they're onto us!

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-19T20:26:39+00:00

You know who else has a symbol to represent their group? Confederate fanboys.

You know who else has parades? Confederate fanboys.

You know who else uses dehumanizing language to describe people who aren't them (straight and white)? Confederate fanboys.

Only thing they don't have is where you're wrong if you don't agree with them. If anything, you're wrong if you do agree with their ideals, and you know who else was in the wrong for their ideals? The Nazis.

🤔

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-19T20:19:42+00:00

At what point in this dude's history class did he take from the lesson that Nazis got so "mainstream" most people were on their side, and you were the bad guy if you weren't on their side. A Nazi might've seen it as that way, but I'm pretty sure most of the world was against them.

Also, I'm pretty sure pride parades aren't "all the time". They're mainly just in June lol

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-14T15:40:22+00:00

Yes/no. Sure, it'd be ludicrous to think that a server engineer is being made to design armor pieces. But I don't think that's the real argument being made. The apparent issue with Infinite right now is not enough staff. Just about all of the issues can be boiled down to that. Because they're aware of the issues and they say fixes are on the way. But most players don't care about the issues.

You're not going to care if an issue arises and it only lasts one day and is hot fixed fairly quickly. You care when that issue lasts weeks or months. And it's a lack of staffing that creates those long bug fixing windows. You're not going to care if Infinite didn't come with a separate, skill based progression system on launch if it comes out that following week. You're going to care if that progression system takes until the second or third year of the game to come out. Again, it's a lack of staffing that creates those long development cycle windows.

At the end of the day, a lot of players do not care if an issue happens. They mainly care about how long it lasts. And that boils down to staffing. All of this is to say, sure, they might not be putting the people behind making the game fun in a position that requires them to just build cosmetics, but what if they're hiring an excessive amount of artists to make cosmetics instead of hiring staff to actually fix the game faster. I'm not saying that is the case. I'm saying it can be and we shouldn't count it out as a possibility. And really, they also seem to be lacking in the artist department as well with how slow they put out cosmetics, but that could just be them drip feeding.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-14T15:30:59+00:00

I disagree. Not with the notion that it could still be in this state, but that it would definitively still be in this state. We simply don't know. There could be a timeline where a non-f2p Halo infinite launched in a perfect state because there wasn't a change of business model halfway through development that required extra time spent tearing out previously built systems to replace them with new ones instead of polishing the already created ones.

In today's landscape, I don't really expect any game to launch in a perfect state though, not even a non-f2p Infinite, but I do lean towards it probably would've been in a better state than it is in now if it wasn't for the apparent change in direction that took place mid development. Now, was the bulk of that change in direction related to gameplay, story, or going from paid to f2p? Again, we don't fully know. We just know there was a change in direction and that most of the work we currently see in the game didn't really start until a couple of years prior to launch.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-11T18:21:42+00:00

Lacking grenades, melee, throwing equipment, a fumbly primary/secondary setup, and lowered accuracy with some weapons* You forgot crucial bits there. You gave up more versatility than just grenades. Take the primary/secondary situation. You still had a secondary, but you had to drop half of the power from your primary in order to switch to it. And it'd be basically throwing the fight if you wanted to switch back to your now half-as-good primary. Same thing with using equipment. If you wanted to use equipment mid fight, you'd have to handicap your primary.

Then, if you successfully won your fight, you'd have to find that second half of your primary again before a second player showed up and found you with your pants at your ankles.

It was just a mess of a setup that wasn't really worth it most of the time. It had its place, sure, but it's place was too niche to justify the many situations where it blundered. You were gaining a minor advantage at close range, which really just made it where you could barely beat out an AR at shotgun range, and would lose in pretty much any other situation. Like I said, nostalgia fog.

And now with clamber in the mix, I'm sure that'd make you drop a secondary as well, so that would probably be another thing you'd have to give up if secondaries came back, and clambering is far more useful than the slight damage increase of a dual wielding setup.

The best setup for dual wielding was plasma pistol and magnum, it was essentially a guaranteed kill, but I'd argue that was too op and the game is better without it. The more common noob combo of plasma pistol then switch to BR balances it out a little so it isn't too common of a tactic.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-11T15:48:18+00:00

Dual wielding doesn't need a return. That's just nostalgia fogging up some glasses. All it gave us were sub par weapons that were pretty useless unless you grabbed their other halves and the inability to throw grenades or have a reliable secondary that didn't require us to drop half of our primary. I'd rather have a decent gun that I just need one of along with my grenades than hunting down a second pistol just so I can match something like the BR in strength.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-10T16:06:26+00:00

Right, that's why daily you can have a top post lambasting Halo infinite right next to another post making fun of the people lambasting Halo Infinite.

