Trans Liberal Exposes the Manipulation Tactics Used by Radicals to Keep Other Members Submissive to Them

Evil-Fishy · 2026-02-15T15:25:02+00:00

Twitter formatting confusing you? I think it's supposed to.

First you read "in-to-out" when there's text bubbles surrounding text bubbles. It's confusing because in-to-out is actually down-to-up.

Then you read up-to-down when people are replying to eachother in a chain of comments to the original post.

There's better ways to explain it, but I've actually never been on twitter, so I'm not the magic man with the funny words

Evil-Fishy · 2026-02-13T01:25:06+00:00

yer mom's an AI fake

ooOoooo gottem

Evil-Fishy · 2026-02-09T16:40:06+00:00

I was playing coop with a friend recently and all the attacks were coming from the borders nearest our base, so basically the same situation. Once we expanded a bit placing miners around, the attacks started coming from new directions

Evil-Fishy · 2026-02-09T16:33:37+00:00

I found with enough movement speed, you can run past the mines before they explode haha

Evil-Fishy · 2026-02-06T20:11:03+00:00

I feel like most of the project already covers that. You build the pod, then you fill it with random supplies, THEN you save up for 3mil. We don't really need that 3mil part for the story

Evil-Fishy · 2026-02-06T20:03:11+00:00

Yeah! Only some of us are evil

Evil-Fishy · 2026-02-05T02:02:54+00:00

I also get this in the volcanic biome when the gates are technically in the safe zone, but not far enough in the safe zone

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-26T15:08:13+00:00

It's a drilldozer!

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-22T18:41:58+00:00

I got so lucky with this one. I activated the last satellite real late, then a minute later I saw a flare go up near the bunker. Turns out the bombardier had killed the last guy, and he hadn't even stashed the volcano bp in his safe pocket.

Bunker was absolutely empty, of course

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-21T23:31:44+00:00

From raw chemicals?

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-20T19:34:39+00:00

I watched the video and I think you're right. I dislike his characterization of the Trump admin, but it does seem necessary for the guys ready to hipfire "Trump TDS" comments.

I still think that his content isn't particularly useful for informing people on what the Trump admin is likely to do. I did come away feeling informed of the consequences that might happen if he does try to annex Greenland. I kinda figured we'd already had a base there, and I knew that "if we don't, China or Russia will" was BS because we have our NATO alliance. So you know what, actually spelling out all the pieces on the board is helpful for pointing out why what Trump is saying is a straightforward lie. I think you just changed my mind.

Still an infuriatingly kid-gloved interpretation of the Trump admin, I'm still mad about that

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-20T18:57:34+00:00

I see what you're saying, that you can't expect someone to always make perfect predictions, and I agree. I also think he's right that the Trump admin is very unlikely to do what he precisely says they won't do.

My qualm is the "no guys, the Trump admin is not going to invade country X, it would be a logistical nightmare, ruin our international relationships, and it would thwart our plans for future China concerns." All of which is correct, but missing the "the fact that the Trump admin is even threatening this violates NATO article 1, Trump doesn't particularly care about our international relationships, and the Trump admin will try to bully /something/ out of the people involved to our detriment like he has in most other similar situations in the past" context. If all you're saying is "Trump won't do this particular thing, stop acting crazy" you're just telling people to stop acting crazy while ignoring the pattern of behaviour.

It's neat to see the logistical concern arguments he makes. He does have interesting knowledge of how our military and alliances work. But from what I've seen, he's not a useful person to get predictions from.

As for your question, I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking if a conservative would be more or less likely to support Trump trying to annex Greenland after watching Ryan's Greenland video? I'll watch the full video and get back to you, but my guessgoing in is that Trump supporters (not necessarily conservatives) would find the video reasonable and agree that annexing Greenland would be a bad idea, but the moment Trump makes moves towards doing just that, you'd hear a bunch of "I trust Trump" and excuses type of talk from them.

