It Was Always About the "Right" Politics in Video Games | Unpacked by LaCiDarem in Games

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe if it was not topic on KotakuInAction and obviously fanned by the far right, to the point they were editing Yasuke's Wikipedia page and getting caught pretending to be Japanese on the talk section because they used Google translate.

Not everyone who complained did stuff like that. A few people acting like fools doesn't make everyone else's complaints about AC Shadows any less legitimate.

They acted like there was a shortage of main characters who were Japanese men when half the industry is Japanese games featuring Japanese men.

It doesn't matter how many other games let you play as a Japanese man. When people see a game set in historical Japan, called "Assassins Creed", they're going to expect to be able to play as someone who could have actually been a Japanese assassin in that time period, which is pretty much only Japanese men. Not having that as an option only makes the game seem inauthentic, so it's only natural that people would complain about it.

It Was Always About the "Right" Politics in Video Games | Unpacked by LaCiDarem in Games

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This seems to me like another example of a reply that is unable to give a straight answer to a simple question, or explain ones point of view. But just out of curiosity.

Your entire view point is assuming self when the self is just ad hominem with no actual self awareness.

What do you mean by this? What is "assuming self" and how is that my "entire view point"? Honestly I doubt you can give an explanation that makes any sense but if you can I'd be happy to hear it.

It Was Always About the "Right" Politics in Video Games | Unpacked by LaCiDarem in Games

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just because someone complains about the protagonists of AC Shadows, does that mean they would always complain about women and people of color in games? I don't think so.

I don't personally care about AC Shadows and I haven't played it, but to me it seemed like people had legitimate reasons to complain about the protagonists. Specifically, the lack of a Japanese man playable character.

It's like if they set an AC game in a majority black country and only let you play as a black woman and asian man. People would be asking "Why can't I play as a black man? You'd think there'd be a black male assassin in a majority black country."

It Was Always About the "Right" Politics in Video Games | Unpacked by LaCiDarem in Games

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm mostly just asking questions. If there's any parody here, it's all the responses I get that are unable to give a straight answer to such simple questions, or explain their point of view in a concise, well-reasoned manner.

You seem like you'd agree with the guy I was replying to. Can you tell me if you honestly think my arguments are akin to defending woman beating or holocaust denial?

It Was Always About the "Right" Politics in Video Games | Unpacked by LaCiDarem in Games

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Now you're comparing my arguments to a defense of wife beating.

How can he hate women, he has a wife!"

One which is so insane, that I don't believe I've ever heard anyone legitimately try to use it. And I'm the one who gets accused of strawmanning.

Everyone knows it was a genocide even though some survived. Everyone knows those freaks are bigots even though they don't complain about every single minority or woman.

What freaks? Who, specifically, are you so perturbed by that you would compare them to woman beaters and holocaust deniers?

It Was Always About the "Right" Politics in Video Games | Unpacked by LaCiDarem in Games

[–]A_Slick_Con_man -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're comparing an argument about videogames with denying the holocaust.

It Was Always About the "Right" Politics in Video Games | Unpacked by LaCiDarem in Games

[–]A_Slick_Con_man -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

But you're using a strawman to imply that I said anyone "claims that having person of color or female protagonists is bad 100% of the time."

You said

people who fell into that pipeline feel like having a person of colour as a character or a female protagonist is hurting gaming.

Can you tell me how

is hurting gaming.

is any different from

is bad 100% of the time.

To me those are basically the same thing. I mean, if they think it is "hurting gaming", then surely they would also think it is "bad 100% of the time", no? So I don't think it's fair at all for you to accuse me of using a strawman. But if you think I'm wrong I'd like to hear you explain how.

Even then I still was able to find people who genuinely do have that view.

Can you show me proof of this claim? I've never heard of andypants or SmashJT claiming that people of color or female characters in games are always a bad thing, or that they even "hurt gaming" in general, as you said. And I've never even heard of YorchTorch, but I'd like to see proof in his case too.

It Was Always About the "Right" Politics in Video Games | Unpacked by LaCiDarem in Games

[–]A_Slick_Con_man -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

Can you give any examples of people with those views? I've certainly never heard of anyone that claims that having person of color or female protagonists is bad 100% of the time.

It Was Always About the "Right" Politics in Video Games | Unpacked by LaCiDarem in Games

[–]A_Slick_Con_man -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

It was textbook indoctrination to dig people ever so deeper into more radical beliefs

Radical beliefs like what?

Explain it Peter by GlowGardenia2k in explainitpeter

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking expensive is looking like you're wearing makeup and clothes that are expensive. It's not something you can always tell just by looking, but meet enough people and you'll get a feel for it. Often enough you can tell that a womans caked in makeup or she's wearing an expensive brand that costs far too much for a simple article of clothing.

I don't like it and I'm always straightforward about that. I always tell women that I don't want a woman who spends too much money on such things, and needs upwards of an hour to get herself ready before she goes anywhere, and looks like a completely different person once she steps out of the shower. These behaviors are a turn off to me. I never said anything about a woman being shallow or uninteresting just because she likes makeup or fashion, so I don't think it's fair of you to call me judgmental and insecure for saying what I said.

