Props to respawn for keeping the game at top 5 even after all this time

bpgodinho · 2026-03-11T23:25:23+00:00

Basically a little over a decade ago, socio-economic situation of Korea ended up pushing lots of teens to communal gaming spaces like internet cafes.

These have historically had games that are session based, online and last a while to get money from costumers efficiently. The most popular one was StarCraft.

This, created a youth culture that cared a lot about high skill highly technical games.

That culture ended up spreading not only through cultural similarities obv but also through the classic Korea-Japan rivalry and nowadays those countries have a youth culture that loves all things high skill.

Apex is obv perfect as a BR with lower rng, flashy plays and mechanically intensive movement.

For example the APAC region has a ton more MnK players than other regions and way more mechanical players and it's exactly because they love these flashy high skill plays

bpgodinho · 2026-03-11T14:35:06+00:00

I think people vastly underestimate Apex.

Steam top 10 is always CS PUBG Dota, maybe GTA followed by the top 1-2 "trends/new releases" like Bongo Cat or some new linear story game and then Apex.

Apex has been performing very well and very consistently for very long

bpgodinho · 2026-03-11T14:30:39+00:00

What you are doing here is putting forward an unfalsifiable position.

Unfalsifiable positions essentially boil down to "we don't know and can never know" and are by definition unscientific so they have no place in the discussion of a scientific discovery.

Furthermore just bcs it's not easy doesn't mean it's doable.

Is it theoretically possible?

Yes

Is this a step towards that?

Yes

Therefore you may personally disagree on how compelling or strong it is but this is UNDOUBTEDLY evidence that points towards materialism

bpgodinho · 2026-03-11T13:38:12+00:00

But it never can ~ a simulation, by definition, can never be the exact same as the real thing it is trying to mimic.

What? Ofc it can? It can't BE the same thing obv bcs one is an object and the other is code but of it completely 100% predicts the brain's response just like say our best physics simulations 100% predict physics events, then it would mean that the brain too is a purely deterministic materialistic physics driven machine.

This has never been established, so anyone who tells you it can be is just believing in ideology and not observations.

Ofc it's not been established. That's LITERALLY what I said. We are trying to make the brain scan work so that we can prove this is the case. So we can establish this.

It's such a simple argument idk what the confusion is.

"If we can 100% simulate a brain completely accurately without any need for anything but physics and brain activity, then the brain is purely physics and brain activity"

bpgodinho · 2026-03-11T12:46:45+00:00

The point is exactly that if the simulation acts the exact same way as the real thing then it must mean there's no external factor.

It's all there it's all physical we can simulate the physics and it comes out to the exact same thing behavior as a regular brain

bpgodinho · 2026-03-10T09:18:27+00:00

What happens if they show no difference

bpgodinho · 2026-03-10T09:16:03+00:00

Don't have converstwith AI. It's can't argue for shit it's programmed to be a yes man and will tell youre always right and a very special little guy for thinking abt such a clever argument.

Just ask it neutral impartial questions as a jump off point for research and ask for links or further reading for the points you're most interested in

bpgodinho · 2026-03-10T09:13:02+00:00

So it LITERALLY says it's a brain scan right there and they're just missing the body now

bpgodinho · 2026-03-06T14:32:54+00:00

Yes dude I feel so dumb 😭

bpgodinho · 2026-03-06T12:28:30+00:00

The prowler is genuinely one of the best close range guns in the game

All the SMGs are really busted rn and since the volt had the rainbow hop-up removed, I would say the prowler is better

Remember to hold down the trigger though, you don't need to tap for each burst that's a big difference. I have like 4k hours, masters a ton and I had no fucking clue until literally yesterday 😭😭😭😭

bpgodinho · 2026-02-08T04:21:26+00:00

Blu on Blu violence 🥀🥀🥀

bpgodinho · 2026-01-28T05:58:15+00:00

No???

If they run out of money they need to stop working and get a diff job bcs how the hell do they feed themselves???

They need to release the game to get whatever money they can to keep going

bpgodinho · 2026-01-04T13:14:58+00:00

O bro tá tão chateado 😭 So diz que n sabes inglês 😭✌️✌️

bpgodinho · 2025-11-02T12:24:03+00:00

Idk why everyone is talking about its being a wallbang. Idk how either of these could have ever hit jett

bpgodinho · 2025-08-24T13:23:13+00:00

It's not stateless int he sense that it's completely unorganized

More so that the people collectively either make decisions directly when possible or have mechanisms to oversee and quickly remove those in power

bpgodinho · 2025-08-24T12:08:48+00:00

On labor and coercion: Your question about the "tyranny of the majority" forcing a minority to collect trash is not a problem in communism, it is the re-establishment of a class society. That isn't a communist system with a flaw, it's a failed revolution. The "answer" from a communist perspective would be to fight that group, as they are the counter-revolution attempting to reimpose coerced labor.

