Deep Dive Devin

Glad to have an update. Sorry if the delays are bugging you, but I hope you know the we're happy to wait a while for new content if it means things go okay on your end. Don't wear yourself out for our benefit.

I mean, other than good guys being the underdogs being a pretty good rule for storytelling, the usual answer is "because this is a dumb action story and we don't want to be too tied down to real events". Or you just make them not be around for those parts. Because otherwise, you end up with the much worse problem: writers trying to answer the question of "why didn't they stop the holocaust", and that's how you get Fantastic Beasts, a living joke of an intellectual property.

Someone hasn't rewatched the TrackMania video recently.

It costs more than a sandwich.

If I had to guess, I'd say that they averaged out the scores people gave it out of ten, and it came out to around 8.3

A community small, insular and self-governed enough to have that sort of protocol is pretty different from this forum. Nonetheless, if a paranoid schizophrenic is saying it because he has delusions of grandure and genuinely believes it, and a holocaust denier is saying it because he wants to encourage violence against jewish people, there's not actually a difference in how an internet community should treat them. The majority of people following this doctrine skipped past an actual conclusion. It functions off a lot of the same principles as cults -- charismatic (to them, not us) leaders that know everything they say is crap, and an audience that is so convinced of those leaders' viability or divinity that whether the things they say reason out are simply not a part of the argument. It's not their brain working wrong, they deliberately refuse to use it because their investment in great leader's end goal is more important. You can see smaller versions of this all over society (don't get me started on crypto scams), but I don't think someone who has been indoctrinated into a cult is succumbing to brainrot, either. The rub with fascists is that a greater number of them know that holocaust denial, race science and the like are bunk, but are just belligerent assholes who enjoy violence being done to people different from them. I just don't think crazy is the term for it. Also, be careful when talking about satanists. There's a big difference between the Satanic Temple and the Church of Satan for example, bigger than differences between christian sects a lot of the time. You're probably thinking of "irrational", but the main reason to ban them is still not because they're simply incorrect, but because the things they want and do are harmful. If someone has an irrational argument about whether One Piece or Naruto is better, that's probably okay. (One Piece is better, in case you were wondering) Uhh, "Woke Cancel Culture" aside, I think we can agree that an obscure forum for a video game youtube channel is probably not among the most vital connections a person could lose. Well, I've kind of accidentally locked the majority of my discussion here into complaining about how the forum handles the reactionary end of the political spectrum. It isn't unsalvageable, I just think allowing that rhetoric to spread in the first place is worse than a rule restricting hate speech more than the mere letter of the law. Even if we were really interested in growing the community, the demographic of fascists is necessarily a lot smaller than the demographic of people they seek to harm. I'd go for the latter, personally.

Okay, I may need to break this down Are we implying that people asking the jewish question are simply insane, a threat that extends no further than mental institutions? Because I don't think that's true. When I look at Richard Spencer or David Duke or whoever, I don't see someone whose brain is wrong. Personality disorders, unhealthy coping mechanisms, a facade of belief to cover up deep existential emptiness? Sure, that's all there, but I also see that in much less-horrible people, that's just a consequence of living in the world a lot of the time. They are not traits unique to "crazy people", nor do I think most mental health professionals would characterize them as such. Evil cannot be rebranded so easily. An individual does not inherently create a community of creeps, but that's usually because they remain individual. Hate speech moderation isn't just to keep forums clean, but because a place that's safe for one creep is a place that's safe for many. The moment these types are allowed to congregate uncontested, they start bringing their friends, and they will try to enforce themselves on the rest of the community. This went down in a lot of comics and anime fandom spaces in the early 2010s, and is a big part of the toxicity in nerd fandoms to this day. This is generally incorrect. Pretty much all the data we have on deplatforming has shown it to be effective both in reducing harmful influence and in decreasing that attitude in users spreading it. Hell, back in high school I frequented some pretty nasty forums, a couple that promoted Unite the Right, and when those places got banned, I didn't exactly retain a lot of the opinions I absorbed from there. Also, saying "but they're a member of the community!" sounds like an argument against having rules at all, doesn't it? I could argue that someone spamming porn all over the forum is also a "member of the community", would it also be wrong to ban them? I mean, I'm far less offended by pornography than antisemitic conspiracy theories.

