Johann
-
Posts
2,420 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Johann
-
-
3 minutes ago, XRay said:
I rather have the market in control than the government in control unless it is absolutely necessary for the government to do so. The market works and it encourages efficiency. You might think it is bull shit, but every major economy on Earth and even China and Russia incorporates elements of capitalism into their economy. I do not mind having the government influence the market, but taking complete control of it generally is not something I support.
Considering people are constantly struggling to find/afford housing, how is it not already absolutely necessary? Markets don't encourage efficiency, they encourage individuals turning a personal profit regardless of the impacts on others. It's a total failure. This isn't a matter of making all housing outright free, it's reigning in the market and having the government address its own failures in housing.
3 minutes ago, XRay said:Gentrification also is not completely bad, as it raises the value of homes for homeowners in the neighborhood.
Fuck their value. It comes at the expense of the poor. Fuck those homeowners. In most cases, they're private companies charging rent and doing little to nothing to maintain the buildings, not individuals or families buying nest eggs.
3 minutes ago, XRay said:The food and agricultural industry just needs better regulation in my opinion, and saying that the entire market exploitative is just unreasonable in my opinion. Food and agriculture is a lot more functioning than healthcare in my opinion. Most Americans can still feed themselves and their families, whereas the it is not true for health care.
Then you know nothing about it. Every single food-insecure person is a failure of the market and the government. In 2018, 37.2 million people lived in food-insecure households in the US. That's more than 10% of the population. It doesn't mean jack shit to say "well, at least it's not as bad as healthcare" and ignore the very real immediate problems and what's causing them.
3 minutes ago, XRay said:Even with higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations I am not sure it is enough. What you are proposing is extremely expensive.
You know, one of the perks of having a fiat currency is that when we need money for essential things, we get it. People's lives are ruined because housing is not affordable and the damage it does outweighs the cost of a program that resolves it. Saying it's too expensive is an argument used to push for more private control, which is why we have a problem in the first place.
3 minutes ago, XRay said:I also do not agree with cutting the defense budget, especially with the Cold War resuming.
Ah right, I forgot about your delusion over the Russians being a direct military threat that we need expensive weaponry to deal with, instead of the cyber threat that we need to be shifting our resources towards.
3 minutes ago, XRay said:I do not think we are in a housing crisis right now, at least not on a level of 2008's housing crisis. I think we already have plenty of regulation in place already, from rent control to mandating the amount of developments requiring a portion to be dedicated to low income housing. I think the government just needs to tweak the regulations already in place. Taxing the development of high income housing and giving more incentives to build low income housing are also options to steer developers more to low income housing.
Dude, we've been in a housing crisis for-fucking-ever. Like just google "housing crisis" and look at anything. It's only going to get even worse because of COVID's effect on most people's ability to afford anything.
-
15 hours ago, XRay said:
I have read more into UBI, and while it seems it has more potential than I give it credit for, there is still the funding issue. I guess I would not mind supporting it if there are more experiments and pilot programs to test out the concept first. A lot of the experiments we have right now is on a very small scale and short term. I think Alaska's Permanent Fund is the closest thing we have right now to a UBI on a large scale with a relatively long history, but the payment is only about $1,000 to $2,000 a year. It is not much, but I think we can start with testng that amount out first in other states before ramping up the payments and implementing it across the rest of the country.
It's paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy and better appropriating government money. For one thing, the cost of operating welfare and unemployment offices, etc is eliminated since those services aren't necessary. Testing it makes sense, but it's mostly a matter of understanding how it affects behavior.
15 hours ago, XRay said:I guess that is true. I assume the government is going to foot the bill, cause companies are certainly not going to be hiring interns at the scale they are now if they are forced to foot the bill instead.
Well, with UBI or something similar, the companies wouldn't be paying interns directly, but through heftier corporate taxes. Without UBI, it should fall on companies to pay. They're getting labor in exchange for little to nothing in return. They're hiring interns because they need their work, not because they can't afford to pay them. The alternative is to go without, or hire someone like a temp to do those jobs, at which point they're still paying.
15 hours ago, XRay said:That just sounds like accusing the rich being bad for just for being rich. Gordon Ramsay became rich and famous from cooking and processing food, and I do not think he is exploiting anyone to my knowledge. As for neighborhood gentrification, developers offer a fair market price at the time of purchase, or else the home owners and residents would not sell in the first place, so I do not see that as exploitation.Gordon Ramsay became rich and famous for having a brand and being a TV personality. Cooking alone does not make you that wealthy.
