AmarkuntheGatherer

If my mum and dad chose to visit an occupied land and be the guests of the occupiers, especially right next to a city that's been made into a prison for its own people, I'd have renounced them and wouldn't support action to save or avenge them. And if I weren't strong enough to not be overtaken by bloodlust somehow and I started saying no number of dead kids is too many, I wouldn't be worth listening to.

"What if you were as bloodthirsty as us and hated the arabs as we do" isn't the killer argument zionists think it is.

Their approach to game design is as simplistic as their approach to politics or ehatever this moron was thinking. The top 4 best selling video games are as follows:

Minecraft: Enemies don't direct you towards shit, they spawn in every direction.

GTA5: In level design the claim sort of holds up but normally the enemies are pigs and again, they come from every which way.

Tetris: No ”enemies” to fight.

Wii sports: You don't move around so moot point.

#6 is Mario and that feels like it might be true but then again, the game forces you to go in that direction and shortcuts aren't advertised by enemies.

This isn't my list of best games or anything, but to take a small level/dungeon design concept and to generalise it first to all games and then to life, vaguely, isn't clever. This isn't theology dear fellow, your starting position with a western education, some games and 0 books doesn't grant authority for shit. I know this is just the musings of some kid, but most westerners are uneducated idealists who approach the world this way, and I've lost patience for it years ago.

Rogue one takes place right before episode 4, what are you on about

I've never seen someone reveal exactly what they are in 6 sentences. They could've done nazi chants and we couldn't glean as much.

Affluent white women in the 50s were truly the gamers of their time. The most oppressed class indeed.

Between the instance where people declare their pronouns next to their username and a chaser, I don't know who to believe. What a dilemma.

You aren't that bright I see. That's the point, apple doesn't give two shits what their people say except if it hurts the bottom line. There are no good guys between apple and Stewart, the only thing of note is that if true, Stewart is so sinophobic that if he didn't get to do sinophobic rants and convince people to beat China in the AI race, he wouldn't have a show at all.

Indeed. The article is pathetically low on details, but it wouldn't surprise me if Stewart actually cut ties because they didn't want him doing an hour of sissypea bashing on the flimsiest horseshit and he didn't back down. I'm sure he'd feel all smug and self-righeous about it too, the hwite hero of a billion and half oppressed chinese.

Stewart's pet project is defending the emergency service workers who participated during WTC attacks. If he really gave a shit he'd be speaking out against usian military endeavours at every turn so that such an attack wouldn't happen again, yet he's nowhere to be found.

sawy

Savvy?

A deeper investigation has showed me that this guy, a self-proclaimed narcissist, seems to think they shit gold and their farts smell of roses. A huge part of neoliberalism is that everyone's a stupid piece of shit, so it checks out.

I got curious whether the person who wrote this could pass the turing test and am now experiencing true horror. The person seems to understand many of the facts that made us turn away from western imperialism and became communists for, and yet instead of seeing a conflict, they steadfastly support neoliberalism and its backing of fascism at every turn. They're quite well aware of how liberal regimes are backing fascist atrocities and fighting communists for hypocritical reasons and that policy changes happened for capitalist interest despite human lives that cost.

I hope this is a comrade playing the long game for fun or something, because if not, if this person is at all a respresentitive of the mindset of the western liberal, there may be no hope but to starve them out.

Since you were so kind about it, I'm going to subject you to my thoughts. Mwahahaha!

Here's how I'm differentiatiating between "order of things" and "facts of existance": the former can be broken and corrected, while the latter can't. In every religion, there's an ordained way of how things will happen, there's a divine expectation which may clash with what actually happens. As an exception I suppose there could be an completely deterministic religion that refuses free will, though I haven't heard one and sort of doubt it'd be popular. A fact cannot be trampled. A theory is the best approximation to the fact we've got, and when we're satisfied with it we see the two as interchangable, so a theory ought not be trampled. Something not in accordance with the theory is an indication that the theory needs improvement, not that the event clashes with reality.

This is the part where it all gets mixed up. Religions are all attempts at seeing an order in the universe, and the earliest religions almost always developed out of the same curiosity as sciences. Folks saw the wind, didn't know about air pressure, but knew thwy could blow or suck in air, so they though maybe a giant fella is making it. Earthquakes rumble the earth, and we can rumble a small area if we jump around, so this must be due to some guy down below. Investigating beyond this most obvious answer is how sciences did start. On the other hand, sciences can take a religious tone. If you come up with a theory that's consistent with itself and a few facts outside it, but provides absolutely no avenues to prove itself, i.e. predictions that can be tested, there's very little value in that. Spending years and years tinkering with the maths of a theory explaining the most minute parts of the universe to come up with experiments that might be possible in a century is certainly bordering on a religion experience. Same with constantly trying to break from the standard model to find new things that change everything. But this is getting off-track and this isn't a call-out post. Let's take a step back and see what the author considers religion to be:

Religion can thus be defined as a system of human norms and values that is founded on a belief in a superhuman order. This involves two distinct criteria:

1. Religions hold that there is a superhuman order, which is not the product of human whims or agreements. Professional football is not a religion, because despite its many laws, rites and often bizarre rituals, everyone knows that human beings invented football themselves, and FIFA may at any moment enlarge the size of the goal or cancel the offside rule.

2. Based on this superhuman order, religion establishes norms and values that it considers binding. Many Westerners today believe in ghosts, fairies and reincarnation, but these beliefs are not a source of moral and behavioural standards. As such, they do not constitute a religion.

My biggest issue here is that guy's supposed to be a historian, meaning he should have the training and proclivity to read any number of texts of how religions developed. Yet, he chooses to go with a purely descriptive definition. He doesn't even use more specific language like Eco with fascism (which also suffers from trying to define based on characteristics instead of how it came about) so much so that you could arguably use this definition to call the family a religion. For small children, the parents are essentially superhuman, they create an order beyond the kids' understanding. Same with government, if a policy is in the interest of and desired by 90% of the population and yet not implemented, how is this not a superhuman order? I admit that latter one is a bit flimsy, but that's the natural result of careless descriptive definitions.