Shallow

1. You haven't even played Hatred, nor is the game out yet, you have no way of knowing whether it'll be the greatest most profound game ever, you aren't even reading a book and then burning it, you're hearing about a concept and declaring that it mustn't be made. 2.Don't claim we'll buy the game when half of us have stated it'll probably suck and that we aren't interested in spending money on it. 3.It is correct that Valve as a company has the right to not sell Hatred, the same way I, as a consumer, have the right to tell Valve to go **** themselves and never purchase another game off steam again, same with Target, the proper response to both GTA5 and Hatred being removed isn't to cry for a law like Jack Thompson forcing people to sell games, it's to call Target and Valve ****ty companies, and try and convince people to get the products they need from other sources when possible, count the people who've said "We must establish legislation protecting video games from stores not wanting to sell them!" and count the people saying "Screw Valve" or "Screw Target", one of those two numbers are 0, guess which one. It is a business decision indeed, that doesn't mean we have to accept it, consumers have the right to be angry at decisions, the same way companies have the right to make those decisions, I don't believe steam has to sell Hatred if they don't want to, I just believe I have the right to respond with never purchasing a product that would earn them money.

He actually makes a compelling argument and raises some cogent points Did you read the whole article because he answers your question, see below where he explains the difference between killing a hooker and killing other people "What I personally find repulsive about this game is the pleasure it offers in portraying the savaging of a class of people who are already victims, in real life. This is where GTA 5 shows a lack of judgment. I take issue with the portrayal of sex workers being abused and murdered, because sex workers are already victims, and it's just not right to take your fun in abusing victims. I know a lot of people desperately want to believe that killing a prostitute in GTA 5 is the same as killing any other character, but it's really not. Unlike gangsters or cops or business dudes or hot dog vendors, prostitutes, as a class, are despised, marginalized and abused in real life, all the time. This means that GTA 5 takes its pleasure in humiliating and abusing victims of humiliation and abuse. In what kind of world is that not worthy of debate, above and beyond the ignorant cry of "if you don't like it, don't buy it"? " He is basically advocating for Rockstar to remove the killing of hookers as they are already victims and it makes sense to me after reading that article. Its not unreasonable Whores aren't magic special victims, they're regular people, just like you and me. It's complete bs to go off acting like prostitutes are somehow all certainly greater victims than other people, whilst they're probably demographically pretty high on an arbitrary victim scale, they're individuals, and so are hotdog salesmen. Your comment about how hotdog salesmen would be cool with watching hotdog salesmen be killed ingame but prostitutes wouldn't because all prostitutes are magic victims who constantly have people trying to kill them ridiculous, while a bigger percentage of hookers are probably killed than hotdog salesmen I assure you, there will be individual hotdog salesmen and individual hookers, who've had people try to assault or murder them, and there will be people who haven't. Regardless of whether a higher percentage of them are "victims" than a higher percentage of other people doesn't mean it's right to give them some kind of special protection status, individuals are individuals, individuals in all professions have the potential to have had horrible stuff happen to them, being a member of the victims league shouldn't be an exclusive for some genders. Stop pushing for inequality, stop pushing for people being treated based on which demographic they're in, not based on what's happened to them. Now I'm gonna pull a volo and call you an evil hateful bigot nazi. You're labeling people in an inhumane and cruel manner, you aren't looking out for individuals, or even recognizing their individuality, you're deciding that some groups that aren't directly grouped by the horrible things that have happened in their past should be treated as if they were. Hotdogstandman Bob may have been molested as a child, bullied in school, and assaulted at work, and may be extremely ashamed of the work he does, Hooker Berta might have had a perfectly good upbringing, be open with her sexuality, and be living a happy life, your ruthless generalization is spitting in both of their faces.

Just because you're the minority of the week doesn't mean they'll actually care about you should you say something they disagree with. If you say "THE PATRIARCHY TOOK MY LEG! DONATE TO MY PATRION! DEATH TO GG!" you'd probably get applause, if you said anything that didn't fit into their weird white male guilt/superiority complex they wouldn't listen to you. Look at Hotwheels, he's basically a midget in a wheel chair, it's not like they bow to his will. Cause first, people the cause is for second. Speeches might make normal people distance themselves from the SJWs, trolling might earn you some sweet Patreon money or at least be fun.

Eh, Ron Paul 2016, Rand Paul just isn't as good, he's probably the best choice available, but I'm afraid he'd just lick the boots of the evangelical whackjobs who are just as bad as the worst democrats. Shame we'll never see Ron Paul as president, then again, the presidency really isn't that powerful, especially when held by someone who doesn't believe in utilizing most of the tools it has available. Shame we'll never see hundreds of Ron Paul clones take every congress seat.

Was saying I didn't believe in those things.

