Posts made by Derp

@Roz said in General Video Game Thread:

I really liked FF15

I played it. Multiple times. I don't hate it enough to not play it. I even waited patiently for the DLC. But I have major complaints. Kind of hated how unpredictable warping in combat could be, and how hard it was to lock on to certain things. Hated even more that the story is told in such a disjointed way that anything after that spoilery thing on the train is just one massive jumble. Even if you pick up all of the in-game lore (which I usually do because I am a total completionist), I hate that they set it up so that you have to buy DLC just to learn how the goddamn main story goes without all the massive holes in things.

Points for giving me Prompto though, who I assert is gay and has a crush on Noctis and fucking fite me.

ETA: Also, serious question -- I have not played Episode Ardyn. I very much want to know his story. Is this worth my money?

ETA2: I should have said I want to know more about him than what I already know from the in-game lore, so -- is the DLC worth it on its own?

@Ganymede said in General Video Game Thread:

@Jaded said in General Video Game Thread:

TLOU2 got delayed as well. I am wondering if everyone is trying to get a bit of extra shine with some of the new console talk coming out so that they can platform to those when they go on sale.

Probably. Or they are taking a cue from TLOU by pushing it to the limit of the existing system, and then creating a remastered version for the new one.

Because, yes, I have both the PS3 and PS4 aversions.

Also, fuck you EA for not remastering the Mass Effect series.

I have been replaying TLOU and Days Gone. Days Gone is also fun. It doesn't have as great a story as TLOU but the sheer panic induced when you're just minding your own business and out of nowhere, a horde appears... worth it.

@Ganymede said in General Video Game Thread:

They have made eleventy billion Final Fantasy games and they can’t be bothered to keep Mass Effect alive?
Balls.

Yeah. But. Did you see what they gave us last time? We were promised Versus. And we got 15. (A game so sub-par for a final fantasy main series game that they had to completely gut and redo the ending, and it was still balls.)

@TiredEwok said in The Savage Skies - Discussion Thread:

As interesting as a topic as this is, I think we've derailed things and gotten away from the point of this thread.

Where this thread's going, we don't need rails.

@Killer-Klown said in Tastes Less Carrot-y:

@Derp said in Tastes Less Carrot-y:

@Sunny said in Tastes Less Carrot-y:

I can hear this image.

Does it sound like this?

You monster.

@WildBaboons said in Tastes Less Carrot-y:

Because this thread was born from Arx..

Carrot will soon go the way of the banjos, mangos.. and katanas.

This image is somehow uniquely satisfying.

@Roz said in General Video Game Thread:

The Final Fantasy 7 remake got delayed, too.

This is the one that hurts me the most. FF7 was the most glorious part of my gaming childhood.

ETA: That Binocs thing up there? That's me with TLOU2.

@Sunny said in Tastes Less Carrot-y:

I can hear this image.

@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:

A Muslim is, a Klansman does.

It's not 'both sides' rhetoric. It's pointing out a logically dangerous argument. Good try though.

And also, 'muslim is, clansman does' it a ridiculous statement, as they are both products of choosing to follow a certain belief.

@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:

So if Kestrel reports a Klansman for being at a Klan rally, the effects of that on the Klansman's family belong more to Kestrel than to the Klansman who chose to be at the rally, who chose to be a Klansman, who chose to tie his family's fortune to his Klan participation? Because I feel like it's on the Klansman, and on the Klansman's SO who realistically had to know what they were getting into.

Substitute 'clansman' for literally any other political / religious / belief-based organization and you quickly start to see the problem here. The Klan is taboo because we as a society have chosen for it to be. But it wasn't always. And other things can take its spot in the future. Like being a democratic socialist. Or a muslim.

Our current 'enlightenment' in whatever form it takes is no more realistically informed than any other eras. They had their own arguments for believing what they did was for the best in society, some of them sincerely held. Don't think that can't change in a heartbeat, given the right match to the right powderkeg at the right time.

waves hand at Border Wall and Muslim Ban

@Rinel said in Separating Art From Artist:

I'm going to say it's immoral, because you're treating that person as a means to an end (inducing others not to be nazis) rather than an end in themselves (changing their mind re: nazism).