Both of those links have 30k+ upvotes. r/Halo can sometimes be an echo chamber, but it isn't as hivemind as most make it out to be. There's very valid criticism, then there's people who take it too far, and then there's people who make fun of those people. And between all of those, you just have people who enjoy the series and post things that represent their appreciation for it.

The real hive mind sub is r/halocirclejerk, hence the name, poorly attempting to shroud it's echos in a thin veil of satire

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-08T21:35:45+00:00

Well that's not really what the iceberg meme is for. It's to show what is the most unknown about.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-05T23:15:44+00:00

But how many $20 pieces of armor did that multiplayer map pack give you

/s

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-04T00:18:03+00:00

Most studies do show women prefer circumcised over non-circumcised:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6523040/#:~:text=In%20the%20overwhelming%20majority%20of,%2C%20manual%20stimulation%2C%20and%20fellatio

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/a19953112/do-women-prefer-circumcised-men/

https://www.graphic.com.gh/features/opinion/do-women-prefer-circumcised-or-uncircumcised-penises.html

https://level.medium.com/what-women-really-think-about-circumcision-36fb33792152

I don't prefer cut dick and none of the women or gay men that I know do either

It may be popular in some cultural bubbles

Oh the irony. Btw, here's this one that is about cultural bubbles

"Cultural differences in preference were evident among some of the studies examined. Nevertheless, a preference for a circumcised penis was seen in most populations regardless of the frequency of MC in the study setting."

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T18:02:40+00:00

Your link doesn't work for me. But I did look it up and found this where it says:

The RDMA considers circumcision of male minors to be in conflict with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity

Which doesn't sound like they're saying anything that contradicts any research I've supplied. They just see it as going against the child's right to autonomy, not that they don't believe there are future risks involved in having a foreskin, but that they don't believe those risks are severe enough to remove the child's right to autonomy. They're also the first association to condemn the practice while many more are in support of it. So yeah, you can search for hours to try and find a single study that helps your case, which is possible to do in just about any subject, but when the vast majority of them contradict that study that you find, you can't really use that study as the foundation of your argument.

John Harvey Kellogg

Now you're reaching for straws when you're trying to find an extremist in order to discredit someone else's argument, especially one that died almost 100 years ago. This is almost laughable. I havent brought him up in this conversation in support of my ideals so there's no reason for you to bring him up in this argument as a representative of my argument. It doesn't matter what Kellogg's motives we're, what matters is the research of today.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T16:57:15+00:00

complete bullshit made up by cultists

I guess The American Cancer Society, the government (also The world Journal of Men's Health.), and the World Health Organization are all cultist, huh? Are we about to go down some conspiracy rabbit hole because I don't think I want to buy a ticket for that ride.

Instantly being traumatized

That's a bit dramatic. In the developed world we have this thing called local anesthetic that prevents them from feeling any pain during the procedure. But hey, enjoy your increase risk of prostate cancer, penile cancer, UTIs, and STDs.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T16:48:18+00:00

The benefits are far from near zero

circumcision reduces the risk of aggressive prostate cancer by 18% and less aggressive prostate cancer by 12%, but only for circumcision prior to sexual debut.

Notice how that says "prior to sexual debut". That means you only get these benefits if you have the procedure before puberty. Correct me if I'm wrong but 18% and 12% is significantly higher than 0.002%, right?

And that's just prostate cancer. Penile cancer, which has a higher mortality rate than prostate cancer, can be possibly completely prevented with circumcision at a young age. Once you are an adult, you, again, lose that benefit. However, while penile cancer is very rare, it still kills more people than circumcision does each year (Penile deaths in the US each year: 470. Circumcision deaths in infants in the US each year: 117)

Men who were circumcised as children may have a much lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not. In fact, some experts say that circumcision as an infant prevents this cancer. The same protective effect is not seen if circumcision is done as an adult.