Fair market price is bullshit because the market is inherently bullshit. The price of housing is significantly higher than it needs to be. The biggest issue with gentrification is that it displaces renters. You need to be looking at the externalities instead of reducing it to only the buyer/seller relationship.
15 hours ago, XRay said:For companies like Perdue and Tyson who are taking advantage of chicken farmers, that is a pretty clear case of exploitation, but not every company or individual in the food industry is like that.
Beyond Meat for example got a market cap of around $10 billion right now, and they had an IPO last year raising about a quarter of a billion dollars. They did it fair and square and for a good cause. For comparison Tyson has a market cap of around $18 billion right now.
Citing specific examples that might not be exploitative is besides the point when it's about the entire market being overwhelmingly exploitative, while also wasting food and not feeding everybody.
15 hours ago, XRay said:As a government program, it technically does not need to break even, but it will probably pass Congress and garner voter support a lot easier if it has a sound financial plan. The USPS got financial issues lately due to poor legislation, but it was turning a good profit before, which allowed it to maintain unprofitable delivery routes to more remote places. I support taxing the wealthy, but I am not sure taxing the wealthy alone is enough to make a housing program viable. The program as a whole should be financially sustainable. Building housing is extremely expensive, and if the government is building housing on a nationwide scale, that is going to cost a lot of money.You don't just tax the wealthy, you tax major corporations. You cut the ridiculously hyper-inflated defense budget. You profit by investing in the people.
15 hours ago, XRay said:There are only so much luxury homes you can build and sell. The market cannot take the glut of luxury homes in New York City right now for example, and many developers are paying for that mistake. Luxury home prices in NYC has fallen dramatically from COVID-19. In this case, the market is working as intended.
The government can step in to build affordable housing if the supply does not meet demand, and NYC does so for its housing projects. There is still a long waitlist of people to get into a unit in the projects right now, and in the current scenario, I think it is fine for the government to step in to serve the lower income housing market by building more units. However, the cost of developing buildings in NYC is extremely high, and that money has to come from somewhere. I do not think taxing the city's richest residents is enough, although it certainly helps. A lot of the city's current housing projects also need a lot of repairs, and repairs alone will cost the city over $30 billion. I think building more units to fully serve the lower income housing market is going to cost a lot more than $30 billion.
It will probably cost a lot less for Sacramento to do something similar, but I am not sure we have the financial muscle of NYC to do something like that. Even if building things cost less here, it is still pretty expensive.
As for the government stepping in to build middle income housing though, I am more hesitant in supporting that, since the private sector can support the demand right now. I would not mind government stepping in to build more to reduce market prices, but I do not think the government should sell or rent these below market prices.
The only meaningful difference between "luxury" and "affordable" housing is the rent. Luxury is just a marketing term. Relying on the private sector to handle housing is the reason we have a housing crisis. All of these issues are rooted in leaving it up to the market without enough regulation.
If you want an extremely deep dive into public housing from a civil engineer, check out this (very lengthy) video:
-
1 minute ago, Ottservia said:
god I hope it's monster hunter. Monster hunter is by and large my favorite video game franchise of all time. We have rathalos but you can't have rathalos without the hunter. Monster hunter is the only fighter I need in smash. I already have joker now for some monster hunter rep please.
Dream scenario is the Splatoon treatment, where you get 4 female and 4 male alts, each with a unique armor set. I was a little concerned when Byleth was shown off cuz their moveset is very MH-like, but then there are still like a dozen other unique weapons a Hunter could use, like Switch Axe or Gun Lance.
1 minute ago, Ottservia said:But another monster hunter for switch? that's a little surprising as I would expect the next game to build upon formula world established but hey I ain't gonna complain either way. I miss old school monster hunter anyway.
MHW is the formula going forward for sure, it's the best selling game in the series by a landslide. I imagine they didn't bring it to Switch due to graphical issues and that Switch is designed to support portable and local area play in ways PS4 or PC can't.
-
A year ago I would've said Resident Evil, but after they added the spirits for them and considering that it's possible they don't want something that features extra grotesque creatures, I think it's out.
