Imagine getting this upset about some shit single player game. Strafe or die.

It's like a terrible Walking Dead fan fiction, they want to change the plot of the story so it can fit their narrative.

Consider suicide.

Snowflake cucked society.

1 hour with weights 100% intensity, 2 hours boxing 90% intensity.

Never lose the battle

a boxing match is what? 12 * 3 minutes?
So you are doing ~4 boxing matches back to back at 90% intensity?

impressive

Thank you, punch until I can't punch no more and keep punching.

I do jump rope, heavy bag, speed bag, shadow boxing is mandatory every morning, evening and night.

I also practice each punch over and over again normally 100 times each in succession until it becomes perfect.

Relevant, IF it is used in punching Sanchez into a pulp.

who?

Good point.

Who

while boxing is fun and a useful skill, I have to inform you that it is a sub-par choice for winning battles ... since ~500 000 to 5 000 000 years.

A steak knife affixed to the end of a sturdy broomstick and two or three days of training will render years of boxing training rather obsolete.

Same goes for guns and 1 or 2 hours of training ...

There are more sensible reasons to pickup boxing :)

And a gun then renders that useless, not much point.

To protect your wife, gf, daughter you have to use your fists to put them on their ass.

either you think you can protect your daughter by fisting her ass or you have trouble presenting your thoughts in an organized manner.

Either way, I recommend consulting a mental health care professional.

Recommends consulting a mental health care professional, brings up someone fisting their daughter out of the blue one sentence earlier. That's.. coherent.

Btw., he never mentioned using boxing for anything other than fitness. You implied so.
IF we're talking about self defense, I tend to agree with Universe.. boxing alongside basic grappling / wrestling is the most effective martial arts discipline. I don't know in what kind of 3rd world shithole you live, but most people, even at places where brawls usually start (bars, nightlife, ..) don't carry / use weapons.

To protect your wife, gf, daughter you have to use your fists to put them on their ass.

brings up someone fisting their daughter out of the blue

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

he never mentioned using boxing for anything other than fitness

Snowflake cucked society.

1 hour with weights 100% intensity, 2 hours boxing 90% intensity.

Never lose the battle

do you even read, broseph?

brawls usually start (bars, nightlife, ..)

This is clearly what is thread is about. And people generally use the word battle when refering to bar brawls, right?

I onl yuse boxing to become the strongest or to protect those I love.

"To protect your wife, gf, daughter you have to use your fists to put them on their ass."

That means to protect your wife / daughter you need to put a man on his ass aka smack him.

Lost in translation you're probably not a native English speaker.

inTheory, he probably understands English pretty well.

:P

I think you didn't understand what I meant.

Would you rather have a crazy psychopath retard like me who says it like it is or some politically correct new-age cunt.

I'm pointing out that your phrasing is rather unclear.

And then there is the obvious fact that boxing is not the most reliable method neither for "winning battles" nor for self defense.

My experience differs

please share your great wealth of experience with us.
Let us hear about the battles you have won with boxing.

In your experience, would Napoleon have won at Waterloo if he had resorted to boxing?

consider suicide.

after you.

Never done a full boxing match, only sparring 3 rounds 3 minutes each, I intend to do a full one soon though.

Stick to reading books and dungeons and dragons, win win.

that's being turned gay as well :(

That’s a good idea though, I think I’ll throw in a lgbt encounter in the next game. That way I’m not discriminating against lgbt community. I’ll make sure the lgbt Npcs die though. Gotta be fair. We all die.

Ironic that some people are comfortable with violence/death but not comfortable with anything dealing with sexuality. Zombies eating people alive, people murdering other people for survival? That's OK. Two ladies hooking up? NOT OK! There's a weird intersection of social/religious conservative values and outraged gamers these days, it seems.

Where's the irony? How is violence/death anything like "anything to do with sexuality"? Violence and death are inextricable from life, the way sex is. But only good ol' p-in-the-v sex, not "anything to do with sexuality". Yeah, murder for survival is about as natural as it gets, everyone sane can relate to it due to the animal kingdom. What is the leap that goes from violence/death, the regular ones, to anything or everything dealing with sexuality, like mental illness. Is pedophilia next?

Is sex, and sexual desire, not natural as well? And the irony is that sex, beyond reproduction and the survival of genes, is pleasurable and a way of human beings connect to each other. It's a non-zero-sum interaction when engaged by two consenting people. Violence and death is a zero-sum game, someone "wins" at the expense of another.

Having not played TLOU2, I assume the stuff being discussed here is not rape since I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere. Rape and pedophilia (which is also rape) are forms of violence, so there's a clear threshold. They're zero-sum.

Is sex, and sexual desire, not natural as well? And the irony is that sex, beyond reproduction and the survival of genes

Well that part is NOT natural. Like I said, the natural part of sex is p-in-the-v for procreation. But even then, you haven't showed any irony IMO. You've got the setup and then the part where the result is something completely different, like a joke that is just tragic, is missing. I see no irony anywhere.

The natural part of sex is all of it, not just procreation. The animal kingdom is full of sex for pleasure. When you spank your monkey, do you feel unnatural about it? It's okay to spank your monkey.

Have you ever watched someone die? I can tell you from personal experience it is not a pleasant experience, especially when someone you love dies. But sex and love, these are positive things. So the irony is this: why do you have a negative reaction to seeing two people having positive feelings for each other? But you don't have the same reaction when it comes to watching people die? I don't know what else to say if this is inscrutable to you. It is textbook irony, in my view.

irony (n) a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

"Death = OK, sex = bad." Irony? Check. Seems clear to me.

The animal kingdom is full of sex for pleasure.

False, it's full of sex for procreation, pleasure is the exception. Furthermore I can see how someone conservative may claim that procreation is precisely what makes sex good and all other manifestations of it are bad. I don't even have to imagine it, I've seen it.

It's ironic only if you believe sex=good in the absolute. If you can't humor an opposing viewpoint so to speak. In other words if you're a new age leftist who is anti-religion, not because you're an atheist, but because you pray to the church of woke. That is ironic.

False, it's full of sex for procreation, pleasure is the exception

You are misinformed. Here's some reading for you, if you are interested in the actual science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour (and specifically the section on Motivation) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductiv...in_animals

There's some research on lifelong mated pairs, like in birds, and how non-reproductive copulation strengthens that bond. Also, health benefits associated with non-reproductive sexual behavior. Or how bonobos use sex for social purposes. Like humans (used to) shake hands or hug, bonobos get each other off as a way of keeping social bonds strong. If you ever needed any evidence of hedonism in the animal kingdom, you can look at our nearest primate relative for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo (specifically the Sociosexual behaviour section)

If you have some reference to share that supports your claim that sex for pleasure in the animal kingdom is an exception, I'd like to see it.

It's ironic only if you believe sex=good in the absolute. If you can't humor an opposing viewpoint so to speak. In other words, if you're a new age leftist who is anti-religion, not because you're an atheist, but because you pray to the church of woke. That is ironic.

Actually, I do think sex is pretty good, without many (if any) downsides. I've had few bad experiences with it, but I'd be interested to see what your arguments against sex are.

And also, you've got me very wrong. I am not praying to the church of woke. I think this thread is participating in the same identity politics that the wokesters are engaged in. It takes two to tango, and threads like this are what keeps the "woke" thing alive.

