Shallow

If you believe in the infallibility of territorial sovereignity, then Ukraine, along with a ****load of Eastern Europe and Central Asia must reunite with Russia to restore the Soviet Union, if you don't believe in the infallibility of territorial sovereignity, then you oughta approve of the eastern half of a nation seceeding, especially after an undemocratic coup, elections where no pro-russia candidates were able to run without being attacked, and the capital arming rightwing nationalists who want to wipe you out with weapons and sending them into your portion of the country when large portions of you decide you feel like rebelling. The argument of territorial soveriegnity i silly in ex Soviet lands, we also wouldn't be in this whole situation if the west had honored their agreement with Gorbachov and not expanded nato in an attempt to dominate as much of the globe as possible.

I'm guessing he made the statement because: A. Russian people seem pretty into the image of a hot macho shirtless horseriding man with balls of steel bringing the Russian people back into their golden age and crushing the evil nato whilst simultaneously skinning a tiger, an image that has gotten a good bit of criticism by its followers for not storming Kiev. B. He wants to remind the people who are pro direct military intervention in Ukraine or even Russia that when you're fighting a country with nuclear weaponry, when the opposing side would rather see mutual destruction than submit, you can't really win. Thus initiating a political game of chicken.

Figured as much and have been searching. Was just hoping someone would be able to say something like "ah the Daily Mail claimed that, it's BS" or whatever. I'm curious by nature so I still wonder where the hell this guy on the street got that idea from, but guess I'll assume he was just talking out his ass and not even reading a BS news source. Putin just said something along the lines of "Don't invade us, it doesn't matter that you have superior numbers and stuff, we're a nuclear power, screw you nato.", which some people will of course take as "I'll nuke you all FOR COMMUNISM!!!"

You provide 100% no proof that it is the reality of the situation, ironically an article you linked with a feminist complaining about there being boy and girl isles in toystores shows that it isn't. The market will continue to grow, everyone believes so, so far the vast majority of content has been focused on a white male demographic, however when the market becomes more diverse the white male money doesn't get smaller, there's just more cash in things other things as well. Just like the toy industry, when you want all boys and girls buying toys from you, you can't exclusively sell either action figures, nor can you exclusively sell dolls, that doesn't mean all girls will want dolls, nor does it mean that all boys will want action figures, nor does it mean both groups won't also buy various things that are pretty neutral like standard board games. The change that will happen is that when groups that want things that are currently produced low budget will get more sales and thus a bigger budget and more of that style games, those games will be built out of the revenue made from said games, not by killing off the current styles of games, for there will be just as much money in them, despite the fact that their popularity probably won't grow as quickly as that of the currently small minority markets. Your feminist article, like you, insisted on breaking down the isles, and forcing everyone to purchase the same kinda toy, when no one stopped them from purchasing said toy (if she got over the isle being entitled "boys"), and when it would only serve to alianate people, or create a watered down, crappy, kind of toy that everyone can "sorta" accept, even though they'd rather have the specialised toys that suit their interests. What we then have here is a bunch of **** (SJWs) insisting that the market must stay mostly centered and that the center must simply move, that's silly, entertainment markets have always naturally branched out, and essentially everyone (besides SJWs) are okay with that, simple proof of that is that no one is desperately trying to sow of the tiny branches of the current minority markets, no one is crying about the various games that currently exists aimed towards girls, or the even smaller one aimed towards women. What we don't like is this insistance that when more money is pouring in, the money must all go to the same place, trying to please your agendas, when it should be going out to pleasing everyone whose money will continue pouring in provided they are pleased. What we also don't like is your side using its media influence to try and pretend they're in the majority. Edit: This is particularly ironic seeing how you feel about how some people label feminists as being pro female and not pro equality, despite what your dictionary says.

This is the 21st century damnit, it's pathetic that people still worship idols to such an extent that they even care about these kinda pictures, I mean there is an eternity of higher quality pornography out there, there is no reason to be overly excited about this other than that you put people on a pedastol and worship them (then cross the border and feel the need to stalk them) because they're famous.

Like all things it depends on who, when, what, and where, I'm not gonna claim white men are being opressed by the evil lesbian black matriarchy, but just like with every other group, there is discrimination. In the western world (besides some ****ty law enforcement policies in the US) nearly all such descrimination is already illegal, assuming we can all agree that we shouldn't be punished for the crimes of our ancestors, it's important that various rights activist groups don't overdo it, there comes a time when, whilst arguing for giving one side benifits you're no longer leveling the playing field but tilting it in their favor. Rights groups are inherently bad (unless there are massive issues in how things are) in that they solely focus on giving one group of people as big an advantage as they possibly can, which is why feminism, like all the other rights movements, is inherently bad, people should generally strive for equality or balance, which is why a unified movement for equality trying to ensure the law is just would be far superior to all these scattered little selfinterest groups who would gladly bulldoze over all other groups, along with creative and general freedom, to advance their agenda.

