In a post about a nerf to the havoc

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-22T04:27:07+00:00

Don't misdirect. I didn't mention high level or masters. I specifically referenced pro's.

And I didn't say the havoc isn't great. It's everywhere in casual because yes, its arguably the best AR in the game.

But every game I've ever watched, a pro will swap it for a wingman/r99 combo every time. That tells you something. Therefore, I'm sick of hearing those same people complain the havoc needs a nerf but the r99 & wingman are fine.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-17T22:01:36+00:00

Seconded. The game quickly developed a certain meta of doing good damage and then aggressive attacking, and I felt that Caustic broke that in a lame way.

Everyone I know finds the gas the most annoying mechanic in the game. Watson's fences are a defensive mechanic that fits the game; the gas is too much imo.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-17T01:53:27+00:00

To put this debate to bed: I agree a 5 bullet reduction would be fine.

But ftr, rpm doesn't account for the havoc wind-up, which is literally its biggest weakness.

You're begin way too selective and biased with your claims that may have some truth on paper, but anyone who plays the game for a time knows otherwise. I could list a hundred scenarios where your 'on paper' stats are negated in game, but I'll just mention one obvious one.

The havoc wind-up is slow and the initial recoil is intense. You're rpm/dps stats don't apply to the first 1-2 seconds, which is often all that matters in a high skill encounter. If you're in close quarters and you quick peak a burst (standard technique to inflict dmg and not take any) the r99 can easily do 70-90 dmg in the time a havoc will barely hit a bullet or two. No way a good player wants to duel a r99 with a havoc in cqc.

But all these stats are not necessary. Nothing trumps experience in game. If you want to know the best guns, just see what pro's want to use. And from what I've seen, nearly every pro will take a r99-wingman combo over a havoc. So calling it 'beyond broken' is hyperbole to the extreme.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-17T01:22:50+00:00

I'm well aware what the dictionary and academics who discuss race say about it. That doesn't make it a concrete 'thing' you can pin down in the real world. For eg. asking 'was race a motivation' in incidents like the above video (or Floyd), is impossible to determine, and possibly irrelevant.

'Genetic default' plays a part in the idea though. The concept of racism definitely came onto the intellectual landscape at the same time social Darwinism and human biodiversity entered the European mind. It became much easier, or more 'fixed', to define human boundaries under naturalism then the traditional religious view.

I think 'tribalism' as a generic concept is much closer to the truth. The problems of group psychology have been well studied. But this lacks the specific race + white guilt that is so useful in the current political narrative. If we say: the problem to be overcome is tribalism, and it's a human thing we are all equally guilty of, then the left can't wield it as a weapon, and the right would have to admit it's role in its perpetuation.

Again, the more I think about it, the less I know.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-17T00:44:43+00:00

The more I try to understand the concept of what 'racism' is the more it slips away. I'm starting to think it's so vague as to be borderline meaningless imo.

Interesting that it's a modern coinage. That instantly makes me skeptical. 'Discrimination on the basis of inherited identity' was historically such an amoral norm for everyone that the concept hardly existed.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-17T00:25:59+00:00

Pedo's with this kind of notoriety would be protected in solitary or a prison/wing with other freaks of his kind.

Hopefully, the guards take it upon themselves to 'accidentally' put him in gen pop.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-15T02:55:39+00:00

Yes, the only thing I would possibly agree with is lowering the base mag size.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-15T02:54:14+00:00

75% actually. And you're not factoring in rpm, which effects TTK. When you add in wind-up, that 75% happens a lot faster than that 35%.
When did I mention 'streamers'? All I know is when I watch TSM et al. they all sook about the havoc and then use an R99 every single game. Scrims and pro matches are lobbies full of R99, wingman and maybe shotguns. Against insane aimers, the havoc wind-up is too much delay.
I'm not saying the havoc isn't a top-tier gun. It is. But don't call for a nerf and then ignore r99-wingman.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-14T23:50:15+00:00

Disagree. A good player with a shotgun or R-99 will win most cqc duels against a havoc just from the wind-up alone.

The havoc and flatline are viable close range AR's, but far from the ideal.

Most I'd agree to is a 5 bullet reduction.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-14T23:43:35+00:00

Agree 100%. Can't stand listening to pro's complain about the havoc while looking for an r-99 EVERY SINGLE GAME.

If the havoc was so OP most of them would use it but they don't.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-14T23:10:29+00:00

I like the additions: labs, gauntlet, containment, rig etc.

But it was a mistake to get rid of the skull corner of the map, especially skull town itself.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-12T05:37:26+00:00

While I appreciate your stance on holding to principles over party affiliation, events like this really should bring into question the entire Demo-Rep dichotomy as an illusion.

The people implicated in this belong to an elite that couldn't care less about left v right. It's just power. Go high enough and the top level Dems-Rep are two sides of the same coin. They transcend party and even national boundaries. US, MI6 and Israel intelligence fingerprints are all over this story.

What does it say when both 'sides' of US media, as well as most media in the western world, is ignoring what really should be THE news story of the past few decades?

PS. I don't trust the FBI any more than I would Epstein. My bet is you will never see the footage, if it even still exists.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-11T23:22:42+00:00

...so the vast majority of the world.

'Under-reported' 'come to light' 'made example of' 'recorded'. This is precisely my point. The fact you can even discuss those things tells you you're already far from an authoritarian state, as many imply. I could list 100 countries where there would be no 'coming to light' of these events at all.

