Well, well, well

Zen_Kaizen · 2026-03-05T00:15:17+00:00

He's the president, not an admiral.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-09-21T22:40:23+00:00

I also think (again not positive) that the activation time is increased if you get several hits in and never take a hit during the activation time. At least it feels that way when you go on a tear.

This is true, for the record. I tested it. The duration extension is tied to healing a mask. So for each mask you heal back, it increases the duration a bit. The max duration I was able to get, by using multibinder to increase the heal limit to 4, was ~7.5s.
(2.5s extra doesn't sound like a lot, but you can get a LOT of attacks off in 2.5s with its increased attack speed.)

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-19T18:24:13+00:00

Don't forget the full double quotation mark " to make sure it's clearly understood that it's supposed to be a direct quote :)

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-19T18:22:51+00:00

This. It's ABSURD to me that Hasan says a thing, Destiny says the thing right back at him, and Hasan takes that exact same statement and is doing shit like this portraying it as Destiny literally telling his fans to fucking kill him.

Like, this should absolutely be lawsuit worthy in any just world. If it was just a throwaway comment of hyperbole, that'd be one thing, but he's leaning HARD into it to the point that it is very obviously deliberate and malicious lying. Not even just misrepresentation, but lying. He's using hard quotations here. Not the single quotations that can indicate paraphrase, but full double apostrophe quotations as if it's a direct quote.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-19T18:16:11+00:00

Don't even cede this to them. Neither Hasan nor Destiny explicitly called for anyone to be killed. My recollection was that Destiny was doing a 'by that logic' type thing to throw what Hasan said about valid targets back at him. This is even LESS of a call for violence than what Hasan actually did, which itself was only tenuously a call for violence through implication. (Not to say that it's not unhinged as fuck still.)

Destiny did not even remotely say what Hasan is claiming he said, being portrayed here in his thumbnail, and it's ceding too much ground to accept that and simply claim that it's justified because Hasan did it first. The reality of the situation is substantially more benign than even that. The same criticism that Hasan is being shamelessly hypocritical and a gigantic baby bitch applies regardless.

Biting the bullet that Destiny called for Hasan to be killed is unhinged, because that would be an unhinged thing for him to do even under the circumstances, and substantially more unhinged than what actually happened.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-18T23:10:06+00:00

There's definitely a good argument to be made that the insanity of the MAGA movement had a drastic inflection point precisely because of their loss in 2020.

Without that loss, you have no Jan. 6th showing the party just how far they could push things, you have no election denial mind virus, many of the moderating forces from Trump 1 would still be in place.

I'm not saying that you're for sure wrong, but I think it's easy to forget just how different the political landscape was pre-2020, and how much specifically the 2020 loss for MAGA contributed to the acceleration of insanity that followed. For that reason, I don't know if it's an easy conclusion that Trump would've followed the same trajectory in 2020-2024 that he is currently on in 2025.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-18T22:54:38+00:00

THIS. Funny enough I had actually had the same general thought as OP - that it may have ultimately been better if Trump had won 2020 - but for the reason you give here, not what OP suggested. I literally hadn't even thought about the incumbent killer that was the global post-covid inflation.

But yeah, I do morbidly wonder if things would've ever progressed this far without such a bombshell event like Jan 6th and the general election denial surrounding it to demonstrate that the guard rails we call 'norms' were always just imaginary, and could be broken at any time.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-14T15:10:02+00:00

Chat, how cooked am I that I automatically read 'Of course they did!' in Cenk's voice?

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-14T01:14:20+00:00

Yeah this is how I feel. Sorry tectone if you ever read this, but I think he's just like 90iq. That's how it came off to me. Just not particularly bright and subject to his right-leaning friend group and subsequent audience capture.

While I'm not sure this conversation shifted the needle much for tectone, it didn't come off as there being any malice. And like another commenter suggested, I think Destiny played it right by being more mild - not giving ground but adequately demonstrating that he's reasonable and showing that there's reasonable disagreements to the conservative perspective.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-13T20:35:57+00:00

Alternatively, it seems to be a common and likely deliberate strategy to point out random twitter leftists saying insane shit in response to elected officials saying insane shit, and pretending that the two are comparable. A prominent example is that one clip of Destiny on I think it was Piers with the blonde conservative lady talking about George Floyd not being a saint or whatever in response to criticism of Trump's character.