Ugh. I can't Kant. I despise the categorical imperative probably about as much as you despise consequentialism.

@Auspice said in Separating Art From Artist:

fanny packs

TACTICAL BELT POUCH tyvm. Hrmph.

@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Rinel said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Derp said in Separating Art From Artist:

Despite may vocal voices to the contrary, there is not an objectively wrong belief or practice. For every argument against, there is almost always an equally valid argument for.

Ew. No. Good lord, no. Just because people disagree on morality doesn't make it subjective. Yech. This is how we get FGM apologia.

Yeah I wasn't going to touch that one but I'm glad you did.

There is no equally valid argument for genocide and other atrocious nonsense.

Try making the same arguments about male circumcision and watch how many people that love to talk about personal agency and bodily autonomy and self-determinism come out of the woodwork and point out how it is an important religious and cultural practice and how dare you.

Point being -- the validity of any argument has nothing to do with how you feel about it. It simply requires that the premises offer a logical justification for the conclusion. And that's actually a pretty low bar to meet.

There are arguments for nearly anything, and whether you find them acceptable or not is entirely subjective and rooted in beliefs and standards that are non-universal. And rach and every one of us have things we find acceptable that others are vehemently opposed to precisely because there is no objective standard, and logically valid arguments can be made for multiple avenues.

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

Election day should be a federal holiday and the fact that it isn't smacks of a contempt for the right to vote for the poorer working class who have less control over their work schedules.

That, and the fact that voting is restricted, is by design. It's working as intended. (Not that this is a good thing.) But also -- we should probably move this to the politics thread before someone gets mad.

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

breaking some sacred rule they haven't come up with yet

I don't usually agree with Pandora, but I agree with this. Despite may vocal voices to the contrary, there is not an objectively wrong belief or practice. For every argument against, there is almost always an equally valid argument for. Which makes them entirely subjective, even if we find them incredibly distasteful by current perceptions. Every culture has some kind of practice or belief that later cultures find abhorrent in some way, and try to go back and demonize them -- even though those practices were widely accepted at the time, even believed to be commanded by the gods in some cases.

In the not-too-distant future, someone is going to look back at something that we thought perfectly normal and justified and go on just as big a rant about that thing as we do today. We don't even have to look back that far. We're already throwing most of the nineties under the bus.

Pretending that we're some omniscient objective observer, and trying to retroactively apply contemporary standards to the past and force it to conform, is a ludicrous endeavor that's more damaging than helpful. You can change what happens right now. Not what happened a thousand (or thirty) years ago. Art, by definition, tends to be a distillation of a culture's symbolic beliefs, so some future generation is always going to find it problematic somehow. It's just the nature of the beast.

@Quinn said in The Art of Lawyering:

Oh oh is it true that they teach you in law school that you can sue a ham sandwich?

It's indict a ham sandwich. And while it's not literally true, it means that in grand jury proceedings, which are done in secret, a prosecutor can generally convince the grand jury that probable cause exists for just about anything -- which is true. The bar is very low there. Juries readily believe almost any theory of the case, with rare exceptions.

ETA: You can sue for damn near anything. You just might not prevail, and unless you state a claim that can be resolved by the court on some sort of legally sufficient grounds, it gets quickly dismissed.

@Scissors said in The Savage Skies:

Do you guys need a room to make out, or....?

Pictures or it didn't happen.

@TheOnceler said in Favorite Youtubers?:

Griffin and Justin McElroy

Whole damn family is involved in media. I listen to their sister show "Court Appointed."

@Auspice said in The Art of Lawyering:

I guess that's why they call them rules lawyers.

@Ganymede said in The Art of Lawyering:

you can generally lump people into three different kinds of practitioners: (1) the salarians; (2) the turians; and (3) the elcor. The salarians are annoyingly outgoing; the turians laconically grind through the business; and the elcor are stubborn, tedious motherfuckers that make you want to tear your eyes out. None of them are particularly well-versed in human social conventions.

Totally stealing this for the next time I need nerd law.

Handful of white chocolate ones + handful of caramel ones.

As someone with a pseudo-allergy to chocolate, it's worth the pain.