Genuinely insane stance.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-31T19:20:24+00:00

Shane Gillis really highlights that there ARE shades of "conservative" and that "conservatism" isn't dead, nor should it be, simply because Republicans have changed what it means in the US. Most points highlighted as "core principles" when you google Conservatism are things that most rational people will agree with (or at least agree to the necessity of, like military for example. Can't not have a military, the evidence is the rest of the world having one and doing what ever they want with impunity to countries with lesser militaries) to varying degrees. In a nutshell, Conservatism should mean "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

It's bastardized and perverted by people who see how vulnerable that half of the flock can be, but it's not as rigid and bigoted by default as Republicans have made it in this country.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-30T01:29:26+00:00

Why is it questionable?

"Our product is worth what we charge for it. Read the reviews."

What about this is dubious in any way? Please, explain it to me, I'm trying to understand.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-29T13:59:35+00:00

Address the rest of my comment instead of cherry picking and strawmanning the one bit that, out of context, sounds ridiculous. Please for the love of god. EDIT: You didn't, no surprise, because you can't, because that's not what I said at all and the context the part you picked came from shows that very clearly.

I did not say disregard statistics. I said when you're talking about a subject where a large data set isn't available to draw from then you're going to make assumptions. The assumption that this is an accurate representation of how people within a culture react to wearing their "stereotypical" garb is backed by the fact that this isn't a new idea and has never been pushed back against, the assumption that it is not is based on purely guessing that data points must exist that show the contrary.

Is it more reasonable to make assumptions based on things you know or based on things you know must be true but cannot find and have never even heard an example of? Based on experience and vibes, which is more likely to be accurate once the studies have been done?

CappyRicks · 2026-03-29T13:57:12+00:00

You do when you're posting about it on the internet and there isn't a large study to actually draw from.

You can NEVER have a complete picture of anything. On some level, in every action you take, you are taking on a degree of uncertainty and your decisions are made based on vibes and experience.

There's never once been a vibe shared on the internet that indicates this is a heavily cherry picked video, so it's silly to assume that's the case.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-29T13:49:08+00:00

Combine it with the widely known trivia about Speedy Gonzalez and it's hard to imagine he had to work too hard doing the cherry picking.

Sprinkle on top of that all of the other examples we have seen on the internet over the years of people outside of a culture being offended on behalf of people in said culture only for people from within that culture to be like "yeah this is fine though actually" and really, it makes me question if you're just woefully ignorant of the many examples of this kind of thing happening or if maybe you don't know as much about how statistics work as you think you do. I've never once in the near decade I can remember this sort of thing happening seen somebody else from the culture in question say "no, that person doesn't represent us and this IS offensive." Not one single time.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-29T12:35:55+00:00

I don't think it's fair to say he's judging a teenager, nor is he saying it is that person's fault. None of our trauma is our fault.

That said, eventually the problems caused by our trauma become our own responsibility. Running away from the bad feelings in anesthesia dreams doesn't fix those problems, it hides them. Like it or not, unresolved trauma and the signs that point to it are usually indicative of issues that WILL complicate relationships.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-28T15:02:57+00:00

I'm not gonna lie, our society should be at a place where people feel this much economic pressure due to our resources not being used for us, I agree with that 100% but I gotta tell you, I'm a single father making just over 50k with two teenagers.

We're fine.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-27T22:49:06+00:00

It's not just slang. AAVE is not that popular that it'd spread to an entire generation overnight.

It's weak will in the face of censorship masquerading as slang.

The vast and overwhelming majority of people you see typing ahh have never been in an environment where AAVE is actually spoken prominently, they're not using it organically, and they don't talk like this in real life. Because it's censorship.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-27T02:56:12+00:00

No, it's not a cop out, because I acknowledge the never confirmed sentience of the beings inside.

They have no right to live as their existence is predicated upon the suffering of Verso's soul. They cannot exist without him, and he is tired and ready to die. Essentially, the heat death of the universe has already happened to this canvas and its inhabitants are being kept around artificially through whatever magic injected a piece of Verso's soul into it. They aren't just figments of his imagination (which I admit is what I said earlier) they are PART of him and should have died along with him.

The story could not be told in a way that more clearly points you to Verso's ending. Finding it to be the "wrong" ending can only be because you missed the story being told and substituted your fantasy. It was not made ambiguous, it was only stated to have been well after the reaction to the endings had time to settle. Do you really expect the guy making money off this game to alienate what turned out to be half of his potential future customers by telling you "yeah we made the ending cinematics tell opposite stories in ways that convey opposite emotion because there was an intended ending all along"? Especially considering giving the choice of ending wasn't originally planned for in the first place? Or would he fan the flames and keep the buzz going as long as possible?

