aluminiumtrioxid

> what is patriotism > what is being invested in your country's future on the basis of liking what your country stands for sure buddy, the only way you could possibly be invested in your country's future is by having kids.

Of course, taking a look at median household income disparity by race reveals that the issue is somewhat more complex than "well white people can be poor, too, so checkmate SJWs".

I wonder where that absolute confidence stems from, then.

Yes, yes, laughter causes severe and irreparable harm, nobody should be allowed to bully our glorious leader attorney general like that, etc etc

Said no one ever! smth smth 2nd amendment, need for conservative Supreme Court justices, etc That would be the 1st amendment. They have a first amendment right to protest outside, but not inside where they're being disruptive. I was alluding to the fact that people who genuinely believe that republicans are protecting muh freedomz do exist.

Said no one ever! smth smth 2nd amendment, need for conservative Supreme Court justices, etc

But republicans are the last bastion of our freedoms!

Clearly, if people prefer to live in a country where they can earn five times as much as they could in their homeland, it's a sign that literally no problems could possibly exist in that country.

Yup, this is totally something rooted in rich Western cultural and philosophical traditions and not a pithy one-liner pulled out of your ass at the drop of the hat

For someone so concerned about derailing the thread, you sure seems to be okay with pointless grandstanding "Begone, demon! I cast thee into the abyss, revealing the wickedness of thy true nature!"

A true tsundere is what I am, consumed by passion just for you, apparently

Indeed, "bullying those I like" is a favorite pastime of mine. You caught me!

Man, talk about projecting I'm deeply sorry that people disagreeing with you or pointing out that your behavior isn't particularly conducive to the honest and constructive discussion you never fail to claim to want while actively working towards making impossible triggers you so much. I promise that I will be more considerate toward your feelings in the future and work hard to make this forum a safe space for you. However, I can't help but notice that the crux of your complaint seems to be that I am a terrible person with an axe to grind against you, and therefore the way you interact with me shouldn't be seen as representative of how you normally behave - but, as you've so astutely pointed out, I haven't participated in the thread, yet the moment I glanced at it, the first thing I saw was you throwing accusations of disrespect at a bunch of folks while all but calling them subhuman in the same breath. May I humbly venture that the unusually high percentage of people on these forums with whom you seem to be having a... let's just call it "contempt problem" might have an explanation other than "they're vile bullies who can't abide truth and beauty", and indeed, given their number, Occam's razor would suggest that this explanation also has something to do with your own behavior?

Funny you should say that, because the way I remember the last time you pulled this "I'm the real victim here, cruelly bullied by the thugs of this forum" ploy, the reaction ended up to be a resounding "well actually, the **** was inside you all along (what a twist)". (I also find it amusing that the exact same thing for which you're being called out laughed at now, namely demanding respect while treating everyone with contempt practically dripping from every post seemed to be at the crux of the issue even back then.)

If you feel I've misrepresented you, by all means, please do explain how we should reconcile the sentiment that we should "respect people behind arguments" (or else "show that there's an incredibly despicable sentiment" behind our words) with "but I am free to imply that people who disagree with me do so because they're sub-sentient basement dwellers". Or should only the people who make the right kind of arguments be respected?

Hmmm.

It is not a bad thing "now". It is a bad thing period. Instead of trying to write believable characters in plausible situations, they simply go by the numbers to try and make a statement. The complaint here, and previously in SoD's case -by transgendered people no less- is that these characters are trite and cheapened because their whole theme is transgenderism. So back to my original question about making it one trait of a fully developed member of the crew. Funny thing, I didn't get so much heat when I laughed at biower pandering back in ME2, with the whole concept of Miranda. But now it's different, because SHUT UP WHITE CISHET ****LORD But you called out specifically the apology as pandering, while it seems they apologize exactly because they realize the way they wrote the character is trite and cheap. (Or, if you want to be more cynical, because even the audience they were aiming to pander to thinks that it is trite and cheap.)

My confusion in this situation stems more from the fact that if we go with this definition, the entire gaming industry is built on pandering. So why exactly is it a bad thing now?

I find the practice of mocking people for being "hurt by words" while implying that poor technical presentation is such an absolute travesty that they should be apologizing for that instead (because apparently playing badly made video games is what's really hurtful) highly amusing.

Did you read the statement? I did. It says "...we apologize to anyone who (...) was hurt by this conversation. This was never our intent...". Which, y'know, fair enough - most people don't write video games with the intent to hurt others, so this is probably a statement of fact? It says nothing about the validity of those feelings, just that it wasn't their intent to cause them.

I swear to god I'm not seeing how it's "pandering" to recognize that the way they wrote a character is bad and needs addressing. If only they could do something similar with the ****ing travesty of a conversation with Addison featuring such gems of literary prowess as "my face is tired from dealing with everything".

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously? high probability does not equal concrete truth only that it may be more likely true than not. It remains as such unitl observable evidence is presented to take it out of the realm of probability. In all fairness, "deals more damage" is not necessarily the most helpful way to assess a DPS wizard's effectiveness. The answer to "how many spell slots do I need to spend to kill these opponents?" can be the same for the Mig 12 Per 12 wizard who deals 50% of the target's health with a single spell as it is for the Mig 18 Per 18 wizard who manages to get a few lucky crits in and deals 70% instead.

Do you, by any chance, have anything against drone strikes?

Basically anything in the software world. Except for this. Sometimes badly written code is just that

"My precious fee-fees are more important than policies! I mean, I totally agree with the ideas they have, but they sometimes called me bad names so I guess I must now oppose everything they stand for because reasons" Man, and they say progressives are thin-skinned.