The word feminism inherently implies favoring women, it is also the obvious word female supremecists would brand themselves with, you might say "No its not, feminism is an important way to ensure gender equality." and that is how the majority of feminists view themselves, but crazy sexists like Valerie Solanas also view themselves as feminists, and based on the simple structure of the word, I'd say it makes more sense to give it to the crazies and get yourself a new word that actually implies equality. Minority quotas are simply horrible. There are obviously several cases were women are less likely to be hired due to being women, but there are also an extraordinary amount of cases were women are less likely to be hired because there are less women interested in that line of work, odds are there are also several lines of work more interested in hiring women than men. There are also other valid while horrible reasons not to hire women, if you go from having no women to having one woman, you may have a risk of lower employees crossing some lines that maybe shouldn't be crossed, or a chick being overly offended, and you getting a sexual harassment suit on your hands. If you really don't want to deal with that kinda stuf maybe you'll try paying for some sensitivity training, again, money out of your pocket. As sad as it is, the fact that pregnancy leads to lengthy paid vacation in most if not all western countries is another reason hiring women might just not be as good an idea. Whilst most people will agree that not hiring someone because their pregnancy might cost you a bit makes you a ****ty person, it still is quite a bit of money, both paying an employee for being at home with her kid, and entroducing a substitute to her job and then paying him/her to do it. For the record, I personally believe it is unfair that women in many countries get free time off to be with their baby while men don't. Quotas are unnecesarry government regulation. Finally, and most importantly, the people who want quotas often don't just want them on normal labor, they also want them on art. A big issue with SJWs is, as others said somewhere else on the forum, that they don't do anything to distance themselves from the physchos who are under the same "FEMINISM" banner, but not only that, they'll actively protect said physchos from basic, honest, and fair critiscm. You guys (only referring to the SJWs actively doing this, not all of them) are no better than the people who label all feminists as wanting to castrate men and outlaw masculinity when you oftentimes label anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints, or even attacks certain women validly for bad things they've done as the absolute worst people on the antifeminist side, just because there are people crying for women to be enslaved doesn't mean it is fair to claim that everyone who dislike feminism hold such a view, the same way I doubt Bruce intends to systematically exterminate all men. Quite frankly, Anita deserves a lot of vocal abuse, deaththreats and the like obviously aren't called for, but just because some people may or may not have made such threats, doesn't mean people should stop calling her a pathetic piece of ****, and if SJWs were willing to openly come out against her and join the moderate antifeminists and regular people in disliking her (while still strongly condemning any potential actual threats on her person), it'd be a lot harder to not find SJWs and whiteknights pathetic. edit: If anything, I'd also say it is the more moderate feminists who highjacked the word, however the movement has continually evolved, (from what I'm aware) initially starting out as a movement considering traditional feminine aspects and women superior to traditional masculine aspects and men, then it got driven into physchos calling for mass executions of men, then it got driven into mostly moderates when it became cool for every women and their dog to call themselves a feminist.

Couldn't possibly be wanting the seperatists to starve... or the west not wanting Russia to come out looking like a hero, to such an extent that they're willing to drag themselves through the mud.

Yeah sure, the default should be innocent until proven guilty. But you aren't just a bad cop if you're in the minority of horrible **** going out of their way to make peoples lives ****, you're a bad cop if you're in the massive majority who protects said minority. And as civilians aren't able to organize investigations and trials, they don't have the luxury of assuming innocence, for innocent until proven guilty only works when proper trials can be conducted without interference.

Totally agree, if my character isn't able to win Miss Eora 2014 I'll be demanding a refund. The death godlikes are rad, hopefully if you play someone that disfigured and creepy looking the rest of the world will take notice, shun you, and the like. Though as long as consistency in the game worlds racism isn't as lacking as in Skyrim I'm happy.

Absolutely no proof of that, at all. If there's a Satan, or some such entity, they are laughing with glee at you and all those who think similar. Anyone on this planet long enough that doesn't regularly go hunting for sandworms head first and that truly thinks, knows that stable families are the bedrock of a stable civilization. It's a 101 concept in pretty much all of the humanities and life. The evidence of this is everywhere. And it's something that many do still realize, both those who want the stable society and those who want to bring it down. The latter seem to sadly be winning, and they are laughing with glee as well. IF there is a satan, and there is no more proof he exists than any other form of divine being, with a totally different style of morality than what we have. So, I'll take that chance. I might've spoken to soon though, for claritys sake, what do you define as a stable family?

Absolutely no proof of that, at all.

