Longknife

Btw, slightly off-topic but I just googled "Japan Rape game" to make sure I wasn't wrong, and check this out: There's a couple they choose to interview that cracked me the **** up. It's like deja vu.

Would you support a child-rape simulator? A holocaust simulator? Extreme hyperboles were never really all they great at objectively address the actual situation at hand. Likewise, I think you will find that everyone in this thread - and everyone else - would say no, so while yes I WOULD support the free right for such games to be made and for their creator to waste time, effort and manhours on such a product, neither myself nor anyone else would actually buy it nor would retailers want to be associated with it (WITHOUT the need for a petition), discouraging it's production and severely limiting how much is made. If I recall correctly, Japan actually had a "rape simulator" in the form of an erotic game. I remember there being controversy about it, though I dunno if the controversy articles were written by the west (where I doubt the game even got published) or if Japan had them aswell. Either way, Japan has yet to sink into the ocean suddenly despite having played that game. I've said this before and I'll say it again: censoring what can be made as a video game, to me, is tantamount to censoring art is tantamount to censoring free speech. Retailers have every right to choose what they will and will not sell and customers have every right to choose what they will and will not buy. Let the free market settle moral disputes.

https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-the-holy-bible-this-sickening-book-encourages-readers-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women/share?just_signed=true These are the people Target is catering to. Inb4 GG inadvertely finds itself allied with motherf***ing Pat Robertson.

Yep, and that's exactly why I'm all for what GG is doing and also simultaneously don't give a **** about Target banning a game in a ban-happy country.

McIntosh seems to be setting off my gay-dar to a degree. Wasn't expecting that... Oh, and someone posted a list of who all these people are: Kool-aid must be delicious. And as a San Francisco native(born, obviously not there anymore), I can somewhat proudly say this is the first time in my life I feel any sort of shame for being from there.

Mind if I ask why? I'm guessing you'll say arrogant tone which surprises me. I sorta hear it but he still sounds reasonable to me. You wanna talk arrogance I will not listen to, talk the Amazing Athiest, Bill Maher or Phillip Defranco. Jesus their egos are audible.

I'm hardly interested in Brianna Wu, but this... She's such an abrasive moron. What the hell is "mansplaining" anyway? All he did is provide evidence that her claim was untrue; why would the fact he is a man be even remotely relevant? There are people who think this brazen stupidity is acceptable? It is when you're a woman who needs no man or education. Generally, I would agree that some people can be condescending with their explanations but I wouldn't use a gender term instead. Just like I wouldn't use one instead of hysteria. I think I've said before that the studies SJWs are involved in must be on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from law. The idea of the term "mansplaining" is horribly inobjective and wishes to associate a condescending tone with an entire gender, rather than viewing things case by case and attempting to actually recognize an actual case of condescention. It's also, quite ironically, blatantly sexist, as it carries a tone that all men are condescending know-it-alls. And of course, don't even get me started on the ad hominem elements and how this and terms like "sealioning" only serve to discourage productive discussion and debate.

Space Mutiny gets my vote for best episode. Space Mutiny is a pretty spectacular episode. Punch Rockgroin! Dirk Hardpec! Flint Ironstag! Big McLargeHuge! My vote for best episode goes to The Final Sacrifice. Zap Rowsdower is legendary. Chuck Norris wishes he were as amazing as Rowsdower. Pumaman was another absolutely ridiculous one:

Space Mutiny gets my vote for best episode. Though their more recent work with their Rifftrax cover of Birdemic definitely deserves praise as well:

It is taking months to be rid of people who do not agree with the usage of facts because those in power support these people. Think about that for a moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijjiJahRPU8

Or men pretending to be women, same thing with racial minorities. The only group they have no problem acknowledging are the disabled, and then they make cracks at autism. Pro-corruption makes themselves look like such hypocrites one has to wonder if Poe's law is in effect. Absolutely disgusts me that these spoiled children have industry support.

Don't get me wrong, I've said since the beginning GG will win, and we definitely are.... But it's still frustrating that it's even taking this long. I mean the anti-side is such a miserable joke at this point: https://twitter.com/davidgaliel/status/538942144434950145 Some backround on the guy talking to Mojo Jojo: via http://elbowfish.myshopify.com/pages/david-galiel

But are you cis, trans or trisex? Dear ****ing god it scares me I almost know what those mean.

I also find it odd that I got a general anti-government label when I said governments do more good than harm. Maybe I accidently clicked the wrong one on that one... EDIT: NOPE, retook it, double checked, exact same score. Believing government does more good than harm confirmed for anti-government.

It's funny how anti-GG posters can be such malicious, harassing, misogynist scumbags while at the same time pretending that they are the pinnacle of righteousness. Anti-GG and the SJW side can be summed up by humble quotes like "your rights end where my feelings begin" or "something upsets me, therefore it dare not exist." These are simply spoiled and self-centered mindset, and I believe Roger Ebert wasn't far off when he called these kinds of people the facists of today. I believe facism is a bit of a loaded word as it carries heavy negative connotation, so it feels inappropriate because often the term is tantamount to evil for people. But Ebert wasn't trying to say these people would spawn a Nazi army if they had free reign, he was simply trying to draw parallels between the fact that facism actively censors discerning opinion and these SJW types of today passively or indirectly censor free speech by trying to claim their comfort or discomfort is more important than one's right to express themselves however they please.

You are a: Left-Leaning Anti-Government Non-Interventionist Humanist Liberal Collectivism score: 33% Authoritarianism score: -33% Internationalism score: -17% Tribalism score: -50% Liberalism score: 17% I knew my results would be boring...