I just sum it up that these people are freaks

Sparta throw them i nthe pit

My argument is shit like insects, who have sex but don't have brains to aspire to those anecdotal exceptions you listed.

And I wasn't implying you're woke, just exemplifying actual irony.

I'm happy you're not consciously "woke", but you asking me for references showing that sexual systems are reproductive in nature (both literrally and figuratively) as opposed to... hedonistic? That tells me this religion is subverting people so successfully they don't realize they're following it.

Edit: first reference I clicked from one of your articles is "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity"...

maybe the insects are the smart ones uknow

Glad you backed off the claim that non-reproductive sex is uncommon in the animal kingdom.

How many times have you had sex with the sole intent to reproduce versus for pleasure only? Did you feel unnatural when you do it just for fun? Newsflash: you're not alone. People been fucking for fun since prehistoric age. Ain't nothing unnatural about being an animal.

2nd sentence from your article on motivation:

Although procreation continues to be the primary explanation for sexual behavior in animals, recent observations on animal behavior have given alternative reasons for the engagement in sexual activities by animals.

Do you notice how you're deflecting? I do:

If you have some reference to share that supports your claim that sex for pleasure in the animal kingdom is an exception, I'd like to see it.

I just did it using your own article...

"Primary" and "alternative" are not synonyms for "full" and "exception," respectively. The point is that sex for pleasure, or reasons other than reproduction, is common in the animal kingdom. Saying something is "alternative" does not say enough about its frequency, whether it is common or "exceptional." The evidence is that non-reproductive sex is common in the animal kingdom, across many different species.

I said,

The animal kingdom is full of sex for pleasure.

You said,

False, it's full of sex for procreation, pleasure is the exception.

Nothing you've said has disputed the fact that the animal kingdom is full of examples of animals having sex for exclusively non-productive purposes. Nothing you could say would dispute this because it is a fact.This goes directly to your argument that only reproductive sex is "natural."

Here's your exact quote:

Like I said, the natural part of sex is p-in-the-v for procreation.

What is unnatural about sex for pleasure? When you jerk off, or have sex without the express intent of having kids, are you doing something "unnatural?" If not, then you need to get rid of your initial criticism where I said:

And the irony is that sex, beyond reproduction and the survival of genes, is pleasurable and a way of human beings connect to each other.

And you said,

Well that part is NOT natural.

Birds do it. Lions do it. Bonobos, our closest primate relatives, do it. Just to name a few. If that ain't "nature" doing its thing, then I don't know what is.

Ok, I misspoke, it is "not primary". Your argument is that because something is natural it cannot be an exception? I don't know if I can really agree with that when we're talking binary choice - reproductive or not. The rule is still reproduction, so it seems me this arguing of semantics is a bit nitpicky. I mean, however common it is, as long as it's not the rule don't you see how for a conservative person there's nothing ironic about it? Yeah, mutations are also natural, but you know what someone means when they say they're "not natural". And again violence/death is not the same as anything/everything to do with sex. Anything/everything to do with violence/death would be. Like violence for the purpose of harvesting child organs. In that sense most (if not all) of the violence in games is the one that is equivalent to the p-in-the-v sex.

Sorry, the only irony I see is you thinking that conservatives are hypocrites for not adhering to a standard you've created for them. Nobody thinks in those "sex=good, violence=bad" absolutes, why would it be ironic that nobody adheres to it?

I'll take that as a begrudging concession that non-reproductive sex is natural and common.

Sorry, the only irony I see is you thinking that conservatives are hypocrites for not adhering to a standard you've created for them. Nobody thinks in those "sex=good, violence=bad" absolutes, why would it be ironic that nobody adheres to it?

Where is the evidence to the contrary in what you have said, or what OP has said? Where does the death/violence rise to the same level of concern as lesbians playing grabass? Why does lesbian sex make more of an impact? Didn't Ellen DeGeneres come out as a lesbian in the 90s? The time for pearl-clutching is 20+ years past its best used by date. And I don't believe that's actually what's the real issue here. I don't think the lesbian sex is what is problematic. Like I said earlier:

I think this thread is participating in the same identity politics that the wokesters are engaged in. It takes two to tango, and threads like this are what keeps the "woke" thing alive.

Reread OP and watch the video, I don't know where you get the lesbionics from.

What also came out was that there's been a massive shift in internal leadership in the team and in the narrative. Apparently they've pushed to have all the female characters made more masculine and androginous, the protagonist has been retroactively turned into a lesbian, most of the game revolves around her lesbian relationship, etc, etc.

???

And about the clip, so what? What does that change?

Where is the evidence to the contrary in what you have said, or what OP has said? Where does the death/violence rise to the same level of concern as lesbians playing grabass?

It doesn't, nobody gives a shit when it's done right. It's like all these new woke rehashed superhero movies with blackface or chicks. The problem is when it's done so poorly (and in this case apparently retroactively to boot) it reeks of political propaganda.

I think this thread is participating in the same identity politics that the wokesters are engaged in. It takes two to tango, and threads like this are what keeps the "woke" thing alive.

What identity politics is the other side participating in?

It doesn't, nobody gives a shit when it's done right.

PRECISELY! And why should anyone give a shit whether a fictional character is lesbian (or has rough doggy-style sex in a cut scene)? My opinion is you shouldn't.

The problem is when it's done so poorly (and in this case apparently retroactively to boot) it reeks of political propaganda.

And there we go... the real reason why there is any controversy here. It's not about the actual content -- lesbians, doggy-style sex, (maybe) transgender characters, or whatever -- it's the appearance of pandering towards one group for political reasons. And that's a nice segue to the response to your question:

What identity politics is the other side participating in?

It's the over-reaction to the "woke" identity politics that ends up being nothing better than the shit it is complaining about. I find the complaints in this thread petty. It should be easy to admit for 99.999% of people that sexual preferences of fictional characters in a video game are pretty fucking far down the totem pole of things to be concerned about.

So why the fuck are they so high on the totem pole for those making them?

People need something to care about, I think.

Yeah, this is when you suspend your critical thinking...

It's the over-reaction to the "woke" identity politics that ends up being nothing better than the shit it is complaining about.

To say this with what's going on in the news for the past month in your country and follow it with that "oh well it is what it is, nothing to examine here, move on"...

That's where you fucked up

You actually paid attention to main stream media.

Ignore that shit like the plague

This comparison is terrible. The death/murder of George Floyd is a legitimate concern. People have legit reasons to be angry.

So the rioting is justified then?

The protests are definitely justified. The looting and destruction of property (public and private) is a more complicated and difficult question to answer.

I don't even want to engage with this cop-out, I have lots of questions that I'm ok becoming rhetorical.

Have you engaged in any racially-motivated hygiene rituals yet? Or do you just tacitly approve those too?

I have no clue what you are talking about, but I think you are assuming a lot of things about my opinions without actually knowing them.

No, I'm not assuming, your answer amounts to "well what was she wearing?".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbDhZeafWK4

This is obviously insane behavior. Looks like a Catholic foot washing ritual.

But this has nothing to do with George Floyd's death.

But this has nothing to do with George Floyd's death.

Well, now we're getting somewhere.

Where are we going?

On a ride.

If it's not aboud Floyd, what is it there for?

Sounds like you're trying to improvise a destination. You can drop me off here.