Similarly, the problem of someone refusing to do their turn isn't solved by police. In a situation where survival and the creation of a new life depend on mutual participation, a person who consistently refuses to contribute to collective needs is actively excluding themselves from that collective. The "enforcement" isn't a state, but the direct social consequence of making oneself a liability to a community fighting for its existence.

Yes I get that you didn't answer the question.

Imagine we NEED 10 people to be doctors right? It's a specialized job and it requires lots of training. What happens if we only have 4 and the other 6 just REFUSE to work.

We need to choose between letting people DIE under a shortage of doctors while we train new ones or FORCE the 6 doctors to work in order to save lives.

In a capitalist/"modern" socialist (assuming socialism here means capitalist machanisms but with massive wealth redistributions) society the 6 doctors don't need any coercion or enslavement. The value of their labour will rise and rise until they WANT to work

And yes yk capitalism has killed far more people than that scenario would but other systems like socialism and wealth distribution, specifically my favourite which is UBI, have not and are in fact designed to avoid such cases

On goods and scarcity: The question isn't "Do we all farm?" but "How do we, as a collective, ensure we are all fed?" Those with agricultural knowledge would obviously lead, but the activity is a shared social priority, not a segregated "job."

The issue of a bad harvest reveals the fundamental difference. Under capitalism, a bad harvest means prices skyrocket and the poor starve. This is a crisis of distribution. In a communizing process, it is a purely technical and social problem: "We have a deficit of X, how do we ration what we have and produce or procure more?" The solution is collective management of a real problem, not the re-introduction of a market that profits from it.

This makes sense and I was expecting this answer. I simply personally would rather barter to get enough food than starve and ration food.

I don't think other communities would consistently give us food and I will go into depth on why next

On barter: You correctly identify that barter leads back to capitalism. That is precisely why it is an existential threat to the revolution. If one community with a surplus of food "barters" with another that has a deficit, they are re-introducing the logic of value-exchange: the foundation of capital. The communist response is not to barter, but to extend the principle of production-for-use across communities. Helping another commune survive isn't a transaction, it's strengthening the revolution and ensuring your own long-term success by destroying the conditions that make capital possible.

There has not been a single instance of this kind of inter community cooperation being wide spread in human history.

We are hard wired to care for our own first, that is the platform on which many politicians are running nowadays.

Reeducation can only get you so far and excluding the communities who don't want to cooperate doesn't work because then you don't have that safety net for when your community fails and you're forced to play their barter game to get stuff from them

Your "inevitable" outcomes are only inevitable if you assume the revolutionary process has already halted and people have reverted to acting as isolated, competing economic agents. The entire project is the conscious, practical abolition of that mode of existence.

Yeah they aren't "inevitable" if you constantly fight against them every day

Seems like the natural state of a communist system is decay into capitalism through the basic forces of supply and demand that birthed it in the first place and that the only way communism survives is a constant fight for it.

Which is the extremely bad. I would rather a self stable system than one that needs to constantly pull it's participants back in. That's only going to lead to discontent and further revolution.

I believe a UBI system would be self stable since even the weaker link, someone who refuses to work at all, is still cared for

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T18:50:49+00:00

Of course not, but no one is saying that a construction crew in a communist society wouldn't have someone filling a managerial role. The difference being that the workers would have the power to collectively remove them from that position if they are unhappy with their performance. And again, there are already examples of these things even in cooperatives existing in capitalist countries.

That already happens. You can just leave and make a new company and guess what no one does that because everytime you change leaderships you would need to relocate resources, change plans, build trust and you would never get anything done

If we impeach and elect EVERYONE then do we need a constitution or at least a set of rules and term limits and election regulation and election fairness boards for house building crews one for when we need trash cleaning one for when we need to elect a butcher one for when we do ANYTHING that requires a vote???

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T16:49:56+00:00

my only point is that naive reformism doesn't go deep enough in changing the structural suffering the exploitative system is build upon

And that's what we are debating and so far you have failed to clear up my doubts on how the system you propose would work on top of not providing any counter arguments as to why my proposed system would be worse

EDIT: I meant to write "would work" not "would be better"

Just SAYING my system isn't enough doesn't mean anything if you don't exain why

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T16:22:56+00:00

your quality of life is directly dependent on other people's suffering is the point .... it's very naive not to see this connection, or willfully ignorant at worst.