You are a: Objectivist Anarchist Total-Isolationist Humanist Liberal Collectivism score: -83% Authoritarianism score: -100% Internationalism score: -100% Tribalism score: -67% Liberalism score: 33% Objectivism is the one label up there I think really doesn't fit me, not believing in morality or purpose is a pretty big deal breaker.

Quite frankly, if the devs feel you're too much trouble and not worth the money, I see nothing wrong with them offering you a refund and telling you to stop bothering them. The post didn't exactly make it clear in which ways the devs felt you were being annoying, so I can't take a stance on that mess.

When is it the sensible choice? I find that whenever I tried to stand up for myself and what I believe in, it made things a million times worse than they already were. I found that the only way to live is to steer clear of any trouble, to not enter conflicts unless you are one of those extremely charismatic, confident in your superiority type of person or if you have the crowd on your side. Of course if you have the crowd on your side it's kinda not you, but your opponent who is doing the standing up for oneself. When is it the sensible choice? I find that whenever I tried to stand up for myself and what I believe in, it made things a million times worse than they already were. I found that the only way to live is to steer clear of any trouble, to not enter conflicts unless you are one of those extremely charismatic, confident in your superiority type of person or if you have the crowd on your side. Of course if you have the crowd on your side it's kinda not you, but your opponent who is doing the standing up for oneself. Directly standing up is sensible when you won't be hurt (physically, economically, or people trying to frame you for stuff) for saying/doing what you're gonna do, when that is not the case I still believe you should fight for what you believe in, but I'm not gonna blame anyone for just wanting to get on with their lives in peace, and there are still roads I personally wouldn't go down even though I believe I'd be in the right, because the consequences would be severe, and the effects of not putting up a fight are minor. Ha, knew it wouldn't be long before pro- Longknife's GF supporters began turning on each other and eating each other alive! I wouldn't say it was a hostile engagement me and BladeO had, but if it was, no big deal, we aren't some organization, we aren't closely tied, we just happened to be fighting the same fight for a minor period of time. We don't have the same goals, we don't have the same arguments, we just happened to be shooting at the same targets for a brief period of time. That's the thing I think the general public really could learn from gamergate, random strangers with different ambitions and goals working together on one issue while simultaneously fighting each other on another.

Nah, disciplinary action means shooting Brown wasn't justified, which means he should be getting charged with murder but instead he's being sent to a seminar. Either the guys head falls off, or he walks off without as much as a slap on the wrist, ironically, anything else would look like injustice and preferential treatment.

When is it the sensible choice? I find that whenever I tried to stand up for myself and what I believe in, it made things a million times worse than they already were. I found that the only way to live is to steer clear of any trouble, to not enter conflicts unless you are one of those extremely charismatic, confident in your superiority type of person or if you have the crowd on your side. Of course if you have the crowd on your side it's kinda not you, but your opponent who is doing the standing up for oneself. Directly standing up is sensible when you won't be hurt (physically, economically, or people trying to frame you for stuff) for saying/doing what you're gonna do, when that is not the case I still believe you should fight for what you believe in, but I'm not gonna blame anyone for just wanting to get on with their lives in peace, and there are still roads I personally wouldn't go down even though I believe I'd be in the right, because the consequences would be severe, and the effects of not putting up a fight are minor.

Not being willing to be torn apart by a raging crowd isn't spinelessness, it's just not bravery either, spinelessness is excessive cowardice and a complete lack of standing up for yourself or what you believe in even when it is the sensible choice. I also consider excessive conformity spineless.

Ignorance isn't a choice, in that you're ignorant by default, you have to actively choose not to be ignorant to not be ignorant. For someone who appears (from what you've written) to put as little thought into his existence as your grandfather, how could he possibly ever even choose to be ignorant, or to seize being ignorant, when he's probably never even thought about it? The one kind of person I could never possibly bring myself to respect is a spineless coward, I'd have an easier time respecting someone who was essentially evil, which is why I'm saying there's a good chance he's just someone who's got absolutely no thought, as opposed to him being someone with absolutely no spine. It takes spine to fight a war, an ideal footsoldier is supposed to have physical strength, determination, and to not think about things. Whilst a complete lack of reflection and information filtering is nearly as bad a personality trait as a complete lack of a spine, I'd still consider such a person a better overall person, someone without a spine goes along with whatever he's told because he doesn't want to deal with the trouble, someone without critical thinking goes along because it seems right. Someone lacking critical thinking may be just as annoying to deal with as someone lacking a spine, but they really do deserve that tiny inch of respect because, even though it isn't worth anything, for intention's never worth anything, it isn't because they think it's the easier way out that they act the way they do, it's because they simply don't think. While most of the middle stuff is highly debatable, and who you should give what respect is insanely subjective, the first sentence is in this post is still objectively true, ignorance isn't the choice, lack thereof is, and to make that decision it's a requirement that you aren't completely ignorant, for then you couldn't even know that the choice existed.