Can't make you drink the water.

*Kool-aid

:)

I have no clue what you are talking about

I believe you. Because I'm hoping you're just misinformed. Really hoping, but maybe coping.

Let me ask another question, which will probably wind up rhetorical as well. When you see news, a game, story, whatever about... genocide. Do you also hurry to defend that with anecdotal occurrences from the animal kingdom? What about racism/segregation/ingroup bias? Infanticide? Cannibalism? Patriarchy?

When you told me birds have sex for something other than procreation, did you ever stop to think "wait, how does anyone find out the birds' intentions? they can't masturbate so how can someone tell they're not fucking to have offpsirng?" You tell me lions have sex for pleasure. Yeah, except the lion penis TEARS the vagina. I've had cats, never once did one of them seem like they were enjoying being in heat. It was always a "make the pain go away" situation.

For at least the last 4 years the fucking left is projecting every time they smear the "other side", which at this point is nothing other than non-communists.
Right-wingers are racist - wash the black feet, apologize, reparations, segregation, gibs.
Trump is a dictator, he wants to censor the "news" - oh it's okay if a corporation does it, even though I hate corporations, but I'm totally not a hypocrite.
The right is anti-science - everyone gets a gender... which is just a social construct, but let me chop off organs anyway, bigot.
Freedom of speech - if you agree with me.
DOXXX THIS RACIST KID FOR SMILING (16 year old Covington) - WHY ARE YOU ATTACKING GRETA, SHE'S JUST A KID.
Whitey so racist - oh let me get some nigerians to help me fake my hate-crime.
Trump is so corrupt, he embodies everything wrong with politics - said the millionaire career politicians holding office for the last 40 years.
And on and on and on...

But...

It's the over-reaction to the "woke" identity politics that ends up being nothing better than the shit it is complaining about.

...totally.

Nice rant. This is the problem with online conversations like this. You're arguing against the opposite of your opinion. You're focusing on things that I was not speaking about, and presuming to know my opinion abou them since I'm apparently supposed to play the part you want me to play. You're suggesting I was arguing or defending these things, or that I would argue or defend them. I'm not playing this game with you.

What is the point of listing any of this? Where have I defended this stuff? You're assuming a lot of my opinion without actually knowing. Where have I said anything about Trump being a dictator? Where did I actually say white people should wash the feet of black people? Where did I defend genocide (LOL?) or suggest it would acceptable if it's "natural?"

Let me remind you, YOU used the "it's NOT natural" argument. You brought that up with respect to non-reproductive sex, and used it as a way to say lesbian sex is "not natural." And it appears you were soundly refuted on that point. You're either ignoring the fact you're wrong on that point, or you've got full blown cognitive dissonance. I cannot tell which.

When you told me birds have sex for something other than procreation, did you ever stop to think "wait, how does anyone find out the birds' intentions? they can't masturbate so how can someone tell they're not fucking to have offpsirng?" You tell me lions have sex for pleasure. Yeah, except the lion penis TEARS the vagina. I've had cats, never once did one of them seem like they were enjoying being in heat. It was always a "make the pain go away" situation.

Instead of blindly flailing at understanding the science without actually reading anything, why not read something and find out for yourself? Here's a book I'd recommend to get started: Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are by Frans de Waal.

But...

It's the over-reaction to the "woke" identity politics that ends up being nothing better than the shit it is complaining about.

...totally.

Actually, yeah. I can't tell if you're being funny or not, but this long incoherent/ranting post screams over-reaction about TLOU2's depictions of lesbian romance, transgender (?) sex, etc.. We started talking about lesbian romance in video games, and in your mind, this has correspondence with this grab bag of grievances you have? Is there no such thing as degrees of severity to you? How can you actually compare the death of any real human being, for any reason or by any cause, to depictions of lesbian sex, or rough-sex, or pick whatever beef you have with TLOU2, in a video game?

Since you packed in a lot of different rambling topics, I'll select a couple to show you have completely missed the mark on what my opinion actually is:

I don't think Trump is a dictator. I don't think he could be a dictator no matter how hard he tried, or how much his admin tried to help him be so. I believe that because the US constitution is explicitly designed to prevent that by limiting the powers of the President. I also suspect he never actually wanted to be POTUS, but that it was all a publicity stunt to help him launch a populist media network. (My "evidence" for this is admittedly paper thin, but it is what I suspect after watching Trump so much.)

The Covington kid thing was an astonishing example of people rushing to judgment without facts, and also being so unjustifiably outraged they'd threaten and call for harm of a minor. I watched that thing unfold in real-time, watch the full (unedited) footage of what happened well before the MSM started backpedaling and defending themselves. It was one of the most epic, embarrassing self-owns I've seen the MSM do (and they do quite a lot). On top of that, there were a lot of folks who regularly demonstrate how they're taking the moral high ground and then suddenly descended into hysterical witch-hunters when they saw a single picture.

Well I was also defending a view I don't share. Regardless of my failure to defend it properly I still don't see irony in your original comment. That's why I'm apprehensive of giving you a win there.

As a side note, nice deflection, the monkeys are the only ones I didn't mention in my rant, clearly they can masturbate. How will that book prove to me that someone can tell the intentions of birds having sex?

Well I was also defending a view I don't share.

What view?

Back to the irony thing? You're really stuck on that. I don't know if there's anything left to be said. Try re-reading the posts above, take some time, let it settle, and if that doesn't work, try it again.

As a side note, nice deflection, the monkeys are the only ones I didn't mention in my rant, clearly they can masturbate.

Does that matter to your argument that only sex for reproduction is natural? And everything else is not? So what you're saying is that what man's nearest, extant evolutionary relative, the Bonobo, does something which is also "NOT natural?" I'm sorry, but you've set yourself up for contradictions. If what the Bonobos are doing is natural (which it obviously is), then it conflicts with your statement.

How will that book prove to me that someone can tell the intentions of birds having sex?

That book says nothing about birds. It's all about primates and, more specifically, the differences between Bonobos and common chimps. But it would be a useful starting place if you want to enlighten yourself about the natural world instead of making absolute judgments about what is natural or not natural, without actually having read the literature on the topic.

The view of sexuality being strictly procreational.

For at least the last 4 years the fucking left is projecting every time they smear the "other side", which at this point is nothing other than non-communists.

You don't talk to people that subscribe to the views you criticize in real life often, do you?

Oh yeah, talk to lots of american leftists in real life in Bulgaria...

If it is only the US you speak about, though I thought you'd think the same things about a lot of western Europe which is significantly to the left of the US...

you only had to leave your echo chamber for a short while, to take a look at mainstream leftwing media in the US, to see that they're far from communist. Even the most leftmost people in congress are proposing social-democratic reforms, not overthrowing capitalism. I suppose for some, it's too spooky to leave their echo chamber to read even that much.

You're using "MSM", not me. Project whatever you want on me, don't care.

You're the one that wrote the quote I cited, that's what I'm replying to.

Yeah, where do you see anything about media in that quote?

I'm saying even just a brief look at it would have shown you your point was misinformed.

When the "Joe Rogan is right-wing" guy tells you about communism, you listen.

Tell me more.

I don't think I said he's rightwing? I remember making a lot of claims about the guests and the like, but you really embarrassed yourself in that convo, so I suppose it makes sense you hold a grudge.

