Lurker > scar the 1

saspa posted...

I don't know whether to be creeped out by this guy trying to fuck the female inmates, or consider it weirdly... progressive that he wants her regardless of who she was before. Literally torn.

I wouldn't call it progressive that he just treats her as a fuckable hole tbh

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Haven't been keeping up. My gf doesn't really like mello and I don't care enough to insist we watch it anyway. How would you say the power level is this year?

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

teep_ posted...

Why this, as opposed to e.g. social programs?

Also, the way I'm dividing the scale is left -> centre-left -> centre-right -> right. I'm happy to call myself centre-left, but calling myself a centrist carries connotations that imo, don't work with my values, even when I attach the qualifier "progressive"

With my scale: I'd say "left of capitalism" would be left, people like me would be center-left and people who aren't socially progressive would be centre-right. I haven't quite worked out what the division between centre right and right is, but I'm not as familiar with right-wing thought/policy

Because I don't really see social programs as something that's exclusively leftist. Sure, one might say that more than one dimension is needed to accurately model political ideology, but as long as we're talking just left-right: there are leanings among conservatives for social programs as well. IIRC you can look at something called like, paternal conservatism or something like that. Point being that social programs aren't exclusive to left-wing thought. A clearer division between right and left is "who should hold the power", and in capitalism, no matter how regulated it is, capital holds the power.
Again, my point here is utility. I think that the distinction between left and right is useful when there's a distinct line. No one is going to agree how many social programs constitute a left-wing, as opposed to center, politics, and no one will agree which programs are the important or the most left-wing. What can be clearly agreed upon is that one end of the spectrum is when workers own the means of production, and the other end is when they get exploited.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

ChocoboMogALT posted...

log(1)+log(2)+log(3)=log(1+2+3)

I was like wtf are you doing then I was like ohhhh

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Fun fact that I realized just a couple years ago: Fettisdag literally means Mardi Gras. It's the exact same holiday, just that we celebrate it differently.

For semlor, I prefer to scrape out as much bread as possible out of the bun and mix that with the mandelmassa and a splash of cream. The semla becomes much tastier, less dry, and insanely filling.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

gunplagirl posted...

I'd have to have read the topic to know why, so it's hardly deflecting. In fact, there's really no way I could have deflected with what little I've said in the topic. Either elucidate me or shut the fuck up.

It's enough to read post 99. It's deleted but Funkydog quoted it in post 100. Knock yourself out.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

indica posted...

Are you a Vegy alt?

I've thought this for the longest time but I get less and less sure

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

I can get being skeptical of western reports of China, but that propaganda video he posted is in itself hugely suspicious

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

teep_ posted...

I still dislike the point you and scar made in that one topic that you have to be at least socialist to count as a leftist

That's not really a fair representation of what I said. I think that "left-wing" is not a very useful term if it describes people who don't oppose capitalism in some way. My argument was that otherwise there's a big fuzzy gray area in the middle that allows right-wingers to camouflage themselves as left, just because they support x social program. I recognize that the concepts of right and left vary between countries and that you'd probably be left-wing in relation to your country's parlament. I just see opposition to capitalism as the core issue that divides the "left" from the "right". And as such I'd classify you as some sort of progressive centrist.

Of course, this introduces a bit of a pickle when trying to classify alleged leftists who simultaneously support imperialist, state capitalist regimes. In the end I think it's not so interesting to talk about where a person falls on the left-right scale, but rather where ideas fall. It's easy to conclude that capitalism (even heavily regulated) is a "right-wing" idea, you shouldn't feel the need to defend your leftist identity just because of that.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

What's cool about Venus is we could build balloons that would float high enough in the atmosphere where the temperature and pressure would be alright. Of course we'd still need oxygen and stuff but it's pretty neat.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

nothanks1 posted...

So I guess gamefaqs is OK with laughing about innocents dying?

Yeah as long as it's not covid deniers dying from covid, it seems to be fine

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

kelemvor posted...

Kinda skipping down the thread to avoid spoilers, so I apologize if this was already asked.

Is this a good stand alone movie or do I need to watch the old Mel Gibson movies first?

It's very good stand-alone. I never watched the Mel Gibson movies.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

One of the best movies, yeah

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

"Exploitation by private owners is ok because the govt is incompetent" is such a beautiful argument

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Government's already wasting money by the bucket-full. The US has a government that has absolutely no fucking idea what it's doing on any given day, and you'd trust them to micro-manage everybody's living situation?

Fuck that.

Then maybe that's an issue

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Diablo on PS1 was pretty good

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

NoxObscuras posted...

Which is why I suggested more laws to help renters, rather than "abolish landlords" with no real solution as an alternative.

The more I read these posts though, the more it seems like your issue is with landlords that own and rent out, single family homes. What about the ones that own apartment complexes? Do you have the same issue with those landlords?