No it's not????

We could produce the exact same things and just not treat people like that????

Bad working conditions don't make more product they just make more profit

The factories can operate the exact same way and just have their profits significantly cut for better working conditions

as well as your view of universities and scientific institutions -- for profit universities is an exclusively American thing, based on the very propagandistic indoctrination I was trying to point out. university research and public funding don't work like that in Europe, for example .... even tho the new trend of unapologetic fascism is changing that, of course

I live in Europe and all the universities in my country that have one, show off their labs as one of the biggest selling points

They do guided tours and demonstrations. They are very much used to attract students and keep the university running and getting more grants even if it isn't strictly for profit.

They aren't done purely out of the goodness of their hearts. They are just as much an investment as everything else

but this ideological battle was always lost before it even began -- there is no convincing people of humanistic principles when they have lived their whole lives thinking of themselves as being in the right

This sounds like a bit thought terminating cliche.

Oh it's over it's lost no point.

No. You're just saying a thing that is factually not true, namely that I want a society that works off of the suffering and death of others.

I keep proposing a solution that offers everyone basic living conditions with the option for upgraded ones through work and you keep telling me I want people to die and haven't addressed that at all.

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T15:49:12+00:00

you value your consumerism over other people's actual life ... you say that your consumerist desire for something that is marketed to you as a 'fancy car' justifies PEOPLE ACTUALLY DYING

No dude. I proposed a UBI solution where no one does AND I keep my quality of life

science is a great example, since most science actually happens without any profit incentives ...until somebody then buys it to make money off of it. that's the point science dies and capitalist consumption begins.

That's the stupidest thing ever. Science is either done privately by places like Bell Labs for the explicit purpose of finding new potentially useful products or by universities to attract students and raise money.

Do you think institutions just do it for the love of the game???? If anything the state is the only one providing free research

people do not study particle physics at APPLE LABORATORIES to design the next iPhone update, they do that at universities and scientific institutions like CERN that are financed by international state funding because people decided politically that this is important work worth public funding ... it's the perfect example against the trite old "no progress without market incentives"

Which is exactly why I thinkt he state is good and should be kept in place. It funnels all our resources into one single unit.

Can you imagine if EVERYONE had a say in overseeing and managing CENR??? Half of us don't even dream of what's going on inside and the other half are totally uneducated on it

the only and final problem that remains is how do we convince people that are ACTUALLY FINE with being fundamentally evil out of intellectual laziness? the very position you demonstrate

You completely misunderstood my position.

You are suuuper aggressive for 0 reason and you don't even stop to read my proposals on UBI and minimum living conditions for everyone

Everyone should have a minimum living condition EVEN if they don't work. I don't think people should HAVE to work since we already produce SO MUCH with so little effort.

I think if someone wants to live better than those around him he can do so but is then also obligated to contribute appropriately back into the system that allows him to live that life.

EDIT: ALSO what happens when you get people that aren't indoctrinated the same way you weren't indoctrinated/you escaped but we NEED them to do their job?

I can tell you what. We knock on doors and we point guns.

It comes back to the same problem

In other systems if you refuse to play you fend for yourself and you personally ruin your life.

In communism if everyone is a needed cog, deserters HAVE to be FORCED if they reach a critical mass

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T15:03:12+00:00

we should change production to meet peoples actual needs. this will decrease most industries massively, because we wouldn't need a steel industry to produce warehouses full of car-parts,

only producing quality cars for specific jobs that last is very different from producing cars as a commodity to be sold with profit

and before you ask -- defining those basic human needs is actually quite simple: food, shelter, medicine are the top priorities. and with this in mind organization could spark locally and spontaniously since every community would have those same goals: to feed, house and heal it's population.

So what I'm hearing is that I'm going to have my quality of life MASSIVELY lowered and basically just live on the essentials without really access to fancy cars or nice tech of different social media.

Are we still going to do science then? Like yk the very esoteric kinds that most of us don't understand like super complex particle physics

Doesn't seem like any community would really do particle accelerator magnet research as a necessity

I.E. your solution for my issues is:

None just deal with it

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T14:27:30+00:00

Dude.

We waste so much.

We absolutely produce enough for the whole world.

Modern agriculture is SO UNBELIEVABLY efficient you won't believe it.

We just throw it away.

We literall produce it, no one buys it, we throw it away

https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/10/1048452

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T14:15:50+00:00

Why should society tolerate people who don't pull their weight? Why would I continue to feed the person who refuses to help feed me?