It's true by definition that lefties don't think of everyone but noncommunists as "the other side", any basic reading about socialism and communism and a basic look at mainstream media that leftwingers consume will tell you that the two groups are completely separate.

Since that's not obvious to you, I'm curious: what are your sources on where the majority of the left is in the US is, politically?

"It's not communism! It's socialism! I mean social-democracy!"
He did it! What an absolute madman!

I totally walked right into that *checks notes* making distinctions between vastly different ideologies thing

It's like a whore from chaturbate calling herself "a model".
Good if you are 80 IQ femoid but anyone else could connect the dots.

unsurprising reference, I guess we know what you do when you're not doing extensive research on ideologies

How much extensive research do you need to smoke to think Bernie Sanders is not a commie?

Not really big on smoking, but his statements on policy would be more helpful in knowing what he'll do than whatever mindreading you've focused on.

About as much to pick USSR for your honeymoon. None.

I don't even want to engage with this cop-out, I have lots of questions that I'm ok becoming rhetorical.

What? Where is the "cop-out?" I answered your question as directly as I could. I don't have all the answers, but I shared my actual opinion in good faith, and somehow that is a "cop-out?"

Regarding protests, protesting one of the core rights Americans have. Setting aside the purpose of the protests, the bedrock of the political philosophy the US is based on is to allow people to assemble and demonstrate. But on top of that, the killing of George Floyd is heinous and people are very understandably angry about it. It's really not that difficult to understand, is it?

the killing of George Floyd

the death*

I trust you've only heard of the second and third autopsies, not the first.

It is a cop-out, the answer is the same to the question - was that rape justified?

What rape? Are we talking about the same thing?

Yeah, the concept is property. Whether it's your body or business is irrelevant. Commies don't think that concept is real.

Property doesn't have any feelings, my dude. You think someone stealing a TV is the same thing as someone getting raped?

People who get robbed don't have feelings?

They do, but whatever feelings they have for physical objects is not the same as someone has over their own bodies. If you had to choose between getting your TV smashed or getting your face smashed, I assume you would pick the former.

Your argument here sounds vaguely familiar. Like those people who say speech is violence. No, speech is not violence. Violence is violence. Rape is rape. If I smash your TV, that's not nice, and it's criminal, but it is not the same as smashing a part of your body.

If I smash your TV, that's not nice, and it's criminal, but it is not the same as smashing a part of your body.

Is smashing a part of my body nice or not criminal?

What are you trying to say?

That you're trying to claim they're different by describing similarities.

What is it you believe? Do you believe if I hit a TV with a baseball bat, that someone's injury is equivalent to as if they were themselves hit by the same baseball bat?

I believe they're both crimes and thus can't ever be justified. Just like rioting.

edit: Sorry I used "ever", but at least you have an opening to deflect from the point.

So all crimes are equivalent, in your view? Murder is the same as theft is the same as rape? My point was rape is more severe than the theft of property. Not just morally, but also the act is typically a lot more violent. When you erase the distinction of severity, you are doing the exact same thing as a woke SJW saying "speech is violence" or a racist word is the same as a racist act. That's why distinctions and nuance matter.

What changes with your comment by removing "ever"? They're both without qualifiers. The "ever" here is redundant.

Being precise is important. Distinctions are important. Nuance is important. Part of the problem with this cluster-f of a thread is a complete lack of clarity of the ideas. What precisely bothers people about TLOU2? Is it really the lesbian romance? Is it really depictions of rough sex? No, of course not. That's what I said at the start. It's the appearance of pandering to "woke" audiences. Why should anyone care? They shouldn't.

EDIT: I don't know if you like videogamedunkey, but he best summed it up by saying essentially people don't know why they're upset about TLOU2. They just want to be upset about something, I guess.

Rape being more severe changes nothing as far as justification goes, both are crimes infringing on the rights of other individuals. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Nice deflection. Are you going to respond to the point I made about the importance of distinction and nuance, and how arguing theft = rape, so you might as well just call it rape, is a bad move. It's the same as saying "speech is violence." You're doing the same thing the most idiotic, woke SJWs do by erasing all distinctions and severity of acts.

Rape being more severe changes nothing as far as justification goes, both are crimes infringing on the rights of other individuals.

Is that your actual opinion? It's not difficult to see how absurd this is. There are situations where breaking a lesser law is okay in order to stop something worse from happening (criminal or not). For instance, would you illegally cross a road (we call it "jaywalking" in the US) if it meant saving someone's life?

2 wrongs don't make a right.

I know what this means, but not in this context. Where are we talking about doing two illegal (or "wrong") acts?

I think the nuance is irrelevant to the (failed) justification. All I'm doing is applying your reasoning to the same set of meaningful circumstances to show you that your reasoning is faulty. You're reverting to that nuance, but it's not relevant to whether or not it's justified i.e. if it's a crime or not, it's only relevant to sentencing. It is also why you're going for jaywalking, which as far as I can tell does not infringe on the rights of any other individual directly, the way rape or theft does.

Yeah, unjust laws exist, but you don't fight them by breaking other laws. You break the law, go to court and defend your case. It's why you have a constitution which lays out inalienable rights, that is nuance. Like whether or not a crime directly infringes on someone's inalienable rights, which jaywalking does not. But both rape and theft do.

Pick any fucking crime you want - rioting, theft, rape... or jaywalking. Using any of those to battle... WHATEVER, makes you merely criminally stupid. Not just, not moral, not ethical, not compassionate, not altruistic. Just stupid. And when that crime does infringe directly on other people's rights... you might just be evil as well.

Pick any fucking crime you want - rioting, theft, rape... or jaywalking. Using any of those to battle... WHATEVER, makes you merely criminally stupid. Not just, not moral, not ethical, not compassionate, not altruistic. Just stupid. And when that crime does infringe directly on other people's rights... you might just be evil as well.

Geez, I realize that you might be unaware of this in the heat of the moment but this is some out and about statement against fighting even totalitarian regimes doing horrible crimes against your community. I wonder if you'd be saying the same if you realize how it applies to, say, to Uyghurs in China, or Ukrainians during Holodomor. Or, you know, slaves in the US. The constitution existed during slavery too.

Don't talk about nuance if you keep making absolutist claims without regard for different situations. And don't accuse me of comparing the current situation to either of the three situations that I mentioned; I'm poking holes specifically in your absolutist claims.

Well we have to ask lolograde if he didn't understand that the context was about USA. No, I'm not an absolutist, just use hyperbole a lot.

At least to me it's very hard to tell that you're not making an absolutist distinction about doing crime never being moral or reasonable unless the specific crime shouldn't be a crime in your mind. So, doing theft while say trying to escape slavery isn't okay, under that reading.

The context of USA still includes slavery btw xd

I'm talking about doing random theft TO ACHIEVE abolishing slavery. Yeah, it doesn't make sense in my mind. Are you trying to tell me the slaves were freed after a bunch of white people rioted and looted random businesses in the union? I thought a civil war between clear sides with clear objectives was waged...

Because war is somehow not as bad as rioting/looting? Man, it's really lucky we didn't make war illegal because those slaves would've been totally fucked otherwise.

Beyond the obvious and I'd say knockdown point lolograde made, someone could simply be escaping his master. Might need food or tools to survive. Theft during the war, if it'd be against the side and the people fighting the war on extremely unjust premises wouldn't be at all bad either.

