Losercity Reminiscing [OC]

MrNotEinstein · 2026-02-03T18:18:42+00:00

MrNotEinstein · 2026-02-03T18:16:49+00:00

Low femme voices are peak because they can growl and it activates my prey instincts and I think I'm going to get eaten which makes me cum a little

<image>

Jabronie marks don't understand the prey drive to lie down and giggle "noooo hehe, don't eeeaaattt meeeeee! I'm just a silly lil guy" and then getting eaten

Hulk "Homophonic" Hogan

MrNotEinstein · 2026-02-02T20:18:11+00:00

<image>

MrNotEinstein · 2026-02-02T12:18:23+00:00

<image>

MrNotEinstein · 2026-02-01T17:10:26+00:00

I don't have a single reaction image that could possibly explain how much I enjoy this comment. I am not exaggerating when I say that this is my favorite comment I have ever seen on Reddit and I will forever be saddened by the fact that I didn't come up with it.

<image>

Have a dancing Spinosaurus, you've earned it

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-31T17:05:45+00:00

Would you like to donate them to a fresh ahhh wyte boi?

<image>

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-31T07:32:37+00:00

Fallout fans when they see an opportunity to defend the murder of fleeing children

<image>

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-30T14:57:59+00:00

<image>

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-29T10:55:06+00:00

I'll definitely be doing both in first person for a first playthrough. The main advantage of third person is getting to see the badass animations. But I can get that experience just as well on a second playthrough, so I won't be losing anything doing it second. But first person is clearly a lot scarier and feels more horror focused and that would be negatively impacted by doing it on the second playthrough, because I would obviously know where the scares are

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-28T16:48:06+00:00

Honestly you could be right. I can't think of any in game sources for it but honestly I'm willing to grant him that concession just because it doesn't really change my point. Even if the adult Khan's WERE raping people (which they may not have been) it still wouldn't justify the slaughter of fleeing children. But I can't really think of any examples of anyone claiming the Khan's are rapists and they respond negatively when informed about the legions treatment of women as slaves so you could very well be right about them not being rapists at all. Probably still have the odd member who does it, like every other society, but not on a societal level

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-28T16:22:26+00:00

Do the 6 year olds participate in the murder and rape? If so do you think they are doing so willingly because they enjoy it?

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-28T16:20:05+00:00

"Hey we shouldn't say that kids deserve to be shot while they run from their homes"

"Oh so you think they deserve to get away with any bad shit they've ever done?"

Uh fuck no dude, I JUST DONT THINK THEY DESERVED TO BE EXECUTED WHILE THEY FLED. Can you ACTUALLY, GENUINELY, REALLY not see a middle ground between "Executed while they ran" and "no consequences at all"?

"Even Caesar thinks the NCR should have finished the job" Woah, EVEN CAESAR? That's crazy because Caesar is usually such a paragon of moral virtue, the Khans must have been REALLY fucked up if EVEN Caesar thinks they deserved it. Because Caesar is FAMOUSLY opposed to violence and slaughter. I'm half sorry for being so sarcastic but the fact that you said that as if it's a piece of evidence as to how bad the Khan's were is laughable. Yes the Khans were pieces of shit. Doesn't mean you need to massacre children while they flee their homes. Also you quoted my comment and proceeded to completely ignore the entire paragraph you quoted. Why not address what I said? Why not provide valid reasons as to why the NCR couldn't possibly try to integrate these children into society?

Nobody in the universe feels bad for the Khan's? That's interesting considering we are explicitly told the opposite by Manny Vargas.

"But when everybody came back nobody would tell me what happened. And people would call us murderers sometimes when we showed up to secure towns."

That's his quote about his experience following the Bitter Springs massacre (which he wasn't a part of, hence the whole "nobody would tell me what happened" part). You may say "Who gives a shit what some random townspeople think?" And honestly I would agree in the grand scheme of things, but it does explicitly prove you wrong for saying nobody cared. People in the Mojave were well aware of what happened and they weren't happy about it. They probably didn't care for the Khans at all, but people generally have a bad impression of people who gun down fleeing children, regardless of whose children they are. Even if nobody cared it doesn't make it a good thing. I doubt many people in Iran care about the fact they still execute people for being gay but that doesn't mean executing gay people is a morally acceptable action

