Forums / Discussion / General

I dont wanna share more spaces with people like Greyblades or Spaghetto

And to Gilliam, yeah I get it, its just kinda funny that its always the same people here, sometimes a few random users show for three comments then leave

I will be honest, to me the move was dumb and I saw no reason for it since no one worth anything was having a problem.

But it pisses me off so much how terminally online randos want to use one of my favorite games for their sjw/ant sjw stuff, as someone that has been a fan since its inception you can clearly see whos pretending to care about the game

I was a lurker for a good part of my user-history, until I read something that pissed me off enough to start arguing, under the logic that any push-back is good.

Problem is, it's cathartic for me in small quantities, but arguing on the internet isn't really productive at all.

I really don't blame anyone who prefers to just focus on something actually fun.

Yup, I definitely don't know anything about the game, so I'm one of those terminally online randos who's only interested because I hear censorship drama.

I'm sorry about that.

But than again, I didn't read all of the thousands of books banned in the US by moral guardians. I just read enough of them like Persepolis to be angry at those works being targeted on principle.

I think its fine just on principle going "censorship is bad and I disagree with every kind" but then theres people with 40 minutes in game review bombing it and it just ticks me off, you know?

Love you too.

Y'all should make a discord server, its literally the same 5 of you on loop

There just aren't that many active users who care enough to post in the forums, and even fewer who care enough to actually put even a modicum of effort into doing so. I think we scared off most the people whose habits were either A) dropping a link to some rando's Twitter post or B) posting increasingly asinine bullshit with no thought or basis to it and made them retreat back to the comments and the shitcord.

I dont wanna share more spaces with people like Greyblades or Spaghetto

Harsh, but at least you're honest.

But it pisses me off so much how terminally online randos want to use one of my favorite games for their sjw/ant sjw stuff, as someone that has been a fan since its inception you can clearly see whos pretending to care about the game

Unfortunately, we live in an era where "everything is political"; and if it's not, people will do their damnedest to make it so.

Fwiw this isn't the first time Skullgirls has gotten into the public eye over some stupid bullshit. Two years ago, the entire studio imploded because MikeZ got exposed as a pretty awful person, thus meaning that basically everyone working on the game right now is new blood. Three years ago, they added the fursona of an incredibly polarizing FGC player to training mode and not as an opt-in (and they managed to do so right at the end of SonicFox's popularity, since I haven't heard shit from him since). And somewhere in this timeframe, maybe a couple years prior, they already censored some parts of the game.

I think its fine just on principle going "censorship is bad and I disagree with every kind" but then theres people with 40 minutes in game review bombing it and it just ticks me off, you know?

Unfortunately, that's inevitable. And if you go to its page right now, you can see people with similarly low play times reverse review bombing it. There's also a number of negative reviews from people with hundreds, and some even with thousands of hours.

I really wish latinoamerica was less homophobic

I really wish latinoamerica was less homophobic AND deatched from the anglo-american way of making LGBT activism.

Your experience is basically the building block how I became one of those you probably consider anti SJWs.

The SJWs showed inexplicably outsized influence to push the creators of games I love into dumb moves noone who actually cared about the games wanted and they proceed to call all who object evil. Then they did it again. And again. And again. And again.

Then they ruined my movies. Then my TV. Then my comics. Then my books. Then my tabletop games. And on and on and on.

My adult life has been littered with entertainment series that start strong and end in insipid and purile husks of propagandistic sludge: gruesome monuments to squandered potential.

And they don't ever stop, they're like locusts, eating everything of worth and moving onto the next meal, and seemingly noone of significance ever puts thier foot down, tells them no and sticks to thier guns, even in the face of repeated financial failure of those that acquiesce.

This…might be…the worst or one of the worst political takes EVER…dear god

No seriously…what the fuck?

@Greyblades

There's a saying about "those who hunt monsters" that's applicable here. The "Anti-SJWs" are Bizarro versions of "SJWs" because they're mirror opposites of each other, but are more similar than anything.

