Johann

Lemme clarify, I meant that something like "you can't recruit this character" or "you can't see the real ending" would've been a stronger example than something like that spear, which many players would opt not to get even if they have the knowledge of it.

I don't disagree that it's a bad design, but one weapon is a fairly minor thing to miss out on. It's not like you lost characters or game modes. There are definitely better examples than that.

I'm not sure that's the best example of being unfriendly to the player, given how it's a total game breaker if you follow a guide and get it early. Also it's not like missing it would prevent you from experiencing anything else in the game.

Yeah, and I feel like they want to have at least one of each element with Pair Up before they'd go back to Earth/Res and Fire/Spd

Was thinking about making a FFXII thread because that game is super fine. IZJS version and this re-release made massive improvements and the game is much friendlier to the player while also being more fun all-around (like high level magic not capping at 9999 damage and treasure chests being more unique and interesting). You can get that Zodiac Lance guaranteed as an optional reward too, though it it's not something made obvious so playing blind means you could certainly miss it. The insta-death enemies appear like halfway through, as I recall. What's weird is that they're not particularly special or threatening otherwise, and they do die pretty easy. They just have that low chance of being like "oh hey, game over" Item locations aren't a huge deal since there's not a lot of hidden stuff, but since getting more weapons, armor, and spells is important, if you miss any, you might be having a hard time. All enemies have rare drops too, which can include some extremely useful spells and weapons. You can even destroy training dummies over and over which have a Strength boosting item as a rare drop, and since Strength affects your physical offense and defense...

Was thinking that Fire/Spd or Earth/Res could be thrown in there, yeah Did you mean Wind/Pair?

Uh, Vagrant Story is definitely not a game you can call easy. A smooth New Game run requires thorough knowledge of the mechanics, gear system (forging and stats), item locations (including rare drops), attacks/skills, and a strong sense of timing. Lots of players get killed from being hit by new enemy attacks or spells that deals more damage than they have HP and they can't time their defensive skills because they can't anticipate the window for using it. I could handhold someone through that game on their first time and they'd still have a hard time. Playing it blind on my own back when it came out and there weren't any guides to turn to, I usually kept my HP lowish and chained Raging Ache, since it was the only way I knew to reliably deal more than single digit damage.

I don't have the datamined seasons, but I saw that next month's element will be Water. This strongly implies that June's Legendary will be Wind, since they haven't yet done the same element back-to-back for two whole months, and we already have Fire and Earth Pair Ups.

That's exactly how I feel about it. Gotta fight hard to get those grails, gotta make them count. I also pretty much write off any unit that I've already squandered extra copies of because I don't want to spend an extra 400 or so grails to make up for it. I guess ultimately I just don't care that much about +10ing them.

It's always interesting to see what people are building, especially since we're usually putting our #1 people as our leads. Did you get her to +9 earlier and have to patiently wait for the GHB rerun? That's what I'm going to be doing with Rutger, but I've already got 1650 grails saved up, so uh, it'll be a long wait for that last one (September I think)

Right on with all of that. And yeah that video can never be posted too many times, brother

Alrighty Out of curiosity, have you seen the VICE video on Charlottesville? There's also this video by Shaun which looks at a lot of the video footage from the Nazis there and looks at a lot of the causes and impacts of the event. If you find yourself with some time to watch them, I'd recommend doing so, as both showcase what these people are like. Trying to eliminate "others" is the defining feature of fascism. Whether or not he's successful at it doesn't make him any less of a fascist.

What I'm saying is that many of them don't have mental health issues and are still violent. They genuinely believe that their cause is worth killing for. Yeah, I remember quite well. There certainly were a lot of people expecting far greater escalation, whether from the US, or from allies of Iraq. The 9/11-inspired fear of "the Muslims!" is still with the US and Trump carries it as well. The travel ban is still active, remember. It's more than that, though. Why put migrants in camps and try to build a wall? Why ban Muslim people from entering the country? Why try to erase transgender people from the law and kick them out of the military? It's not that these people are simply different, but that they are "the enemy"-- threatening the economy, public safety, etc, and if left unchecked, will ruin us, so we must stop them by whatever means necessary. That is the mentality of a fascist. His being a narcissist affects demeanor, not his beliefs.

I dunno man, the only reason they put Abyssal maps in there were because there were a lot of people (spenders and non-spenders alike) saying they wanted a greater challenge. That the rewards are purely cosmetic and literally say "I beat thing" supports that. Also people are probably enjoying making guides, or else they wouldn't do it.

