Deep Dive Devin

With all due respect, I'm not sure I can agree with that. This sort of values-neutral approach just isn't effective. There's a reason this forum has a rule against the most overt hate speech, but that, technically, is still a "political position". Is it uncivil to ban them? Obviously not, but failing to extend this line of thinking to politely-worded hate isn't great. I mean, look at the situation we have here. Annie expresses distress over proposed legislation that would 100% harm not only trans people, but also potentially amount to the government molesting schoolgirls (forced DNA tests aren't good either). Not even equal-opportunity molestation, they only wanted to check girls. She also dunks on the republican party, because, y'know, they're the ones who want to legislate this. Maroko's response to this is to post not just dangerous, but obvious, long-debunked misinformation about trans people in sports, along with patronizing remarks about the struggles they do (and don't) go through, with not a thought paid to the overwhelming force of social and economic oppression that this minority faces and has continued to face for centuries. Remember, this is all to justify policy that may include a government checking children's genitals before it lets them play sports. Nevermind the addition of a meme literally laughing at trans suicides, in case you thought this was somehow out of genuine concern or something. When called out that yeah, people who are treated like shit tend to have mental health problems, suddenly we get whataboutism for Muslim genocides in Israel and China, with an extra dash of you aren't real and your problems don't exist (men commit more suicide than women. does that mean maleness is a mental illness?). Add some bonus antisemitism and a "whites under attack" meme, and I think this person might not be engaging in good faith. I get into my big dumb semantic argument with them, because hey, every second they waste on me is one they're not spending on their other bullshit, and we get an interesting problem, don't we? "We shouldn't need to jump into every one of these threads to say this", but what did you expect? This is where the "free marketplace of ideas" gets you. The most extreme reactionary ideas will prevail, because they're intently focused on driving others away. If a black person gets chased off by racists, it's not because they lost a debate over their right to exist, it's because they realized it was unfortuitous, and possibly unsafe, to remain. How is it civil to suggest that a person's identity is a lie, that they should or will kill themselves, or any number of the other rancid things going on here, and uncivil to suggest that someone who says that stuff can fuck off? That is not civility, it is expressing a preference for who an incivility should be directed towards.

How is it hypocritical? Because I'm doing the thing you're doing? That sure does suck for anyone in a self-defense case. If you're acting like a fascist, I am not only justified, but have a moral imperative to not treat you with respect. I literally told you right at the fucking start that you were not entitled to honest discussion. What did you think this was? Couple things here: 1. I did not claim that you discriminate against people, and I didn't really say you lumped them together either. You probably do, but the fact that you haven't made it obvious is kind of the reason I'm calling it out. 2. You constantly demand proper arguments, I do not want you to have one. Again, you don't deserve that. If you wanted honest discussion, you would have entered with an honest post, or at any point apologized for the bigotry. 3. That wasn't a quote. To pretend otherwise would imply I thought you were just saying exactly what you mean. Do you think I believe everything you say? Uh, nowhere? You keep asking that, but I never claimed you directly stated that. If you did, that'd kind of ruin the point I'm trying to make, wouldn't it? You're the one diverting things. You're so interested in the minutia of semantic debates that you think people won't notice the hate behind your words. Though I guess after that last big post, that cat's kind of out of the bag, isn't it.

Actually, you're the one who can't deal with other people's opinions. You're essentially claiming here that "tolerance" necessitates your intolerant opinion be tolerated, but you refuse to tolerate the opinion that your opinion shouldn't be tolerated. You're in a lose-lose situation here. Either all opinions are equal and you are the problem for not dealing with opinions that fall outside your terms, or opinions aren't equal and the trash you keep saying is worth tossing out anyway. I never said I was being honest with you. Why would you deserve that? No, you very clearly claimed I said you said all black people, which isn't what I said. And that's an important difference! If you think it isn't, it just further shows how uninterested you are in legitimate discussion. Bigots often feign innocence by claiming x person is "one of the good ones", or by saying "liberal culture is what MADE them such degenerates", because if you don't despise 100% of a group, somehow that means it isn't bigotry. Which is also wrong, of course. Not that you're pretending to not be a bigot at this point, just so we're clear.

Actually, you haven't been honest. You've been sowing disorder this whole time. The fact that you treat your politics as an identity group that can be discriminated against like race or class is the first red flag. That doesn't say what you claim I said.