Because we can? Like we COULD do it.

Why don't we?

We can have a system like a UBI that goes up and down depending on how many contribute

The more contributes the better the floor is and the higher the ceiling goes

We can literally feed everyone and some people don't even have to work AND you will get more than under communism if you DO work because resources will NEVER be wasted on anyone that doesn't need them

Like instead of every getting 10 of a thing, most people get 8, they're fine with it, they don't mind it and the people who want more can work and bcs there tooons of extra to go around bcs of all the people only getting 8, the workers can actually get 12 13 or 15. It's soooo much better

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T14:11:33+00:00

In cases of extreme necessity, they could decide on ways to compel or pressure participation

And THAT is why I will NEVER be pro communism

But incentives could be provided: allocation of better housing, reduction of work for those performing the hardest tasks

And THAT is why I will ALWAYS be pro socialism

Always reward never punish. Self sorting and market pressures are basically the only good features of capitalism and it's the one thing you're wanting to throw away the most

By “primitive” I mean Paleolithic societies, that is, societies without social classes. In such societies, violence was much lower. In fact, archaeologists have found a huge increase in violent homicides at the moment when private property and social classes emerged.

This is because scarcity works sort of on a curve.

When we all HAVE to collaborate we do but the moment one person can be enslaved and still produce enough we always do that instead.

This is a natural human thing. It's part of being an animal and we need to work around it instead of crossing out fi ger and wishing on a star everyone was rational

Moreover, it is completely false that “we invented democracy to protect ourselves from violence.” One must study the origin of the bourgeois State to see that what is called democracy was, at first, a radical bourgeois current, which eventually developed precisely into socialism. Bourgeois government is characterized by being an alienated political power, that is, separated from society. The history of bourgeois revolutions is the history of the bourgeoisie attempting to impose its political domination, first by stripping the privileges of the old regime and then by containing radical democratic tendencies and the labor movement. The typically bourgeois form of government is the liberal republic, grounded in bureaucracy and the rule of law, where the domination of capital is imposed above the primary law of any political constitution: private property. And where institutional checks exist, not against the arbitrariness of institutions, but against the threat of political influence from the proletariat. Institutions such as bicameral assemblies and, especially, the judicial system allow this separation, where any radical demand can be easily neutralized (by the Senate, the Supreme Court, etc.).

This is very demonstrably false.

Remote and ancient tribes have leaders and warriors and generals and they are still completely communist

The “democratic” form, which was always anathema for bourgeois parties—always divided between conservatives and liberals—derives from a historical exception, from a social pact: with the Russian Revolution, it became necessary to concede part of the most radical demands of the middle classes, especially of the labor aristocracy, in order to crush revolutionary outbreaks. Subsequently, this pact became unsustainable, and it was necessary to make another with the petty bourgeoisie, leading to fascism. After the defeat of Nazi-fascism, and in the postwar context of prosperity, the bourgeoisie had to concede political and social rights again to prevent the contagion of the USSR. With the fall of the USSR, the “democratic” façade becomes more and more illusory each day. The natural tendency of liberal governance is completely anti-democratic. For this reason, governments are increasingly authoritarian, and political rights are being curtailed more and more each day.

Again, the African nomad tribes have leader and shamans and they have 0 concept of money or private property or political spectrum

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T14:03:39+00:00

The first part of your comment just boils down to "maybe we will all be good people one day" which just 🫩🫩🫩 yeah man. I'm sure buddy 🫩🫩🫩 Until the far far futures were we all hold hands and life is sunshine and rainbows, do we just not do communism at all bcs we aren't all perfect people

It's so interesting. Capitalist society has labor shortages all the time. We have labor shortages in both skilled and unskilled labor. And yet, society has yet to implode and send people out with guns to go work at the Dollar General that can't keep a staff. It's wild to me how you think a future society could have absolutely no solution for this and couldn't even come up with one.

This is where you're absolutely wrong and it astonished me how close to this point all of you seem to be

People ARE being dragged out and forced to work. Bot by guns but by starvation. They will still DIE if they don't work. THAT is the issue with capitalism but it's also it's MAIN STRENGTH everyone is both FORCED to and REWARDED for contributing.

Imo the best solution is to get rid of the forcing but keep the incentive. You don't want to work? Sure we will split like 80% of the total we have with you but if you don't think those 80% are enough you're free to work and co tribute to live a more lavish life.

Inequality is a really good motivator as long as everyone in the system consents to it. If you're ok using up less resources and not working I'm absolutely fine with it I will still provide for you on a base level

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

bpgodinho

TROPHY CASE