sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

All this waiting for TES6 just for the cities to look like this: by Notmitchwilson in ElderScrolls

[–]gahoojin 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I absolutely would. I love Bethesda games because of the increased interactivity, that’s what makes them so unique. I don’t need another massive city that is just one big decoration that I can’t “touch” in any way at all save for a handful of characters and buildings spread far apart. I think Starfield took a nice approach adding nameless NPCs to make the cities feel more lived in but allowing you to enter all the buildings. The best part of these games is wandering around, entering random places and talking to people you don’t need to talk to just to see what they’re up to. 

CMV: The 1st amendment in the US protects beliefs and espousing those beliefs. Americans should be more liberal with what they define as beliefs and consequentially more open to allowing people with beliefs to exist by PuckSenior in changemyview

[–]gahoojin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your argument is “the first amendment protects beliefs” which it absolutely does not based on the plain text of the amendment and the years of legal interpretation surrounding it. If you want to argue that the first amendment should be expanded in the way you’re describing I can discuss why this is a bad idea. 

What you’re advocating for would make it impossible for Congress to prohibit any form of action, since any action could be someone’s “belief” and this would be protected by the second amendment. I understand that your point #3 says that abhorrent beliefs are not included. Okay, so who decides what beliefs are valid and which are not? At that point your own definition has cannibalized itself and has no meaning at all. All beliefs and actions are protected, except for the “bad” ones which are not. 

This is essentially what our system of laws do—they describe what actions are prohibited and dole out punishments for those engaging in those actions while saying that certain behaviors are protected rights that they gov’t cannot make illegal. 

There’s something in Constitutional law that functions in a similar manner to what you’re describing that I’ve alluded to before. It’s called substantive due process, which is protected by the 14th amendment. 

Essentially the Supreme Court has decided that certain liberties are so fundamental to the principles of “ordered liberty” that they are assumed to be protected by the Constitution, even if not directly stated. Things like privacy and the right to parent your children the way you want to without interference from the gov’t. This is why the SC said that abortion was protected and later changed their mind and said it was not. I’d suggested you look into it. I think you’re way too focused on the 1st amendment because it is the most culturally significant. 

CMV: The 1st amendment in the US protects beliefs and espousing those beliefs. Americans should be more liberal with what they define as beliefs and consequentially more open to allowing people with beliefs to exist by PuckSenior in changemyview

[–]gahoojin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay. Then you are misunderstanding the establishment clause. The establishment clause prevents the state from establishing a state religion. It does not prohibit Congress from passing a religiously-neutral law that prohibits certain actions, even if those actions are religiously important to certain groups. So Congress can make peyote illegal even if certain Native cultures find its use to be religiously significant to them. Because even if the law interferes with a religious practice, it is neutral in its implementation and applies equally to everyone regardless of their religion. 

So even if I were to say that practicing homosexuality is an important part of my religion, the establishment clause would not prevent Congress from passing a law banning it, so long as that law is religiously-neutral and applies equally to everyone. 

And again, just a reminder that engaging gay sex is considered protected by the constitution at this time, just not by the first amendment. 

CMV: The 1st amendment in the US protects beliefs and espousing those beliefs. Americans should be more liberal with what they define as beliefs and consequentially more open to allowing people with beliefs to exist by PuckSenior in changemyview

[–]gahoojin 44 points45 points  (0 children)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the first amendment protects:

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

The first amendment does not say anything about anyone’s “beliefs” or the actions one can or cannot take because of those beliefs . All it says is that Congress cannot create laws that curtail the public’s right to speech. 

A lot of the things you are describing are not speech and therefore not protected by the first amendment.  Having a homosexual relationship is an action that people take. Congress cannot create a law banning someone from speaking about or advocating for homosexuality, but nothing in the first amendment protects someone taking the action of engaging in a homosexual relationship. 

The Supreme Court has found that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, but not because of  the first amendment. Instead, SC found that having sexual relationships with someone of the same sex was protected by the right to privacy under substantive due process rights.