This is the inherent folly of a lot of forums, and parts of liberal democracy itself. It treats order as an undisputed good, rather than something natural that springs from a just society. Order should only be maintained among scenarios where there isn't any real facts. Nobody can, for example, objectively prove whether the Star Wars prequels are good or bad. I happen to think they're not very good, but there's no fundamental law to the universe that proves me right. In that instance, if I were to argue that my opinion is fact and everyone else can eat shit, then a mod trying to maintain civility by making me stop is justified. But that just doesn't work for a lot of political discussion, because if your opinion is, say, "2 + 2 = 5", that's not an opinion. You're just wrong. If one person says climate change is real and another says it isn't, those aren't two people with opinions, the latter is just saying something false. In that regard, pushing to keep those people "civil" with each other is actively allowing one of them to spout misinformation, that could potentially be really dangerous if it got out of hand (which it has, but that's more due to oil tycoons funding entire misinfo campaigns than individuals). This kind of rhetoric, just going "hey hey kids, you know which race does the most crime?" and leaving the motivation obscured, no matter how obvious it is to people like you or me, gets perceived as not sowing disorder, because it's not explicitly saying the thing it obviously means. It's the southern strategy, the Lee Atwater defense, et cetera. The fact that those things are both dated by half a century goes to show how bad a time it's been trying to get people up to speed.

Yes, you: the person who makes the argument that is stupid, not you, the person who is stupid and are making the argument because of such. Do you think I would be so audacious as to just claim all stupid people are like you? I've actually been very civil with you, you just don't like that I'm responding to the kind of arguments you're making rather than the arguments themselves. I am not here to convince you whether you're wrong or right, I made that clear from the start. What you have repeatedly shown is that you are uninterested in convincing people to listen to your bad takes, hoping that they will roll over and accept them by honoring you with a proper debate. I disagree with the idea that you should be taken seriously, and you refuse to respect that opinion while at the same time claim that your opinion should be respected. To make things simpler again, imagine a scenario in which saying "we should kill puppies" is to be debated but "we should stop that guy from advocating puppy murder" is anti-unity. I am going to call your arguments, and my impression of what sort of person makes them, bigoted. Why? Because that's my opinion, and if you really believed in free debate, you would try to convince me otherwise rather than shut me down or lie about my motivations for having that opinion. You've provided the examples yourself? I do not believe others on this forum are too stupid to see it. I mentioned before, convincing you is not my goal here. Also, I never said that. You claim I'm not giving real examples, but you had to make one up for what I've said.

Oh wow, you really don't know what it is. Nothing in that message has anything to do with your personhood, it is a critique of the argument that could only have been delivered with a lack of smarts or subtlety with the intent to deceive insecure white boys into thinking they're under attack. Whether you actually are stupid and unsubtle is unimportant in whether you're making the argument of someone who is. You could be pretending, but your argument isn't going to become better just because you claim that you are better. That's making an argument from your own character to deflect criticism, an argument you have even less legitimate evidence of. To make things simpler; if I say "actually, gravity doesn't exist", that's the sort of thing a dumbass might say, but telling me that is not an ad hominem, because it's not saying that I said it because I was a dumbass. Similarly, you're making the arguments of a conceited bigot. Are you one? Are you not one? It's the same argument either way, but if you want anyone to treat it like it's an argument worth debating legitimately, it's up to you to convince people that it isn't the argument of a conceited bigot.

There's nothing contradictory there. Do you not understand what an ad-hominem is?

Again, please do not strawman the things I'm saying by calling it ad-hominem. I am critiquing your behavior. You are only upset with me because I'm not treating it like the behavior of a logical, good-natured adult. If you want to convince me that it is that behavior, that is your own challenge to overcome, not the responsibility of others over some unearned sense of courtesy. It's certainly not a courtesy you've offered any of the classes you saw fit to characterize as criminal or mentally ill.