I think it'll be Monster Hunter. It's one of Capcom's biggest franchises and curiously lacks anything beyond Rathalos and his Ancestral Steppe "stage", while also having more than enough material to create a character. The aesthetic and personality of the MH series is a natural fit for Smash, too. Some have speculated a new MH game on Switch is likely, perhaps as a tie-in reveal.
-
17 minutes ago, Anacybele said:
If Xenoblade gets another rep, it should be Rex, imo. Elma's game released years ago, didn't it? So her window is kind of gone. Rex's window is still open since he's the most recent there. Also, I've grown really fond of him.
Xenoblade X ends on a sort of "more adventures with Elma to come" sort of thing. I don't think either Rex or Elma are super likely for Smash DLC at this point, but it's within the realm of possibility that another Xenoblade game is announced with Elma as the lead.
-
5 minutes ago, XRay said:I guess I will leave that up to experts and social workers to decide how much a disability affects a person's income, since there are so many types of disabilities and severity. Maybe it makes more sense to decide on a case by case scenario.
I still think people should earn for their living. If they are not able to earn a livable income due to disability, I think it is fine for the government to step in to help out.
Do you not see the problem in either choice? If you apply a threshold for disabilities, you're going to under-support many people. If you do it case by case, you're dedicating a massive amount of resources towards trying to make sure you don't overcompensate people-- it's a wash.
The idea isn't to make it so nobody has to work, it's to make it so there's a universal safety net since a conditional one screws over a ton of people and costs even more to operate.
5 minutes ago, XRay said:Schooling does not guarantee a job either. If somebody needs a toe in the industry, being able to negotiate to work for free or low wages to help build a resume is invaluable in my opinion.
I had difficulty finding a job related to bookkeeping/accounting when I was in New York City, as they all wanted 1 to 2 years of experience even for entry level positions. How the fuck am I supposed to get experience if the entry level job that gives experience requires experience? I turned to internships and the pay sucks, but the hours are more flexible, and since I was working for small businesses, things are less formal too and the dress code is a lot more lax. After school, I moved back to Sacramento since the cost of living is a lot cheaper, and having internships on my resume helped me land some jobs.
I agree it would be nice to pay interns, but forcing that payment on the private industry is not something I agree with.
Nothing guarantees a job though. And if you can't survive because you need a job to get essentials like food and housing, then you're 100% at the mercy of employers and the markets. Providing better support/relief/payment for interns and students is in the best interest of companies because it expands the hiring pool and gets better educated, diverse, and happier workers.
5 minutes ago, XRay said:I think people should earn their share of living, and I am not completely sure giving away free stuff is a good idea. As for how much they should work, I think the government should support its people finding a healthy work-leisure balance so that people do not have to work overtime to live a comfortable life.
I am not hardline opposed to a universal basic income, but I think it is better if we implement those policies more carefully step by step. I think UBI is something that is more down the line to consider rather than something to implement now.
I think the market in most industries is working fine. In industries where the market is not working and is paramount for national security and well-being, that is when I think more heavy government regulations and control are needed. Only a handful of industries require government attention, and only a fraction of that handful actually needs complete government dominance in my opinion.
The only way anyone is getting a healthy work-leisure balance is if their income is good and expenses aren't ridiculous. People work overtime because that's not the case. The only way the government can help with that is to either regulate housing and pay/benefits, or give out free things. That's literally it.
What markets do you think are fine? You should consider government subsidies in your response.
5 minutes ago, XRay said:Building and maintaining housing are expensive. At least for now, I am opposed to nationalizing the housing industry and giving free housing to everyone, although I do not mind government stepping in to build housing using tax dollars, so they have better influence over the supply of housing to make things more affordable. In my opinion, I think the housing market just has a supply issue, and I rather the government address the supply issue rather than trying to take control over the entire market. Governments should avoid dominating and controlling a market unless it is absolutely necessary like the military.
For example, I like the way the government interacts with the agricultural industry right now despite agriculture being extremely important to national security. If the government does not need to take ownership of an industry, then it should not. The agricultural industry is far from perfect of course, but the government does not need to to dominate and control the market to fix those problems. Those problems should tackled with better lobbying, legislation, regulation, enforcement, subsidies, bailouts, etc. first before resorting to something more drastic like price controls or outright controlling a market.
One of the biggest issues with the housing market is that developers deliberately build expensive housing for the sale price. Luxury homes are built because they have the highest ROI, which is great for the seller (and potentially for the buyer), but it fucks over anyone else given the impacts that has on communities (like gentrification). That's the reason there's a supply issue; developers are doing what's best for them individually, at the expense of everyone else. Commodifying a basic survival need like housing is the reason the market is so fucked.