It's spite based politics (which since mid 2010's could be a whole other topic), and you can see that because it's not even about actually building something credible in response.

It's not as if they even have specific values either, because "Anti-SJWs" are just as happy to use the same "cancelling", censorship and social media dirty tactics. I already hated moral guardians years beforehand, so my opinion hasn't changed by them, but in the years since they've come to the scene I don't think the situation has improved at all in terms of "culture war". If anything, I think they feed on each other, they continually create their opposites. The grifters on both sides need each other. It's not just a locust, it's an Ouroboros.

To continue on the "hypocrisy" bit:

@Misspelled Tiger

think its fine just on principle going "censorship is bad and I disagree with every kind"

Going for a blank "censorship is bad" stance is much easier for me, I slip up from time to time, but in the end it involves a lot less mental gymnastics than groups being all for censorship on one piece of media, than crying oppression on another.

@Spaghetto

There's two more options for why more people don't participate as much on this thread:

C) We're political users in a meme site, and we're demanding ones at that. People who only "dip" their hands in politics by meshing memes and politics together get ostracized quickly. The Venn diagram of people who like going to meme sites, but also want moderately in-depth discussions is very low.

This is "we have standards" reason we can pat ourselves on the back on.

D) Because we're assholes who are more catty than a Teenage Mean Girl. You know it, I know it. May as well acknowledge that.

@No!!

When I criticized users on KYM on a "Nickmercs" entry, this is what I meant. Calling the LGBT & "yaoi" groomers, and than trying to defend "loli" on the other hand, zero self-awareness.

Puritans are a pain, but hypocritical puritans are so much worse.

Doublethink

/\ I thought the above was maybe some kind of onion parody, but no it's sincere, unfortunately.

Anyway, the latest news on the saga of "book bans" is that De Santis, one of it's highest proponents has gone on record of saying that he would eliminate four agencies: Commerce, Energy, the IRS and (of course) Education.

Combine that with attempts of the American Right in de-funding and closing down public libraries, and I was absolutely right in the sinister intent to kneecap general literacy. It was such an obvious slippery slope, I'm actually angry at how many people played it down. And the thing is, it's not even new ! This theocratic moral guardian nonsense has been going on for decades now.

None of De Santis's shtick is, Commerce is the continuation of the knee-jerk American Right's tendency to blame other countries for their ruination, which only ruined them further last time they tried their trade wars, Energy is another form of the neglect. Even his excuse, "the wokes" is something straight from a twitter/internet forum argument.

Nothing was learned, it's just the same stupid tendency to shoot themselves in the foot. The only consolation is De Santis is such a weak candidate, but he's representative of something.

U.S. Supreme Court rules against race-conscious university admissions

The Uncomfortable Truth About Affirmative Action and Asian-Americans

Good, public policy and academics should be blind to colour and should always and only consider merit. Affirmative Action was also particularly unfair to Asian-Americans.

Churches have all their little exceptions (without even pretending to be politically neutral anymore), and yet political parties are more than happy to meddle with education at every level.

I thought the above was maybe some kind of onion parody, but no it's sincere, unfortunately.

I must ask how you know, given that the account was suspended when I checked last.

Anyway, the latest news on the saga of "book bans" is that De Santis, one of it's highest proponents has gone on record of saying that he would eliminate four agencies: Commerce, Energy, the IRS and (of course) Education.

Reagan and Dubya Bush had abolishing the ED as part of their campaigns, too, and obviously neither ended up managing to actually do so. I wouldn't go nearly that far; while the ED has its share of issues, most federal departments are better resolved by nixing a few questionable acts and reigning in any mission creep.

I agree with abolishing, or at least gutting, the IRS, but I'd go further and scatter the DHS, the CIA, and the ATF to the wind too. Probably the FBI, too, but I know that having some kind of intelligence agency is probably necessary in the current age.