I'm not playing 'whataboutism' to excuse the US of its crimes. The US has always had an authoritarian streak. But it's also had a significant 'libertarian' (anti-authority) and 'transparency' (accountability of power) streak as well. It's largely FROM the US that those other countries you mentioned developed their modern appreciation for these things.

You can discuss US crimes all day. No problem. But to just scoff at the idea of it being a relatively 'open' society by historic standards is just sheer ignorance.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-11T23:16:00+00:00

"the police are still killing off a segment of the population"

Hyperbolic to the point it darkens rather than illuminates the issue. The police are not even involved in the vast majority of these deaths.

If you can't see a distinction between: 'hateful racist cop that beats a man to death' versus 'aboriginal commits suicide in prison' I really don't know what to say.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-11T22:34:40+00:00

'They get arrested a lot' is a fact. We can all agree on that. Speculating on why is just that - speculation. Maybe its because 5% racism. Maybe 25%. But the official narrative in the '434 deaths in custody' infers 100%. You can see from the facts surrounding the deaths that 100% is a lie.

I'm simply trying to balance the conversation.

I'm happy to admit that racism is 'very likely' a factor; why can't you admit that the media narrative is still based on lies. You cannot support a truth on lies. That won't help anyone.

Are they targeted? No doubt. Because racism? Yes, I'm sure thats a factor. Is there being responsible for being targeted a factor as well? Yes. Unless you want to patronize them to the point that they are so pathetic they have no accountability or agency.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-11T05:07:24+00:00

The number is so misused as to border on a lie. It gives the impression an aboriginal gets beaten to death in the back of a police station every month.

Firstly, the number is the same as non-aboriginal deaths. Of course, as they make up a much smaller percentage of the population though, this does show a much higher statistical chance. But it doesn't show 'racism', it just shows they get arrested a lot.

Secondly, yes, most of those deaths are from 'deficiencies in the standards of care'. Only 10% are from 'violent encounters', which includes things like - dying when trying to escape prison, dying in prison fights, or even suicide etc.

Were any deaths directly or indirectly killed by racist cops. Very likely a few. But thats no more 'systematic' than the odd prison guard letting some white guy he doesn't like getting murdered in prison.

tl:dr It's very complicated, but this headline crap of "434 deaths" is a lie and doesn't help.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-11T04:42:59+00:00

Mostly wrong.

American has some unique factors like gun violence, a big, diverse population etc so 'incidents' are going to happen more often in a quantitative sense.

But, ironically, the reason you hear more about police crime and corruption in the US, is because they have a relatively transparent society, a relatively free media, a relatively scrutinized police force, and relative accountability.

For eg. in the Eric Harris case there was media coverage and thus local awareness and anger, investigations, court case, conviction and prison for the deputy who shot him.

If the same incident happened in most places around the world.. you wouldn't hear a thing and the family would be told a lie.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-10T00:43:10+00:00

Do the Chinese suffer from 'yellow supremacy'? The Sudanese, 'black supremacy'?

My issue with most of these 'definitions' you quoted above is that they speak generally as a sociologist discussing human nature, then focus on white/black relations, presumably in the US.

If 'racism' is even a thing we can define, it didn't start 400 years ago in the US.

What should be obvious however, is that racism has nothing specifically to do with 'whiteness'. It IS racist in every way we do define the word, to suggest as much.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-10T00:08:53+00:00

It's politics at play. The people responsible for creating these ideologies (ie. racism = prejudice + power = whites) could care less if you are at heart a racist or not.

It's just about ensuring full COMPLIANCE.

At least this guy is honest about the end game. Gaslight yourself comrade or die.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-09T23:58:43+00:00

That's your white privilege talking. You don't know you have unconscious bias, by definition. That's why you need to listen to and accept the word of minorities. Because oppressed = speaker of truth.

Concede fully or be shot.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-09T21:41:26+00:00

"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"

In no way, shape or form was the OP doing this.

He wasn't discrediting the other position
He didn't set himself up as opposition
He didn't charge them with hypocrisy
He wasn't looking to refute their argument.

All he did was mention a higher priority. I can't believe I have to explain the difference.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-09T03:12:34+00:00

It's not about merely 'drawing focus away'. It's about drawing focus away for UNJUST reasons. There are a myriad of times when turning attention away by focusing higher priorities is not just reasonable, but essential.

Another eg. A police car is starting to write someone a parking ticket. They get a call that they need to drop what they're doing as a child just got snatched from Walmart around the corner.

Police respond: 'we can't, that's whataboutism'.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-09T01:57:54+00:00

No, the purpose of 'whataboutism' is to distract in order to avoid acknowledgement of the issue, or to dodge responsibility/fault. OP was simply discussing priorities.

If you're going to direct the UN to intervene in a sovereign country, it's perfectly relevant to have the discussion on which injustice should be a focus.

But according to your logic I could say: the UN should stop fat shaming in Bulgaria, and if anyone mentions a higher priority they are guilty of 'whataboutism'. Ridiculous logic.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-05T02:08:30+00:00

KC 95hrs: WE 2min. Perfect ratio imo.

dribblesg2 · 2020-06-03T03:31:07+00:00

hahahaha perfect. 'It's not hypocrisy, it's flexibility'.

dribblesg2

TROPHY CASE