DualJay

tlj spoilers

SPUFpowered?

If you've never tried mobas like League or Dota (or have and disliked them), try Heroes of the Storm.
 
The learning curve is not as steep for several reasons, foremost being much simpler in-game progression via talents as you level instead of a shop and that XP is shared for the entire team so there is no "last hitting".
 
Additionally, teamfights are longer meaning there's more interaction and games are shorter meaning there is less of a time commitment per game. Additionally, the "laning" phase is much shorter than in other mobas, meaning you get to the action faster. Finally, there are different maps with various objective phases that help whichever team takes them win the game (for example, Braxis Holdout has points you must hold that eventually will summon a large wave of Zerg to attack enemies).

Nobody can use any reactions besides Like and Upvote, even if they may appear because of a bug. I've disabled Downvote while we figure out what we want to do with it.

Probably an IPS bug, then, as they don't seem to do anything when I click on them.
 
I would remove Like, but apparently I can't, and I don't really want to remove Upvote as the one we've already used for all this time. Ugh.

I dreamed that I took off some gloves and my fingers came off with them

Rynjin, c'mon man. Take it back a few notches. It's fair to be upset, but the personal attacks aren't necessary.

Are people going to read your mind and detect that you're gay? Hell, even if you go with your boyfriend and hold his hand and kiss him in public, do you think anyone's going to hurt you? Most people aren't deranged enough to actually hurt someone except in self-defense.
 
Okay, it might be a little bit more dangerous. But there's always chaos and crime when any societal upset happens, and I doubt this will be more severe than any other. 
 
And please, everyone, stop with the backhanded identity politics. We all know they're bullshit.

its face up tho

quints check 'em
 

quints check 'em
 

quints check 'em
 

He didn't write those articles. Here are the articles he has written and published on Breitbart (CTRL+F "women"). I believe most of those were written by Milo (presumably, Milo Yanopolus or however it's spelled). 
 
Many people believe in giving a platform to all views in support of free speech, even if they disagree with those views. His allowing such articles (assuming he's even the one with the final say) is not damning.

Fine, fine. Here's my argument: (1) No matter what the establishment is, some people will dislike it. (2) People tend to group with like-minded individuals. (3) People with more extreme views tend to be more involved and outspoken, because they will typically be more passionate about either change or the lack thereof.
 
By 1, 2, and 3, people will group into factions that are represented to un- and semi-informed outsiders by the most extreme members of that faction. Currently, that's "anti-free-speech bleeding-heart America-hating corrupt socialist cucks" for the democrats and "bigoted racist backwards corporate-owned poor-hating fascist warmongers" for the republicans. Obviously, this is a simplification on both parts. 
 
This caused the current party divide, and made an individual like Trump inevitable. The average person sees the other side as intolerable because they see the extremes - the radfem SJWS, the Westboros, the KKK, extreme branches of BLM, etc. This prevents compromise. When their is no compromise, when the nation changes it will change radically towards one direction or the other - and when there is compromise, people don't hear about it. This is because outrage sells papers/gets views/farms clicks. Compromise does not, typically, produce outrage. Thus, people only (or mostly) hear about the intolerableness of the other side.
 
Culture moves in a pendulum - and the farther it swings one way, the farther it swings back. Everyone is a reactionary. Thus, when right-leaning citizens see the "anti-free-speech bleeding-heart America-hating corrupt socialist cucks", they rally and push back - and must support whoever can stop that opposition, which will tend to be an extreme, passionate individual. This is because the more anti-establishment, where the establishment is the current perception of the culture, the more votes they will gather from people who dislike the current culture and the opposition. 
 
This is why Trump (who I highly doubt will be a good president) was inevitable, and maybe a good thing to happen. Had any left-leaning politician been elected, the pushback would have been even stronger, and we could have got an actual fascist who would try for gay conversions or whatever - or the extreme leftists would have taken over and abolished free speech. Both the hyper-extremes are bad, so it is better to fluctuate between relatively moderate to somewhat extreme (Trump) individuals of the two parties.
 
People were sick and tired of the left (or rather, its visible extremities), so they went right. In a few years, the opposite will happen. Maybe the average will shift slowly (and it's looking like the average is shifting left), but drastic shifts that society is not ready for will bring only chaos. This is why I think Trump was a better option than Hillary.
 
And now we get to why I think you're being* stupid. And not just you - anyone who buys into the lie that the party is composed entirely or mostly of the extreme and visible individuals and groups we see. That is the reason we have the chaos, the riots, the fear. And those lead to further extremes - and the risk of individuals like Pence, who I believe is utterly intolerable (primarily due to his support of the suicide-factory conversion camps).
 
People need to see beyond that. They need to realize that most people are not well-represented by the vocal extremists in their party. I doubt this will happen unless there is a drastic shift in how the media approaches reporting and how we consume news or a major move away from the two-party system/political parties in general.
 
--------------
 
And a note towards what Raison's been saying. At first I didn't respond because I thought he was memeing, but now I think he's serious, so I'll talk towards it. Racial divides do not create the issue - cultural ones do. Diversity is a good thing and a bad thing - good because it can lead to greater understanding and cooperation in the long term, but bad because it creates cultural conflicts (which are often violent) in the short term. Look at Japan - ultra homogeneous, low crime. For the bad effects, look at inner city America, which is rife with conflict between impoverished black and white americans.
 