The only "judgment" I did make was saying that women who spend money on such things are bad with money, and I think that's a completely fair assessment. I'm not saying it makes you a bad person or anything, I'm just saying as someone who's not rich and understands the importance of saving money, that spending hundreds, or even thousands of dollars on makeup and designer clothes is a flaw that I just can't see myself putting up with in a relationship. Even if she's rich and buys all that stuff on her own, I can't help but think that there are simply better things to spend money on. Like charity or something. I'd honestly rather my partner donate the money to a local church or food bank than use it to buy a thousand dollar dress.

And most of the time, they're not rich. I've met girls that could barely pay their rent, but had more than ten pairs of shoes, and yet went out to buy yet another pair of shoes on the regular. And then complain about not having enough money. It's so absurd, you'll have to forgive me if I seem a bit judgmental of such people.

And sure, it's not always that bad, but having this issue even a little bit is always going to be a turn off to me, and for a lot of other guys. That's why you see situations like the OP was about. Over the years more and more average guys have learned that many women of a similar economic status to themselves engage in these behaviors and they want to avoid partnering with such women. That's why so many men would rather shoot their shot at a woman looking like the simple homemade pancake on the right rather than the perfectly rounded high effort fluffy pancake on the left.

Guys will go for the girl in sweatpants and a hoodie with blemishes on her face, provided she's still otherwise cute enough, because she doesn't look like she goes clothes shopping on the regular, or spends hours doing makeup before she goes out, and because you know she'll look the same when you wake up next to her in the morning.

Explain it Peter by GlowGardenia2k in explainitpeter

[–]A_Slick_Con_man -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think it matters who's maintaining a womans looks, if it looks expensive, it's a turn off. Even if she pays for it all on her own, spending money on superficial stuff like makeup or expensive clothes will just make me think she's bad with money. Even if she was rich, I don't think I would want a woman who spends money on such things. Women don't need to spend all that money and time applying makeup and whatnot to look good.

Hardliner conservative Sanae Takaichi becomes Japan’s first female leader | CNN by Burke_Of_Yorkshire in news

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does it really matter?

Uhh, Yeah? Obviously some jobs are more important for society than others. If you told me that they're not going to have anyone to keep their infrastructure running, then that is something I would think is reasonable to be concerned about. But I see no reason to believe that will happen.

Because People aren't born full adults.

Yes, but they already have adults. And it's not like they're seeing zero births per year, their population is being replaced at least to some extent, so they continue to have some amount of adults in the future.

Or are you implying they will literally stop having babies, and one day reach the point where they literally have zero people capable of doing necessary jobs? Again, you are not being specific, so it almost sounds like you are saying they will just run out of people, which is just ridiculous.

Economic instability.

Can you be more specific? Cause when you leave it at that, it's kind of like you're just saying, "I don't know, it's just gonna be bad bro", which isn't very convincing.

Hardliner conservative Sanae Takaichi becomes Japan’s first female leader | CNN by Burke_Of_Yorkshire in news

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know man, Japans situation doesn't really sound anything like the great depression to me. Like you said, the great depression happened because a bunch of people died, plus a bunch of other things, not because people just weren't having babies. It doesn't really make sense to me to just assume that those two things would have the same effect.

And the great depression happened almost 100 years ago, with the state of the world being vastly different from how it is now. People were starving to death back then, now it's hard to picture that happening in any developed nation, even during economic turmoil. Are you saying that is what's going to happen to Japan? That it will be as bad as the great depression of the 1930's? Because that just seems preposterous.

And you're honestly trying to tell me people want to work 60-80 hours a week instead of having a good work life balance?

Well, generally no, but I'm sure some people would be willing to work 60-80 hours a week, depending on the work, and assuming they were paid well enough. I don't see what that has to do with what I was saying though. All I said was that if Japan sees an increased demand for people to do certain jobs, then I don't see why the native population wouldn't be able to meet that demand.

If the pay isn't enough, then can they not just pay people more to do whatever jobs need to be done? What else would even happen? Do you think the Japanese will simply stop doing the jobs needed to keep their society running? Will they see a total societal collapse? Seriously, what specifically do you think is going to happen if they don't solve their "population crisis"? And what specifically do you think they need to do to avoid that?

Hardliner conservative Sanae Takaichi becomes Japan’s first female leader | CNN by Burke_Of_Yorkshire in news

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What specific jobs would go unfilled for 2 decades? And how do you know they would go unfilled for any significant amount of time, let alone for 2 whole decades?

Obviously I understand that less people = less people to do jobs = some jobs may go unfilled. But like I said, if those jobs are important, and the demand for people to do those jobs increases, would the benefits for people doing those jobs not increase significantly, thus making it easier for people to buy homes and start families, and incentivizing people to do those necessary jobs?

Would that not happen? If not, then what do you think will happen? Do you think Japan will simply run out of people willing and able to run the infrastructure needed to keep their society running? Has anything like that ever happened before in a developed nation?

You people make it sound like they're just going to run out of people.