U.S. Supreme Court rules against race-conscious university admissions

Good. Ability should be the only relevant factor in college admissions, especially since colleges have made it clear that they can't be trusted not to abuse permitted forms of racism.

I must ask how you know, given that the account was suspended when I checked last.

There's a site called wayback machine which is good for deleted or suspended content, here's the link for the account in question. It's not particularly difficult, try May 4th.

Anyway, it's … a lot of anime and mentions of helicopter rides, it's a mix of meme and politics, less satire, more /pol/ than the Onion. If you want to quibble on intent, it's the particular brand of trying too hard for too long to brush off as a quick bit of trolling.

The same way you can tell that a youtube "prankster" is an asshole.

Reagan and Dubya Bush had abolishing the ED as part of their campaigns, too,

Bush Jr. also started the War on Terror, which is probably one of the single biggest mistake that the US has made to kneecap their hegemony, and directly empowered terrorists ! He's certainly not someone who "mellowed" out after getting into office.

Anyway, the issue is also, what kind of assholes likes this kind of rhetoric? We can blame politicians all we want, but here they're only saying what they think people want to hear.

Take Commerce for example (Education I can point to everything I've said about Book Bans, and Energy will be a long argument on climate change), Bush started a trade war and failed because the EU targeted the Red States. Trump started a trade war and failed for the same reason.

Turns out, having trained people in trade is a strength and not a weakness, and if they counsel against headline grabbing blunt tactics, maybe there's a reason why. But instead they get sidelined to please some voters who'll than get hit in the ensuing trade war, and will never put 2 + 2 together on why.

It's probably the reason why the US punched under it's weight with it's failed trade war with China.

It's such a cyclical and stupid waste of time.

Right now the US (and some of the West) is now smarter and subtle by actually talking to/strong-arming companies and trying to stop them from giving tech & institutional knowledge to China (and outright making them leave). Democracies need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their system.

Supreme court ruling in favor of allowing companies to discriminate against lgbt people and I'm sure th usual suspects will continue to attempt to gaslight that it's not happening

Jill ended up saying much of what I would. The thing to keep in mind is that this doesn't permit a denial of service, only a denial of specific requests of service. A straight person can be denied a website about a gay marriage, but you can't deny a gay person a website about cats on the basis of their sexuality.

Most importantly, though, is that speech can't be compelled. Funny, usually laws that girlboss too close to violating the US constitution act against the Second Amendment, not the First.

The world WOULD be better off without OnlyFans I agree with the christians there.

Not out of extreme puritanism but because jesus christ is onlyfanners self promotion annoying as shit, 1 out of 10 twitter comments is an only-fan girl trying to low key advertise their subpar onlyfans its fucking obnoxious.

Maybe society should have less porn with how annoying it is, jesus fuck

The current US Supreme Court has been busy. It's also a transparently activist one to be sure, combine that with it's recent corruption and lack of infosec scandals and there's been joking references about them even here on daytime TV.

That's not good, by the way. Any damages on the perception of the law will go beyond and last longer than the US parties, and I would agree with Alito about maintaining respect of the Judges, if it wasn't for the fact that he was a paid off judge who's the head of theocratic efforts.

The argument about whether Christians can decline to offer commercial services specifically for "religious reasons" is back up for debate. Funny thing is that the US can already drop contracts for non-committal reasons, with litigation only if it's explicitly and proven for discriminatory reasons, so American Christians can't seem to maintain even that level of professionalism.

I wonder if turnabout is fair play here, in terms of protections, or if it's just one way. The free market right to deny services could mean an entire constituency can blacklist someone from any kind of services.

This would not acceptable if the Muslims or even Catholics tried that where I am, that I can tell you.

Guess we're just going to pretend we didn't just leave a 50 year period when the Supreme Court usurped the legislature.

"Damage the perception of the law", thier latest addition is an literal unambiguous diversity hire. The perception of the law has been a long futile concern adopted and discarded for the sake of beating the enemy over the head more than any real conviction.