Yes, I do. It's not less exploitative if the owner hoards a larger amount of homes. And like I've mentioned before, I'm not in this topic to make or discuss a detailed policy proposal. How an abolition would look would of course have to vary a lot depending on where you are.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

NoxObscuras posted...

Except that, by renting out a property, the owner is required to handle upkeep and custodianship. You guys act like landlords literally do nothing. If the hot water stops working? The landlord fixes that and pays for it themselves. Same with any electrical issues, heating, roofing, plumbing, and so on.

The entire anti landlord argument in this topic, is predicated on the idea that landlords get money for doing nothing. But, landlords do a lot. If it's one person managing a large apartment complex, they can be damn busy.

...this has been addressed so many times. The upkeep and custodianship of buildings is a valuable service that should be compensated fairly. No one is arguing otherwise. The problem people have with landlords is not that they charge for such services. And providing those services are not integral to being a landlord. Yes, in some countries landlords are responsible for those things. That's because the law prohibits them from more blatant exploitation, not because it's something that's inherent to being a landlord. Being a landlord, by definition, is when you hoard housing you don't personally need and you use it to exploit people and make a profit.

RebelElite791 posted...

Honest question because im curious what opinions would be. If I build a vacation home in Italy (lets say a touristy area where no locals are in need of housing) and rent it out to other vacationers when im not there, is that exploitation? Or does it being essentially a luxury good change that?

While similar, the need for temporary housing like hotels is different from the basic human right to a home. I would still say that your intent to make a profit from just owning something is exploitative inherently, but the people you're looking to exploit "can take it", in a sense. But of course it's a bit of a different issue than landlords and the solutions to it don't necessarily have to be the same. I suppose one could argue that you'd be doing a mild form of imperialism, since you're laying claim to a foreign resource and use it to make money.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

RebelElite791 posted...

I agree that shelter is a basic human right and needs to be guaranteed. But if an individual builds (or pays someone to build, before you play that card) a building its theirs to do what they want with.

I know that's how it is. But that individual used resources that aren't infinite (such as land, material, probably other people's labor) in order to hoard shelter and exploit people's need for it. I think your framing is a little bit disingenuous.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

RebelElite791 posted...

Some, many even, certainly are, but I dont believe its an inherent aspect of landlording.

Ok then we disagree. I think it's exploitative by definition. Shelter is a basic human right, and landlords, by definition, force people to pay for it, just because they happened to be rich enough to hoard property. It's fundamentally the same thing as when people started hoarding hand sanitizer and other medical equipment at the start of the pandemic - they decided to make a profit out of just owning things that people need to survive. They don't provide a service, they just hoard an essential resource for profit.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Not really sure what you think you're accomplishing by explaining to me that a house requires upkeep. It's not like I've said that those things are in any way related to why landlords are exploitative.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

RebelElite791 posted...

Im just saying, focus your energy on getting housing guaranteed to all, not on crying that citizens should be responsible for providing it

Lol, wtf do you know about where I'm "focusing my energy"? I came into this topic and said that landlords are exploitative, and as a response, you condescendingly suggest where I should direct my activism. Let me ask you this: Do you think landlords are exploitative? Only answer if you feel you can spare the energy from your normally very impactful activism

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

chrono625 posted...

OK, so lets say we give housing to individuals for free.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that landlords are exploitative and should be abolished. I'm not making a detailed policy proposal for how to do that.
I'm also not saying that maintenance, utilities, etc should be free. Upkeep and custodianship are services that should be fairly compensated. Owning a property is not a service.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

And I'm well aware landlords "are going to be a thing". It's not like I expect them all to collectively log onto GameFAQs, read my posts and then go "huh, you know what, he's right, I'll reform all my property to collectively owned housing"

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

RebelElite791 posted...

So do you have an issue with those other situations?

I said it's exploitative, didn't I?

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

RebelElite791 posted...

They charge money for allowing someone to live in their property. How is this any different from someone renting out a room, or a hotel charging guests?

It's... not? Well, a hotel charging guests generally also includes services such as cleaning and sometimes meals. But apart from that, it's not really different. Not sure what I said that made you think I think that.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

chrono625 posted...

what if the landlord was a contractor and built it himself?

what if he bought the land, built the home and decided to rent it out to someone who wanted to rent because they didnt want to deal with home ownership of a house?

where is the issue here?

If the landlord was also the builder, then of course they should be compensated for their labor. No one is arguing otherwise. The issue is that landlords don't provide a service - they charge money for owning something. As such they are leeches.
Similarly, a landlord who is performing custodial duties should be paid for the service they provide. Owning something is not providing a service. Demanding payment because you own control means of shelter (a basic human right) is exploitative.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Esrac posted...

That is no different that any business using the money people pay them for goods and services to pay for the loans they used to start their businesses. A landlord's business is providing housing, and if they are doing their job well they will maintain that housing for the tenant.

No, a landlord's business is owning housing that someone else built. They expect payment from tenants for the risky task of making an investment.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Safety pin

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

PoundGarden posted...