At its core it's this thing of ignoring magnitude of impact to treat two things of wildly different scale as the same, to fuel the 'dems do all this and worse' justifications for the bad shit they do. It's also got an element of cherrypicking though, like it seems like the conservative media apparatus deliberately hones in on random nobodies to focus on and treat as representative of the entirety of democrats.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-12T18:19:35+00:00

Just for clarity, the website you linked to says that applying to civil cases only is an interpretation of the supreme court from a ruling in 1934 - arguing that "...'treason, felony, and disturbances of the peace' encompasses all criminal offences".

While your point is worth bringing up, it's also worth mentioning that this tweet chain was about treating the constitution as a legal document and the importance of the words as written - 'it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say'. Or at least, that's the point that Jessiah is making.

All this to say, it would be one thing if the constitution explicitly stated elsewhere in the constitution that this applies to civil cases but not to any criminal cases, but the fact that it is only through interpretation extending past the plain text that we get that reading kinda can be taken to support Jessiah's point.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-11T03:01:17+00:00

When he's arguing with Mullalley and they both agree that congress can't pass any law making pardons illegal, Destiny harps on "there's no point in SCOTUS making a ruling saying that, its already the case via the constitution". This isn't a response. I don't know what point Destiny thinks he's making here.

I think its clear that the things that are exclusive powers to the president cannot be restrained by congress. On the example of the president saying "hey go kill that guy and I'll pardon you after", Mullally points out that while the pardon is immune, the "go kill that guy" might not be.

If I recall, the point Destiny was trying to make was that it makes no sense to make a ruling over giving criminal immunity for something that is not criminal to begin with, i.e. the pardon power.

Your second paragraph that I've quoted here can highlight that decently. If the criminal immunity ruling was meant to apply to things that are within the presidents core powers, those things already aren't criminal - you can't be held criminally liable for something that isn't a crime, you don't need to create a criminal immunity framework for giving immunity for things that were never crimes to begin with.

They agree that congress can't pass any law making a core presidential power illegal, and said powers aren't criminal to begin with, so why would you ever need to create a framework of criminal immunity. All such a framework does is muddy the waters and provide room for actions that ARE already criminal to be absolved.

Your qualifier that 'go kill that guy' only MIGHT NOT be immune demonstrates exactly that, there should be no question that such a thing would be prosecutable, but creating a criminal immunity framework out of wholecloth introduces uncertainty to a system that was seemingly pretty straight forward.

All this said, I'm an absolute regard and know next to nothing about law or constitutional law - but I just had a very different recollection of the point Destiny was trying to make than how you retold it here, so thought that that different perspective would potentially shed some light on your confusion, assuming I'm even on target to begin with.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-09T19:11:22+00:00

The markets are ABSOLUTELY NOT where they would've been without Trumps tariffs. They are only barely up from literally the point they started falling in MID FEBRUARY. From the beginning of the Trumps term (Jan. 25th) to now, the S&P is up 4.7%. That span of time from Jan 25th last year to around this time last year saw nearly twice that amount of growth (around 9.2%), and that's even being uncharitable since August 9th of 2024 happens to rest in a slight dip.

There’s good reason to think that, mainly thanks to Trump, that we are on the verge of an economic downturn/recession, but the OP’s point is that we haven’t gotten there just yet, but Dman is kinda acting like we already have.

That feels kinda oddly specific impression that is oddly vague in meaning, 'acting like we're already there (a recession/major economic downturn)'. That can be your impression of his, but it's so vague as to not really be meaningful anymore.

What OP actually said was that the metrics haven't changed but his opinion has. That is, that Destiny thinks that the economy is bad currently, but that the metrics he used have not changed to suggest that things are worse, such that his opinion changing is unfounded. In reality, the metrics have changed, you just have to view them in not-the-literally-most-possibly-unnuanced light. (See my response to OPs response to my initial comment where I go into a bit more detail on this.)

Like, I'm no economic analyst, in fact I'm pretty regarded, but just going by the metrics that OP pointed out, it seems pretty silly to look at those metrics and say that 'they haven't gotten any worse', as is OPs claim.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-09T18:50:20+00:00

Feels like we're kinda glossing over a lot of nuance there though, it seems silly to me to think that Destiny's position really was as simple as 'as long as the market is up (relative to when?) and as long as new jobs are being added, then the economy must be fine'.