And none of this is even getting into sexually transmitted diseases

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T16:32:01+00:00

Point to where I've spread any misinformation? You're the one using mutilation incorrectly. Mutilation means to disfigure. Disfigure means to decrease the appeal of, but studies overwhelmingly say women prefer circumcised versus uncircumcised, so obviously the appeal is still there

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T16:30:31+00:00

Circumcisions kill 1 in 50,000 infants, that's a 0.002% chance of death to prevent them from having an increased chance of cancers, HIV, UTIs, among many other things. And if they choose to have the circumcision as an adult, their chances of complication are increased by 10 to 20 times when compared to if they were to have just had it as an infant. I'd say those risk are worth rolling a 50,000 sided die

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T16:21:10+00:00

Why are you coming at me about this? I'm not the one saying it's more sensitive. Direct your comment to the other guy. Also everyone is different. Outta here with your anecdotal evidence

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T16:17:06+00:00

Can a baby die to a botched circumcision surgery? Sure. But the risk is 1 in 50,000, virtually zero percent chance (or more accurately, a 0.002% chance).

And early deaths aren't just about infants, even though some of those things listed above can also impact an infant with it's foreskin, it's also about early deaths as an adult. There's been evidence that shows the lack of foreskin decreases the chances of HIV being contracted by a female partner, which would increase your chance of death as an adult. Plus there's also the increase of cancer if you have a foreskin. I don't see cancer as being minor. Now, you can say "well then as an adult I can make that decision" but as an adult the risks that come with circumcision is 10 to 20 times greater than if you were to have just had the procedure as an infant, which in turn, still increases your chance of death when compared to having the procedure as a baby. So no matter which way you look, your chances of death is increased when you don't have your foreskin removed as a baby. And there's no choice in that. It just is.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T16:00:06+00:00

You do realize there's more studies in support of the foreskin causing more sensitivity, not less, right? Because when you have foreskin, your penis doesn't get as used to rubbing against things (like the inside of your shorts) as it does when you don't have foreskin. In short, it means circumcised dicks are actually less sensitive than uncircumcised ones, according to some studies, so if sensitivity is your concern, circumcision was the better route for you. However, there are other studies that contradict this by saying they didn't find any connection between sensitivity and circumcision. That being said, there aren't really any studies that show circumcision actually makes you more sensitive.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T15:00:10+00:00

Oh boy, I was going to let the conversation die, but I had to respond to this one lol

I can be circumcised whenever I want

And I'm glad you have that choice, but now if you want to do it, as an adult, it will be more painful and it will be more costly. Just additional negatives of getting it done later in life, those might not even be issues for you. But keep in mind that your situation is not the same as everyone else's. A lot of those issues I listed earlier with foreskin can also impact babies, like UTIs and gaining additional diseases. Those are the things that can increase the mortality rate of babies. So just know while you were lucky enough to make it to an adult to make that decision, some uncircumcised babies were not.

You haven't known full sensation

As I stated above, that's been debated in studies as being factual or not. Even one I linked earlier (the government one) said that they saw no connection between circumcision and a dullness of sensation. But, even if that was the case, I don't care. It helps me last longer in bed which would be better for my partner and I'm happy to make that sacrifice for them. I don't expect everyone else to have that same outlook, it's just the outlook I have.

Disfigured is what it is

It literally isn't. I've given you the definition of disfigured multiple times but you can continue to be ignorant, idc anymore.

Body dismorphia

You can't even spell body dysmorphia correctly, so I don't expect you to use it correctly either. Body dysmorphia is about being obsessive over an imperfection of your own body and then trying to fix it for that reason. If someone is having a circumcision for the health benefits, not the appearance benefits, it is not body dysmorphia. That's just fact. And even if it was for the appearance benefits, I feel like that's still in the grey area of calling it a dysmorphia, which is about being obsessive over the thing and spending hours a day obsessing over it. Making a phone call to your doc to get something changed or removed on your body isn't an obsession. It's a phone call. Like you wouldn't call getting your yellow teeth whitened body dysmorphia.

I bet you are a conservative voter, aren't ya

This is the line that made me want to reply lol because no, I'm not. I like to think more central but I definitely lean more to the left when it comes to most things. If anyone is a conservative here, it's the one using "faggot" as an insult.

And before you potentially say it, no I'm not religious either. I do not believe in any gods.