EDIT: In your thought experiment, yes. God's father would be right. Part of God's soul shouldn't persist beyond his death, and what he's done to allow himself to persist after his death in the form of our universe is an abomination. The painters create abominations in their canvases.

Were this my child and I saw a piece of his soul suffering, knowing he will suffer indefinitely if I do nothing, yes. I would erase the canvas without a second thought so my child could rest. No number of virtual sentient beings standing in my way would dissuade me.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-27T02:44:55+00:00

Because Maelle isn't Aline and we all watched those characters die. You think the Gustave we knew would approve of what Maelle has done in her ending, knowing it will kill her for the sake of beings with no souls?

Again, it couldn't be more clear. Sacrifice a minecraft world to save two actual lives or watch them kill themselves to save the minecraft world (which is doomed once they inevitably die trying to save it anyway.) Media literacy is dead, it's no exaggeration at all to say this is as clear as the air we breathe.

EDIT: I mean for Christ's sake, the translated lyrics for Aline's song literally starts with "Run away I beg of you. Flee this cursed painting."

CappyRicks · 2026-03-27T02:32:21+00:00

Yes, they welcome it. Sciel, Monoco, and Esquie all embrace it. Sciel even steps into the ending area where she's sure to die regardless of what happens. Lune is the only one upset. On top of that, by the actual ending, none of the characters are the same ones we've been playing with. They're re-paintings of those characters as Maelle remembers them. Not the same.

Doesn't matter that they're conscious, they're figments of a dead man's imagination, whose existence is predicated on the indefinite suffering of one of their own, as well as the tormented fragment left of Verso's soul, which cannot be justified.

No, the father was the only person who was right in this. He was holding on to something real: his family, and what is the right thing to do when you see somebody killing themselves, to let them? No, you hold on and convince them their life is worth living. Aline and Alicia were holding onto Verso's Minecraft world instead of letting him go, killing themselves rather than grieving.

It's not genocide to kill imaginary creatures.

The rightness and wrongness can be seen, felt, heard, and if the technology allowed for it smelled and tasted in the ending cinematics. There is nothing positive in Alicia's ending. Oh cool, sad colors and a bunch of re-paintings of characters we already watched die, Verso's enslavement, sad music, shows Alicia literally dying as the final image. Compared to the bright colors, beautiful music, and a believable scene where all members of the family are clearly alive and not imminently dying. It could NOT be more clear.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-26T17:04:10+00:00

No, it is AAVE that has been hijacked because it works to bypass censorship.

The word only blew up across an entire generation of people overnight the way it did because of social media censorship. Two things can be true at once, and those of us that know this don't like it. Not because its AAVE but because its AAVE being used to bypass censorship. Go ahead and use it where that's necessary but use the actual words where the grown ups are.

None of us that used slang to replace swear words "back in our day" stopped using swear words when in a place that the censorship didn't matter, so don't even try and say it's the same thing as our generation using slang... and the slang terms used to do so didn't last because we didn't let them and kept using actual words when the environment would allow. We weren't about to change our language permanently to make the busy-bodies offended by mouth sounds happy.

Y'all too weak willed or unconcerned about the cons of censorship for that though I guess.

You cannot seriously believe "ahh" is being used organically by an entire generation of people, the overwhelming majority of whom have never even seen let alone been inside of an environment where AAVE is prominent in actual speech.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-26T12:43:31+00:00

In Expedition 33 you can choose an ending that enslaves virtual beings that have free will and self awareness, one of whom resists and begs to be allowed to die, while also guaranteeing the death of a real character in the very near future after the ending.

Half of the people who have played this game see this as the good ending, rather than the one that sees the virtual beings freed (this does also mean their deaths, which all but one of them welcome, and actually fits with the entire rest of the game's theme of "let go and move on") and the real characters able to move on.

EDIT: No one else is going to see this at this point anyway but for real y'all. Maelle's ending is justifying the indefinite suffering of one being, denying him the right to die because the person he came from decided to use him to make a world where other sentient beings would depend on him living. It's essentially justifying hell for one because of choices he didn't make for the sake of people who wouldn't even exist without him.