It is convenient to bemoan the wielding of thier own weapon against them and so their media outlets and thier incestuous dependants bemoan. If Thomas, Roberts and Alito were to suddenly die and Biden resurrected the spirit of Thurgood Marshall in thier place any concerns to activism would drop from the media lexicon in an instant.

Well, that begs the question, is it fair play to turn the weapons of these Fundamentalists back on them, to treat them exactly as they treat others?

Because let me tell you, if you're going to go for spite as a justification for so many actions, there is quite a bit of spite for revenge.

They have yet to turnabout the great weapon of Roe. When that happens it will be a fair play.

As it is they are limiting themselves to using the court in the format it was supposed to be used; merely in the direction the left had forgotten it could be turned.

You know, with all the bullshit the American Right in general has made us go through in the past few decade, that they cry oppression & aggression when it's normally the opposite is a good joke.

Media outlets? Those fuckers slandered France for years at their behest, slandered everyone. The EU let up it's economic trade war on the Red States when the US dropped it's own trade wars, we should be making it a priority to undermine them and the missionaries their churches & lobbyists they send out.

That's just one example, I think I'm pretty lenient in reserving outrage for present offenses, and still discussing them. If it took the policy of spite to it's just extent, I'd probably follow Tiger's philosophy in saying any discussion is a lost cause.

Oh right, the abortion debate where there were promises there would be exceptions for rape, incest and dangerous and non-viable pregnancies and there never was

Fine job, great way to prove what a lie those reassurances were, and being uncompromising religious fanatics.

But there was a turnabout, wasn't there? The Red wave was more a puddle, and the religious are under extreme scrutiny ever since, and this is far from forgotten. Oh, and it's not politics, but it can't have helped for the continued brain-drain and clinics shutting down.

You know, with all the bullshit the American Right in general has made us go through in the past few decade, that they cry oppression & aggression when it's normally the opposite is a good joke.

The American right haven't been the Neo Con monolith of the 00s for a long time: it's a civil war between Neo Con and Populist with the fundies as a sort of "could go either way" bystander.

Populists like Tucker Carlson have been purged from the right's media and the convergence of interest between Neo Con and Neo Libs against populism has seen the mainstream media are backing the Neo-Cons in near lockstep.

The Media are going after the Populists with the same vehemence and even greater venom than they did against the Iraq war dissenters back in the 00s.

Does it even matter? You mention the differences as if it absolves it, but whichever side is dominant, whether it's neo-con, fundie or populist uses that time to screw over others. The Japanese Imperial Army & Navy also hated each other, and we don't absolve them of each other.

My question à la Chewybunny was what was a foreign policy victory, but it should, have been when was the last time something constructive was done !

Because there's always another grudge, real or imagined. You know why a lot of Labour & Democrats & the Socialists (now En Marche) and every milquetoast Leftist to Centrist group has now absorbed the Corporatists (including it's evil)?

Why they've taken the place of "the Man" that used to be occupied by the Tories, Republicans and les Républicains? Because the Tories are incompetent and aren't even a party as every one is for themselves, the Republicans don't have moderates anymore and les Républicains and the Socialists are pretty much the same now.

Little wonder that the Blairites can look sane in comparison.

Between the neo-cons who lied, tortured, murdered, wasted treasures and caused a power vacuum in the Middle East that caused the rise of ISIS and a migrant crisis and the Fundamentalists who want to cut the middle-man out for that end-state, there's really not much of a choice.

And if an argument based on spite can try to justify much, one thing it can't do anything for is prove any kind of self-restraint.

It's not the IJN and the IJA where both sides were allways present and in a position to take over from the other when they showed a moment of weakness; the populists practically did not exist in the 00s.

Their coalescance into faction-hood happened under Obama and thier ability to challenge the Neo Cons on thier own power is an entirely new phenomenon.

Hell, that red wave not materializing is what turned this into a civil war; the Neo Cons pulled funding from the Populist candidates to maintain inter party dominance after spending the Trump years feeding off Populist momentum.