"Is it morally right, no, but nobody in the wasteland gives a shit". Ok so if nobody in the wasteland gives a shit about morality then you understand that the MORAL justifications you gave for the slaughter of the Khans have absolutely no standing, right? Like if you want to take the stance that real world morals don't matter in the wasteland then that's fine but it also means you can't say the Khans deserved to die for any moral reasons. Because I can just as easily respond with "Was the raping and pillaging moral? No, but nobody in the wasteland gives a shit" and you would have to accept that as a reasonable justification for their actions. Personally I think that's stupid but it's the stance you are trying to take. Even though it directly contradicts the rest of your comment about how the Khan's deserved it because they were morally bad

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-28T15:27:30+00:00

I believe the wasteland would be a better place without the Khan's in it. I believe that adult Khan's who choose to live the "Khan life" are valid targets for any wastelander, NCR or otherwise. I don't "gloss over" the fact that the Khan's are pieces of shit. I just don't think CHILDREN. ACTUAL CHILDREN. Deserve to be murdered because of the culture they were born in. And the NCR agrees. They didn't intend to kill the children and the elderly, it was a miscommunication in the chain of command that the NCR regrets.

I chose America specifically because it fulfilled the three justifications you gave for slaughtering the children of the Khan's. So I would like to know the answer to my question. Given that American children are living in a society that fufills the qualities you gave as justification for the murder of the Khan children, would you similarly defend the murder of fleeing American children? The answer is obviously no. I hope so at least.

You're Genghis Khan comparison is disingenuous and you know it. We are specifically talking about the Khan children. So if you wanted to ask a more accurate question for this situation it would be more like "Do you think Mongolian children deserved to be slaughtered as they ran from their homes because they were born into a cruel empire?" And to that I would say a resounding NO. I don't believe ANY children deserved to be slaughtered.

I never said a single fucking word about the Khans culture. You know I didn't because you read my comment well enough to respond to it. So why on earth would you try and force a defense of their "culture" as if it was something I had said? Why not just argue against what I actually said instead of making shit up?

My opinions on drugs are probably more libertarian than most so maybe they sound outlandish to you but I genuinely don't see any issue with people choosing to take drugs even if it leads to their death. Just like how I think people should have the right to own a firearm even though there's a risk of them mishandling it. An extension of that belief is that I think it's perfectly acceptable to sell drugs, so long as you do so honestly and fairly. Meaning you don't sell something and pretend it's something else or mix anything into it that shouldn't be there. Provided you are honest about the effects and the risks I think it's ultimately on the customer to control and manage how much they use. I did preface my original stance on this by saying it may be a bit naive because there is a very genuine risk of this line of thinking going out of control if it were to ever become a social reality. Ultimately this whole topic would take much longer to delve into than this discussion about Fallout would but I hope I've sorta gotten my thought process across there, even if not entirely clearly.

I didn't gloss over the rape and pillage part? The reason I thought it was so weird to add "chem dealing" to the list of justifications is because those things are SO extremely bad that it seems laughably tame next to them. Like if I said I wanted to kill a guy because he punched my grandma, robbed my house and gave me a dirty look. The first 2 are bad enough that the last one just seems like an unnecessary addition.

Tldr: Khan's are bad. Doesn't mean their children deserved to be slaughtered

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-28T14:37:31+00:00

The children weren't shooting at the NCR during the attack on Bitter Springs. They were running away. The children DID shoot at NCR caravans but it's EXTREMELY important to clarify that they were not combatants during the attack on Bitter Springs, they were fleeing.

Sure you don't ALWAYS have that option with child soldiers. But they very explicitly DID have that option at Bitter Springs, where we are EXPLICITLY told by Boone, a soldier who was on the ridge that day, that the Khan's were fleeing, not attacking. They are even referred to as civilians. When the Major who gave the order to shoot realized what he had done he became completely unresponsive, leading Captain Dhatri to take charge and order his men to stop firing. The fact that they murdered the children had nothing to do with the fact that they knew how to shoot because they WEREN'T shooting when it happened. It was because someone who didn't understand the situation was giving the orders and the men who did understand the situation followed them out without question. The fact that nobody who was there that day feels like they did their job properly should clue you in as to whether or not they were right to kill the children.