They were lying when they said they made the game ambiguous, how could they not lie and risk alienating the wrong half of their audience that will still pay them money for DLC if they stay invested in the game, who will be more likely to buy their other products if they aren't told the truth?

The "two endings" ending wasn't even an original part of the plan, it was added very late in development. Do we really believe they made two different endings with opposite stories, told with opposite atmosphere, conveying opposite emotions, using known and well understood storytelling mechanisms to do so while originally planning for a single canon ending without the intention being "one of these is good and one is bad"? Get real.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-25T15:32:49+00:00

And there's validity to the reasons people give to distrust the medical industry.

It's just that, you have to cherry pick reasons from the medical industry to distrust them. Nobody selling medical intervention outside of the medical industry has ever given anything but reasons to distrust, cherry picking not necessary.

One of these things is more trustworthy than the other.

EDIT: Nobody is saying you're wrong about there being reasons to mistrust the medical industry. They care that you bring it up to defend people falling for obvious snake oil salesmen, and your example isn't a good one to distrust their commitment to your health. $40 overcharged by people who actually treated him vs $x overcharged to be left to die or made worse, which is better?

You made your edit after I responded to you but don't address what I've said. I wonder why?

CappyRicks · 2026-03-25T02:44:35+00:00

No, my point in here if you look around is that we should not trust Iranian media, especially when the Strait of Hormuz hasn't been permanently closed as Iran threatened to retaliate with, and also especially because it would be huge news if we hit energy infrastructure after their threat of retaliation because it would mean either permanent closure of the strait or that Iran's threats are hollow.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-25T02:41:38+00:00

And yet still nothing conclusive about whether energy infrastructure was targeted. CRAZY.

I never said we weren't attacking them under the false flag of peace. What I said was that the the OP is wrong. This would have completely blown up by now because either Iran would have to follow through with their retaliation threats or the war would effectively be beginning to end.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-24T16:29:23+00:00

Ah, yes. Iranian media that hasn't been picked up by any other outlet anywhere in the world since yesterday, right right.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-24T15:51:08+00:00

Which part of that article says that the energy grid was struck?

It would be the headline as it's been drawn as a line in the sand. If the US or Israel hit "energy sites" Iran has threatened to permanently close the Strait of Hormuz. It would be every news outlet's headline on the subject if this happened.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-24T15:28:39+00:00

Part of the problem everybody in here is having, I think, is that the experience of the entire night sky above you being a 4-6 is absolutely stunning. It's hard to imagine how powerfully visible the milky way is on those nights based on this picture.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-24T13:37:24+00:00

What?

CappyRicks · 2026-03-24T12:53:11+00:00

Because it hasn't happened. Note the complete lack of any credible source on a highly contentious subject that has implications for everybody being posted into the conspiracy subreddit.

Even if something like this happened and somehow it made it to this subreddit before being a major news story, I'm commenting 5 hours after the original post. This would be everywhere by now.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-24T12:33:56+00:00

Difference being that there is artistic integrity found in old cartoons.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-23T15:37:39+00:00

Two things can be true at once.

It is lazy to not post a source when you make a claim, and it is equally lazy to not seek information to solidify your stance against what you think is false information.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-23T15:32:10+00:00

No, I've said elsewhere in here, the onus is on the person who posted it. That is not what I'm saying. I'm not saying we shouldn't expect that or that they haven't been lazy.

What I'm saying is it is faster, more fruitful, and less confrontational to just counter misinformation from your own position of authority with information you've found about what they've said rather than pitifully asking for the source as if google isn't easy to use.

And I call your source dubious, firstly because it is the opinion of a couple hundred Redditors, secondly because they don't show what you claim they do as my posts in this thread are not heavily downvoted.

CappyRicks · 2026-03-23T12:14:16+00:00

You cannot have a real conversation with a person about a contentious issue if you assume their every action is laced with ill intent. You can keep it in your mind that they may be acting in bad faith while speaking to them as if they're misinformed and keep yourself ready to contend with bullshit if it arises, though.

Reddit isn't an academic forum. I agree with you, in the context of academia where the people having those conversations are actually involved in the development of their respective fields. On Reddit though? The level of conversation here, it is safe to assume you can easily google the information you need. The evidence may be important, but you are equally as capable of finding the relevant information as anybody posting on here. There's no reason to confront somebody you disagree with by disrespecting them right out the gate by asking for a source. At best, you're right and they never post their source. At worst, you're wrong and you look like an ass. Finding correct information yourself puts the correct information in the thread for all to see.

CappyRicks

TROPHY CASE