I don't think there is any need to preserve white leadership, but I do think there is a need to preserve traditional American freedom and equality focused leadership. This could be black leaders, this could be Hispanic leaders, it could just still be white leaders - what matters is that they're American leaders.
 
--------------
 
*Being is temporary in this case. I act stupid all the time. Everyone does. And everyone can change that, or at least try to.
 
 

Fine, fine. Here's my argument: (1) No matter what the establishment is, some people will dislike it. (2) People tend to group with like-minded individuals. (3) People with more extreme views tend to be more involved and outspoken, because they will typically be more passionate about either change or the lack thereof.
 
By 1, 2, and 3, people will group into factions that are represented to un- and semi-informed outsiders by the most extreme members of that faction. Currently, that's "anti-free-speech bleeding-heart America-hating corrupt socialist cucks" for the democrats and "bigoted racist backwards corporate-owned poor-hating fascist warmongers" for the republicans. Obviously, this is a simplification on both parts. 
 
This caused the current party divide, and made an individual like Trump inevitable. The average person sees the other side as intolerable because they see the extremes - the radfem SJWS, the Westboros, the KKK, extreme branches of BLM, etc. This prevents compromise. When their is no compromise, when the nation changes it will change radically towards one direction or the other - and when there is compromise, people don't hear about it. This is because outrage sells papers/gets views/farms clicks. Compromise does not, typically, produce outrage. Thus, people only (or mostly) hear about the intolerableness of the other side.
 
Culture moves in a pendulum - and the farther it swings one way, the farther it swings back. Everyone is a reactionary. Thus, when right-leaning citizens see the "anti-free-speech bleeding-heart America-hating corrupt socialist cucks", they rally and push back - and must support whoever can stop that opposition, which will tend to be an extreme, passionate individual. This is because the more anti-establishment, where the establishment is the current perception of the culture, the more votes they will gather from people who dislike the current culture and the opposition. 
 
This is why Trump (who I highly doubt will be a good president) was inevitable, and maybe a good thing to happen. Had any left-leaning politician been elected, the pushback would have been even stronger, and we could have got an actual fascist who would try for gay conversions or whatever - or the extreme leftists would have taken over and abolished free speech. Both the hyper-extremes are bad, so it is better to fluctuate between relatively moderate to somewhat extreme (Trump) individuals of the two parties.
 
People were sick and tired of the left (or rather, its visible extremities), so they went right. In a few years, the opposite will happen. Maybe the average will shift slowly (and it's looking like the average is shifting left), but drastic shifts that society is not ready for will bring only chaos. This is why I think Trump was a better option than Hillary.
 
And now we get to why I think you're being* stupid. And not just you - anyone who buys into the lie that the party is composed entirely or mostly of the extreme and visible individuals and groups we see. That is the reason we have the chaos, the riots, the fear. And those lead to further extremes - and the risk of individuals like Pence, who I believe is utterly intolerable (primarily due to his support of the suicide-factory conversion camps).
 
People need to see beyond that. They need to realize that most people are not well-represented by the vocal extremists in their party. I doubt this will happen unless there is a drastic shift in how the media approaches reporting and how we consume news or a major move away from the two-party system/political parties in general.
 
--------------
 
And a note towards what Raison's been saying. At first I didn't respond because I thought he was memeing, but now I think he's serious, so I'll talk towards it. Racial divides do not create the issue - cultural ones do. Diversity is a good thing and a bad thing - good because it can lead to greater understanding and cooperation in the long term, but bad because it creates cultural conflicts (which are often violent) in the short term. Look at Japan - ultra homogeneous, low crime. For the bad effects, look at inner city America, which is rife with conflict between impoverished black and white americans.
 
I don't think there is any need to preserve white leadership, but I do think there is a need to preserve traditional American freedom and equality focused leadership. This could be black leaders, this could be Hispanic leaders, it could just still be white leaders - what matters is that they're American leaders.
 
--------------
 
*Being is temporary in this case. I act stupid all the time. Everyone does. And everyone can change that, or at least try to.
 
 

Fine, fine. Here's my argument: (1) No matter what the establishment is, some people will dislike it. (2) People tend to group with like-minded individuals. (3) People with more extreme views tend to be more involved and outspoken, because they will typically be more passionate about either change or the lack thereof.
 
By 1, 2, and 3, people will group into factions that are represented to un- and semi-informed outsiders by the most extreme members of that faction. Currently, that's "anti-free-speech bleeding-heart America-hating corrupt socialist cucks" for the democrats and "bigoted racist backwards corporate-owned poor-hating fascist warmongers" for the republicans. Obviously, this is a simplification on both parts. 
 
This caused the current party divide, and made an individual like Trump inevitable. The average person sees the other side as intolerable because they see the extremes - the radfem SJWS, the Westboros, the KKK, extreme branches of BLM, etc. This prevents compromise. When their is no compromise, when the nation changes it will change radically towards one direction or the other - and when there is compromise, people don't hear about it. This is because outrage sells papers/gets views/farms clicks. Compromise does not, typically, produce outrage. Thus, people only (or mostly) hear about the intolerableness of the other side.
 