Yes. Because guess what? They weren't, they were just products of their age, and most importantly: they were people like you and me. They had a reason why they thought the way they did. People think of them as irredeemable because of the holocaust, but they don't say the same **** of the communists who committed even worse atrocities (holodomor, Gulags) since Stalin was with the Allies. Hypocrisy at its finest. You picked the wrong person to give the commie analogy to...

You said yourself he'd agree with anything he was told, thus him being an ex Nazi isn't him having an intense hatred for the Jews and Commies, and wanting to further Aryan race at the expense of everyone else, it's him having heard some people say that and then thought "Yeah sure, that sounds reasonable." without really thinking about what any of it means, the end result is him along with others contributing to stuff I find detestable, but you don't make him seem intentionally malicious, regardless of whether he's a pathetic spineless coward or someone who doesn't think about stuff very much. Therefore, from what little information you've provided, him being a bad guy just isn't necessary, him having been involved in a lot of bad stuff is though, but that doesn't make him a bad guy.

It's probably not lacking will, it's probably lacking reflection whilst still having an open mind. Lacking will implies that the guy is just easily subdued and doesn't have the drive to do anything. Lacking reflection either means accepting any argument regardless of how nonsensical it is, or accepting the first argument you hear and refusing to listen to anything else. I obviously don't know your grandfather, but from your description a lack of reflection seems a lot more probable than a lack of will, and while neither thing is great, I'd never be able to respect someone without the least bit of will, whereas someone without reflection can deserve some respect for other achievements than thought, therefore I feel I should state that you may be performing a poor mischaracterization, perhaps giving you a lesser view of someone than is warranted, of course I don't know, but it seems a lot more plausible.

How about you stop posting, and thus advocating the watering down of the game. Technically, seeing as he isn't proposing a change here he can't possibly be suggesting watering the game down, he's suggestion leaving this exact instance more or less exactly as watered down as it is, however much or little that may be.

Whether engagement needs to be removed or not depends on what kind of tactics you like, regardless of whether it needs to be removed the AI is complete crap and that's the real issue here, regardless of whether engagement stays or not AI also needs mostly the same additions, the only difference an engagement AI and an engagement having AI need is the AI without engagement being more willing to attack the first thing they see and more willing to attack something else when that seems logical.

Then the mechanic needs a serious overhaul, as it's never tactically wise to disengage. It's probably viable once every million years if you don't have a way to disengage without penalty, and still rarely viable if you do, but it's still occasionally gonna be useful, for example if a character in the back line has next to no health or little stamina provided the player can't get the character up and running again, this is generally a better move for an AI than for a player though, as each AI group only ever have to fight one fight, either they beat you or they don't, but they don't have the tactical question of sacrificing someone for higher overall chances of not losing everyone, because their losses are irrelevant provided they win. Whether you'd want AI to be reluctant to do such moves when it could lead to much more likely death of a character is up to you, but in any event, at times doing such moves is clearly objectively the best thing to do, at which point the AIs should certainly try to do them.

Like it or not you're playing with AI engagement, whether you remove it yourself it's still the same horrible AI that will behave in more or less the exact same way regardless of whether engagement is in. The way I see it, it's really silly having things like flanking bonuses, glass cannons behind the front line, etc, when the enemy AI is too incompetent to take advantage of flanking or make any attempt at targeting the glass cannons, granted without those things you just have generic melee units attacking each other which isn't fun at all, but that just goes to show how important a decent AI is in a human vs computer RTS (and IE style combat is certainly RTS, even with the pausing, slightly less with the syncd rounds). From what I've seen I'm slightly for engagement, the system has potential, and would make some flanking/avoidance decisions a bit more tactical as it'd take more time getting around enemies with the melee characters that enemy isn't focusing on, but I don't really care whether the system stays or not. Better AI is essential though, if engagement is in, AI needs to try to flank, get around, block, and disengage when it is tactically appropriate to do so, and AIs need to fight like groups, utilizing various melee units for different things, if engagement isn't in, the AI needs to do all those other things, currently it does absolutely none of them. From what I've seen, with engagement on the AI will move towards the first unit that attacks them/first unit they see, and will exclusively focus on that enemy until it dies/they get engaged by someone else without reaching the enemy, I haven't seen video without engagement, but I'd assume the AI does more or less the same besides perhaps only not focusing on the first unit that attacks them when it's impossible to get there. When people are fighting in an RTS (well a certain kind of RTS anyhow, some have very different combat) the goal is to remove the other players glass cannons, prevent the other players from removing your glass cannons, push the other players into positions were they're vulnerable to AoE attacks from you (or any kind of special attacks, really), whilst keeping yourself from being vulnerable to AoE attacks your opponent can execute. PoE more or less allows for the player to do all those things, however it feels really empty and loses all fun and reactivity when your opponent just zerg rushes the first thing it sees with little to no tactics.

