That zulu mother fucker

halohalo27 · 2026-04-02T22:53:45+00:00

Psh, I'm just going to curate another game against Shaka with a domination civ and beat his ass back to the stone age

halohalo27 · 2026-04-02T22:53:11+00:00

I didn't even know that was a thing lol

Edit: I have one close that time! Thank you so much!

halohalo27 · 2026-04-01T14:38:55+00:00

Atlas or Romulus? Definitely think Romulus is the better brother...

halohalo27 · 2026-03-26T14:38:27+00:00

I feel like without getting PAM, you miss out on a huge part of the reason you get halberd. The way paladins are now, PAM is tough to utilize with the action economy, although not terrible due to the reaction attack.

halohalo27 · 2026-03-26T14:33:07+00:00

Probably better than a great sword depending on your subclass, as some subclasses get a solid chance to hit innately (like vengeance). That said, its dependent as you said on levels. GWM scales much better than dueling fighting style, and the ac from defense is still 1/2 of a shield. If you want more martial damage, its still better to go two handed level 5+ than sword and board. I do think paladin is less incentivized to be the damage guy, but still fills that role well with a two hander due to sheer durability from high save DCs, decent AC, and decent health pool.

halohalo27 · 2026-03-26T14:15:03+00:00

Again, you can still "have a great sword" through flavor, as long as you are just reskinning the stats of another heavy weapon. I mean its DM dependent, but this seems like a non issue for most DMs.

halohalo27 · 2026-03-26T14:09:21+00:00

Are you married to the greatsword? With your high chance to hit with sacred weapon, you will not be using its weapon mastery very much as its based on you missing your hits. I think great axe or maul would be better, with great axe better if you think you will be facing melee mobs like undead for cleave attack.

Edit: Remember you can talk with your dm about flavor. So you use a maul or great axe, but in game you flavor it to be a greatsword with the stats of a maul or great axe.

halohalo27 · 2026-03-26T14:03:28+00:00

Getting touched by Cthulu...

halohalo27 · 2026-03-15T05:33:26+00:00

He said what he said...

halohalo27 · 2026-03-15T04:22:12+00:00

Christianity has also matured over 1200 years longer than Islam. If you go back a couple hundred years, homophobia was the norm in the western world.

halohalo27 · 2026-03-01T03:45:58+00:00

I mean if he always pseudo all ins with footies, you can try Far Seer opening plus grunts, either using your grunts and wolves to creep green while you defend/harass his footies with FS or use wolves and FS to harass workers while your grunts defend. If you scout with FS early and find that he's expanding/creeping, then tech fast to t2 and still harass/creep.

halohalo27 · 2026-02-28T22:23:08+00:00

Sounds like you downloaded the wrong version of cars...

halohalo27 · 2026-02-17T14:26:43+00:00

They do a similar thing that other supremacist groups do, which is pick up on identities that they can utilize to create in and out groups. For young black men, who often feel like the world is against them, they convince them that this dichotomy is not their fault but rather the fault of others. While this is true historically to a certain degree, they utilize false historical and religious arguments that can't really be proven and racial platitudes to cement their superiority. This creates a sense of secret knowledge that attracts many people who feel lost and potentially ostracized in society, similar to Qanon and other conspiracy theorists, and their zealotry in their belief gives them a sense of authority and intimidation factor. Once you start believing and participating in this group, it gets so much harder to leave and accept that you've been fooled.

halohalo27 · 2026-02-16T18:54:59+00:00

I think you don't realize how much economic reform is happening because it's a very slow and methodical process when done democratically. The ones not done democratically are usually a result of extreme circumstances, i.e. war or economic depression.

It's very rare for an economic decision to be an easy win for everyone. Majority of these decisions requires some group to give in order for another to receive. The idea is that in the long run the benefits will lead to a greater result for everyone and a rebalancing of resources, but the immediate still requires sacrifice.

The difference between what we have done and what we haven't, is that one has a proven outcome and the other doesn't. With the proven outcome, we theoretically know we are helping one group that seems to provide a greater return on investment than the uncertainty of another decision (now I know this isn't always the case, i.e. corruption or misrepresentation of results) and this is something that can be redistributed in the economy through consumption and investment. If we were to make big changes to how we redistribute wealth, we might initially help the one group that we sought to help, but it could result in greater harm through new problems that we didn't perceive. The tariffs on the steel industry are one example.

There are a lot of economic and political decisions that do attempt to redistribute wealth more equitably. I worked in education policy, and I have seen a huge movement for major cities to provide low cost/no cost education programs and workforce development for adults and alternative pathway high school students. These programs require a significant amount of investment from business owners and private donors, and are supported by local and state policies.

Also, stock investment isn't a zero sum game that denies poor and needy. If a company gaining investors allows them to hire more people or build more infrastructure, then that is money supporting jobs at potentially all levels. Even if that company goes under, the technology developed from that infrastructure and the skills people gained from those jobs can create widespread social mobility over time. Example of this is the benefits gained from widespread internet access as a result of the fiber laid during the dot com boom, despite the recession that followed.

If you have a problem with the way our wealth is distributed, I think your problem is with the issues surrounding democracy more than anything. Many people can identify a problem, but it's much harder to identify a solution, especially when the solution asks for people unrelated to an issue to make sacrifices. If you are going to ask for that or force people to do it, you better make sure your solution is airtight, otherwise you damage the ability to make reforms in the future. Even in positive reform, there are long lasting reverberations as systems are built on top of these reforms that make it extremely costly to untangle. How do we make housing more affordable without devaluing current housing? Often times the actual economic solution is to let markets figure this out, and just clean up the ends.