That's of course extreme compared to today, but there are lots of issues today that people have had real trouble fixing politically, and black people as a minority have had big issues addressing them. At some point, I think breaking the law becomes morally permissible. I'm personally for sure fine with the symbolic act of burning down one police station without any people in it when acts related to it incited a huge movement countrywide, hell, near-worldwide. There are other ways that they've made an impact with theft, but I didn't really want to go there without making sure that you see how absolutist your phrasing has been. Because it's very out there.

It looks like son1dow beat me to the punch because I was going to ask if you self-identify as an authoritarian or monarchist. It becomes arbitrarily easy for a corrupt gov't to enact laws that keep them in power forever.

Let's take an example. Say a corrupt gov't enacts the following law: "If you do, say, or even think anything that negatively effects the gov't or its leaders, you have committed the ultimate crime and it is punishable by death." What would you do in that situation? Would you try really, really hard not to break that law? And if you accidentally had a negative thought about the gov't, would you turn yourself in? This is quite absurd, so I cannot see how you could actually believe what you are saying.

Anyhow, there's a large body of political philosophy on the topic of civil disobedience, you want to take the time to consider it. That doesn't mean that you must take it all at face value, but you should take the time to read and consider it. Education means being able to consider something without needing to accept it as true. But I highly doubt you've taken the time to consider these things thoroughly.

EDIT: Also, the US context includes the bill of rights which was designed to limit the power of gov't. It enables the people to resist the gov't. As dark as the US history is, the gov't was created to make progress possible. Under your political philosophy, progress would not be possible. There would be no way to resist the gov't if you say their rules/laws must be obeyed absolutely. It is insane.

I think he's saying that you can break the specific law that is bad, but not others, which I don't know if he notices can become very difficult to impossible in may scenarios.

Let's take an example. Say a corrupt gov't enacts the following law: "If you do, say, or even think anything that negatively effects the gov't or its leaders, you have committed the ultimate crime and it is punishable by death." What would you do in that situation? Would you try really, really hard not to break that law? And if you accidentally had a negative thought about the gov't, would you turn yourself in? This is quite absurd, so I cannot see how you could actually believe what you are saying.

Well I now understand that the correct action is to start looting random businesses.

Thanks, bye.

"Civil disobedience" includes looting, sure. Random? I don't see why it necessarily has to be random.

Looting or vandalisation is never okay, these are peoples' livelyhoods.

Some of the lootings are ruining innocent people's lives. People who live in those neighborhoods, who cannot afford to lose inventory or have their buildings wrecked. Some of who share the exact same sentiments as those protesting. But "never" is a very definite word. I am not so sure, especially where the destruction is not just obviously just opportunism to steal some stuff.

Not trying to be nitpicky, but vandalization is not that serious. Bansky is a vandal.

Of course, nitpick the vandalization, deflect from the looting and burning.

Deflect? Can you define that word, because I addressed that first. Or did you not see?

Some of the lootings are ruining innocent people's lives. People who live in those neighborhoods, who cannot afford to lose inventory or have their buildings wrecked. Some of who share the exact same sentiments as those protesting. But "never" is a very definite word. I am not so sure, especially where the destruction is not just obviously just opportunism to steal some stuff.

Nope, you deflected from the start.

Some of the lootings are ruining innocent people's lives.

Literally all of the lootings are ruining innocent people's lives because the people who owned those business are not police officers involved in the very thing that's being "protested".

Do you think the lives of Target's shareholders/stakeholders are now in ruins because of the looting? If "literally all" (quoting you) of the looting ruins people's lives, what innocent person associated with Target has had their lives ruined by this? Incidentally, Target's stock price is actually up from the day after George Floyd's death. It was at 115 and is currently at 118. "Ruined?" I think not.

Target is one example, and that's all I need to justify using the word "some" rather than "all." I chose my words carefully and did not deflect. But I'll do you one better by justifying using "some" further: I would assume there are many more corporate chain stores -- like Apple, Walmart, etc. -- whose bottom lines were not significantly hurt by the looting and no one's lives were "ruined." And further still, I would assume there are some stores where the looting was limited, and while injurious to the owner's financial outlook, did not "ruin" their lives.

Ok, literally all of the lootings are harming innocent lives. Focus on the innocent part. Target is still innocent and the lootings are not justified. Or is their stock price going up some sick rationalization that these lootings are a force of good?

I agree that innocent people are harmed in the looting (just not that all looting harms only innocent people -- keep reading to understand what I mean by this). Innocent, small business owners are definitely the most affected, and ironically those who support the communities as employers and sources of income for the communities are being harmed. I don't think those instances are defensible at all. And I said all this the first time I addressed this. When you accused me of deflecting.

But where it becomes more complicated in terms of "innocence," in my opinion, is the looting and destruction of corporate or public property. There are undoubtedly connections between corporate money and public policy so what is "innocence" is not black and white. As a matter of tactics, if that connection exists, that is a place where pressure applied by "the people" creates influence. Corporations who are pissed off about their stores being looted, exerting their political influence, until the local officials get their shit together, one way or another.

One act that defined the start of the American revolutionary war was the Boston Tea Party where a lot of British property was destroyed by colonists who felt overtaxed. In other words, like it or not, the destruction of property in the pursuit of reform is as American as apple pie.

Let me be clear because I think you are very likely going to misconstrue what I am saying (probably deliberately): I am not saying it's totally, 100%, absolutely OK to loot and destroy property. I am especially not saying it's OK under any pretense for any purpose. But I don't think it is absolutely, line in the sand, clear as you seem to think it is. Particularly when it comes to the tactics of getting some change you think is the morally just end goal. There is a large body of philosophical work around civil disobedience, and what is morally justifiable. It's not a simple yes/no thing, I think. That's my view.

The main difference is that the Boston Tea Party fought for something specific, and destroyed the property of the British. There was a purpose and reason in that act of destruction.

When it comes to BLM, what are they fighting against exactly? Where's the purpose in demolishing property of random people? The so called "systemic racism" doesnt exist. Anywhere in civilized world, discrimination based on race or sex is illegal. So whats the fight here?

Over-policing, police brutality, and death by police officer, is what I see and read coming from the protesters. Statistically, from what I understand, black people are not disproportionately killed by cops, but they have more frequent encounters with police and are arrested more frequently for the same or similar charges. Everything else being held constant, black people are more policed.

And whether or not you agree with that, at the very least there is distrust between police and the black community, going both ways. It's why some situations escalate wayyyyy out of control when they could have otherwise ended peacefully. The only way that improves is if the nation has a serious moment where all the stakeholders agree that something can and should be improved upon. There are opinion polls about these things, and there does seem to be a general consensus forming around the need for change in policing policy/procedures.

Rather than look for ways to avoid change, why not just take the opportunity to say, "OK, I'm listening. What can we do to make things better?" It's not hard to listen, and just listening can serve as a balm in times of social unrest.

they have more frequent encounters with police and are arrested more frequently for the same or similar charges

Thats because, statistically, black people commit most crimes in the US despite being a 13% minority. It's only logical they have more frequent encounters with the police, and it's logical that they are arrested more often for the same crimes, as it's more likely they have been on parole / arrested before.