Ok. Landlords are gone, poof.

Now where are people who do not want to live in an apartment going to rent a house from? The bank? The government? Because they're so altruistic and much easier to work with than some guy who has a vested interest in keeping the property maintained and the occupant happy right?

Like how are you guys not getting that without privately rented properties the housing market would be significantly worse?

Not really sure why you think I'm going to answer the 2020 account that's been trolling the entire topic more than with this

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

I own my apartment and I still think landlords are leeches and the whole concept should be abolished

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

After Years is a weird episodic thing that could well be called FFIV-2.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

The numbered sequels tend to be on the same system, the other examples are more like spin-offs on other systems.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Fencing olympics for me, easy

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

COVxy posted...

I suppose the primary disagreement here is simply how bad the remaining amplification would be, and that's really just an empirical question.

Yup, I'll gladly concede that the jury is out on that one.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

COVxy posted...

We've had this discussion before, but in case I'm misremembering:

I think it's very likely that even if you removed all algorithmic influences in people's feeds, you would still have an amplification of fake news, and it would probably amplify more within particular networks of people.

I just don't think there's a realistic way to solve it without just removing harmful material.

I actually don't think we have, you're probably confusing me with someone else.
I'm not convinced. I'm sure there would be some amplification, and the problem wouldn't just disappear, but I think the business model of social media is at the core of this issue.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

COVxy posted...

Good.

Should have happened sooner. People creating and pushing fake news need to be silenced. We saw how well it has worked with removing Trump's voice.

Not sure I entirely agree. I would rather reframe it as "we don't need algorithms that indiscriminately magnify content that make people angry for profit".

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

It's not, he's a Dark Elf and they explain it in the scene. There's nothing offensive about it for normal reasonable people.

...yeah that's the joke. Mr Chang is always doing really inappropriate stuff with a double entendre, so he's seemingly innocent. The joke kind of hinges on the fact that the viewer is aware that blackface is a bad thing

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Also just to be clear: There's nothing inherently bad about rubberbanding. The AI aren't there to fight fairly, they're there to give you a challenge.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Ivany2008 posted...

As for Scars reply, the only games that even make the case against 4 or 6 are 7, 9 and 10. 12 through 15 single player games were a complete disaster storywise. 8 could have been a contender, but as I said before, after a certain part in the game the story turns to garbage.

Admittedly I gave up on the series at 12. So more specifically, FFs 1-10 are for me ;)
I agree that 8 is a disaster, wholeheartedly. It's just that I think 4 is, too. It's just absurd.
Also agree with you on Terranigma. That's a very solid game.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Ivany2008 posted...

People should play Terranigma because its arguably the best action rpg on the system bar none.

Scar, then FF isn't for you. FF is all about story, and while 1,4 and 5 might not be as strong as 6, they can still very well hold up on their own fine. Hell, 4 and 6 are arguably better than the 3d ones in terms of story.

I grew up on FF games, they're definitely for me. That doesn't mean I can't recognize when the story is bad. And again, this is my opinion, but the stories of 1-5 are pretty bad. 4 features a very much fleshed out story with a bigger character gallery, etc. I recognize that. But that just means that the plot takes more space, and the gameplay isn't good enough to carry that IMO. The idea that 4 would be a better story than later games is laughable to me, and I think several FF stories are pretty bad.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Webbernet posted...

Then why are they so bad at it? I could lap them.

Because it isn't intended to be at your heels no matter what. It's just a flat increase in speed of the racers behind you. If you're still better, you can still overtake them. Rubberbanding is a general term, and SMK had a very simple implementation.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

And IMO all FF stories before 6 are straight up bad but I also don't think you should play any FF for the story alone, least of all the 2D ones.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Conflict posted...

4 has aged fine. It just has plotholes. Recommending 6 before 4 is a horrendous idea because it's more advanced in every way and you're going to feel less incentivized to play 4 if you play 6 first. It's like telling someone to play Terranigma first and then play Soul Blazer if they enjoy it

My issue isn't with the potholes, it's with the "less advanced" gameplay. I don't think that part aged well. Even the menus are clunky, although this is of course mitigated in the DS remake.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Webbernet posted...

The original Mario Kart.

https://guiguilegui.wordpress.com/ 2016/11/16/rubber-banding-in-super-mario-kart/
Remove the space

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

I would honestly not recommend starting with 4. A lot of American users here like it the most because it was their first game. That's obviously a valid opinion, but I just don't think it aged well. I actually think that 4 is the last game that feels primitive. 5 and especially 6 are when the series starts finding its footing.

I realize this isn't a popular opinion but it's my two cents. Pick up 4 if you like the series and you're curious. Start with 6.

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

It isn't rubberbanding if they're ahead, it's just difficult

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

OudeGeuze posted...

also why does Naomi's accent change so fast after leaving the roci and kicking it with the OPA, in universe only like 6 months have passed iirc

Dude my accent will change in a day when I go back to where I grew up

---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent