PK htiw klaw eriF

I expect Mass Effect 4 to be bland gameplay, non-senscal or just dumb plot, waifus/husbandos, and multiplayer. It will have a devoted fanbase for the waifus/husbandos with disturbing fanart and fanfic, and possibly produce some memes that will be used for about 4 months. Perhaps Bioware will finally take the plunge and develop multiplayer romance, in which case I will congratulate them on fusing the two aspects that must be in all their games after 2012.

Cut it out yourself and store it in a jar.

Some of us will carry the torch. We may not be level 20 yet in this uberbalanced ruleset, but we have our moments.

It's probably both given the amount of substances currently in my bloodstream. Internalized something-ism Internalized rum. Those are the forum rules, if you think one has been broken make your case. As this forum currently stands, we have a poster who pretends to be Russian and spouts off some weird **** and romance threads are a guaranteed flame war. This thread is just a bunch of butthurt posters sharing information from twitter, 8chan, and KiA. If you find that too triggering, you should probably stay away.

It's probably both given the amount of substances currently in my bloodstream. That's an opinion, not a statement of fact. Mockery is protected in the US as free speech and has been used to criticize ideas and public figures effectively. You may not like it, but denying mockery is an effective and legitimate form of criticism is wrong. See Godfrey Elfwick or The Colbert Report as examples. Mocking =/= spreading hate. Mocking a politician for supporting the FairTax because they are supporting a policy that puts a greater tax burden on low-income citizens is not spreading hate. Mocking a twitter feminist for claiming sexism against men doesn't exist or that being accused of rape is a good thing isn't spreading hate. Mocking a corporation for doing something hostile to consumers isn't spreading hate. We may be petty in this thread, but we certainly aren't spreading hate.

Because saying that death threats are equivalent to mocking is absurd. Feel free to believe that both are wrong, but being less wrong is important in that a man who steals is less wrong than a man who murders. I don't see how caring about journalistic ethics and mocking someone is mutually exclusive. Do you also view mocking politicians and caring about ethics in government as mutually exclusive?

Dude, I downloaded it from the Nexus and all I needed to do was make an account. Just use a burner e-mail and sign up.

This man is truly a legend.

Where exactly did i say that i put it on par? I said that being less wrong doesn't make you right. Here: But wrongs are not equal. The act of mocking someone may not be acceptable to some, but saying that it makes no difference if one mocks or sends death threats is absurd. You can believe whatever you want as far as i'm concerned. But then don't put yourself on some kind of moral pedestal. It makes you a hypoctire, because what you're saying is neither moral nor ethical. I hold myself to my own morals, if someone thinks my morals are questionable I have no ****s to give. As it is, the right to mock someone is protected in the US. I find that this allows pointed satire, such as the countless political cartoons lampooning politicians as mocking someone is often the best way to criticize their beliefs. With this in mind, I'd argue that mocking someone is an essential component of debate and is needed to allow free speech.

If you think that mocking anyone is in any way shape or form exceptable, then there's something wrong with you. Are you familiar with satire? Ridiculous ideas should be mocked. He said anyone; not anything. And people spouting ridiculous ideas should be mocked. Larry Flynt went all the way to the US supreme court to ensure this right.

If you think that mocking anyone is in any way shape or form exceptable, then there's something wrong with you. Are you familiar with satire? Ridiculous ideas should be mocked. Right, you're not totally crazy, just a bit crazy. Personally, i'm not interested in bigger or lesser evil. Whether you send death threats, or "simply" mock people for their actions, makes no difference to me. You're both wrong. I am. Putting mocking someone on twitter on par with sending death threats is insane. It's like saying someone who steals a loaf of bread is just as bad as one who steals someone's livelihood.

It's not a "heinous offense". It just means that you're not that much better then the people you're laughing at. When I defend harassment as a good thing that can teach the victim something about themselves, then perhaps you'll have a point.

I'm a bad man. Laughing at middle-class women on twitter is a heinous offense, unlike certain sects of Islam mutilating female genitals or forcing rape victims(of the forceful penetration type, not the much more traumatizing variety of being mansplained to on twitter) to marry their rapists. We're the hate group and they're the religion of peace.