Funny you mentioned agriculture because it's subsidized like crazy, which is why we have issues with growing too much of specific crops, arbitrarily importing and exporting some crops for a slight mark-up, tons of food waste, and environmental degradation.
5 minutes ago, XRay said:And I think people absolutely have the right to get rich off the housing market, just as people have the right to get rich off of making vitamin supplements or processing and selling food. If they are getting rich fair and square, I see no reason to stop them.
Except it's not fair and square. It's straight up exploitation. You need food and a home, you don't get to choose not to pay for them. Nobody gets rich off of them without serious exploitation.
5 minutes ago, XRay said:I think right to a decent paying job sounds fine, but I am less certain about right to a home, although I am not opposed to the government using tax dollars to build homes to influence prices. However, I think the government should still make people pay for those homes either through rent or outright sale. The rent/sale does not have to be at market price, but I do expect the government to at least break even on the project, although I am fine with a little loss too as long as it is not huge and unsustainable.
The government doesn't need to break even by collecting rent. It's not a business. It exists to support the people. Providing housing for those who need it should be one of the top things it does. It pays for this stuff with progressive taxation on the wealthy. Charging rent is effectively taxing people for being poor, which defeats the whole point.
5 minutes ago, XRay said:Not sure about the rest of the country, but I think most cities have some sort of city/community college program. Sacramento has about a half dozen city colleges throughout the city, and it is very affordable way to get an associates degree. It was not exactly free, but even with minimal financial aid, each semester with 3 to 4 classes cost less than a thousand (I think my parents and I paid about $500 to $600 for tuition per semester), and books in total will cost about $200 per semester or less if you can get the used ones.
Even before COVID, colleges all across the country have been closing down or at least having drastic drops in enrollment. Even community college isn't free, and you can't ignore the opportunity cost of the time you spend learning compared to working. You're not really paying attention to the problem here-- people can't afford to be going to school or training.
-
1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:
This reminds me, I was reading an interview (it's a New Yorker article so I can't reread it now) a while ago about a guy who said "Well, I never said that exact phrase, but my message is exactly that". His phrase? "Let it (the restaurant industry) die".
His argument was:
- The American restaurant industry is racist.
- It is so racist, reforming it is impossible.
- Therefore, let it die.
I remember he said as part of his greater critique "the restaurant industry is seen as an American socio-economic safety net". But it appeared to me his problem was it was a lousy safety net not worth praising. He I distinctly remember said "not having money" in America is a problem, but "having money" is not the solution.
He may have valid points on community destruction, racism, and environmental concerns, I'm plenty willing to listen to his arguments. But, I do hope he has considered whether an inevitably reborn restaurant industry will have learned anything he sees as terribly bad. If COVID19 killed it, I don't readily see reasons why culinary entrepreneurs would've considered their effects on minorities. -But I guess if you're so cynical about the current state of affairs, the remotest light of hope after destruction is better than what exists now.
Yeah, I get that. I'm not an expert on the restaurant industry though so I dunno if I should speak much about it. I'd agree with your assessment that it's not that restaurants are inherently bad, but that the restaurant industry is inherently exploitative as a consequence of the free market.
-
9 minutes ago, XRay said:
That is true. I do not mind giving help to these people without requiring them to work.
Ok, off to a good start
9 minutes ago, XRay said:For people with disabilities, I would lower the amount they have to earn to qualify for government help. Depends on the severity of disability. If a person is heavily disabled I do not think it is a good idea to make them work. If a person only has a minor disability, then they should not need too much help.
Again, the problem is "how to do you define that?" What's a "minor disability" and who's going to hire them? For instance, if a person has, let's say, a permanent limp that makes it possible for them to still do most things, albeit slower than most and they can't continue for long stretches of time, are they gonna get support, and if not, what kinds of work are they going to struggle to get? There are so many kinds of disabilities, limitations, etc and a system that draws a line at what deserves support and what doesn't effectively has to address all of them or else it's going to fail many people.
9 minutes ago, XRay said:If they are training, I would still consider that as working and they should be compensated, at least if they are training under a government program. I am less sure about forcing private companies to pay their interns though.