And in response the populists doubled down by fanning the fire for a fundamentalist resurgence. Those guys certainly did exist in the 00s, they existed for far longer than that.

I don't know if it's not already clear, but allying with religious extremists is a red line.

You know what this argument reminds me of? I once talked to a Muslim classmate years ago where he was angry about "all of them being painted as an Islamist" but would make excuses about how reliance on Islamists was because of colonialism, poverty, betrayals, grudges, etc…

Well, in the end the late 20th century Middle-East now certainly looks like a Golden Age in comparison, because they wasted all their energy on destruction, and the grudges and resentment only keeps piling up as they fall further behind.

His civilization is now not the only one suffering from a growing death cult (It's not an exaggeration, Christian Apocalypticism and desire for it is as close to mainstream as that of the Jihadis).

And in response the populists doubled down by fanning the fire for a fundamentalist resurgence. Those guys certainly did exist in the 00s, they existed for far longer than that.

Hence why I edited in "practically". They had precious few sympathetic representatives in the 00s and no power by which to challenge the Neo-Cons and the Religious in the party power structure or sway the direction of the party. All they were was a scattered disorganized polity; votes to be courted and free abandoned whenever the Neo Cons felt.

At worst they could split a vote in a presidential election but in the age of the monoparty that didn't matter much.

Now they are powerful enough that the Neo-Cons felt the need to abandon an entire midterm just to slow them down and the Neo Libs regularly break kayfabe to bail out their monoparty colleagues.

As for fanning the fire; That would be the Democrats with thier abandonment of the frog boiling strategy in favour of jumping into the "progressive" deep end.

This isn't a court of law, I'd like to point out. Spite & taking no responsibility for anything is what I expect from a teen, which is the exact type of mentality I was criticizing when I mentioned the example of a former classmate. Beyond that for a political ideology there's something wrong.

You can say progressive deep-end, but in Roe vs Wade even the (actual) centrists and right are horrified by the nonsense being conducted by the Fundamentalists in the US.

The excuse of spite wears thin as some point, at least for me, Fundamentalists and their dependents have been "victims" since the start of their existence, they get oppressed by metal music & rap.

Like the martyr complex, it's all just an excuse, a strategy for power-grab and that's what it always was and what it should be treated as.

From some "SJW" discussions I've seen (online and once in person), one common belief rom a faction is that "all my actions and those whom I agree with is justified as correcting a great evil". They were the ones who believed in a quasi-ancestral guilt system.

"SJW" isn't a self-applied title anymore (much like Alt-right), so they can also have a variety of different beliefs. But when I said that "Anti-SJW and SJW" are now very similar, I meant it.

Designer in Supreme Court ruling cited client who denies making wedding site request

" A Colorado web designer who the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday could refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her.

The request in dispute, from a person identified as "Stewart," wasn't the basis for the federal lawsuit filed preemptively seven years ago by web designer Lorie Smith, before she started making wedding websites. But as the case advanced, it was referenced by her attorneys when lawyers for the state of Colorado pressed Smith on whether she had sufficient grounds to sue."

…

"He added that he was a designer and "could design my own website if I need to" -- and was concerned no one had checked into the validity of the request cited by Smith until recently."

"Smith's lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, said at a Friday news conference that the wedding request naming Stewart was submitted through Smith's website and denied it was fabricated. She suggested it could have been a troll making the request". "It's undisputed that the request was received," Waggoner said. "Whether that was a troll and not a genuine request, or it was someone who was looking for that, is really irrelevant to the case."

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Friday called the lawsuit a "made up case" because Smith wasn't offering wedding website services when the suit was filed.

(Counterpoint)

"Any claim that Lorie will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because Lorie has received such a request," they said. Smith's Supreme Court filings briefly mentioned she received at least one request to create a website celebrating the wedding of a same-sex couple. There did not appear to be any reference to the issue in the court's decision.

