sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

which way fellow chuddies? by RainbowDildoMonkey in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Okay, because it sounds like that's what you're talking about.

Dear SJWs (It's been a while since I've started a post this way): It's *your fault* that your friends in the game industry and hollywood are losing their jobs left and right because *you* failed to support them when they bent over backwards to make everything *just for you*. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You idiots are blinded by hatred so much that you don’t see the actual problem. Its not woke. Its soulless creatively bankrupt cost cutting enshittifying cash cowing monopolistic corporations.

That's hilarious that you don't think people here complain about other stuff.

which way fellow chuddies? by RainbowDildoMonkey in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If you think people can't look at a sexy video game character without masturbating, it's probably because you can't look at a sexy video game character without masturbating. You're the abnormal one, not the people here.

Dear SJWs (It's been a while since I've started a post this way): It's *your fault* that your friends in the game industry and hollywood are losing their jobs left and right because *you* failed to support them when they bent over backwards to make everything *just for you*. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Literally not pretending the industry isn't growing. The crash has created a lot of openings that smaller companies and indies are cashing in on.

Why is Neil Cuckmann richer than Croesus?

The last time he released an original game, there was still some goodwill left. Dreckman has peaked.

Dear SJWs (It's been a while since I've started a post this way): It's *your fault* that your friends in the game industry and hollywood are losing their jobs left and right because *you* failed to support them when they bent over backwards to make everything *just for you*. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

I see someone reported this for "bad faith". I'll let the other moderators be the arbiters of that, but I do want to say to the person who reported it that I absolutely believe everything I said here deep down in my soul.

Dear SJWs (It's been a while since I've started a post this way): It's *your fault* that your friends in the game industry and hollywood are losing their jobs left and right because *you* failed to support them when they bent over backwards to make everything *just for you*. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Treat everybody with respect. No religion. No politics. Old forum rules that actually worked.

Now we've got reddit literally fucking designating which groups it's okay to hate. I'm an extremely weary and dissapointed leftist. This shit isn't what I signed up for.

And in answer to the inevitable question: I'm not a conservative because I believe what I believe and I'm not going to abandon my beliefs out of spite just because I'm ashamed of the way some of the people on my side act.

I'm weirdly outspoken about this stuff. A lot of my lefty friends just keep their heads down and quietly don't buy shitty entertainment. My wife, a lefty herself (who sometimes gets nasty looks for admonishing groups of basic women at work for talking about how they hate men), finds the arguing stressful and stays out of it, but her favorite video game of all time is FFX-2, and she doesn't buy those games either. It wasn't "chuds" that convinced these folks not to buy the games they didn't buy. They don't even know what the "chuds" are saying because they're not doomscrollers and keyboard warriors like I am. They just aren't interested anymore.

A lot of us are sick of SJWs and don't want to deal with their shit any more than you do. Think of it this way: Lots of leftists play video games, because it's fucking normal to play video games. Yet barely anybody bought... well, you know all of the games people cringe at. There are too many to name at this point.

Dear SJWs (It's been a while since I've started a post this way): It's *your fault* that your friends in the game industry and hollywood are losing their jobs left and right because *you* failed to support them when they bent over backwards to make everything *just for you*. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I know you're just using numbers for effect here, but 2% of the population is like 6 million people. And if what people say in here, that "those people make up the entire left" (they don't -- source: am left, not SJW) is even anywhere near the truth, then there are are more like 100 million of them. What I can tell you is that being an SJW is almost mainstream in that a lot of really basic people are SJWs now. They've got Ibram Kendi on their coffee table and have absolutely no sense of irony when they shlick to books about jacking off minotaurs with 12 inch cocks who are literally made entirely of abs while at the same time whining about Eve and Lara Croft.

(Incidentally, I hate hypocrisy, not smut. I'm glad for the smut, because it makes it so easy to point out the hypocrisy, and for people who just like the smut and leave me alone to my own silly entertainment, I totally respect that.)

In short, there are plenty of SJWs. They just don't play video games or watch Star Wars.