Why shouldn't private companies pay interns? Experience and training don't even ensure a job/paycheck once you've finished, and if people can't afford spend time to train or go to school (not even counting the cost of education itself), then it's not really an option.
9 minutes ago, XRay said:I should have been more specific. I meant living wage without relying on overtime, and benefits should be included in the living wage portion since benefits is still a type of compensation/payment. If you have to rely on overtime, that significantly eats into your leisure time.
The thing is, companies are always looking for ways to get around paying their workers and giving them support. This is why, for instance, Uber is fighting to keep their workers designated as contractors and not employees. The only people who end up being effectively taxed by this are landlords (who are making money by simply owning something and charging considerable rates for it) and food corporations (who are exploiting farmers and ranchers everywhere).
9 minutes ago, XRay said:I like subsidized housing and food stamps, but I am not sure about giving them away unconditionally. I agree with giving those things freely to people who are not able to work, but for people who can work, I am hesitant on providing those things without some form of condition that they are looking for a job or training for one.
Ah, but if you give them out freely, even universally, you don't have to worry about people not getting the support due to bungled paperwork, or if a person has a sudden emergency and needs that support immediately. Additionally, it allows people to pursue different careers (like say, entrepreneurship) if they aren't dependent on an employer to get by. It's also worth mentioning that the stress of job insecurity (and this food/housing insecurity) takes a toll on people.
Most people have been conditioned to believe that everyone 1) should be working as much as they can and 2) need to earn their share. But how many jobs out there are superfluous, exploitative, or the result of an out of control market? And why should anyone have to be employed to get anything essential for basic survival in a world where we throw out a large portion of our food?
9 minutes ago, XRay said:As for the recent pandemic, I do support measures that stop landlords from evicting their tenants and giving people stimulus checks, but those are for during national emergencies.
Most landlord/tenant relationships are super exploitative though. Rent is costs far more than it should, and eviction for not being able to afford it is fucked up. The housing market is a disaster because it's a loosely regulated market for a basic human need, and so people can "choose" to either pay most of their income, or go homeless. Nobody should be getting rich from the housing market.
-
20 minutes ago, Anacybele said:
Wasn't that a game tournament? Like, playing ARMS matches with specific characters?
Was kinda more like a Voting Gauntlet, but anyway she's the most popular character in Japan, I believe.
20 minutes ago, Anacybele said:She doesn't look Asian to me...?
Like even if you had never seen or heard of her before, I dunno how anyone could be confused about this by her reveal trailer alone. It's not even ambiguous or subtle, she's working in a traditional ramen place and has a Chinese dragon for an arm.
-
I honestly just look at the starting enemies and go "oh, let's see, there's a blue guy, I'll get one of my greens" and so on. Usually I gradually tweak the team around (maybe swap a unit or a skill) til it works. Sometimes it's just a matter of crossing a certain stat threshold to kill a specific enemy, or finding a counter to one particular foe that gives me the most trouble.
As far as units I've built go, I built them cuz I think they're cool, and I give them whatever works for their stats/unique skills. No preference either way as to what phase they excel at, to me that feels like saying "my favorite tool in my shed is the hammer" when you gotta use whatever the job calls for.
-
7 hours ago, XRay said:
A living wage solves all those issues, and I do not support having these things be guaranteed freely.
A few problems with relying on wages:
- What about people who can't work, for whatever reason?
- How do you define the criteria or metric that determines where the cutoff is for, say, how impaired a person has to be for them to get government support?
- What about people unable to get work because of market conditions? If they need to train for another line of work, how are they supposed to support themselves while they train?
- What about issues involving exploitative markets? For example, you might be getting a livable wage, but you're relying on overtime and you're not getting any benefits. You are also almost certainly getting ripped off if you're a renter.
Housing and food are prime examples of basic human rights that, despite how much of both we have (or can potentially have), there are a considerable number of people without/struggling to get one or both. Those are probably the most immediate things that a government should be providing or in some way ensuring to their people. The failure to provide these things for people is because we're relying on wages and markets to handle them.