It's not really fair to call Stalins policies failed, they did exactly what they were intended to do, he made steppe nomads settle down, and he industrialized his nation, I'm sure the dead were, in Stalins eyes, acceptable collateral. Russian guy 1#s quote fits him very well: "Stalin was a very hard man, but a man of his word and of action. He was a leader in the true sense of the word." Stalin was willing to do what had to be done if Russia was to become a great and advanced nation without it taking centuaries, he sure as hell wasn't a nice guy, and I doubt he's a guy anyone would want running their country, but he knew what he was doing, and the results were something beforehand thought impossible; Russia becoming almost fully industrialized in the duration of one presidents rule.

Imo it shouldn't, higher difficulty is there to add extra challenge which some find fun, locking content away from people feeling casual just doesn't seem right.

Iran wouldn't be half as hostile as they are if we weren't hellbent on trying to prevent them from becoming the superpower they're destined to be, using any means necesarry and being overly hostile ourselves, and if we weren't screwing around in the middle east.

Imo an ideal exp system would give exp each time you enter a new area (areas not always being each individual map), do a quest, and complete a decently big objective. Exploration based exp is simply a must have. I don't really like killbased exp, I could live with some potential implementation of it though.

The portraits desperately lack a uniform style, I like each individual style used, but with the artstyles being so varied it just feels like someone imported various portraits from a bunch of different games.

All the various horrible stuff that was leaked shows that said governments aren't mature enough to have privacy. Wikileaks proved that it has a righht to exist by being able to find real troublesome stuff to leak.

I believe in Eastern Ukraines right to seceede and all, but this comment is wrong on so many levels. A decently huge portion of Russia was built by stealing Tartar peoples lands (not that they probably wouldn't have done the same thing if the tables were turned), so you really can't cry about native Americans. Nations should align with eachother because of common interests, not because they're on the same continent, continents are just dirt with some plants and stuff on top, they don't matter, the people who live on them do. Europe has quite a few more monarchs than the USA. This "All you whites are misplaced in America." statement just screams racial segregation via continent. Your home isn't where your race or whatever originates from, your home is where you live... No one alive today in the US stole land from native Americans as far as I'm aware, nor did large amounts of their closer ancestors, once several generations have passed on it'd be just as unjust stealing peoples lands and giving them back to the natives, as it was taking the land in the first place. Everyone are the children of a bunch of horrible people if we go back far enough, the idea that you're guilty of the sins of your father is quite a silly one, since you had no input in his decision making. Yes, Russia does have a history of expanding into places were they aren't wanted, but in Eastern Ukraine this isn't the case, the government only exists to serve the people, if the people in mass reject it, it has no right to exist within said peoples land. Countries are just imaginary zones people made up to govern themselves, why can't they be altered when the people in half of the zone don't want to stay with the people in the other half, to the point of civil war? And why is it fair for people who outnumber you 67/33, all living in one half of the nation, to completely dominate the other half? (for the record, I don't know the actual population numbers) Wouldn't things have been much better if they'd just been allowed to hold a fair UN supervised referendum? Maybe the east could owe the west some money as reperation for Ukrainian state investment in the east, but besides that have a clean split. People would have a bigger say in their lives, they wouldn't be dominated by people living in the far off side of their nation, we wouldn't have a civil war either. Odds are a slightly higher percentage of Russians think the west is their enemy than Americans think Russians are theirs, people generally like the values they're raised with, the two nations don't have the friendliest history, the reason I'm throwing it slightly higher in Russias direction is due to the controlled press there spewing out slightly more crap than the press we have in Europe and the US, not that they don't spew out crap themselves.

Personally I generally prefer more fullscreen style UIs, however what's important for me is that the interface is consistent throughout the game, nothing is more annoying than every seperate part of a UI looking like it was torn from an entirely different game with an entirely different design philosophy.

The whole gay marriage debate is stupid, there is absolutely no reason the government needs to recognize that two (or depending on your idea of marriage, more) people declare that they're eachothers soulmates, and quite frankly, it creates a large amount of problems whilst solving none. If people had confindence in themselves and didn't need the government to tell them they're married people could just define marriage however they want, if the government doesn't take a stand (legalizing all forms of marriage is taking a stand just as much as prohibiting all but the traditional ones) I could claim I was married to my left fingernail, anyone else could dispute it, however they'd have exactly as much legitimazy doing so as I did making the claim in the first place. The law is there to protect citizens from other citizens, foreigners, and from themselves (I personally don't approve of the last part, but what can you do), that's why things like harming other people, or their property (includes stealing it), should be illegal in most cases, and arguably why things like mandatory education in some form, some drugs being illegal, and stuff have the right to be enforced. Whether things like marriage are government approved however are 100% meaningless, at least in a country with religious freedom (countries without have the argument of protecting you from eternal hellfire & w/e).