I didn't say how many at all, actually. Make no mistake, I never meant to imply your bad takes were popular. I think you are in the mood for it. Claiming my position is an ad hominem is itself a strawman of my actual take. That's not a strawman, it's a sincere comparison. I am asking you to come up with a justification as to why you deserve to be listened to any more than every other dime-a-dozen racist conspiracy theorist on the internet, and you are patently refusing to do so, just because you don't happen to personally like the fact that "racist conspiracy theorist" is what you've been identified as, rather than any proper critical analysis as to why the things you're saying are actually worth saying. The idea that they could hold up to scrutiny (which, to be clear, they wouldn't) first requires the idea that you are engaging in this conversation with any sort of honesty, and with each post that is going to become harder and harder to prove. You will no-doubt critique people who disagree with you for being "uncivil", but there's never going to be civility among takes like yours. Even if people agree, that's just a decrease in civility with all of the groups you're targeting. I have no qualms with saying I'd rather side with the races and genders you hate than with you. Not only are they less-likely to be like you, there are a lot more of them.

Plenty of minority anti-vaxxers, it's not going to make that more true either. Do you think everyone operates the way you do? Truth is not a democracy, pointing to "a lot" of people and saying they agree with you doesn't make shitty behavior acceptable. If you spared even a modicum of thought to how others perceived your bullshit, I think it'd be obvious. Can you think of a reason without constructing your own hideous strawman?

No matter how hard you try, you are not entitled to honest discussion when you so clearly are not engaging in it yourself. Bogus statistics, cherrypicked screencaps or many literal lies are not smarter than the rest of the people on this forum. There is no rule on this forum that says people have to have a "logical debate" with you or respect your trash opinions. Nor should there be! Do you think anyone wants to get roped into weeks of argument with a flat-earther or someone who thinks the world is secretly controlled by bees? There's no reason for anyone to treat obvious racist conspiracy theories as somehow above either of those things, no matter how victimized you pretend to be. You're not smart or subtle enough even to deceive insecure white boys into thinking they're under attack.

Man, you went from "black people are violent criminals" to "trans people are mentally ill and somehow also privileged" to "look at all these fucking jews" in the span of like four posts. It's no wonder you need to repeat your mantra of "the left is losing people" considering everyone you clearly don't want on your side. Who are you going for next? Mexicans? Gay people? Anime fans? Perhaps we'll hear some 13/50, or see some "based groypers" or whatever other anti-intellectual fashtrash you can spit out.

I mean, it's one he wrote, but the weird creepy art in this case is from Chris Allan. It's funny, for about the first half of this terrible arc the characters are drawn pretty normal (if in Allan's slightly jilted style), but the second it jumps into dumb Knuckles and Julie romantic tension, they suddenly get human proportions. It happens mid-issue, too. Mid-panel, even. Knuckles has the Sonic bean body in one panel, and is just unreasonably jacked in the next. Julie-Su gets a humanoid hourglass figure. Maybe Pendies asked for it in the script or something.

I picked up Jedi Fallen Order and Nier Automata around christmas, but I haven't played them yet. I'm dedicating myself to finishing all the other shit I was already playing, which included Xenoblade 2, Dark Souls 1, and all four Homestuck games. Even then, I kinda want to wait for the Nier Replicant remaster in April before I jump into Automata.

Genesis Sonic is pretty good, but you know what's even better? Widescreen. Remastered OSTs. Not dying to the spike bug. It's well-known at this point that the Sonic Mania team got their start developing fan games and ROMhacks, but between that and Mania, they remastered Sonic 1, 2 and CD for mobile devices. They're pretty great, being built off the same engine as Mania, with better FPS, slightly more-reliable collision, and a whole host of tweaks and options to make the experience a little better (like fixing CD's dogshit spindash). Hell, they hunted down the original synthesizers for the games and recreated the entire OSTs in high quality. Problem is, Sonic 1 and 2 remained mobile only up until today. A travesty, finally rectified. Fans have reverse-engineered the remastered ports and created a converter to play them on PC. You can play in widescreen with higher framerates, get the elemental shields, play as Knuckles, and even the prototype Hidden Palace level in Sonic 2. You can even play them in ULTRA-WIDESCREEN. Now, legally speaking, the only way to run these is to buy the games from a mobile store, extract the file "data.rsdk" from the files, and drop it in the converter folder, but if for whatever reason you happen to possess the APKs of the games, you can find it in the "asset" folders for them, too. CD got a Steam version, so I can just tell you to buy that. It's five bucks. Now I know what you're thinking. Isn't there more? And yeah...sort of. There's Sonic 3D Director's Cut, made by one of the original Traveller's Tales devs, but that's an Xdelta patch that you put on a regular ROM, and you basically just have to download the Steam emulated version for that legally. You don't get widescreen or remastered OSTs here. It does add things like a map screen, Super Sonic, better turning and such -- but it's still a platformer with isometric levels, where even a seasoned Sonic 06 veteran like myself has trouble landing jumps consistently. But much more noteworthy is Sonic 3 - AIR (Angel Island Revisited). Because Sonic 3 is likely in copyright no man's land due to Michael Jackson's involvement on the soundtrack (something both legally dubious for SEGA and potential bad press because oof), we will likely never see a Thomley/Whitehead version of Sonic 3. User Eukaryot said "okay" and then did it anyway. This is easily the most elaborative remaster of them all, with support for all sorts of mods and a LOT of customization. They even remastered the prototype soundtrack found in 2019's discovery, from before Michael Jackson even worked on it. Frankly, I think the old version of Carnival Night sounds way nicer than the circus chorus of the final game (it also sounds way better than the 1997 PC version OST, which is the same but in godawful MIDI renditions) Like with 3D Blast, the only really legal way to play this is to buy the Steam version, and sync the rom in your steamapps/common folder to the remastered exe, but I highly recommend it for this one. You can even turn the lives system off, which is good because lives systems are inherently bad. With this, having a complete set of 1, 2, CD, 3K and Mania really brings the series together as a quintology. Maybe if we ever see engine ports of the Advance games, you could put those there too. There's nothing missing...except for I guess Knuckles Chaotix? Which uh... ...oh...ew.