Culture moves in a pendulum - and the farther it swings one way, the farther it swings back. Everyone is a reactionary. Thus, when right-leaning citizens see the "anti-free-speech bleeding-heart America-hating corrupt socialist cucks", they rally and push back - and must support whoever can stop that opposition, which will tend to be an extreme, passionate individual. This is because the more anti-establishment, where the establishment is the current perception of the culture, the more votes they will gather from people who dislike the current culture and the opposition. 
 
This is why Trump (who I highly doubt will be a good president) was inevitable, and maybe a good thing to happen. Had any left-leaning politician been elected, the pushback would have been even stronger, and we could have got an actual fascist who would try for gay conversions or whatever - or the extreme leftists would have taken over and abolished free speech. Both the hyper-extremes are bad, so it is better to fluctuate between relatively moderate to somewhat extreme (Trump) individuals of the two parties.
 
People were sick and tired of the left (or rather, its visible extremities), so they went right. In a few years, the opposite will happen. Maybe the average will shift slowly (and it's looking like the average is shifting left), but drastic shifts that society is not ready for will bring only chaos. This is why I think Trump was a better option than Hillary.
 
And now we get to why I think you're being* stupid. And not just you - anyone who buys into the lie that the party is composed entirely or mostly of the extreme and visible individuals and groups we see. That is the reason we have the chaos, the riots, the fear. And those lead to further extremes - and the risk of individuals like Pence, who I believe is utterly intolerable (primarily due to his support of the suicide-factory conversion camps).
 
People need to see beyond that. They need to realize that most people are not well-represented by the vocal extremists in their party. I doubt this will happen unless there is a drastic shift in how the media approaches reporting and how we consume news or a major move away from the two-party system/political parties in general.
 
--------------
 
And a note towards what Raison's been saying. At first I didn't respond because I thought he was memeing, but now I think he's serious, so I'll talk towards it. Racial divides do not create the issue - cultural ones do. Diversity is a good thing and a bad thing - good because it can lead to greater understanding and cooperation in the long term, but bad because it creates cultural conflicts (which are often violent) in the short term. Look at Japan - ultra homogeneous, low crime. For the bad effects, look at inner city America, which is rife with conflict between impoverished black and white americans.
 
I don't think there is any need to preserve white leadership, but I do think there is a need to preserve traditional American freedom and equality focused leadership. This could be black leaders, this could be Hispanic leaders, it could just still be white leaders - what matters is that they're American leaders.
 
--------------
 
*Being is temporary in this case. I act stupid all the time. Everyone does. And everyone can change that, or at least try to.
 
 

Rynjin, c'mon man. Take it back a few notches. It's fair to be upset, but the personal attacks aren't necessary.

C'mon, man. This is 90% fear baiting set up by someone at Texas State, either a left-wing person trying to "start a conversation" or an alt-right moron trolling people. An online search shows nothing (though, granted, that could be because it's new - yet to spread, if you've posted it anywhere else).
 
EDIT: And as to Trump - he was inevitable. Not "him", exactly, but someone intolerable to the other side. When mainstream culture leans right, a far-left counterculture will inevitably appear. The same will occur if the culture leans right. See the hippies And honestly? I think better Trump than the next guy, because the next guy will be farther right, maybe way, way farther right. And maybe he'd be smarter, more aggressive, and more charismatic. And maybe then we'd be in deep, deep, trouble.
 
I am a republican. I supported Gary Johnson to get Libertarian some presence on the ballot, because I could not ethically support Trump. Trump won. We keep moving forward.
 
The pendulum swings. Life goes on.

Are people going to read your mind and detect that you're gay? Hell, even if you go with your boyfriend and hold his hand and kiss him in public, do you think anyone's going to hurt you? Most people aren't deranged enough to actually hurt someone except in self-defense.
 
Okay, it might be a little bit more dangerous. But there's always chaos and crime when any societal upset happens, and I doubt this will be more severe than any other. 
 
And please, everyone, stop with the backhanded identity politics. We all know they're bullshit.

C'mon, man. This is 90% fear baiting set up by someone at Texas State, either a left-wing person trying to "start a conversation" or an alt-right moron trolling people. An online search shows nothing (though, granted, that could be because it's new - yet to spread, if you've posted it anywhere else).
 
EDIT: And as to Trump - he was inevitable. Not "him", exactly, but someone intolerable to the other side. When mainstream culture leans right, a far-left counterculture will inevitably appear. The same will occur if the culture leans right. See the hippies And honestly? I think better Trump than the next guy, because the next guy will be farther right, maybe way, way farther right. And maybe he'd be smarter, more aggressive, and more charismatic. And maybe then we'd be in deep, deep, trouble.
 
I am a republican. I supported Gary Johnson to get Libertarian some presence on the ballot, because I could not ethically support Trump. Trump won. We keep moving forward.
 
The pendulum swings. Life goes on.

New Jawntrawn

New Jawntrawn

me irl

me irl