Police brutality in the US is a known issue. Even on youtube you can find endless evidence - pet dogs getting killed for no reason, people getting beaten, property destroyed. If the police force is the issue, then maybe it's time to reform the psychological tests or generally change how police members are rectuired.

Nevertheless, none of these things explain or excuse how the black minority is protesting. The destruction of private property, beatings, kissing feet or ruining historic statues isnt about justice. More than a fight for a good cause, it looks like a regular thievery that occurs every time a hurricane hits the coast. There's always one specific minority that takes advantage of this.

Thats because, statistically, black people commit most crimes in the US despite being a 13% minority. It's only logical they have more frequent encounters with the police, and it's logical that they are arrested more often for the same crimes, as it's more likely they have been on parole / arrested before.

There is a cliche statistical saying: "correlation, not causation." If you control for other factors that influence crime rates -- e.g., poverty, education, parental education, etc. -- do black people actually engage in more criminal activity compared to a white person in precisely the same circumstances? In other words, is race a predictor for criminal activity? And so far, the research looks to be no, it is not.

Police brutality in the US is a known issue. Even on youtube you can find endless evidence - pet dogs getting killed for no reason, people getting beaten, property destroyed. If the police force is the issue, then maybe it's time to reform the psychological tests or generally change how police members are rectuired.

Maybe, but I also believe the job of being a police officer is extremely stressful and creates psychological issues. If your job, 80+ hours a week, is to deal with criminals, interact in situations of violent crime, it will undoubtedly have an effect over time.

Nevertheless, none of these things explain or excuse how the black minority is protesting.

The George Floyd death is one in a long line of very visible deaths. Why now? Well, there were riots and lootings before and have been for decades. When MLK Jr. died, there were riots and protests in major cities throughout the country. And there have been riots and protests after many of the deaths of black people. I think the reason why George Floyd's death has had a more profound impact on the national dialogue is because of the video, its length, and the visceral display of someone suffering needlessly while several cops look completely disassociated from suffering.

The destruction of private property, beatings, kissing feet or ruining historic statues isnt about justice. More than a fight for a good cause, it looks like a regular thievery that occurs every time a hurricane hits the coast. There's always one specific minority that takes advantage of this.

I believe you're incorrect about race as an important factor. The predictors of criminal behaviors are poverty, education, parental education, teenage pregnancy, etc.. Not race. I think there are many publically available datasets if you want to see this for yourself. There is also a lot of publically available research on the question, too.

But I think we have very different views. I am biased, I am sure. I grew up in the US south and went through public school system. And the impression I get of your views is very different than what my own 30+ years of experience tells me. So, just from a baseline, I don't agree.

If you control for other factors that influence crime rates -- e.g., poverty, education, parental education, etc. -- do black people actually engage in more criminal activity compared to a white person in precisely the same circumstances? In other words, is race a predictor for criminal activity? And so far, the research looks to be no, it is not.

If you control for those other factors, are black people killed more often by police? I'm not saying that this argument is wrong - it might cut both ways though.



Law enforcement has a lot of rather unique powers. As long as LEOs are not really held accountable for misuse of those powers, the quality of their work will not improve.

When it comes to police killing people, I personally like this evaluation concept: What would happen to an ordinary citizen who acted exactly the same way?

In many cases the answer to this is "sentenced to life for murder, no parole" etc. For police officers that does not apply, they get away with ridiculous sentences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5FKkEF7F3M

If ordinary people did something like that it's either a death or multiple life sentences, not some bullshit 5 years.

If you control for those other factors, are black people killed more often by police? I'm not saying that this argument is wrong - it might cut both ways though.

I mentioned earlier, but I believe the research is that black people are not killed by cops more often. But that there are more interactions between police and blacks, and they tend to end with more arrests. There is also more physical altercations.

However, one problem is that there's no single federal/public database for all this data, so there is perhaps some reliability/validity issues with current analyses of the public, extant datasets.

To me, I think it's simply a really serious lack of trust on both sides. Police should, ideally, find ways to de-escalate situations. And I think the perception of cops as being unfair/unjust towards black people in particular makes black people more reluctant to be cooperative with the cops. I can't see how this status quo is sustainable.

Law enforcement has a lot of rather unique powers. As long as LEOs are not really held accountable for misuse of those powers, the quality of their work will not improve.

Yep, they have immunity to exercise force, sometimes lethal, in certain conditions that citizens cannot. They have power to enforce the law that ordinary citizens do not.

"
There is a cliche statistical saying: "correlation, not causation." If you control for other factors that influence crime rates -- e.g., poverty, education, parental education, etc. -- do black people actually engage in more criminal activity compared to a white person in precisely the same circumstances? In other words, is race a predictor for criminal activity?"

Actually yes, they do. Black people in the rich bracket commit more crimes than asian people in the poor bracket

Actually yes, they do. Black people in the rich bracket commit more crimes than asian people in the poor bracket

Do you have a reference for that claim?

You can google

How does one Google for proof of something that does not exist?

By not being mentally dishonest, to start

e.g., poverty, education, parental education, etc

You dont need a college degree to be a decent human being and you dont need "parental education" to send your kids to school and tell them to behave.
All these factors you named apply to all people of all races, they're not black-specific.

The George Floyd death is one in a long line of very visible deaths.

A line of black criminals getting killed. From Trayvon Martin up to Ahmaud Arbery & George Floyd. None of them were individuals getting shot on their way to work for their skin color.
The footage of Floyd's death was emotional, yes. So was Jayden Hayden beating a helpless old man in a nursing home or George Steward burning a 91-year-old ww2 veteran alive.
Statistically, the black-on-white crime is uncomparably higher than white-on-black crime. Did you see cities burning over it? Black people getting beaten or murdered by white mobs? No.

national dialogue

Dialogue about what? Defunding the police? If politics or leftists wanted to help ambitious black people to have a good shot at life, they would support more budget for the police forces to stop gang violence and drug dealers. 90+ black people were shot in Chicago on Father's day alone, but nobody talks about that. Everything that was done under the BLM flag was nothing but counter-productive.

The predictors of criminal behaviors are poverty, education, parental education, teenage pregnancy, etc

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

You dont need a college degree to be a decent human being and you dont need "parental education" to send your kids to school and tell them to behave.

That is true, but we're speaking of group tendencies and statistics. This is not an absolute rule that every single individual obeys. There is a distribution, including extreme cases on both tails. There are cases of people who, despite the disadvantages, go on to be really successful, and there are others who despite advantages go on to be complete failures. There is really no such thing as the "average" human as described by statistics. But once you have more than one individual, you can start to say what the average is between two or more datum.

All these factors you named apply to all people of all races, they're not black-specific.

Exactly my point. Once you control for these variables (poverty, education, parental education, etc.), then you see race has no predictive value for criminality. Socioeconomic background is enormously predictive. Once you control for that, you've explained a great deal of the differences between individuals.

Statistically, the black-on-white crime is uncomparably higher than white-on-black crime. Did you see cities burning over it? Black people getting beaten or murdered by white mobs? No.

I think you've fallen into the same trap here. You're assuming race is the predictor. If you removed race and tabulated this data based on other variables like poverty, education, etc., the picture would be much clearer.