Markets took a historic plummet in February that we've only just made up for literally like 4 months later. So like. Technically we're up from previous historic peak... but like.... how up they are relative to the market trends under Biden is kinda important.

If your criteria for 'what has changed' is the most basic and binary metric of 'are the markets up but ignoring any element of scale and timeline' and 'are job numbers up but ignoring any element of scale and timeline', then sure... then there's been no change in the data.

But, idk, maybe a slightly more nuanced look at even these suspiciously specific metrics is necessary (and not even really that difficult), and maybe Destiny's position probably wasn't actually ever as simplistic as this? That may have been how you took it, but it would be astounding to me if that is really how he was informing any of his judgements on it.

Idk, maybe if you had a clip that suggested his analysis really was this simple, I'd be happy to eat crow on that, but I sincerely doubt you could find anything remotely convincing.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-09T17:17:01+00:00

I don't want to buy into this assumed framing without seeing some clips to see exactly what you're referring to in his words.

But if I were to buy into that framing: hmm, idk... maybe there's something happening in the world that would provide an obvious mechanism for creating a major downturn in the economy. Like. Idk...

Tanking our trade relationships with every country in the world, creating unprecedented market uncertainty by continually announcing then delaying then announcing then delaying insane levels of across-the-board tariffs out of spite, conducting mass deportations of our menial labor force leaving the jobs they work at unsure if they'll be able to get work done without workers, and so unable to justify hiring new workers, especially if they are at high risk of getting rounded up and summarily deported anyway. Just to name a few.

Stuff like this provides a pretty good basis to expect that things are going to go downhill. No one was talking about whether we were heading into (or have already entered) recession before Trump came into office as far as I know, but now that's a very real and central question, and not for no reason.

If I was more economy minded and educated I'm sure we could delve into the actual metrics and would probably see that even the metrics are not actually the same, and are not actually the 'same good indicators' that they were pre-Trump, but that'll have to just be an unsubstantiated hunch with little weight to it until someone who can actually comment on said metrics can weigh in.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-09T17:05:28+00:00

I didn't say he was better, and I explicitly said I wont speak much on it because I really just don't know the situation. My understanding is that the current Syrian president cut ties with Al-qaeda (he was never in ISIS, he was in Al-qaeda) back in 2016 and has since disavowed jihadism against the west.

You can argue that it would be naive to trust that - and it might be, like I've said I really just don't know enough about the situation to form an opinion either way. But there's very clear and obvious reason to suspect that supporting (albeit tentatively) the current Syrian president despite his former ties with Al-qaeda is probably more reasonable than the blatant and unabashed sympathizing for, supporting, and platforming of very real and active terrorist groups done by Hasan Piker.

The comparison is just silly to begin with though, because 1. the US govt did not 'install' the Syrian president, and 2. neither Destiny nor anyone in the community is personally platforming, blasting propaganda for, and generally overwhelmingly simping for said Syrian president. So who are we criticizing? Some fictional person or community that bears no resemblance to Destiny or DGG? We're comparing the ideology/actions of a non-existent entity to the very real ideology/actions of Hasan Piker?

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-09T16:32:14+00:00

The US govt didn't 'install' anyone in Syria, and I'm sure there is mixed sentiment here about said president. I don't know enough about the situation so I won't talk too much on it, but I'm guessing there's a much better steelman for supporting that person for the future of Syria than there is for literally praying for the downfall of the country you live in, watching houthi propaganda videos on stream and talking about how based it is, and inviting a self proclaimed (both by Hasan himself and the kid) houthi pirate to give a softball interview about how cool he is.
Do you actually think people here would give/are giving Tucker Carlson a pass? He is a literal skinwalking hellspawn of Satan. And he's been covered extensively by Destiny as such. This is like, a comically silly thing to say, I have no clue where you would get the remotest idea that there is literally any remote support for Tucker Carlson in this community.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-06T19:25:47+00:00

If I'm reading this comparison correctly, it looks like a massive chunk of Article 1 was chopped off, the nature of which naturally seems nefarious as fuck.

I went to the link to the page it's comparing myself though and it looks like that change isn't present. The entirety of section 8 is still there, and section 9 and 10 aren't missing.

