Glide

Yeah, there's a lot of cheeky "hurr, thanks for finally catching up!" in response to all these recent articles about Trump being an ignorant, bigoted dictator wannabe, and while none of them are wrong, it's just not useful commentary. All this self-servinf political-intellectual one-upsmanship only serves to talk down to people who are finally coming around to the reality of the situation, and I'd much rather be glad it's finally being said than jerk myself off over the fact that I've known it for the past 8 years.

I get that it's frustrating to have mainstream media only finally admitting to Trump's anti-democratic position as early ballots are beginning to make things look like he's losing this race, but it's just not constructive conversation. Spread the word, get more people exposed to this, rather than lording it over others that it's old news.

My man, if a shadowy cabal of elites were dictating who won and lost the upcoming election, they sure as fuck wouldn't be manipulating results in such a base-level way. They'd just have the numbers fudged at the end, rather than take risks with tracked objects going missing.

God, I can't wait for the election cycle to end so the majority of the trolls, nutters and Russian astroturfers can finally crawl back into their respective holes for another 3.5 years.

I can't believe someone uttered that monologue with the expectation that it's a winning argument. Like, yes? Perform sex acts without consent and the police should be, in fact, after you.

"You sick bastards will permit anything as long as it's between consenting adults!"

Ummm, yeah? Glad you finally grasp what we've been saying.

I feel like this was meant as a tongue-in-cheek jab at the post title, but sarcasm of this type is lost in text.

No satire here; I genuinely think it's a great example of a remake done well.

There are some major breaks from the original plot, which in itself would be neat, but they introduce an entire plot element that interacts with this derivation. The spirits I was talking about, "Whispers" (had to look up the official name, tbh), appear whenever the story attempts to break from the original story from the original release. In universe, this is explained as pre-determination, or destiny. Thanks to our meta knowledge, we know in reality that these spirits are attempting to maintain the timeline from the original release.

As an early example, after the events at the first Mako reactor, Cloud decides to collect his pay and go his own way, which is not the original intended path of the game. To correct this, a group of Whispers attack the party, and ultimately injure Jessie, preventing her from going on the mission. Needing another body, Barrett is forced to rehire Cloud for Avalanche's mission to the next reactor. Without spoiling specific details, the whispers slowly become a form of antagonist as the characters try harder to get away from the original plot of FFVII.

This is interesting in a few ways. First, we've introduced a new major conflict in the form of the characters fighting against a physical embodiment of destiny. They do not want the outcome of their struggles to be predetermined, particularly as that predetermination involved the death and suffering of some specific characters. This is, in my opinion, an interesting new plot element beyond being "the same game again."

Second, stepping back, and examining this with a wider lens, we can look at the Whispers for what they are to us, the players, rather than what they are to the characters. We know they are not maintaining "destiny," but instead trying to reestablish the original story we loved. As a result, I see the Whispers as the collective voice of the "change nothing" remake ideology. When a community asks for new content of IPs they love, there will always be diehard essentialists who want their loved stories to remain untouched; the Whispers, then, are these people.

So if the Whispers are a physical representation of the "change nothing" remake ideology, then what is there to make of the fact that they're largely an antagonist? This seems to me that the writers were critical of this culture, so much so that they ask you to fight it to earn the different take on the story. Of course, it's far from the only derivation from the original game, but that's exactly my point: FFVII remake was so far divorced from the conceptual, soulless "let's pump out the same game again" remake that they literally wrote that culture into a new antagonist.

But isn't it featured in the list of games being given a short film via Secret Level? I kind of assumed the goal was to promote it via that episode and re-release the game around the same time.

Dammit, and I JUST bought some of his chocolate as a gag/to say I tried it earlier today!

I feel like people are taking this commentary a little too literally. I don't think it's intended to suggest that all remakes are always bad and we should be ashamed of ourselves for enjoying them. Mankind has a habit of romanticising the past, and that's led to something of a modern obsession with nostalgia. These are fair, and interesting, statements.

That said, the choice of pairing the statement with an allusion to FF7 is probably not a great choice. The remake is fantastic, and isn't at all symptomatic of the problem of quick cash-in, nostalgia driven remakes. Hell, the first game specifically tackles themes of pre-determination, which functions as a pretty on-the-nose metaphor for nostalgia. And fascinatingly the meta-analysis of this is critical of exactly the same thing: there are literally spirits of sorts which attack the player and manipulate events to ensure the original story remains untouched, and they become a prominent antagonist of the game as the player works to tell a story that is different from the one told in the original. Perhaps there's something counterproductive about attaching this message to a remake that's critical of soullessly telling the same stories we've already heard.

My friend, I hate to tell you, but that's just not true. We are incredibly at the whims of everyone else to even get too and from work or school each day. We only have running water, electricity, food in the fridge, etc., because we all depend on each other.

Don't mistake being independant with being self-sufficent. Don't mistake requiring the support of others for requiring the support of any one, specific person. Every single one of us is dependant on many of us, but none of us should plan on being dependant on any one specific person for our entire life. And that's okay. This is how society functions, and life is a lot better for it.

Though I am sorry for whatever happened today to leave you feeling that jaded. Some individuals really just aren't worth it. It sucks when we think they are, and find out the hard way.

I've just haven't had universally good, or even clear majority good, experiences with cats. I don't "dislike" them, but I don't choose to like a given cat by default, because I never know what I am getting into. The cuddliest cat can and has suddenly decided it is clawing the shit out of me without warning, and without fail the owner acts like that's just their cats personality, or just a "cat" thing.

I've never had a dog react in such a way unprovoked. Sure, I've met asshole dogs, and they warn me not to go near them immediately. But I've never had a dog wander up to me, insist on pets, and then all of a sudden bite me.

I like animals that try to tell me how they're feeling, rather than flip with no warning, and I feel the same way about people.

I can see the logic behind the mistaken correlation between narcissts and cat haters. Cats are known to be independant animals, unlike many other pets that praise you unconditionally just because you provide the food. They don't feed a stereotypical narcissists desire. But it's a gross oversimplification of both human-animal relationships and diagnosible narcissism to suggest that there's any real correlation between the two based on that.

Don't you see? That's the enemy they're up against, so they have to cheat! /s

Right. As in all cases involving freedom and liberty, my freedom to swing my arms ends where your face begins. This is hurting someone.

Even if it weren't such a rediculously politically charged topic, these girls are likely to now have peers who see Ted Cruz's statement. They'll have to deal with some of those peers making comments, and mocking them for being "masculine." We have countless cases of bullying getting out of control and leading to serious psychological and physical harm, and now we have grown-ass men in positions of political power enabling this kind of behaviour to do what? Weaponize gender issues and spread hatred along political lines?

Fuck Ted Cruz, and fuck anyone who thinks a grown-ass man commenting on the gender of and posting images of young girls should be protected under "freedom of speech". This is abuse of power and child abuse. You wanna save the children, Republicans? Start with saving them from your leadership.