Dialogue about what? Defunding the police? If politics or leftists wanted to help ambitious black people to have a good shot at life, they would support more budget for the police forces to stop gang violence and drug dealers. 90+ black people were shot in Chicago on Father's day alone, but nobody talks about that. Everything that was done under the BLM flag was nothing but counter-productive.

"Defunding the police" is a hilariously bad idea. Anyone who thinks that's a good idea is really and truly mistaken. But there are practical, and common-sense ways to reform policing in the US that make the lives better for everyone. There are a lot of ideas. Some people in the US have suggested having an alternative to 911 that is more like emergency social workers, rather than armed police. Someone who has no power to arrest, or wield a lethal weapon. Or having more community-centric social work agencies involved with law enforcement issues.

That Morgan Freeman clip is interesting because I think it does not help your case. He's saying race is not a barrier. But you're here arguing that race is a barrier because it predicts for various outcomes. It sounds like you want your cake and eat it, too. Which is it?

And whether or not you agree with that, at the very least there is distrust between police and the black community, going both ways.

There's distrust between police and civilians (worldwide) - period. When it comes to US police, blacks are treated like shit by whites just as much as they are by blacks and vice versa. Same goes for other minorities, regardless of who holds the title for the highest crime rate. 'The Wire' - should be called a documentary, not a TV show.

You spend so much time splitting hairs over trivial details, completely overlooking the fact that the media giants have turned a class war into a race war. The Soros funded BLM (a piece of information which was conveniently redacted from his wikipedia page a few days ago) and the proposals in 'restructuring' the police are devious at best - the end game of which is defunding it, militarizing it and giving private security firms more rights and higher powers. That's really the main goal of capitalism and communism alike - privatization - a world where the few parasitic 'elite' wield power over the many. I know, i know...a bit too conspiratorial for your taste.

As for your TLOU2 input, man is it obtuse...Invest some of your effort in asking people with experience on the streets about the vile industry and religion that (corporate) 'politics' and science has become, instead of citing vapid wikipedia articles from the comfort of your home.

As for your TLOU2 input, man is it obtuse.

What is obtuse? I don't think the criticism about TLOU2 is warranted. How is that obtuse? And, in my view, the criticism of TLOU2 seems to be what is incoherent. OP mentions lesbians and transgenders (but it's not actually clear if there's a transgender character). What else is there to criticize? People want something to get bent out of shape about something, so they do. They're seeing common themes and choices used in fiction as participating in identity politics.

Invest some of your effort in asking people with experience on the streets about the industry and religion that (corporate) 'politics' and science has become, instead of citing vapid wikipedia articles from the comfort of your home.

Sounds like you put a high value on "street wisdom." I don't think that's bad, but it's wrong to think it's the only or the best source of information. You're limited only to your experience. How would you expect to know anything about the experiences of others?

But where it becomes more complicated in terms of "innocence," in my opinion, is the looting and destruction of corporate or public property. There are undoubtedly connections between corporate money and public policy so what is "innocence" is not black and white. As a matter of tactics, if that connection exists, that is a place where pressure applied by "the people" creates influence. Corporations who are pissed off about their stores being looted, exerting their political influence, until the local officials get their shit together, one way or another.

THAT is the kool-aid. It's always some form of identity politics and you've been conditioned to engage in it without realizing. It is subtle and I don't blame you for not seeing it. What I do blame you for is your apprehension to even humor it. Talking to you is tiresome, not because you're stupid, no precisely because you're not. But you're mis- or dis-informed and you're subconsciously arguing so you can stay that way.

But this has nothing to do with George Floyd's death.

You're so quick to connect this incident to corporations, but not TLOU2...

THAT is the kool-aid. It's always some form of identity politics and you've been conditioned to engage in it without realizing. It is subtle and I don't blame you for not seeing it. What I do blame you for is your apprehension to even humor it. Talking to you is tiresome, not because you're stupid, no precisely because you're not. But you're mis- or dis-informed and you're subconsciously arguing so you can stay that way.

Can you point out where I'm engaged in identity politics? Specifically, quote me and explain, since it is "subtle" and since you seem to certain it is there.

You're so quick to connect this incident to corporations, but not TLOU2...

TLOU2 was in development for 6 years. George Floyd died on May 25, 2020. TLOU2 was released on June 19, 2020. Do you really think they could have made substantial changes to the game in less than a month and still shipped it? There is no connection to the content of TLOU2 and the death of George Floyd, and I still do not see why you would believe there to be. Nothing in OP even mentions race. It's lesbians and maybe a transgender (Abby) who is believed to be transgendered because she's strangely built for a woman, although you don't see any other evidence she is actually transgendered, afaik.

"Nothing in OP even mentions race. It's lesbians and maybe a transgender (Abby) who is believed to be transgendered because she's strangely built for a woman, although you don't see any other evidence she is actually transgendered, afaik. "

lmao fucking hell

lolwut

What kind of game is this lmao, if it didn't have The Last of Us tag you'd never think it was a continuation of the first game.

Really? It looks pretty much identical to TLOU 1 to me, except with an open world, instead of small area to small area.

Might look like it, but like Mass Effect Andromeda compared to the original games they've went full on retard.

Wasn't that game a buggy mess?

It was a disgrace and the team who made it a bigger one.

A shadow of what Bioware once was.

Eschewing personal responsibility is always part of identity politics. You're doing it so you can blame nebulously connected corporations. Like I said, it's subtle, very much so.

I'm saying you're blaming corporations for Floyd's death and yet you're not blaming them for TLOU2. For some reason you think they have responsibility for police-public interaction and public laws, but not for the products they create.

Eschewing personal responsibility is always part of identity politics. You're doing it so you can blame nebulously connected corporations. Like I said, it's subtle, very much so.

"Part" is not the whole thing. Where is the identity? If you can't point to it, then you've not a foot to stand on.

I'm saying you're blaming corporations for Floyd's death and yet you're not blaming them for TLOU2. For some reason you think they have responsibility for police-public interaction and public laws, but not for the products they create.

You've misunderstood what I said. Maybe I was not clear, but let me try to be clearer. Did corporations have anything to do with George Floyd's death? No, that's ludicrous to think so. But they have political influence, like it or not.

If an activist's goal is to affect change, it becomes another pressure point to affect change. I'm talking in practical/realist, positive terms here. That is particular to large businesses like Target, Walmart, Apple, Amazon, who can afford to hire lobbyists and other actors to influence public policy. I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing that they can do that, but it comes with making them apart of the so-called public policy "iron triangle." And in that regard, if they want to be in a position to influence public policy, they have made themselves part of the public discourse.

Yep, vote through corporations. GL.

I wish moron Starbucks mourners like you cried as much about people getting killed for no reason

I wish commies find out people can own businesses too.