Unless they are the right people. Then they are the great "problem" of our whole culture and should be rounded up and reported to FBI. But anyone that doesn't fit that category is a harmless unstable snowflake and how dare anyone hurt their feels. http://www.cotwa.info/2010/05/catherine-comins-actual-quote-about.html Being accused of rape is a good thing apparently.

You should be, laughing at people on twitter is literally rape.

Corporations attempting to take control of communication? We're in Shadowrun now.

I'd say that is obvious bait, but I guess SJWs really are this crazy.

I like my games to be challenging and do all quests my PC would, as I like to roleplay the character consistently. I never solo in a party-based rpg and don't chase achievements. Not sure what that makes me, although I do dislike casual modes that make combat effortlessly easy. Don't really care if someone wants to play it that way, as long as I have my difficult options. IMO, vanilla PoE isn't very challenging on PotD. Tactics very rarely need to be changed, and the only enemies I find difficult are the ones who can inflict status effects. This needs to be tweaked, with more status abilities given to enemies and more intelligent encounter design. I'd also say the DT system, as of the current version 1.04, pushes to DT piercing weapons and high damage weapons in almost all cases, making fast weapons generally sub-optimal. Armor is also flawed, as it pushes characters to either wear cloth or plate with the in-between armors being ignored. There are also quite a few junk talents, optional abilities, and spells/chants/powers. IMO, equipment as a whole needs a rebalance, as does talent progression and class progression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=11&v=vFdTVMiD0UI Great job essjaydubbyas, you made sure this evil misogynist can no longer make women feel unsafe or insecure. Well its clear why you make generalizations about SJW, you are woefully uninformed about the broader SJ movement. You only see the movement in the context of gaming and how it impacts you I can help you change that mindset..but it will take time as I'll be honest there will be loads of work and understanding for us to get through? Oh? What if all of this started with a MALE developer, lets call him Zachary Quinn, sleeping with five female journalists for favourable coverage. Not only that, he would've sabotaged a game jam, then created his own with a personal paypal account for donations. He would've also gone to court and solicited a gag order on his former lover, who wrote an embaressing blog about their relationship. Finally, thanks to his friends and connections he would've silenced discussions about the affairs on Reddit, 4chan and so on. Tell me, how would the mainstream media have handled this? Difficult to say. Its always hard to comment on a hypothetical example when the scenario is so unlikely But if he was being harassed online like Zoe Quinn I'm sure he would have received support from some people? Don't pretend to be dumb now. Would've the SJWs listen and believed Zachary Quinn's story and defended him unquestionally? Well you wont like my answer but I doubt it. And the reason is not because SJW don't care about white, heterosexual males its more to do with the reality that this group is the least likely group in the world that is discriminated against. So the SJ structures aren't understandably so evolved for discrimination against this group so I imagine there just would naturally be less outrage? That's why I said the scenario is very unlikely So you're saying that SJWs in general put more value on the identity, in terms of race and sex, of an individual accused of/claiming to be the victim of wrongdoing rather than the validity of the claims presented?

So basically they just used it as an excuse? Not very ethical, isn't it. I don't get what you mean. The HB's included a creator of a webcomic and were selling art at their booth, this is pretty much standard at most comic conventions. There are no rules they clearly broke, they did not shut a panel down(unless you consider politely offering an opinion disruption), and they did not harass other attendees of the con. The only explanation of why they were kicked out is that some people on twitter had a problem with their opinions and wanted them out. Kicking out women for having the wrong opinions does much more to keep women out of cons(and nerd culture at large) than allowing 5 women to operate a booth ever will.

That is actually a surprising point. I didn't expect there to be so little effect from her pimping a "right" kind of game. Why? Gamers aren't their audience remember?

Yes, but it was part of a joke where he insinuated that the opening to Disney's The Lion King was his birth.

But one of them does do a webcomic and the booth was representing that. "Kotaku isn't the problem" -Kotaku

@Zor This is the best I could find.

How dare these women have an opinion not approved by a bourgeois hipster!