-
27 minutes ago, Integrity said:
no, let's regard the racism of the various times and note it and not let it define things. columbus was an uncomfortable fellow who enslaved and disregarded native americans to a level that got him prosecuted by the spanish government of the time. fdr did a single problematic action that should be remembered, but also did good things and should be conditionally well-liked for that. we shouldn't pursue a strategy of cancelling all of our past heroes for their problematic views, we should take them and acknowledge their shit moves and if the good outweighs the bad talk about them well but not unconditionally
Who said anything about cancelling FDR? It's not about applying a binary metric of whether they did overall more good or bad, or how their racism compared to others of their time. It's about not giving into hero worship and using their good deeds to dismiss criticisms, which stifle discussions about any ensuing problems from their legacy. It's about the impacts of their actions, especially any impacts that linger to this day. The presidency the highest office in the nation and should be subjected to the highest level of scrutiny. It's not hard to be inspired by the genuine successes of someone like FDR, while at the same time condemning whatever dumb fuckery they did.
Columbus was a straight up monster though, nothing about him is worth celebrating.
-
33 minutes ago, XRay said:
It seems like the more modern views of racial equality did not really take hold in the White House until Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, at least according to this article. Teddy Roosevelt was openly racist, but so were most people at the time. I am not sure how much of that racism offsets his achievements, but he does seem more progressive than most for his time.
Ehh, let's not forget what FDR did to Japanese Americans though. It's a shame that even our best presidents have terrible actions/decisions as part of their history, but the important thing is to learn about that fuckery and if/how the impacts persist, in order to resolve them.
-
21 minutes ago, Tryhard said:
And yet, Karl Popper also wrote:
I don't think that actually jives with what you are trying to imply.
Not that it really has anything to do with tolerance or respect for bad ideas in my view. I can understand why people like Alex Jones are removed for repeatedly saying things that are indistinguishable from physical threats or why Richard Spencer may be removed for promoting violence in the form of genocide against Jews. In fact, these would be punished more severely in other countries that have more strict hate speech laws than the United States. It's more that I don't trust these companies to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong because they are poor at it and have removed many people who are simply not intolerant.
Popper died before the internet took off. Rational arguments and public opinion are not keeping white supremacists in check on Twitter and Facebook. You might not trust those companies to handle these issues, and that's fair since they're downright untrustworthy for a lot of reasons. However, you have to pick between three ways to stop intolerant speech and the organization of hate groups:
- The company moderates its platform and removes racist shitheads
- The government tries to regulate the platform in some way
- People boycott/move to an alternative in such numbers that effectively kills the platform's influence
Of these, the first is the simplest and most realistic.
-
Hey, whaddya know, I didn't even have to find the jpeg, it was still in my attachments from the last few times I had to post this
-
On 6/19/2020 at 4:22 PM, Nym said:
You are missing the point.
There's a major difference between something being difficult to beat and something being impossible to beat because you don't have the necessary tools to do it.
I could try as hard as I could on the Julius map, but there's no way I am going to beat that map with two unmerged armors (Halloween Myrrh and Amelia). The rest are 4 stars, and there's not even a healer from SS I could use. My fault for foddering Cav Erika, sure, but I couldn't know at the time she would get a good refine and IS was going to implement gamemodes with unit restrictions.
And then, you have other titles like Awakening that are literally a walk in the park for me.
It's different for every player, but this is the major problem I have with this gamemode.
Nah dude, restricting your tools is a meaningful challenge, the problem is strictly the time limit to have them beaten by. If these fights were permanently available (like Blessed Gardens) or at least on a weekly rotation (like old GHBs), you wouldn't be upset because sooner or later, you would end up with units that would work.
-
People complain that the game's PVE content isn't challenging enough, then complain that they can't beat the new thing. Only issue I think is that the Limited Hero Battles aren't around long enough, and ideally they should be permanently available.
Much of the game's biggest issues revolve around preying on people's FOMO, whether that's not getting a high enough score, not summoning the hero you want, or making you want to collect every last reward, regardless of how badly you actually want them or how boring they can be to get. This isn't any different. At least they're challenging, when far too much content is better off auto-battle'd.
-
18 hours ago, Glennstavos said:
I guess you could say the masks have really come off during this pandemic
...huh, now I'm wondering if people waaaayyy into the future will have a different stigma around masks symbolizing trustworthiness or responsibility. Because all the people doing the right thing now wear masks. And we know super heroes aren't exiting the pop culture space any time soon.
Incidentally, growing a thick beard, buzzing off your hair, and wearing sunglasses provide greater anonymity (and thus less accountability) than a surgical mask does. These are common among militant types and mercenary groups like Blackwater, and as such, Afghani people associate those features with violence and abuse.
