MU woadie

I actually came across this sociopath a week or so ago and got smashed. I don’t even think he had the Dancer at the time either. ?

I actually thought the title might be a reference to that old Christmas film, “It’s a Wonderful Life”

Probably the most small brain question, but do we know which Legendary Heroes will be returning at the end of the month? Is there anywhere that keeps track of this info?

It's the best option, as I viewed the other options being "Ambiguously Brown", which would be disrespectful imo. Or listing off "Black/Hispanic/Arabic/Indian" every time, which still discounts Polynesians, North American Tribesman and other groups while simultaneously being long as fuck to type. So I went with PoC just to keep things simple. If this is a response to what I said, I was trying to echo this same notion, just by explaining that characters probably don't think of people as "black/white/hispanic etc" the same way we think of them. Especially since it's from a Japanese developer, who also doesn't have those same concepts. So ultimately having more diverse skin tones isn't something the characters gonna draw attention to with people like Niles/Tobin in previous games, despite them being clearly different in appearance.

Well, even if IS intends for it to be a "Person of Color" in the context of -Race as we understand it in the 21st century-, the characters in FE:TH probably have wildly different understandings as to what skin color means to peoples identities. As would probably be the case for every fictional fantasy setting. So even if Claude for us is equivalent to Black or Latino or what have you, in game they'll probably just refer to his heritage as his Nation or Territory of origin (Reganian?) if they make note of him being "different" at all. It's just nice to have people that look like us, since it allows a wider array of people to immerse themselves in gameplay.

XY was at E3 ORAS was at e3 And I think Sun and Moon were also at E3 but I don't remember for certain

poquito POQUITO

As someone who likes both Tellius and Awakening, that sounds more like a nightmare than a dream A fanfic about the hype before the reveal, or....

Most real Monarchies of the past are tyranical and/or filled with aristocrats who view those of lesser birth lesser humans. And the politics surrounding nations is built far less on morality and far more on what is best for the stability and political interests of that country. So while it would be a more interesting story than *generic shonen adventure*, well... They don't make great protagonists or heroes.

I think the issue is that people associate a certain stigma with anime-looking art styles that hold a certain number of tropes. Because "Anime" just doesn't mean anything if you think about it deeper than that. Outside of the concept of the Harem/Ecchi genre, most modern anime tropes appear in western media, and have been for decades. For example, I have a friend who refers to the Marvel Cinetmatic Universe as "Live Action Anime" (and that's why she loves it). Like the difference between say a Star Wars film and an arc in Naruto in terms of tropes overlaps quite heavily. That's because story telling concepts and ideas aren't tied in anyway to a certain type of story medium- they exist in all forms of media. And often times, especially in the post internet era, various mediums tend to get heavily inspired from one another. So ultimately after a certain point, everything just simultaneuosly will and won't be "anime" because of how incestuous story telling and inspiration will become. The concept of the Ecchi genre not appear in things more often here in the west largely stems from "American" Puritanism, which generally saturates most of the nations influenced by America and it's close allies. Which unfortunately makes us more generally repressed sexually as a culture to where it's raunchy to see some animated panties land on a dude's face as a gag. And even then, we still do have some hyper sexual (generally R-Rated) comedy films around, such as Deuce Bigalow and American Pie although those tend to be broader ideas in comparison to what people generally consider "ecchi". Generally speaking, it doesn't matter if something is "anime" or not, because what it actually boils down to is 2 groups of people stigmatizing a Japanese story telling medium into whether or not it's culturally acceptable, like that actually matters. Some of the most meaningless, dangerous, and stupidest things are culturally acceptable, it's an arbitrary standard of popularity and that's fine. Like Young Adult Fiction novels, all of which are very much "anime" but no one is ever calling out the Hunger Games. But within the confines of an actual niche hobby community like fire emblem, it makes no sense to argue over whether it's "anime" or not because we're literally gonna keep playing the games regardless. That's not to say it can't be a fun or interesting conversation. But before we even have such a conversation you'd need to more clearly define a set of tropes and criteria as to what is "anime". Other than terrible cartoons people watch to then argue over who is best girl on reddit all week until the next episode comes out. Personally I just use the simplest description- "anime" is anything that looks like a Japanese cartoon character. Because if it looks like a Japanese cartoon character, a weeaboo wants to fuck it, 10000% of the time. And since weeaboos are disgusting and counter revolutionary, that's the only reason anyone doesn't like anime. t. man with anime avatar.

Honestly I don't think it matters if this leak is real or fake, because it gives us nothing to talk about/think about. It just gives us a title and an info drop date (e3, which we were already expecting). And the only thing to discuss with the title is "is it related to Tellius or nah" which doesn't lead to very interesting discussions. With the exception of the Mario Odyssey DLC and the Smash stuff, most of the info in the e3 part of the rumor is like that, just small amorphous blobs from a supposed Nintendo e3 presentation. And we got literally the least to go off, ironically. I'd legit rather have seen some fantastical absurdly detailed obvious fake.

Nice!