Some white guy does an unprepared stupid thing -> all white guys are racist.
Some arab commits planned terrorist act with help from this friends in the mosques that pray a lot of bad things about the western world -> do please not generalize all of them to be like this

The truth lies somewhere between, any normal inteligent journalist knows this, they are either following their agenda and dont have a problem throwing away the truth or they try to/have to please their boss who has that agenda or is bought by the elites or has to act within the boundaries of the moral system that is set up/manipulated by the elites to keep his business running.

skin colour is irrelevent, strength is all that matters

Violence in video games is always complained about. With real consequences, for example: https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2007...xasschool/

But not here, and not by the folks who are complaining about the TLOU2's sex scenes and lesbian romance. That's the point. How can they be upset about this thing that's basically the domain of 40yo Christian mothers.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=last+of+us+2+middle...mp;ia=news

Edit:

As an aside, I remember when the game Fear Effect 2 came out in 2001. It was advertised showing the two female main characters as bisexual, as if that was a major theme when it was actually a small part of the game itself. There was controversy at the time that they were doing this to get sales from teenage boys who wanted to see two babes get it on with each other. See here: https://lgbt.wikia.org/wiki/LGBT_characters_in_video_games and https://www.destructoid.com/sexy-time-fear-effect-2-132574.phtml

There was controversy on both sides, some people saying sexualizing women is bad, others saying that it was almost false advertising as they bought the game expecting more action between the main characters.

Somehow, with TLOU2, the whole situation seems to have inverted. But maybe the unifying theme is controversy->sales.

PS. Notice from one of the above links Nintendo censored LGBT themes, not sure if they still do.

I have sex strictly in the missionary for procreation uses only.

Alternative is microwaving a bagel and fucking it

mad?

Ur a fucking maniac, my dude.

I'm touched in the head but i always do what's right in the end

It's not about the sex. It's the entire context. They retroactively changed characters (the lesbian was straight in the first game), there's that weird "all women must be muscolar and with square jaws to not let trans people feel out", and the whole lesbian relationship thing is very crammed down your throat.

For instance there's 0 chemistry between the two girls. 0. It's like all the hollywood action movies or series when they decide they need a love story to capture more audience, and thus you have two people that barely know each other's name and couldn't be more different and incompatible literally jumping each other's bones for a 2 minutes scene of very awkward and unnecessary sex.

It's like that in most movies, and it's just pointless and awkward. It ruins the flow and take away screen time.

But all of this would just make the game a mediocre netflix movie.

What's worrying is what went around the game that lead to this: the original game director forced to step down, the internal rearrangment and practices that lead to programmers being so frustrated to leak a game they don't recognize as their own, and the worst thing of the whole charade, the salvo of fake 10/10 votes from biased "critics".

That alone is unacceptable, i think TLOU2 has the highest average score of any game or something like that, and it's clearly as an answer to the general discontent from the fans.

Not that game scores ever meant much, but it shows how the system works in 2020.

I don't think it should particularly matter if they've apparently changed a character. People change in real life. How is this different? I know at least two women who were straight in college who later had gay relationships. One of them ended up marrying a woman! It happens.

Is the gay stuff really the issue or is it the fact they're pandering to the "woke" audiences. Who cares? Apparently critics don't care. I suspect most people who bought the game do not care, and that would be evidenced by the game's sales.

As far as the androgynous, muscular women with square jawlines, I assume they're pandering to the CrossFit audience with that one. LUL

Is this a bait?

Only for CrossFit nuts

Never played the game, since it's a gaming console, but after watching speed runs and fan made movie cut scenes, I'm surprised The Last Of Us 2 wasn't Joel and Ellie have a baby or some other PornHub incest shit. I guess this is the year of the lesbobs. Would have been cool to see some chick with a dick or summtin I dunno fuk

there are no 'chicks with dicks', only dudes with tits

Deus vult

TRIGGERED LOL

https://twitter.com/EPSTEIN_ALIVE/status/1274816725553471488

Not sure if I should click

Because Twatter

https://imgur.com/bujdB5C

LOL

https://imgur.com/a/fc9xnvI

this a pol psyop?

screenshots from the game
https://youtu.be/4stUM3J7xnU

Watched video... question remains...

Elaborate then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4stUM3J7xnU&t=94s

question remains...

Still dont understand what the question is.

Is there something controversial about a Jewish character in a video game?

The implication was that Naughty Dog could have been infiltrated by a pol/ak.

edit: pol psyop = 4chan pol operation

I dont think so - https://youtu.be/yr01s3BC_Z8

Apparently apocalypse doesn't reset hate-crime laws. But being serious, it's shameful and wasteful that they have legal teams for this.

Oh noes, characters are having sex in a Sony "game". It's Naughty Dog, it's an interactive film at best.

If anything, watching a hot tranny get penetrated turns me on. Then again, I've never been a prude

If to not be "a prude" you have to enjoy tranny rape..... Ykes, i wanna be a prude!

I personally enoy no rape

That's a cheap straw man and you know it. I haven't said a thing about rape, neither does your initial post in this thread.

I am struggling to understand what you're trying to say here. If you've got anything to say, just say it. ESR is not being moderated so you can say almost anything you want.

Largely same people that have issues with historical and biological inaccuracy only when it concerns minority characters, often in fictional stories with superpowers...

He said as he muttered "Joe Rogan is right-wing, he's right-wing I'M TELLING YOU".

biological inaccuracy

go away

I've heard people say that

Joe Rogan himself is self-declared himself as very liberal and left-leaning and bashes trump a lot

Retards

But all this left versus right nonsense is exactly that nonsense, pantomine child games

the fuck you talking about

I'm sadly glad that the majority of people who fought in WW2 aren't alive to see the world today.

I want my kid to wake up and look forward to anal scenes before breakfast. Got to start the day right

It's unclear if that's anal or simply doggy style. Plus, this game is rated for mature audiences only.

https://www.esrb.org/ratings/36681/The+Last+of+Us+Part+II/

Rating Summary

This is an action game in which players follow the story of Ellie and Joel on their continued struggle for survival in post-pandemic Wyoming. From a third-person perspective, players traverse through small towns, wilderness, and ruin environments, using a variety of weapons (e.g., rifles, pistols, explosives, blades) to kill infected mutants and human survivors in frenetic combat. Some sequences enable players to use stealth attacks against enemies—approaching from behind, slitting their throats. Players can also use explosives to set enemies on fire or blow enemies apart into limbs/bloody chunks of flesh. Cutscenes depict further instances of violence: a human captive bound and hung from a noose before being disemboweled; assailants beating a restrained woman's arm with a hammer; characters shot in the head with arrows; a man repeatedly pistol-whipped. The game contains some sexual content: a couple disrobing and briefly engaging in a sexual act; the couple is heard grunting/moaning as the screen turns black (depicted from the waist up with female toplessness). Some zombie creatures are depicted with exposed breasts and genitalia. One sequence depicts two characters smoking a marijuana joint in a room full of marijuana plants. The words “f**k” and “sh*t,” appear in the dialogue.

From the guy saying lesbian sex in a video game is just too much...

lmao that clip is the richest thing anyone's posted in ESR in a while

CTRL+F "lesbian"
lots of lolograde, nothing by Nzr0

You're so obsessed with lesbians.

Then what are you even complaining about? Do you even know what you're so upset about regarding this game?

https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4...us-part-ii

It's unclear if that's anal or simply doggy style.

Only if you are literally retarded.
#nohate
#blm

Only if you are literally not a virgin.

Don't worry guys, there's someone fighting for your rights.

Aww, I thought you meant this... pick the noun, pro- or otherwise.

Throw them in the pit

Under the new Reich anyone not playing Quake 3 should be sent into a gulag, starting by all those shitty movie-games.

best quote on esr

Gay marriage literally ruined everything.

*hits tha blunt*
suddenly everything seem GOOD in the world =]<o~~~

:=]<*

1 hour with weights 100% intensity