-
On 6/9/2020 at 11:59 PM, Lycan said:
Hey - sorry for the necro,
I know I'm new here (kinda - I had an account before but it was a while back and I'd forgotten the username) and I don't know how I stumbled upon this thread but I really liked the way the OP was worded. I am in a bit of an odd situation -- I'm a 25 year old Male who voluntarily lives alone (I have an adequate if not exhausting social life and get out a lot though) and have been a closeted gay since like....well ever. I am not in any way asexual or anything along those lines but would score very highly in conscientiousness to the point where I don't feel a strong 'need' for a romantic partner for emotional stability in the way I know factually that some people do. I have fallen in love once with a straight friend which... well it would take me 10 posts to explain the horrors of how that affects you...He doesn't know, is married, and we still talk often. Yea.... definitely not making any mistakes there!
Anyways, the main reason I've chosen to stay in the closet for 25 years has nothing to do with a fear of bigotry or some sort of systemic BS as I'm rather cocky and would probably enjoy that quite a bit. More it has to do with the stereotypes associated with how gay people look/behave/act as I do not relate to that sort of persona even slightly. Most of my friends probably take the fact that I've never dated anyone to mean I'm asexual or something because I think that seems to be more likely in their minds than gay (I've even heard them say as much when we were drunk one time). That's kind of the reason I liked the way you explained your situation in the OP - it seemed like your problem also wasn't so much the hatred but all the assumptions about how you're going to suddenly start acting. The fear of being known as the "gay person" is frightening even if people don't do so with any malicious intend. In fact, I don't even blame the stereotypers for most of the stereotypes - I think that while its wonderful the LGBTQ+ community has worked to improve legislative equality they have been horrific at demolishing cultural stereotypes and are the reason there are so many false stereotypes about how gays act by constantly showboating their 'prime' examples of 'gayness'. I'm intelligent enough to know that stereotypes dissipate in seconds through private conversations with most people (they'll only assume you're going to talk with a lisp until you get a sentence out) so it's really not that big of a deal but it's what I find frustrating. I don't necessarily identify with the fear of social rejection but I am also a bit younger than you and the culture has shifted quite a bit in the last 10 years. Though the unfortunate thing about being my age in today's world is my generation seems to like to 'act out' and get praised for it (thanks social media) so of course I'd get all these accusations of being gay cause its cool now.
Whole point of all the way-too-long rant above here ---->>> Anyways I didn't know I was going to go into such a long backstory or make it about me but I am basically wondering if you relate in any way to the idea that so many people that try to 'represent' you are kind of forcing in some idea of how you should behave/act? I of course can't be ungrateful to these kinds of people as people like me were once being thrown off of cliffs (and in some countries, still are) but god damn you can't just like the same sex without them sending you a manual on how you're supposed to act now.
Again, I'm somewhat new here so it's a little odd for me to be posting here but it seems a lot less vulnerable to me than posting on a larger more general site like reddit and I liked the OP... I don't think I'll be coming out for at least the next few years because I do not see much of an up side considering my lack of necessity for deep emotional relationships but I also don't have the desire to end up having my first relationship at 50 with another man that's already got gray hairs... (at that point I would have already chosen to forsake it and just die alone. Ah, the wonders of being someone who thinks too much...
PS: I know being gay is different than trans and the topic is trans, but I still related quite a bit. I am impressed with you for being able to hold together a family and such a successful job while dealing with all this crap. Props to you -- keep it up
For what it's worth, a lot of the "stereotypical" gay behavior (deliberate lisping and other affectations) has long history in being a way for gay people to let other gay people know they were gay, particularly in times/places when it was even more dangerous to be out and most straight people didn't know any better. A lot of this being in the spotlight of parts of gay culture today isn't about trying to reinforce a stereotype, but rather to show that being gay isn't something that people should be ashamed about, while also extending a giant middle finger to anyone who thinks gay people need to be silenced.
It's a difficult balance since you're surely not the only gay person who feels like you might not fit in, but gay communities are more varied than you might have experienced, and hopefully you will be able to find even more places where you can be yourself without fear or discomfort.
-
I like that this doesn't use Arena scoring, but I don't like the limited number of tries. Still, it's not too hard if you look at the map for a second and realize you can skip over most of the non-thief enemies. Nice little mode that doesn't take up much time, which is great.
-
20 hours ago, Rinco said:
Is Null Followup mandatory for her or do you think she could work with another B skill?