I could be extremely wrong about how actual churches operate, I'm not religious, never been, if my gym membership analogy was as flawed as you claim I'm sorry, I've always been under the impression that churches have minor membership fees, of which it appears I was wrong, I don't know much about the exact workings of tax exempt status, it's not really my primary concern here though, it's the other things on my list I care about the most. In any event, your link includes "a recognized creed and form of worship", so beliefs and ideology are a part of whether you get to be considered a church. Regardless of whether my attack on the tax exempt status of churches was valid (if it isn't, I'm sorry, can't be bothered to look into US tax code, so I honestly don't know how the whole thing works though), my other attacks on religious freedom are still very true, and don't rely on having read and understood any portions of the tax code.

My main issues with religious freedom are the following: They grant special rights to people depending on whether they believe in something, rights should be for everyone, if there is a draft (something I'd disapprove strongly of, and refuse to acknowledge), whether you're affected by it shouldn't depend at all on your beliefs. Government acknowledges that certain religions are realer than others, there's no reason random religion A should be considered real where as random religion B should be considered a crazy cult by the government. I've yet to see any real scientific examination as to the chance of religion A being correct vs religion B vs religion C, all of them could potentially be correct, but there's been no examination, it's discriminatory for government to take a stance on what is and isn't a potential god. Government then proceeds to interpret each religion and decide which freedoms which religions want, when that should clearly be the duty of either the individual worshiper or the central human figure if the religion has one, there's no legitimate basis for claiming life is objectively holier for an Amish guy than a catholic guy, or hell, even an atheist like me. Finally government goes on to give tax exempt statuses to whatever the hell they consider churches, if government takes a percentage of all income for anyone else, why shouldn't government take a percentage of all income from churches? Being a member of a church is basically like a gym membership, you pay a fee and then you get to use the services they provide. Essentially freedom of religion is government making arbitrary decisions about what it considers religions, then making arbitrary decisions about what people within those religions want, giving certain clubs tax exemption which I feel is unfair, and then finally, declaring that people are above certain laws provided they believe in certain things, it's not whether you believe contraception is wrong, it's whether you're a catholic or willing to pretend you're a catholic, it's not about whether you think it's amoral to kill another man, it's about whether you're [insert random small religions that strategically wouldn't make up a considerable percentage of our army anyway], I feel this is wrong. There are better ways to go by protecting individual freedom than this. The first amendment already protects your right to free speech, so you can pray to whoever you want. But when it comes to whether the healthcare your company provides should provide contraception, the law should either give everyone a right to opt out, or give no one a right to opt out, it's just plain unfair to give people different rights than other people based on what they believe in, you can't possibly believe that's fair?

Wouldn't adding another (or two) easier difficulty levels be the simplest solution to easy being to hard? The only things I've heard about engagement that makes it sound bad to me is that enemy AI apparently won't ever seize an opportunity to get at your back line if it's engaged, and that any movement will cause disengagement attacks, not just moving away from the guys you're fighting.

So? Let's all be honest here, we're brainwashed from before we're born, partly by genetics, partly by what goes on around us, why should we make an effort to not feel that we look good just because it's all fake brainwashy stuff, everything is fake brainwashy stuff, including the idea that we must strive to end the fake brainwashy stuff.

You are free to be a discriminating jerk. You are free to join a church full of other discriminating jerks and talk about why your discrimination is good. You are not free to open a public business and discriminate between customers. I don't see why that is confusing. Some people make this out to be a government versus business issue. It is not. It is a consumer versus business issue. The consumers are the ones filing complaints and taking this to the courts. Do you want to courts to ignore the rights of the consumers to suit the whims of the business owners? I'm well aware that's the law of the land, I just disagree with it. Due to the current laws the courts are doing as they should in this case, it's their duty to uphold the law, not better it. But with that said, regardless of whether we want discrimination laws or not, the fact that there are loopholes is an issue, law should strive to be consistent, and slightly related to this whole mess, the way freedom of religion works is really stupid.

Why the hell does it matter that a female made that shirt for him? He's just some guy trying to go about his life having fun and a bunch of random jerks attack him because they disapprove of his fashion sense, he fact that a chick made the shirt is completely irrelevant to the content of the shirt, if a jew had made nazi uniforms wearing them wouldn't be any less offensive to jews. I do believe in the right to be offended by anything, with that said though I also believe in the right to be offended by people being offended, it's time for people to come together and stop SJW culture from attempting to dominate all other cultures, well, that times long overdue, but better late than never. Someone should start a #randomspacedudeshouldbeabletowearwhatevershirthewantstoscrewyousjws hashtag. I highly doubt that you really believe disapproving of the clothes someone wears is wrong though, I highly doubt most of you would be comfortable around KKK and nazi uniforms.