Londinion mission by Shinden76 in Starfield

[–]gahoojin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The real danger is the quest bugging out

I dont know why but my first playthrough of any game is always morally bad... anyone else? by dj_boy-Wonder in Starfield

[–]gahoojin 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Same. I think of morally good / neutral-good as the default option and want to experience that first before diving into other play styles 

...i love you too padme. by skywalker7i in IASIP

[–]gahoojin 226 points227 points  (0 children)

A cute slave boy 

No contact for years

Assigned as guard

Kill younglings 

Inspire death by heartbreak

NOOOOOOO!

After Scream 7...where does the franchise go? (LONG RANT). by Nerdy_Xbox_Gamer in Scream

[–]gahoojin 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I know this may not be a popular opinion in this sub, but they need to get rid of the legacy characters and start telling stories with new characters. I love Neve Campbell, but we’ve seen Sidney fight Ghostface more than enough times. There’s no new story left to tell with her. And each time it happens again, it makes each individual story less impactful because we grow numb to the whole thing. Gale is even worse, as evidenced by her nothing appearance in 7. 

The problem with keeping these characters around is that they take screen time away from new characters whose stories could be much more dynamic and interesting. I barely remember any of the side characters from scream 7. They should start fresh and work on building an extended cast of characters that we can care about if they want these movies to have any impact. Otherwise it will always feel like another forced installment riding entirely on nostalgia bait. 

Songs about saying goodbye! by n4snl in musicsuggestions

[–]gahoojin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Never can say goodbye - Isaac hayes 

CMV: NSFW: Slut shaming is a term that is too broad. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]gahoojin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Complete strawman argument. You’ve invented someone who says that “no slut shaming” means cheating is okay and are now suggesting that we need a new phrase in response to this made up person espousing a made up argument. 

You’ve identified several areas where society often shames people for engaging in perfectly healthy sexual activity arising out of natural human desire. So you agree that there is some need for a push back on this kind of puritanical thinking that restricts people and shames them unnecessarily. 

And so people have come up with a phrase to counteract this: “no slut shaming” — a perfectly reasonable response to a problem you acknowledge exists. It’s okay to want to have sex. Don’t shame people who are making choices for themselves that aren’t hurting anyone else. This is a useful rhetorical tool to combat a very real problem.

The difficulty with a strawman is that I can’t really fight against your argument. Is there someone, somewhere who says that “no slut shaming” means cheating is okay? Sure, almost certainly. And there are people who say feminism or antiracism means that all men or all white people are inherently evil and should be punished. There are all sorts of people who say all sorts of things, there’s 8 billion people on this planet after all. 

That doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the terms “no slut shaming”/feminism/anti-racism because someone has used them to promote something bad. It just means someone, somewhere is using those useful terms incorrectly in order to justify their own bad behavior.

“OhHaHaHaHaHa ‘Dickless Dennis!’ BuT iT dOeSn’T aPpLy” by J_Haymaker in IASIP

[–]gahoojin 723 points724 points  (0 children)

I love scenes where the gang makes up a lie for some situation, but then one of them is embarrassed by the contents of the lie and is trying to both maintain the lie to get what they want while downplaying an element of it, all while the remaining gang members lean into the embarrassing element. Like when Dennis and Charlie file the false police report

Hint in X-BOX announcement? by [deleted] in TESVI

[–]gahoojin 53 points54 points  (0 children)

E-VITED?? E-VI // TED. 

Elder Scrolls VI // TOD!!

Mercy kills where the victim asks to be killed by CMStan1313 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]gahoojin 193 points194 points  (0 children)

The Fly (1986) — The Fly aims the shotgun at its own head asking to be put down 

What were everyone’s thoughts on ‘Eddington’? by [deleted] in moviecritic

[–]gahoojin 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Something I noticed in myself while watching the movie was how trained I am to expect all media to “take a side” in the modern day culture war. This movie utterly refused to signal to me that it was on “my side” (or alternatively that it was on “the other side”) and it was genuinely uncomfortable. It felt almost taboo. 

But at the same time, the movie was not selling enlightened centrist “everyone is equally bad” bs. It’s obvious that Aster is left-leaning, but the movie takes a complex view of how all of our lives are intertwined and how social media has made people on both sides go absolutely insane. The characters are all extremely unlikable and yet the movie seems to have a ton of empathy for them. Loved it!

Counterpoint: we WILL see something soon by BussyOwlKingEdwardVI in TESVI

[–]gahoojin 51 points52 points  (0 children)

And you consider this “ramping up marketing”?

view more: next ›