Ya in American Football it's the opposite. So if you're American, keep tackling the player.

I think you'll find more people subscribe to "Ignorance is Strength", though. Yep... :/

No, but naked wizards. Close enough

At the risk of continuing what's a bit of a derailment... Quotes do not always make sense to you immediately, but they can make sense in a certain light or some even have multiple interpretations. I think if you react to that quote by trying to categorically prove or disprove it, you're missing the point entirely and missing what it's trying to say. Statements like that are not trying to be categorically true or false in every scenario, they're attempting to summarize the essence and perfectly describe the truth of some matters in a simple, one sentence quote. Ignorance can indeed be a choice. Want my favorite example? The Iraq war. I don't think I need to go into detail about how it was a choice for the US government itself, but there's more to it. I believe the US actually has a rather ingenius little system of perpetuating the war. Anyone remember how the Iraq war started? Claims the terrorists behind 9/11 were there, counterclaims that that was absolute nonsense with no evidence for it, and then a very controversial war. Yknow what began to happen as the war became a point of debate? Anytime someone spoke out against the war, a moderator or journalist would attack them and say "BUT DO U SUPPORT OUR BRAVE AMERICAN TROOPS OR DO YOU WANT THEM TO DIE AND DO YOU HATE AMERICA?" The discussion derailed from being about if the war is justified or not and became a message of support for the war in the form of "Support our troops," even if you do not support the war. It seems like a simple and rational little idea, no? These kids are just trying to help out their country, they're not responsible for how meaningless the war is. No one in their right mind (in America itself anyways) would needlessly wish ill will upon those guys. They merely signed up to defend our great country! Wrong. That to me was a very clever and very effective little propaganda tool. Yknow why? Because simultaneously, as the "Support our Troops" mantra is chanted by Republicans and Democrats alike, parroted by proponents of the war alongside with those that oppose it, recruiters were visiting American high schools trying to recruit new troops. The recruiters themselves were given incentive to recruit, whether it be coming home quicker, receiving more money or who knows what. The people they recruited...? They were told all kinds of things, like how much fun it would be or how they'd be serving their country and fighting the good fight, or how they'd get their college tuition paid in full when the war was over and they were back home. The recruiters said anything to recruit, whether it be bribes or tales of glory. ANYTHING. I exaggerate "anything" because I have one ****ing leg and those recruiters still persistently tried to recruit me all the time, insistent I could work some office position or the like and I should just sign their fancy piece of paper. So how does "Support our Troops" tie into the recruitment? "Support our Troops" effectively absolves the troops of any responsibility for a meaningless war. It has a message that basically claims the corrupt politicians and D.C. are to blame for the meaningless war and all the lives lost, BUT OUR BRAVE YOUNG TROOPS MERELY WANT TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY AND SHOULD BE CHAMPIONED AS HEROES. It was D.C. blissfully and willingly taking the fall and taking the blame on behalf of the troops. Why? Because it allows the war to happen. No troops = no war. That's simply how it is. There's no draft in place, so if people simply didn't sign up, the war in Iraq might not happen, or at least not to the extent it happened. But what we got was bribery to young 16+ teens as they were told they'd be heroes, that they'd get money and that they wouldn't be to blame for any innocent lives lost. I consider the last portion of that to be a bold-faced lie to help the troops sleep at night and ensure the American government gets what it wants and has the tools it needs (troops) at it's disposal. But do I buy the narrative that these kids were tricked or had no way of knowing what they signed up for...? Ignorance is a choice. What happened was the money got too tempting and the rationale that they were heroes too easy to buy into. They stopped asking questions and started buying into the dream. But just open your eyes and look and you can see the blood is on their hands too, and in their own small way they are responsible for the blood shed in that war. And maybe you support the Iraq war? Largely irrelevant, as I merely name this one as an example as I think most would agree the US had no interest in such a war beyond the obvious answer of "yay free oil." It would not be hard to find another war or another example where people sign themselves on for something they don't even believe in, for something they don't even morally support, all due to ignorance. I for one do think the world would be a better place if we did not hug the ignorant and tell them "there there it's ok, it's not your fault, you didn't know" and instead told them "yeah you ****ed up big and you could've quite easily better informed yourself before making such a choice, pls dun do it again." In short, it takes spine to actually think things through, realize exactly what the meaning is behind your choice and face the facts. It takes spine to be true to yourself and realize you are responsible for your actions and inactions, and this idea that "no it's k not my fault cuz someone else told me to do it and I didn't know" is largely false. Yes, there are times when you truly have absolute zero ways of informing yourself and so something isn't your fault, but the examples I've given and that you've given...? Those are not such cases. Hell, it can take spine to draft dodge aswell. If you were drafted to fight a war you didn't agree with, then honestly I'd consider it more brave to try and draft dodge. That's standing up for what you believe in. I mean you said it yourself. "Someone without a spine goes along with whatever he's told because he doesn't want to deal with the trouble." Yes, and then it becomes a much LARGER problem for someone else, someone else who didn't deserve it, all because you couldn't man up and take some responsibility. Suddenly a son finds himself robbed blind to the extent retirement will prove exceedingly difficult, all by his own brother, because you couldn't be assed to put some thought and effort into figuring out who was full of **** when all the tools you needed were right there in front of you. Suddenly you find yourself in a foreign country pointing a gun at some innocent guy all because you couldn't be assed to investigate your own government's claims, and pointing the gun at the innocent unarmed guy seemed easier. Ignorance is a choice.

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 spent a good minute staring at it trying to figure out why they looked so weird but still certain something was wrong.