My Brunnya build is a bit different and you might find it worth considering due to being generally a lower investment:
Pretend she has Astra blessing, of course-- I swap them out whenever I don't have a good unit to lead in a given season. Also, Fury 3 works just fine too. Compared to @Vicious Sal's build:
- In Astra season with one Altina, her Atk easily reaches 75 without buffs (a more modest build without dragonflowers or Fury 4 still hits 73) which is enough to one shot many units, especially when Res Smoke kicks in. She can take out Seliphs no problem, due to hitting hard enough to take his HP to 1 in a single hit. Likewise, Lif and most other reds tend to die in a single hit.
- Fury does hurt her a little against Thrasir, but most teams also have Duma so it's fairly difficult to get around Killing Intent regardless. WoM is much easier to use though, and Brazen seals will kick in very quickly. Having boosted stats helps her absorb chills and shrines, too.
- Vantage helps against ranged units like Legendary Alm and Kronya, who are too frail to withstand one hit. Brunnya's crazy Res makes Hardy Bearing Ophelias a non-issue, too. Many teams are built around ranged damage, so she can often be positioned to clear out multiple opponents, sometimes even entire teams.
- Brazen Atk/Def seal helps in case she does have to take a hit. With a Def buff (like Def Tactic) and Naga on the team, she easily reaches above 50 Def, allowing her to take hits from some melees (notably reds) and more Res oriented units like Picnic Flora.
I think something like Lull Atk/Res would be worth considering too, but it's pretty hard to come by and it's pretty rare that she runs into issues that her stats and Vantage can't handle. Either way, I don't think Null Follow-Up is all that great for her when Lif is totally outmatched by her, Duma is often out of reach and an easy target, and it only affects Thrasir's B skill Desperation effect (which Brunnya is usually too fast to worry about).
-
6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:
Clinton couldn't escape some fucking emails.
Not just that, but really the GOP's been attacking Hillary for decades and doing whatever possible to kill any goodwill or faith the public might have in her. Even in the early 90's it was clear that she was a strong contender for first female president.
-------------------------------------
In other news, further instances of Trump embracing fascist rhetoric and symbolism:
This ad is sponsored by both Trump and Pence and are in their official FB pages. For those that don't know, the inverted triangle was used in the badges for prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, with the color identifying prisoners. The red inverted triangle in particular referred to political opponents, particularly antifascists who directly opposed the Nazi party.
-
Just now, daisy jane said:
i think it's absolutely gorgeous
it's really antique looking.
(sue me. i'm an english major, not art major, i don't know the terms LOL).Part of what makes it stand out is that Akihiro's artwork, and Soeda Ippei's for that matter, is significantly more realistically proportioned than most artists. That, combined with the textured effect of using pencils and brushes (or pencil and brush styled tools digitally) makes their work look less anime and more like classical art.
13 minutes ago, Kaden said:I was pleasantly surprised to see that Yamada Akihiro was chosen to do Mila's art for Heroes. I absolutely love it. It reminds me of old RPG games or old games, films, and books in general. Does anyone remember or has seen the art of things like the first or early entries of Castlevania, Final Fantasy, Grandia, Lufia, Ninja Gaiden, Phantasy Star, the SaGa series, and Shining Force? If not Fire Emblem? Perhaps the Star Wars poster by Tom Jung could count too among other movie posters that I can't think of or know about. There's this charm to it that I'm not sure how to describe. Old world? And this might sound like I'm bashing the artists and their art, but sometimes the art doesn't look as impressive in terms of technical skill compared to more recent art. Yet it's that quality that gives this "old world" or whatever might be more appropriate to describe it feel.
Incidentally, Akihiro did art for Castlevania: Dracula X (the SNES port of Rondo of Blood)
It's not quite the same style seen in Heroes, particularly the simpler textures, but it is rather proportional.
-
This is the best art in the game.
Do You Think We Will Get A Capcom rep in FP 2? Who Will It Be?
in Super Smash Bros.
Posted
Oh yeah base game spirits for sure, especially if you figure spirits exist as a way to pay tribute, so to speak, for characters not in the game, and thus were not planned to be added. Spirits and Mii fighters added after whenever they decided on Fighter Pass 2 are probably not gonna happen if you consider those things as that same sort of tribute. Trouble is, we don't know when they decided on those spirits/costumes or Fighter Pass 2 itself, so we can't determine any kind of cutoff I guess.