I think you're getting a bit sidetracked here, so lemme reiterate what I mean when I say the "it's all mental health" argument is a poor one. First, from the point of view of the people who follow the hateful ideas I've referenced, they have rationalized their actions as a means for survival and preservation, even if the threat is demonstrably fictitious. The kind of rhetoric found in "the great replacement/white genocide" and similar hate-based conspiracy theories presents the idea of an existential threat to white people and "white culture". As a means of preventing what they assume would happen if nothing else is done, they take action, in a sort of "strike first" approach. This isn't limited to uneducated youths, however-- Carl Schmitt, a highly influential German political philosopher, argued that all politics ultimately boils down to how power is distributed by identity (by any attribute). He came up with the Friend/Enemy distinction, in which a political enemy is not, say, someone who disagrees with you, but someone with whom violence (from either side) is considered a realistic possibility for any reason. Doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense or is based on a lie, only whether or not a person believes it. Schmitt believed that if a unified political enemy group with a strong political identity emerges in a nation with no strong political identity, they could take over. This led him to believe that such enemy groups need to be stopped by any means before it's too late (by striking first). The irony is that Schmitt went on to believe that this political group rising in Germany was-- get this-- the Jews, so he became a Nazi. Here was a rational, educated, grown man falling for the very thing he worried about. The issue is that these people are mislead into this kind of thinking, primarily through fear. Mental health issues can certainly exacerbate that, but it's not a necessary ingredient. After all, there are plenty of people all over the world with mental health issues who are not committing the same acts of violence or promoting hatred. But when you attribute the violence to mental health issues, you're perpetuating the common misconceptions about mental health that we're trying to overcome, and downplaying the actual source of the violent intent. You might wanna reread the section you quoted. The same tactics like deplatforming are effective against any hate group or message, and few hate groups are singular with their targeting. Yeah, all those warnings of how the Bush Administration would destabilize the Middle East and inspire a new generation of anti-Americanism were really out there, huh? As for Trump, I wouldn't downplay his mental health issues either but that doesn't explain the Islamophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, etc. Yeesh, a lot to unpack here, and some of this I'm just not even gonna touch. No, segregation is intrinsically a horrible idea. Also, you can't appease fascists, it's been tried. Understand that I don't want to fight these people, but I will if I have to. I'd rather convert them, which is always a possibility. They can stop at anytime, renounce their ways, and try to live a normal life, and while I wouldn't trust them, the fighting would stop. The problem is that they don't feel the same way, since a black person can't stop being black, a gay person can't stop being gay, etc, and a fascist won't be satisfied until their enemy no longer exists. Genocide is the ultimate goal of fascism, whether they realize it or not.

Mental health care is extremely lacking and we need to improve how we administer and talk about it, but this kind of argument seriously downplays what motivates these people to commit violence towards their specific targets. The "oh well they're crazy, so it's inevitable they'll hurt somebody" argument is a tired and broken one, and shows a lack of understanding about mental health issues. Combating the spread of racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc bullshit with actions like deplatforming can reduce the severity and frequency of these tragedies as fewer people would be influenced by hateful and factually wrong ideas. For example, the Nazis in Charlottesville chanting "you will not replace us" is in reference to the white nationalist conspiracy theory of "the great replacement" (aka "white genocide"). The NZ shooter also referenced it in his manifesto. It's utter bullshit, but people believe it and act violently because of it. Deplatforming the people who promote it and similar ideas while educating the audience can reduce the number of people who subscribe to those ideas and act on it. Not sure I'd say this site leans left, but that aside, this isn't some hot take based on nothing. Calling him a fascist and explaining the potential dangers that it means is a way to generate awareness, understanding, and discussion about Trump, his administration, his appointees, and his supporters (some of whom are open about their fascism). Frankly I'm disappointed that your only critiques boil down to "labels are bad" and "it's not a problem because it's not affecting me personally yet". Incidentally... Not that I think there's an imminent war with Iran coming, but Bolton definitely wants one.

It was a rhetorical question. The point is that things like Charlottesville and the church arsons could have been prevented if people didn't ignore the culture that inspired them. So, don't try to prevent anything horrible or dangerous because it's not a big deal until it's a major catastrophe or affects you personally, got it.

I'm talking about hate crimes here, not kids saying the N word when they play games online (though I take that seriously too). A 20 year old kid killed a girl in Charlottesville with his car. A 21 year old set fire to three historic black churches in Louisiana. How can anyone not take that seriously? I'll grant that there are plenty of people who don't understand political situations and mischaracterize them using words they don't understand, and there are surely plenty of people making the same mistake now, but Shob and I have both thoroughly explained why we're calling him a fascist and what that means. It does sound to me that you've heard it misused so much that you just can't take any use of it seriously unless the situation has literally reached peak Nazi Germany levels of danger.