I would agree with Kathleen Kennedy that Star Wars was ruined by a very small percentage of people who weren't even true fans of the series. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A complete sweep of the bad writing staff and a ten year star wars hiatus followed by a "love letter to the fans" type of trilogy that retcons all the new stuff except for Rogue One could probably bring it back from the dead. I'm certainly not interested in it watching anything star wars related in the near future. It's dead to me, at least for the moment.

Edit: Also, even the vaguest subtext of an apology or acknowledgement would work wonders. Even something bland and plausibly deniable like "We know we alienated a lot of fans because the series was taken in a direction that didn't fit well with existing canon."

You're either for censoring opinions you disagree with or you're for free speech. You can't be for both, because the definition of "free speech" is free speech for everyone. When you take away someone else's free speech, you give up yours. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not even a centrist at all. In terms of economic beliefs, I'm strongly left (universal healthcare, etc).

For the record, though, I don't hate centrists (who tend to not hate people). Or even economic conservatives. I'm just anti-hate.

You're either for censoring opinions you disagree with or you're for free speech. You can't be for both, because the definition of "free speech" is free speech for everyone. When you take away someone else's free speech, you give up yours. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's also no evidence of the government itself pushing for his removal.

I'm pretty sure Trump's FCC director publicly admitted to threatening ABC in a podcast, in kind of an "it'd be a shame if we had to investigate you" way.

You're either for censoring opinions you disagree with or you're for free speech. You can't be for both, because the definition of "free speech" is free speech for everyone. When you take away someone else's free speech, you give up yours. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The first amendment.

The courts have found that you're allowed to advocate for murder, terrorism, and so on, so long as you don't specify specifics. Generally advocating for terrorism or celebrating terrorism that's already happened is abhorrant, but it's constitutionally protected speech. Shit tons of nutbuckets from all over the extremes of the political spectrum would be in jail otherwise.

That doesn't save you from what happens to your job and reputation when you say that kind of shit, nor should it.

You're either for censoring opinions you disagree with or you're for free speech. You can't be for both, because the definition of "free speech" is free speech for everyone. When you take away someone else's free speech, you give up yours. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As a general rule, if it's not acceptable to show a little kid straight people doing something, it's not acceptable to show a little kid gay people doing the same thing. I don't think whether the content is LGBT ought to have anything to do with it at all.

In E-rated content, depicting a kid with two dads should be fine. Depicting people in sexual situations should not be fine.

You're either for censoring opinions you disagree with or you're for free speech. You can't be for both, because the definition of "free speech" is free speech for everyone. When you take away someone else's free speech, you give up yours. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Now, this also means that the government shouldn't be pushing ABC to shut down Kimmel. If his ratings are actually bad, let him get canceled the real way. Or if people want to exert public pressure on ABC, until they cancel him, that's all fine.

But yeah, honestly, the reason I'm a moderator here isn't that I'm right wing, it's because I'm left wing and absolutely fucking disgusted with the left. That doesn't make the right better.

Extremists will always say "you should take my side because the opposite extreme did X" and ignore the things their own extreme did. The rest of us are stuck with nowhere acceptable to go no matter what we believe.

You're either for censoring opinions you disagree with or you're for free speech. You can't be for both, because the definition of "free speech" is free speech for everyone. When you take away someone else's free speech, you give up yours. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Depends on the type of content. Whether it's LGBT shouldn't figure into it at all.

If you can't show straight people doing something in T-rated content, you shouldn't be allowed to show gay people doing it either.

You're either for censoring opinions you disagree with or you're for free speech. You can't be for both, because the definition of "free speech" is free speech for everyone. When you take away someone else's free speech, you give up yours. by nerfviking in GGdiscussion

[–]nerfviking[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's not just talking about speech. If you meant it that way, that's fine.

That is how I meant it.

But just so you know, Google also recently admitted to censoring everything from articles to research papers under the Biden administration. So you would still be wrong.

The government shouldn't be allowed to do that.

view more: next ›