectiveness at that stage of the case can constitute cause to excuse the procedural default. At the same time, however, Section 2254(e)(2) of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act forbids, with limited exceptions, the federal court from holding an evidentiary hearing if the defendant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings. The question in Shinn was how to square Martinezs allowance for prisoners to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel with AEDPAs apparent prohibition on developing evidence to support that claim.
In my oral argument recap, I discussed how several of the conservative justices seemed genuinely to struggle with that question. Even Justice Clarence Thomas led off the questioning by noting that Arizonas position that the statute governs would render Martinez pretty worthless.

You can read the logic of the ruling and the dissent in the link:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/conservative-majority-hollows-out-precedent-on-ineffective-counsel-claims-in-federal-court/

You guys better hope you never get a shitty lawyer. SC is pissing our rights away.

streamofthesky posted...

Her best summon discharges are Earth (AoE poison damage over time), Ice (AoE ice damage over time), and Bolt (single target instantaneous electric damage), in that order.
Her best summon passive buffs are Bolt (Ether +20% per summon), Earth (defense %15% per summon), and Ice (magic defense +15% per summon)

I don't use bolt simply because it generates so much aggro. It does do fuck-loads of damage, though.

Melia (computer is bad w/ her)

Yeah, never have Melia in the party if you aren't controlling her, her AI is absolute garbage.

Eh.

I had these blackberry-flavored vitamin gummies that were hella good but they weren't shaped like animals. Probably the only gummies I've had that I was like "wow, these are actually good," which sucks because, you know, they're vitamin gummies, so you can't just scarf them all.

"I'm sick of hearing about abortion even though it impacts millions of people."
"Let's talk about this case between two celebrities, saying the same things over and over... forever."
=_=

If this was sensible, the headless guy would be a serial killer who he figured out that lopping off his own head was a form of harm reduction.

SilentSeph posted...

I found Sylvando with Hustle Dance to be great support for the majority of the game

Yeah, I prefer to have both Oomph casters in the party at all times.

They're fine. Interesting animals.

Wow, what a smart guy. Many smart. Much guy.

https://www.nhsinform.scot/long-term-effects-of-covid-19-long-covid/signs-and-symptoms/long-covid-loss-of-smell-or-taste/
I know someone who had COVID months ago and it took her a long time to regain a normal sense of taste for water, of all things. Really sucked for her.

COVID-19 can and does alter people's sense of taste and by extension their sense of smell. Consult a physician.

Okay? Are they aligning with actual, very nuanced but accurate genetic categorizations (of which there are over 100) or are they talking about the inaccurate social categorizations (aka, "whoah, the X-ray could tell this person was in the very scientific category of... "black""? The article is not very specific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVmj8dDx9yY

I imagine you're tired of hearing about it because you think it won't impact you personally.

No. My racist grandmother went through it while acting all giddily vocal and then went dead silent after getting the results. Unsurprising, because when my father went through it, he found ancestry from South American indigenous people.

Lol.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Surely that's cherry tomatoes

You've never had dessert pizza? (granted, I haven't had one for like... Over 25 years, I think, but...)

I've had cherry pizza before. You can put icing on it.

Lol, that JBP thing was so funny. He's all mad that his tastes are not considered to objective, like he has "the one true taste" in women, and when a bunch of his followers were like "bro she looks my girlfriend, she's gorgeous, and you're ugly as sin," he whines about how mean others are to him, when he was just getting back what he gave.

"Authoritarian tolerance." What a fucking loser. Freedom isn't being free from the existence of things you don't like.

Because conservatives are largely reactionary (they've always been to a point, but it's gotten out of hand) these days, and formulate their positions based off of opposing what they think their political opponents support.

They also like blaming people for their own health problems in order to justify for-profit health care wherever they can, and view addiction and obesity as easy avenues by which to do that. If you can blame someone for their own hardship, you can justify not doing anything to help them (which is incredibly funny coming from people who claim to be Christians).

Later, you might benefit a bit from fostering some puppies or kittens. That's what my family is doing after we lost 2 cats in the same week.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

*rereads posts*

I'm sorry, did the fact that people disagreed with you, at all, make you mad? There was nothing intolerant there. Do you just not have a counterargument so you need to pretend like someone was rude to you?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Definitely as bad as politicians and news outlets.

I do find it funny that the primary difference between Democrats and Republicans on the subject of violent video games is that the Democrats changed their position when presented with evidence that it wasn't true, and the Republicans were like "fuck no we want our scapegoat. Proof is for the weak."

There is something else, which I was reminded of yesterday and had completely forgotten about.

A lot of you might not know this, but forced sterilization is legal at the federal level in the USA. Women are very often denied sterilization in the USA if they want it, usually with the argument that "a man might not like that you have been sterilized," but you can in fact force sterilization on people without facing penalties, so long as the person is... "unfit."