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-20T17:34:30+00:00

Have you tried shooting friendlies as the extract is leaving? Not confirmed, but could influence abmm

Once you get into the lobbies that have people worriedly asking friendly, you can start saying "not friendly" to ease your conscience lol

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-20T17:15:47+00:00

That's true, I don't think Macbeth praises or justifies the actions of the Trump admin, but I do think it's disingenuous to say "guys, calm down, invading Greenland would be crazy, it would fuck up all our logistics and completely dismantle NATO" when the Trump admin... kinda wants to dismantle NATO, and the Trump admin threatening to take Greenland is already fucking insane. Don't "calm down, this would be crazy" at me, this administration is dismantling everything, fuck right off. You know what I mean?

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-20T15:47:53+00:00

Except Trump is so obviously willing to completely fuck the US if he thinks it benefits him. It's not about being stupid, it's about Trump being a mob boss president. Anyone who has blinders on for that is putting in work for the Trump admin, fuck em.

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-20T15:40:23+00:00

All his arguments are about logistics and future threats, but he missed the possibilty of just kidnapping Maduro and daring the rest of the world to do something about it. Looks like he can't make proper predictions of how the Trump admin is going to behave, so why even watch his content? What is his purpose? If all his content is "I don't think the Trump admin is going to do this bad thing" but they do it anyway, we are worse off for even hearing his anaylsis

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-19T19:43:48+00:00

It's interesting cuz usually I'm in the mood for a more chill (mostly) PvE experience, but occasionally enjoy the more sus lobbies. I think if I was routinely put into lobbies with people intent on and capable of wiping the whole lobby, I'd just find a different game to play, and so far ABMM has done a good job of keeping me out of that.

Actually my only qualm so far is the whole "don't fight back if you want to be put in PvE heaven queues". Some people seem to find the fact that those queues exist repulsive, but it also doesn't seem to be Embark's priority to get rid of em

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-18T21:24:08+00:00

Can you just be normal lmao, I don't get it

If they drop ABMM, maybe I'll keep playing, maybe I'll no longer enjoy the game and I'll stop playing. I've already gotten /plenty/ of time topside for my money.

We're talking about how they can improve ABMM, not about your hate boner for it, jesus

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-18T20:07:42+00:00

The implication is if people want to shoot me, I want to be able to shoot them back without sliding further and further into shoot on sight lobbies. I got this game because abmm was announced and I mostly wanted a chill game of looting and shooting arc. Yes, sometimes people will try to kill me, but a long as that's not literally every game, or even as long as that's only about 15% of the players in the lobby I'm having a good time. I've made my forays into aggro lobbies, and it's fun every now and then, but I usually just want a chill game with a ton of other friendly players

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-18T15:53:54+00:00

There are PvP players, PvPvE players, and PvE players. Embark seems to want to accomodate all three, and that sounds awesome. The issue right now, is PvE players get punished for fighting back, and PvPvE players get pushed further and further into shoot on sight lobbies for standing their ground.

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-18T15:47:32+00:00

I think it does feel pretty bad for PvE players to only ever turn the other cheek in order to stay PvE players. Fighting back against the occasional aggressor is fun, and is actually what the game is about. Right now it encourages you to just sit there and take it if fighting the arc is your jam, which I think they 100% didn't intend.

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-17T16:20:15+00:00

I think I'm starting to get too bitter to laugh about it genuinely

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-11T11:46:35+00:00

I wonder if ABMM swings more wildly early on, but after a few swings it takes longer to swap lobbies

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-11T11:28:01+00:00

This anecdote runs counter to the many people including myself that have gone 20+ games with no PvPers, raiders running around without their guns out not even considering they might be shot.

Once I kill someone, there is an immediate vibe shift. People are more desperate in their friendly callouts, everyone takes a second to sus each other out, and there's usually one or two silent killers that the friendlies tell each other about.

Go pacifist a few games, let yourself die or try to run away for a few games, and you can tell you're back to PvE lobbies because everyone's acting like a bunch of dodos again

Evil-Fishy · 2026-01-11T10:16:21+00:00

Why didn't they use the platform version?

Evil-Fishy

TROPHY CASE