If that were so guaranteed, we wouldn't need to constantly assassinate foreign leaders ourselves, since apparently someone else would just do it for us.

That's treating it as a binary, though. Taxes would eventually be phased out in an ancom society. If you did it immediately with no transition plan, you could fuck everything up.

I mentioned in the youtube comments, but I think it's for a couple reasons. One is that Tails and Gamma in SA1 are way better than the slow mechs in 2. There's mods to correct the turning and increase the jump height a little bit, but the SA1 shooting levels are so much faster and more fluid than anything in the second game, and you don't have crap like Eternal Engine blindsighting you from behind walls. Plus, even if you use his no-mech mode from the chao gardens, Tails can't spin jump and his flying only hovers. Secondly, SA1's palette lighting system (called the Lantern engine) was completely reverse-engineered by fans to work in the crappy PC version, and now is a standard part of most modpacks, and looks way cooler than the flat Adventure 2 lighting. One look at Casinopolis is all you need. The final reason is that Sonic fans are obsessed with putting Sonic games in other Sonic games. Nearly every 3D game before Generations has had most of its levels ported into Generations at some point. Getting that to work was actually a huge technical achievement, since Unleashed runs on the same engine but its stages were never playable on PC due to it being the only console-exclusive 3D game that you still can't emulate properly (RPCS3 is pretty close, but it definitely wasn't in 2013). Even still, you have 06 ported to SA2, Heroes ported to SA1, Black Knight and Colors in Gens, Unwiished in SA2, even Lost World has a significant number of level ports, and that game is the Sonic version of wearing pants that go all the way up to your nipples. Hell, people have put Generations levels back into Unleashed. It's just a weird pathological obsession the community has, probably because all of the pieces for the perfect 3D Sonic engine are technically in our hands, but they're just not quite put together in the right way to work. I think I remember melpontro and SF94 working on something, and that Hero engine looks pretty neat, but it's still gonna be a while.

You're only looking at dictator as an active role rather than a personal quality, though. Second wikipedia definition says a dictator can be a person behaving in an autocratic manner, which totally does fit. He certainly acts and believes like he deserves ultimate power, whether he has it or not. I think you know I'm not literally claiming he has 100% authority over all persons in the government. I'm not sure I've seen anyone claim that, other than the man himself.

That's kind of like saying a person is only "murderous" after they've already succeeded at murdering someone.

He literally is and can. This was all intended. It was planned. There are tweets and posts saying this was going to happen on December 6th. They made merch for it. They did it on purpose.

Both the Jet Set Radio games, easily. Stylish aesthetic, Naganuma's awesome OST, magnetic skates, grinding rails all the way up buildings, giant mechs and assassins chasing you, and toppling a totalitarian police state with nothing but spray paint. I really hope Bomb Rush Cyberfunk is a worthy spiritual successor.

What do you mean? He didn't "let" it happen, this is nationalist conservatism working as intended.