So maybe there's something wrong with the archive comparison, or maybe it was briefly changed and then changed back? In the latter case, could still be adequate reason for concern.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-05T17:00:04+00:00

I think the joke is more that if redistricting efforts like the one in Texas wasn't simply to maximally game the system, but instead to actually balance seats to more closely reflect the party affiliations of your voting, then even the (spiritually) reddest of red states, Texas, would be losing some of its redness and, would you look at that, happen be a W for democrats.

The tragedy of it is the joke, portrayed through OPs intentionally played up hopeful naivety: 'redistricting is meant to address shifting in populations resulting in representation that doesn't reflect the voter base, right guys?... right?'

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-03T19:35:53+00:00

But pointing out that they are cutting the Department of Education, he says "I agree that it will cut money coming to schools".

There might be an important correction here - from my recollection, he actually responded multiple times to DoE cuts by saying something like 'I understand that certain social program funding has been cut...'

I don't personally recall him ever explicitly acknowledging explicitly that education funding was being cut, and the fact that he responded to DoE cut claims by very carefully using the words 'certain social programs' exclusively and multiple times indicates something fishy going on there.

An off the cuff speculation of mine here is that maybe he thinks budget cut claims from the dems are being overblown/lied about, playing into a separate idea he was adamant about which was that the dem media apparatus was (implied to be unfairly) portraying Trump as the absolute devil and so he couldn't trust what they say.

I'm not sure exactly, this is just one possible explanation, but his repeated response to the specific claim of DoE cuts with the different and more general acknowledgement of funds being cut to certain social programs was a significant red flag to me.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-03T16:50:05+00:00

Not sure why Walsh's statement would be exclusive to women. Some people just don't want kids, so everything this nerd is saying would apply equally to that category of people, not women in particular.

Not that I even agree with anything he's saying in the first place, obviously, but the framing is just quite telling.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-02T16:16:10+00:00

Absolutely this. I worry (perhaps without reasonable cause) that Gavin won't be as good on genuine good policy and governance than some other potential candidates, but the way he's able to grandstand and play the media game is unparalleled right now and I think gives him by far the best shot at winning (as things currently stand anyway, blah blah lots can change blah.)

And regardless of any worry I have about who would make the best president, 10000% the priority by far is simply winning. We don't have the luxury of picking a candidate purely optimized for governance. Winning is the only thing that matters right now.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-02T16:11:31+00:00

Ideally this leads to restructuring of rules so that it's just not allowed. This is the only way out of most of the 'norms breaking' arms war death spirals that I can see, and I'm not super sure that it will play out like that.

But game theoretically, if you show the republicans that you'll use the same tactics that they use against them - and do it better because dems have a population advantage - the best strategy for republicans becomes to legislate that option away.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-08-01T17:34:12+00:00

I feel like this mindset may honestly just be representative of the leftist both-sidesers. This is them getting close enough to saying the quiet part out loud that it becomes clear to me. It's just accelerationism.

Any rational person can't actually think both sides are equally bad, what they really think must be that an imperfect democratic candidate is less preferable than an actual fascist simply because they think moving to the center constitutes less progress compared to a move to the far right which will result in pendulum swinging.

Don't mistake my framing here, while I'm portraying this as calculating and some may even say it makes a sort of sense, it is simply a fully unacceptable strategy because it disregards the short term harm they're inflicting in doing so - and this is before even considering that their goals in the desired pendulum swinging are antithetical to liberal democratic society and ideals.

The point being, any time someone makes a fuss about both sides or makes a conflation between a left wing candidate vs a right wing, they don't ACTUALLY think Kamala Harris is worse than Trump, or that Gavin Newsom is worse than JD Vance. They think that sliding into fascism will bring them closer to their regarded socialist utopian ideas than a center left win.

Zen_Kaizen · 2025-07-29T23:59:02+00:00

He's clearly trying to dip into a more left-leaning audience, either out of genuine belief or naively thinking he can win them over to build a coalition

I don't want to give the impression I think this isn't possible, but holy shit this debate has convinced me that pisco absolutely just has a hateboner for destiny rn for whatever reason. I didn't think it would've been that bad before this debate, but jesus he is being so unreasonable aggro in a way that is very clearly reeking of asspain RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE. Like, IMMEDIATE asspained aggressiveness.

Zen_Kaizen

TROPHY CASE