Incredible, a "troll" is the best excuse that a lawyer could come up with. Even the lawyer isn't even trying to pretend that it was a valid request. Of course it's important ! She could have sent the request to herself, this goes beyond activist Judge.

Another transparent and cynical move from the Christian Nationalists, morally bankrupt as usual and any pretensions of standards is just a way for them to exert control.

One of the most interesting things to come of these past few sets of Supreme Court rulings is the development of Clarence Thomas, an elderly black man, as one of the American progressive's biggest boogeymen. Really feels like a case of the quiet part being said out loud.

>Maybe society should have less porn with how annoying it is, jesus fuck

I think porn isn't necessarily the problem. The actual problem, IMO, are all those thots who claim to be "the hottest 18yo on OnlyFans".

Spaghetto rolls "Worst gotcha politics ever" is asked to leave KYM forum

Don't fool yourself, people have done far worse.

Though I probably should have elaborated, so here you go. It's interesting how people who pride themselves on supporting minorities and opposing racism have been made so angry at a black person that they're resorting to old racist epithets and tropes just to try and cope with him failing to tow the line like they believe he should. This demonstrates two things:

1. Many of these people ("these people" being mostly under the progressive umbrella) are more concerned with appearing virtuous than actually upholding any kind of consistent, internal standards.
2. Many significant Democrats and progressives either hold a very paternalistic view of black people or a very entitled one, perhaps both.

Because like, it's really weird how almost all focus is on Justice Thomas and not the others. Only some of it can be because of tensions between him and Biden.

Gee it's almost like they're against him for what he does and not what he is, and you're just grasping at gotcha points

@Spaghetto

I'd like to point out that funnily enough, the only Justice I mentioned is Samuel Alito, so your "gotcha" attempt doesn't really work here.

Speaking of gotchas, I hope you at least looked at my Wayback Machine link.

I hope someone goes to any of the links I put in. Personal question, are they useful to anyone else? Or should I just summarize what the link is for?

I mean, that there's no other defense for the corruption, the cherry-picking of cases (and sometimes outright choosing fraudulent ones for political reasons) of the current American Supreme Court other than spite & deflection is depressing, but good.

Gee it's almost like they're against him for what he does and not what he is, and you're just grasping at gotcha points

If there's to be point about Thomas, I wonder how scandalous my opinion of Colin Powell and the rest of the Bush administration would be.

It's funny, I think that was an argument to throw shade at the "SJWs", but you're an authoritarian and I'm (leaning towards) Gaullism. It's literally beating a strawman, without the scapegoat/bogeyman of the progressive, there wouldn't be a defense or distraction for the dirty tactics.

From an objective standpoint, this is pure dirty tactics from the Supreme Court.

This is sadly modern american conservatism in a nutshell
One of the biggest problems with american culture, the childish "do the exact opposite of what the other wants just to spite them" that infests all american politics to some extant or another, but has completely taken over conseravtism

Gee it's almost like they're against him for what he does and not what he is, and you're just grasping at gotcha points

Let's split the difference here. They hate him for what he does as hard as they do because of what he is. People would be pissed off no matter what (judicial activism swinging the other way after decades can do that) but they're even angrier because he's black.

so your "gotcha" attempt doesn't really work here.

This wasn't actually even supposed to be a "gotcha" attempt. It was "lmao the 'anti-racists' are being racist".

One of the biggest problems with american culture, the childish "do the exact opposite of what the other wants just to spite them"

To be fair, out of those four, only Thunberg practices what she preaches. And she's only relevant because she was being used as a tool of emotional manipulation until she got old enough to stop being a crying child.

It's definitely childish to do something out of spite. But I think it's fair to tune out the "advice" of people who never actually practice what they preach; evidently, they don't have your best interests in mind, only their own. Think of it like televangelists, or an advocate for veganism who constantly eats various meat-heavy foods.

It's really not fair to do so, it's moronic and again childish to ignore actual experts and just paying attention to attention whores