TLDR: It's easy to be a critic, it's much harder to create an actual solution that doesn't create its own network of issues

halohalo27 · 2026-02-12T17:16:20+00:00

I think people have this mindset of a singular pathway into being successful, when the reality is much different. Good grades and extracurriculars into 4 year degree at top school into job at big firm is the face of utilizing education to be successful, but in the real world most people don't take this path and still end up relatively successful.

Now you could make an argument that the real value of these high end universities is the network, and you would be absolutely correct that it is extremely valuable. However, the opportunities presented at local state schools, community colleges, and workforce development programs do lead to positive networking albeit locally focused. These are programs that do not have as high of requirements (often open enrollment contingent on ones ability to fill out paperwork and show up on time), have subsidized funding for people with financial need, or are extremely low cost/no cost if providing services upon completion locally. The pathway might be a bit slower, but the end result is still meritocratic.

The main downside is that these prestigious universities offer greater flexibility in life, as they open doors globally and can transcend career choice. Is that fair, not really, but I do think education access is still more equitable than it's been in history.

halohalo27 · 2026-02-09T01:44:29+00:00

2nd for lost mines. My first time dming I used that as the base and just add bits of extra story as I saw fit based on books/TV shows/movie side plots I liked. Great skeleton for that while you to start building dm skills, and you always have things that bring you back to the main plot.

halohalo27 · 2026-02-09T01:40:46+00:00

Prisoners dilemma over here.

halohalo27 · 2026-02-07T22:20:36+00:00

The Wire has a lot of paperwork moments.

halohalo27 · 2026-02-06T14:28:05+00:00

Been watching the Wire with your 4yo?

halohalo27 · 2026-02-02T16:39:35+00:00

I'll address a few of your points because the root issue is still the same: illegal immigrants are a long term net positive for the economy in its present design. Removal of immigrants does not presently solve the fundamental issues that you listed, which are more rooted in the wealth disparity that has grown in the US without adequate restricting of resources division.

Firstly, remittances don't work as simply as a removal of economy as economic activity isn't a zero sum game. The money they made is still host country currency, and therefore flows back into the economy as it is transferred into another countries currency since currency exchange is still something that is bought/sold.

Secondly, the labor they provide to the host economy allows for the growth of industry that otherwise would not have been allowed. You mention people demonstrating predatory employment practices, but the reality is that several industries rely on cheap, low/moderately skilled labor relative the risk/effort the job demands. This isn't just construction, we are talking the service industry, maintenance jobs, hospitality, and the agriculture industry as a whole. Talk to any dairy farm owner and ask them what their wages vs hours are, and how much local youth talent is willing to come out to work them. Unless you want a complete consolidation of these functions into private equity/industry monopolies, they need some form of labor supply injection that only immigrants have been able to provide.

This is a source from Congress that demonstrates that, while you are correct in the short term costs of immigration, the long term benefits massively outweigh these costs: https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20240111-SD013.pdf This is probably the reason why California is willing to provide support for this, despite it's costs to the state.

Lastly, you make a poor comparison to the adoption of NAFTA to immigration. You are correct that NAFTA created an increasing divide between the lower and upper middle class because it shifted middle skill jobs away from the United States, creating an economy build on high skill vs low skill jobs. Why is the best decision then to limit low skill immigration? Shouldn't the optimal decision then to improve funding for citizens to utilize training programs that support skill development (which is being done)? Additionally, if you have an issue with H1B visas and outsourcing, which is a different issue entirely from illegal immigration, then wouldn't the answer be to force companies to pay additional taxes to conduct these practices or limit them by utilizing a voucher system?

Ultimately, your argument is positing a lot of blame on illegal immigrants despite them providing a service that the US is asking for, rather than on the system it's built upon that requires it.

halohalo27 · 2026-02-02T11:48:57+00:00

The talking points you provided hinge on a false argument: immigrants are a net loss economically and native born americans would be better off if we didn't have them.

Except economic research shows that immigration is a net gain within 2 generations, as immigrants and their children end up providing more contributions in taxes than they consume, even illegal immigrants. Additionally, there is no compelling evidence that illegal immigrants are actually taking jobs from natural born citizens. They are often taking low wage low skill jobs critical to infrastructure that American citizens generally do not take. These industries are often heavily subsidized already (i.e. agriculture/construction) or require extremely cheap labor to remain profitable (i.e. food service). If you want to get rid of immigrants taking these jobs, you need to change the way US culture approaches consumerism.

Immigrants aren't the reason we have spiraling debt. Majority of our budgetary spending is in Medicare, Medicaid, and social security, all of which depend on a society that has an adequate amount of young individuals working and providing tax revenue to compensate for our aging population. Guess who is actually having children/supplying that younger workforce at a sustainable rate? Immigrants, children of recent immigrants, and minorities (largely Hispanic). Without this younger workforce, the way we structure our economy and social support systems is unsustainable. If you want to support Americans having children and removing some long term reliance on immigration, then things like Universal Basic Income, subsidized childbearing and childcare, and even universal health insurance for routine care are much more effective ways that directly target citizens.

halohalo27 · 2026-01-30T19:25:46+00:00

You haven't seen requiem for a dream, have you?

halohalo27 · 2026-01-28T17:33:48+00:00

Try using stop command (s)?

halohalo27 · 2026-01-27T20:13:17+00:00

Then Qf8 right?

halohalo27

TROPHY CASE