I've heard there's documentation to actually support this, particularly that UFOs were a cover for secret aircraft the Air Force and such were working on in secret. So it's not exactly that far out there for conspiracy theories to be made covers for things that are actually a lot more reasonable and believable but want to be kept secret. I'll try to see if I can find sources a bit later. couldn't find sources, disregarde

What I find most interesting about the things I've seen Alex Jones say is that in terms of economic/foreign policy, he flip flops between being pro-war pro-free market and anti-war anti-capitalist, sometimes going as far as to make maxist criticisms of the current political-economic structure or saying straight up, full-on libertarian rhetoric. Leaving one to wonder where his actual stances on these things lie. Then he'll start going on about a chinese lizard cyborg super soldiers. I think they mean the act/character becomes convincing.

I think too many of you are so quick to assume this was done by whom the U.S. and Allied governments say it was done. We need to look at things historically, becuase again, the populace and most politicians/people in power often times have very different interests. We need to think more critically about things, as military intervention has serious consequences both for the region itself, and possibly the world over. 1- First we need to establish the United States and Allies pick and choose which war crimes to take action on. When Syria uses chemical weapons, we must take military action. But when the Israeli Defense force uses lethal sniper and tank fire on Protestors in Gaza, we block investigation. We criticize and put economic pressure on Venezuela for starving it's people, but Saudi Arabia is allowed to suppress women and have executioners literally behead people in the streets. I think we can agree; ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE BAD. However, if we are to be the batstion of morality in the world we say we are, we can not pick and choose which dictators we want to attack. We should, in theory, kill all of them. We very clearly don't. So I'm gonna draw the conclusion here that, war crimes and violence against civillians is not what NATO powers are interested in. Even if it's what their populace is interested in. 2- We must also look to recent Western intervention in the middle-east, particularly in the Iraq war. The justification for Invading Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. This is not the first time this had happened in American history either, as the Gulf of Tonkin incident that escalated the Vietnam War, was revealed to be completely fabricated in 2005. So with this in mind we must note that our own Military and Government is not above lying to us, the general populace, in the name of invading a sovereign nation. To tangent off from this, in 2013 CIA Director John Brennon told the Senate Intelligence Committee that they were not monitoring the computer network of said Senate Intelligence Comittee. John Brennon lied about that, so we must note that not only are they willing to lie to the American populace, and it's allies. But also to each other. So going into any signalling for military action, at the very least, we must be skeptical of the information they are using to justify this. As they have quite literally, lied to us before. 3- Addressing the Syrian Chemical attacks itself, we need to be aware of the entire history of chemical attacks in Syria, of which there have been many. We can start with the first major example, the 2013 attacks. In wake of the UN investigation, Assad did agree to surrender all chemical weapons. In spite of (or in addition to this) The United States and Allied forces still conducted bombings on Syrian Military Targets. This sent a clear message to Assad, that if chemical weapons are used, then foreign intervention is likely. And when you're trying to win a civil war, you don't want foreign intervention against you. And looking at the numbers or chemical weapons attacks/injuries in the Syrian Civil war, the Syrian Army and it's allies have only used or been accused of using chemical weapons 4 times, 2 of which were incidents where only Syrian soldiers themselves were injured. By contrast, in April of 2014 alone, there were 14 chemical weapons attacks that injured over 300 civillians, confirmed to be committed by anti-Assad forces. Addressing the other 2 events where the Syrian army is attributed to having used chemical weapons, one of which is obviously this event in 2018. The second was the 2017 attack, which again, saw US strikes against Syrian Targets. So we can establish that twice now, under 2 different presidents has Assad understood that chemical weapons will only be a detriment to his successful war effort. We know that between October of 2017 and Febuary, the Syrian Army had launched a major counter-offensive on ISIS and subsequently pushed into Rebel controlled territory. The Syrian Army had the initiative and was winning as of Febuary 2018. So one would need to question what the strategic value is for the Syrian Armed Forces to use a gas attack on civillians, knowing full well what the international response would be. There is nothing to be gained from it, only everything to lose. It's also very important to note that these coalition attacks on Syria have been done before any UN investigation into the incident can even occur. To surmise: -Western nations seem to only react war crimes/crimes against humanity on some dictators, but not others. -The United States Military and Government have been caught lying to the civillian population to drum up support for war in the past. -Rebels have been confirmed to have used chemical weapons in this Syrian Civil War as well. -The Assad regime knows that using chemical weapons will always result in outside intervention. So ultimately, regardless of what your opinions on Ba'athism or chemical weapons are, I think the first thing we need to consciously understand is that the leaders of our nations do not want to punish Assad for using chemicals weapons for the same reasons you all do (Morality). They don't give a shit about human rights or Syrian civllians, or else, why would we bomb Syria as a response to begin with? I find it both absurd that the idea of Bashar Al'Assad as some murderous Disney villian, and the idea our leaders don't have some ulterior motives that aren't in our interests as a collective society. And I say that as someone who is very much disgusted with the concept of Ba'athism, Assad's actual political stances. They say history repeats itself, so try and remember every war your country has been involved in, and how happy you were with the outcome of that war by the end of it.