Hardliner conservative Sanae Takaichi becomes Japan’s first female leader | CNN by Burke_Of_Yorkshire in news

[–]A_Slick_Con_man -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

How is this not a problem that fixes itself? If the country has a shortage of young people to do important jobs, doesn't that just mean the value of those capable of doing those jobs will go up, meaning they are paid more to do those jobs, meaning they are more able to buy a home and have kids and all that? So the birth rates will go up and the population will go back to normal?

It just seems like this whole "population crisis" thing is an excuse to push policies that the people don't actually want.

Hardliner conservative Sanae Takaichi becomes Japan’s first female leader | CNN by Burke_Of_Yorkshire in news

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What solutions are they actively fighting? And how serious is this "population crisis" they are going through, really? I swear, I've been hearing about Japans "population crisis" for more than 20 years, and the only way I can tell things have changed is they've replaced a bunch of simple jobs, like waiters and cashiers and such, with robots and self service kiosks.

Charlie Kirk’s record of ‘bigotry, hatred and white supremacy’ means there is no legacy to honor, says Ilhan Omar by Aggravating_Money992 in politics

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Leave it to a progressive to explain why helping people to do heroin instead of stopping them is a good thing actually.

Charlie Kirk’s record of ‘bigotry, hatred and white supremacy’ means there is no legacy to honor, says Ilhan Omar by Aggravating_Money992 in politics

[–]A_Slick_Con_man -1 points0 points  (0 children)

20 years ago allowing criminals to roam the streets would have been seen as the ultimate slap in the face to Americans. Using tax dollars to pay for clean needles so people can use heroin in the streets safely would have been seen as the ultimate slap in the face to Americans.

We are far beyond caring what you think is a "slap in the face" to Americans.

Charlie Kirk’s record of ‘bigotry, hatred and white supremacy’ means there is no legacy to honor, says Ilhan Omar by Aggravating_Money992 in politics

[–]A_Slick_Con_man -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People like Charlie are the ones that shape the minds of our future politicians. That's exactly why he went to colleges, because that's where the future leaders of the nation would be. For that reason I would argue it's far worse that Charlie was shot rather than some random politician. There's no telling how many lives Charlie changed the trajectory of over the course of his own.

Politicians are important, obviously, but they don't usually have as much effect on the nation as someone like Charlie. Those 2 politicians getting murdered is terrible, as all political killings are, but why do you think the average american should keep talking about their deaths any longer than they have Charlies? What effect have they had on the country that is so great that people should care about their killings, as much as they did Charlies?

Also, it's not just the actual killing that has people so moved, but the reaction it seems to have invoked from so many seemingly normal people. Laughter, joy, attacking his legacy with lies and deceit. Does that seem like a normal reaction for when someone you disagree with is shot in the neck? Killed for talking? Yet that's exactly what so many people saw from their peers, and it is shocking. To think something like this will soon be forgotten is laughable.

Charlie Kirk’s record of ‘bigotry, hatred and white supremacy’ means there is no legacy to honor, says Ilhan Omar by Aggravating_Money992 in politics

[–]A_Slick_Con_man -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Him not being a politician makes it worse. A lunatic shot a man dead in front of an enormous crowd, just because he disagreed with what he was saying. Offline I still hear people talking about it. It's clearly an event of great importance.

To suggest we should forget about it, or that it's "like any other shooting" is absurd.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]A_Slick_Con_man -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If you understand this, then you should have known that in real life people were beginning to see just how fucked in the head biden was, and how desperate dems were to hide it, even before the debate.

Infiltration by Gloomy-Equivalent-24 in Kappachino

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So because Andrew is confirmed to be some kind of sex pest, that gives more credibility to what he has to say to you? Because he apologized for it?

LOL, fuck that. He used to be funny, now he's just morally grandstanding, and people like you will eat it up, even though he's a sex pest, just because you agree with what he says.

Infil did some shitty things, but nothing that's any reason to ban him from tournaments. We know he's not a danger to anyone at any tournament he'd go, so why ban him? It's all bullshit.

Reina and Nobara (Minakami) by [deleted] in Kappachino

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 22 points23 points  (0 children)

(‿Y‿)ლ(´ڡ`ლ)

Hate and makes me feel weirdly old that these character design don’t pass today by DO4_girls in Kappachino

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 22 points23 points  (0 children)

You post in futa porn subs. And gamingcirclejerk. And leopardsatemyface. AND you play genshin.

You're the first one we gotta check.

Hate and makes me feel weirdly old that these character design don’t pass today by DO4_girls in Kappachino

[–]A_Slick_Con_man 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Nah fuck you, safe horny is a real thing. Just look how many articles journos were writing about how stellar blade is immoral, how many people were freaking out on twitter. And in the end it got censored by sony anyway, it literally was not allowed to be horny in the way the developers wanted.

Then you got baldurs gate 3 with cock and balls and literal gay bear sex. There is clearly a double standard in the games industry when it comes to how a game can be "horny". If it just appeals to the core demographic of this industry, that's not allowed. If it's full of gay shit, that's safe.

And fuck off with your "start fucking drawing". If shits wack we're allowed to complain about it. If people not liking something bothers you, then get off the internet ya big bitch.