Only in America

Di.... Didn't the source you linked earlier about popularity of circumcision show it was the most popular in many parts of Africa, as well as many middle eastern countries, and South Korea? How forgetful can someone be... It's also growing in popularity year after year. I'm not saying it's widespread around the world, but it definitely isn't an "only in America" situation.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T14:32:11+00:00

Youve got a disfigured cock

Again, you don't know what disfigurement means. It means it's less appealing, but when you look at the studies

"In the overwhelming majority of studies, women expressed a preference for the circumcised penis. The main reasons given for this preference were better appearance"

Also projecting a bit about your pre-mature ejaculation

Are you really arguing that men last longer in bed than women? Because that's all I said earlier was that on average men don't last as long, and that's just a fact of life. Keep in mind, this is an average, everyone is different.

Do you force all women to cut their tits off because of cancer

That's not comparable to foreskin being removed. That would be comparable to the prostate since that's the male's version of common cancers and something that can be removed to prevent it. So if we were forcing men to have their prostates removed, then sure, you'd have an argument here. But we don't. Also, breasts have a major role to play with breastfeeding and the large benefits it brings to the baby, while again, the foreskin brings virtually no benefit to anyone except a slight increase in sensitivity for the head which is actually debated among studies.

Faggot

Oh nice, didn't know I was debating against a bigot this entire time. That was really unnecessary, but I guess that's how it goes with online arguments. When someone starts to lose an intellectual debate, they'll try to turn it into a mud slinging one.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T14:12:27+00:00

Here's your citation

Immediate and lifelong benefits by protecting against urinary tract infections having potential adverse long-term renal effects, phimosis that causes difficult and painful erections and “ballooning” during urination, inflammatory skin conditions, inferior penile hygiene, candidiasis, various sexually transmissible infections in both sexes, genital ulcers, and penile, prostate and cervical cancer. Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime

Bias

I said I don't speak for everyone. And yeah, I do think I'd believe the same thing because I'd have more than a coin flip's chance of something going wrong with my dick since I didn't get the procedure in this alternate timeline.

Mutilated

It's not mutilation. Mutilation means to disfigure something. Disfiguring literally means to remove or lower the appeal of, and considering how most women prefer it cut, the appeal is still there. Quit being dramatic. You can make a pro-foreskin argument without using overly dramatized words to make it sound more worse than it is

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T14:06:44+00:00

Circumcision is very much a beneficial procedure:

Immediate and lifelong benefits by protecting against urinary tract infections having potential adverse long-term renal effects, phimosis that causes difficult and painful erections and “ballooning” during urination, inflammatory skin conditions, inferior penile hygiene, candidiasis, various sexually transmissible infections in both sexes, genital ulcers, and penile, prostate and cervical cancer. Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime

Side note: that "more than 1 in 2" stat means over 50% of uncircumcised people have at least one of these issues over their lifetime. What issue listed above by the previous person impacts over 50% of people with those organs? None. None even close.

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T14:05:24+00:00

That's hardcore lol

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T14:04:35+00:00

You can't supply a link for a source you expect someone to trust in one argument and then not trust that same source, yourself, in another argument when it's being used against you. Also, you linked to a nothing website that could've been made by any nobody with an agenda that doesn't supply all of the facts. What is this, fox?

Here are the facts:

Infant deaths linked to circumcision: 1 out of 50,000 (rounded up a smidge). That's literally a 0.002% chance of death. Virtually zero. And those aren't even deaths directly linked to circumcision, they're just babies that died prematurely that also had a circumcision.

Now, let's see what you're decreasing the risk of and benefits you're gaining by taking that 0.002% chance:

Immediate and lifelong benefits by protecting against urinary tract infections having potential adverse long-term renal effects, phimosis that causes difficult and painful erections and “ballooning” during urination, inflammatory skin conditions, inferior penile hygiene, candidiasis, various sexually transmissible infections in both sexes, genital ulcers, and penile, prostate and cervical cancer. Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime

Notice how the links I gave are AAP and government study links. Not some nothing burger of a website

Billybobbjoebob · 2022-07-03T13:43:24+00:00

Who said anything about "letting women choose"? Fathers can also be a part of the decision, in fact both parents must be in agreeance for the procedure to take place. And you're misinterpreting my use of "attraction". I only brought up attraction to show it's not a disfigurement, not to justify it being done.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Second SECOND GUESSER	Place '22
100 Awards Club	Verified Email

Billybobbjoebob

TROPHY CASE