A (remade) classic. Though I guess I wasn't paying attention for the era of Naruto/Sasuke Linkin Park AMVs, so maybe I'm not cultured enough.

Neither is anything I've ever seen you pretend is "too radical" including the OP of this thread. So you're full of shit either way. Your logic here is such that an armed revolution could be passed off as incrementalist so long as any concession had been made to the oppressed party beforehand. But arguing that civil rights gains simply came peacefully is foolish no matter what path you take to get there.

I want to frame this post and hang it on my wall. This is one of the most hilariously misinformed answers you could have given.

I kind of doubt that. Either way, I would challenge you to name one real change to society that came with people just asking nicely for small concessions.

Historically, incrementalism itself is a concession to stifle change, a crutch for tone policing. The question we should be asking is not "does it work" but "which people demanding it know that it doesn't work"?

It's also because it's clearly using the wrong instrument. Also, I dunno how you chose the battle themes from Sonic Chronicles, those are easily the most tolerable and cogent in the game. We should be looking at how it butchers good music, like the S3K final boss.

WHY 1S 3V3RYTH1NG YOU S4Y WR1TT3N W1TH 4 HOM3STUCK TYP1NG QU1RK

This pic of Ross goes hard. $88,000 to screenshot

I played this game when I was, what, eleven or twelve? I didn't really like it, but a couple of my friends did, and we've been following this on the basis of eventually playing it again for like three or four years now. It's honestly shocking that it's really done and playable after all this time. I'll certainly enjoy it more than the first time around now that I'll have someone to play with.

Just my cishet-ass opinion, so take with a grain of salt. The newkamas of Impel Down, Ivankov, Inazuma and Bentham are okay. The most you could say is that design and personality-wise some of them are a bit questionable, though I think Inazuma is actually kind of rad. The characters themselves are heroic, good-natured and generally more agreeable than most. At worst it's a Mother 3 situation, where it was good intentions on the part of a somewhat-ignorant creator. Kamabakka kingdom specifically is weird, because not only is every person an ugly square-jawed giant-headed unshaven crossdresser, it totally flies in the face of the other group, seemingly just for a joke. It's hard to even call it a depiction of trans people, both because it's kind of ambiguous how any of them identify, and because Ivankov's powers can literally trans people's gender whenever they ask them, which you'd think would be an easy-out. Also, I'm not entirely certain if they were actually looking to sexually assault Sanji? I don't remember how clear it's made. He definitely dressed himself up when learning the newkama-kenpo from Ivankov, though, and there was an episode of the anime with that. I didn't watch it though, because I exclusively watch long-form anime through filler-free fan edits like Dragon Ball Recut or Naruto Kai. I don't know if saying "a transphobic person" is a good way of labeling Oda, because it's not like he's doubled down on being publicly loudly horrible to people for several years. It's an unflattering caricature that I don't think many trans people would say represents them, and plenty would probably call actively harmful. I mean, I feel represented very well in the "moody long-haired pretty boy" category with Cavendish, so I can see how there might be a disconnect. This is one of several things One Piece could do stand to improve on, alongside making more than 2 faces for pretty women and knowing when to fucking end an arc, because good God Wano has gone on so long. Oh, and Kiku is cool. Dunno if I'd say she undoes some of the worse shit, but she's treated better than any okama, and even a lot of the cis women if we're being honest.

Not really my point. The beneficiaries and victims of conservative policy will benefit and be hurt respectively whether the extremism happens or not. Radical policy is designed to make individual radicals unnecessary. Even if there were zero extremists, it would still be a horrible ideology with disastrous effects. Conservatives who know what their ideology is and always has been about realize this, and thus understand that there's no reason to put in the effort.

I didn't say the majority. You don't think the group is collectively in the control of or has its ideology collectively determined by the people in it, do you? I also didn't say they were all extremists. They don't all need to be, after all.

I didn't say anything about what an individual will or will not do, only what the group as a body wants. Outside is where the mask comes off the most, you think it will reflect better on them?

The difference between your statement and mine is that mine is true.

This seems like a lot of work just to reach "they want to hurt people that aren't them". If that's all you wanted to know, you could have just asked them. A large amount will just say it out loud.

I think the problem is less that there's any inherent flaw to Freeman reacting to the NPCs the way he does and more that the volume of content is way larger, with a bunch of named recurring characters rather than four faceless scientist models getting splattered across Black Mesa in a million different ways.