Why? Because the Supreme Court ruled on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
https://19thnews.org/2022/02/forced-sterilization-guardianship-reproductive-justice/
It's good to know that they have their priorities in order.

It's a problem in other 1st world nations as well:
https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-sterilization-senate-report/

It would not be a problem if we did not attach a dozen asterisks to people's rights to make decisions about their own bodies.

Ozmose posted...

Andrew Yang was the only person trying to address the issue

No, he wasn't. As of now I have only seen 2 forms by which people plan to address this threat. One is UBI, and the other, which Bernie Sanders supports, is FJG. A federal job guarantee. Sanders talked about it repeatedly. The concept is not new; you can see references to it in a variety of Leftist organization's listed goals. The Black Panther Party for example:

We Want Full Employment for Our People.

That's point 2 of the 10 point program. Edit: I should mention that we have had other presidents who talked about a FJG as well. It will surprise no one that FDR talked about it, for example.

You might consider reading up on it. FJG is less likely to be pressured by inflation than UBI, as best as I can tell.

HornedLion posted...

Okay, okay, just stop before you start your, well maybe if little girls werent so cute then pedos wouldnt.

This is a non-sequitur, but sure. You're just like a pedophile victim. You'd better call the police.

HornedLion posted...

Only on PotD is standing up to someone who calls a toddler a jackass being shittier than they are.

Yeah, it sounds like he has some medical problems and they're interfering with his sleep, which was aggravating his temper. His behavior was bad. Yours was worse. You could have made the situation better and you chose not to.

HornedLion posted...

He then rambles about trying to sleep WHICH, having worked the graveyard shift in my teens, I would understand. And if he had addressed the parents, we would have done anything we could to help him out. But he didnt do that. He yelled and cursed at little girls.

Then that's what you should have told him.

Well, you look like a crip to me.

Instead you decided to be even shittier than him, well done.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Never, because it would supersede the consideration of the person who they are leeching off of.

While it sounds like you are for abortion being morally permissible though all nine months, many disagree.

I hadn't noticed.

many have a point at when they feel the pregnancy should be carried to term because the child has developed into someone worthy of moral consideration.

Late-term abortions occur because:

1. something has gone wrong, in which case people like you should stfu and leave these people alone. They have enough shit on their plates without fuckers calling them murderers.
2. anti-abortion assholes made policies that interfered with their ability to get an abortion earlier, in which case, yet again, people like you should stfu and leave these people alone.

I don't agree with your framing about the State forcing people.

I'm sorry that reality is so hard for you to accept.

The state isn't impregnating people.

I don't think I've ever seen someone make an argument that we should punish the men for abortions.

People are coming to the state demanding a medical procedure. The state is well within its rights to say, "we don't do that here because it ends a human life."

Yeah, and so does your choice to not donate blood, to not donate organs, to not damage your body to preserve someone else, but the State still affords you that autonomy and medical consideration, whereas you think it's just fine to use State violence to force people to risk their health and life to preserve a fetus.

Are you pro universal health care (honestly if you aren't then you have no fucking business advocating for forced pregnancies and births, that's fucking disgusting)? Are you anti-dealth penalty? Do you believe that all humans should be entitled to basic necessities? "Pro-life as long as it only applies to a fetus in someone else's body." Wow, so pro-life. Pat yourself on the back, you've saved so many lives by *checks notes* ensuring that the government will mandate that people's bodies be permanently mutilated against their will on pain of State violence.

You know, my younger sibling was first raped when she was in kindergarten. She got her period at eight. You don't seem to give a shit about what pregnancy and birth do to an adult's body so I guess you probably don't care about what it does to a child's body, because then it would be really obvious that you have no idea wtf you're talking about and that you have no business chiming in on what medical procedures people should have legal access to. When she was 13, she developed endometriosis. Endometriosis is a torturous cancer-lite condition that can only be properly diagnosed (and usually only properly treated) through surgery. Doctors refused to perform the diagnostic surgery because they didn't want to potentially hurt her ability to carry her future man's baby. No. Fuck that. People's carrying capacity for fetuses does not outweigh their own medical needs. A fetus does not outweigh the medical needs of its host. The State, insurance companies, fuck, even doctors, have no business, at all, picking and choosing what medical care to prevent permanent damage to a person's body someone arbitrarily "deserves."

This always, ALWAYS happens in gynecological care. "Your future man might not want you to get that, so we're denying you the medical care you need." Fuck off. FUCK OFF. It's THEIR body. No doctor, no company, no government has any fucking business blocking people's medical care based off of arbitrary, subjective bullshit. You pointing out that "some people disagree with you" is an argument in favor of MY position, because my position is one of choice. If they don't want an abortion, they don't have to get one.