Given how racist and anti-Semitic acts are growing more frequent and dangerous across the country, you should be taking them more seriously. We already have an oppressive leader in the US government. If you wait until that oppression reaches you personally before you acknowledge it as such, then the history books won't have very nice things to say about you either. I think you might wanna elaborate more on why it's supposed to be bad if people are labeling him as a fascist. Do you mean people being desensitized to the word?

The point Shob and I are making is that he doesn't need that degree of control to be a fascist. A kid waving a Nazi flag and shouting racist bullshit is a fascist even if he has no power or influence. The more people give him the benefit of the doubt, the more often he can get away with monstrous decisions. It's not that he's condemned America to full-blown fascism rule, it's that he's already made a number of groups of people the victims of fascist actions. Several political institutions are also being eroded by his actions (or in the case of not appointing people to run certain departments, inaction), which can have long-term impacts on our democracy and the balance/efficacy of government power beyond the Oval Office.

Don't misunderstand, Shob and I aren't saying the entire US government is full-blown fascist, nor are we saying that his efforts are as success as he wants. Even if his own people don't carry out his plans, it doesn't make him less of a fascist, just a less powerful one. This label is not being given blindly. There are fascist actions being carried out with fascist results. This is history being repeated, from the migrants in camps to the citizens giving a fascist the benefit of the doubt. What would it take for you to label him a fascist if he isn't one already? How much damage does he have to do for it to be ok to call him that? How does the harm in labeling him as such outweigh the benefits of educating people to be resistant against him and his supporters?

Dixie Kong I think she'll get in next time there's an opportunity for it, though

Leaking into? His personality traits define his policies, or at least the ones he's super vocal about, which are likely the only ones that are actually his own ideas. I'd argue that the difference between Trump the person and Trump the president is infinitesimal.

Certainly any ideology can follow a similar pattern, another example being how socialist ideas are beginning to take root in the Democratic party. That doesn't make it any less true when using it with Paxton's fascism definition above to examine Trump, though. Whether or not he's labeled or publicly called a fascist is less important than anticipating his behavior and preparing/reacting accordingly. It's also important for understanding some of his supporters and influences. Dude will play victim no matter what anyway.

I didn't say anything about the Eastern Bloc, so I'm not sure what you're trying to highlight. I'm not disputing your statement about them either, so we can probably leave it at that Hmmm... I think you might want to read the section I suggested. He specifically points out that, for one, that definition "encompasses its subject no better than a snapshot encompasses a person", so if you're leaving it at that, then of course it won't seem like enough. Paxton describes fascism existing in five stages (also discussed briefly on page 174 of the pdf I linked earlier), and this is something of his I'll get into a bit here (descriptions shamelessly borrowed from Wikipedia because I'm lazy): Initial creation of fascist movement, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor Political rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage Acquisition of power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite fascists to share power Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates. Entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy Trump's fascism exists arguably in stage 3 or 4 right now, depending on how much power you think he and his circle have. The world has only ever seen stage 5 in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Well, there's a considerable amount of overlap between nationalists and neoliberals, and I'd agree that those same Trump guys are also nationalists. Allow me to clarify, however, that, yes, there is a general favoring of lassez faire capitalism, but it's on a spectrum of how much regulation they benefit from. Neoliberals aren't ideologues, they're pragmatists, and what guides their decision making, ultimately, is profit and growth. They want trade with China because it's beneficial; cheap labor for manufacturing, for instance. Provoking them into conflict is bad for profits/growth since it jeopardizes every industry with a supply chain or market connected to China, which is most industries, really. The only industry that could possibly stand to gain in direct conflict would be the military industry, but war with China would basically kick off WWIII, and arms manufacturers are content with minor skirmishes in the Middle East since those countries are vilified enough for the US to get away with it. Similarly, when Trump threatened to close the Mexican border a little while ago, the neoliberals within his circle likely convinced him it was a bad idea (which is something anybody who isn't an extreme xenophobe would agree with). From a market perspective, closing the border would have put a complete halt to many automotive factory operations, since many parts are made or assembled in Mexico. The costs of a variety of produce would have shot up as well. There very well could have been billions lost between those two markets alone, on both sides of the border. The thing about trade between the US and any other nation is that, generally speaking, it's mutually beneficial, or at least in the capitalist context it is (there certainly are externalities like pollution, or issues like exploitation of smaller nations and the average worker). If China wasn't undergoing considerable growth these past few decades and instead somehow stayed fixed as a trade partner and manufacturer of cheap goods, then neoliberals wouldn't have a problem with it. Their beef is that China is investing abroad (see the Belt and Road Initiative), expanding its military and resources (see the South China Sea), and shifting away from depending on exports. These factors show that it's becoming less of a necessary partner (or subordinate, depending on your view of what trade with the US has meant for the average Chinese citizen) and more of a highly competitive rival.