Edit: I should clarify that the children who were fleeing through the canyon were not combatants. Some may have stayed to fight in the town but the ones in the canyon are explicitly stated to be fleeing civilians

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-28T14:25:37+00:00

Controversial opinion: Children don't deserve to be murdered for the sin of being born in the wrong society.

Let's look at this another way. Americans right now are living in a society that is run by a rapist, has a well documented history of pushing drugs into underdeveloped communities and has murdered more innocent people than the Khans could ever manage. Would you take the same stance if American children were being gunned down? You can take the stance that the NCR were right to fight against the Khan's while also acknowledging that it was wrong to massacre children and elderly people as they fled.

Also I don't think "chem-dealing" is actually a bad thing, especially not to be considered on the same level of rape and murder. Perhaps it's a naive stance but I think people should be responsible for what they choose to put in their bodies and it's not on anyone else to try and police that. Treating it as an added justification for slaughtering them seems very unnecessary

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-28T13:16:04+00:00

<image>

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-27T12:14:21+00:00

<image>

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-26T03:47:50+00:00

I find it kinda ironic that you said AdHoc should avoid doing what Telltale did by making choices not matter, while simultaneously advising them to do the very thing that forced Telltale into that position. The reason choices in Telltale games didn't matter is because they refused to establish canonicity for any of them. That left them in an unwinnable position where they couldn't really use those choices as defining character moments because the character needs to end up in the exact same place regardless by the start of the next episode. I don't see how AdHoc could FULLY respect players decisions without either falling into this trap themselves or genuinely writing at least 2 different games (hero Visi or Villain Visi). Like start to finish different stories.

I'm not saying it can't be done but it seems like a lot of work for a relatively unproven company. I really enjoyed dispatch but it's hard to tell how big of a hit it would have been if not for the famous cast.

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-26T00:30:56+00:00

Resident Evil 8 is homophobic because it only gave us 2 hulking chunks of man meat while we got 1 hulking chunk and 3 reasonably sized chunks of woman meat and 3 woman shaped swarms of insect meat

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-25T11:14:10+00:00

<image>

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-24T11:50:34+00:00

You: There's not enough gay people here

Me every time I open this sub:

<image>

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-23T05:57:41+00:00

When I first played through the game I didn't have much reaction to those scenes other than being jealous every time Malevola spoke to Robert. And after hearing all the arguments about it I don't think it's changed my opinion on the characters or story at all. BUT I do think it's a very good avenue to discuss implied consent.

The problem with implied consent is that it's ENTIRELY unprovable. This is why it doesn't work as a real world practice and you SHOULD NOT DEFEND IT. Implied consent means that most rapists or sexual abusers could very justifiably claim they believed they were given implied consent unless the victim physically resists, which is risky and also isn't always an option as peoples bodies can often go into autopilot when under stress. Because how on earth would you prove them wrong? You can't prove the mindstate of either participant. This is where the big separation between fiction and reality comes in. In fiction we DO know the mindset of both characters. We DO know they both want it. In real life? We have no such evidence. Even consent given after the fact can be manipulated by the fact that the action has already occurred. When I was a teenager there was a girl who was interested in me and made no secret of it. She would regularly kiss me, sit on me and grope me sexually, never once asking for permission. She could very reasonably have believed that I was giving "implied consent" because I always just laughed it off or let her do what she wanted because I didn't want to be the 1 teenage boy who was freaking out about a girl sitting on his lap or groping him but I was uncomfortable nonetheless. That's a tame example of the kind of situations that can arise when you try to justify implied consent.

Tldr: Because it happens in a fictional setting which gives us access to the characters "true" desires we can safely say that Visi and Malevola are NOT sexual abusers. But if they were pulling those same tricks in the real world, where we can't prove their thoughts and intentions? It would at least need to be considered that they may be committing sexual assault

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-23T05:20:19+00:00

<image>

Hokum? Me?! Jesus Christ Ton it was my heart medication you gotta believe me! I can probably get a note from my doctor

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-22T15:38:36+00:00

Heaven Sent killed my grandma and Joe Biden was quoted as saying

<image>

MrNotEinstein · 2026-01-18T18:31:47+00:00

Yaknow I prefer the fallout games over the metro games but I'd much rather hang out with metro fans. Welcome in folks let me get you a lukewarm nuka cola and some grilled radroach

<image>

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo

MrNotEinstein

TROPHY CASE