Messages

271

Off Topic / Re: America won a mech battle against Japan

« on: October 19, 2017, 10:47:15 PM »

you realize the whole things scripted right? this is more like wwe, not robot ufc

except my point is still a problem. if it's scripted then it's stuffty writing because it just kinda left me irritated on behalf of the japanese team. if it's unscripted it's also annoying that they acted like america won it fair and square.

272

Off Topic / Re: America won a mech battle against Japan

« on: October 19, 2017, 02:38:28 PM »

btw the american victory felt a little cheap lol. Japan won the first round, the second round tied (despite a massive US advantage) and US won the 3rd round--and then everyone acted like the US had a massive victory. didn't they like... tie? idk, felt like japan was a lot better in every way except for the fact that it was a lot smaller and lighter than the US robots. felt like they shouldve had a weight bracket since the US robot was taller and like 4x heavier than the japanese robot.

273

Off Topic / Re: America won a mech battle against Japan

« on: October 19, 2017, 02:28:21 PM »

holy stuff that purple hair woman was so annoying I legit muted her

274

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] BOYS STILL NOT ALLOWED TO JOIN GIRL SCOUTS

« on: October 12, 2017, 04:38:22 PM »

sometimes I wonder about tony's life and psyche. how much of this is character at this point? like, originally he was just trolling, right? but slowly he's become so weirdly political and full-time annoyance that I gotta wonder if it's really an act. can you imagine being in-character 24/7? could you possibly do it without slowly warping into your 'character'? the world may never know

275

Off Topic / Re: [HISTORIC] Boy Scouts to admit girls into their ranks

« on: October 11, 2017, 10:05:07 PM »

This is hilarious. This is legitimately embarrassing for feminism and especially the girl scouts, this is probably a bigger statement about how ineffective female leadership is than anything else. The Girl Scouts youth organization is actually so unappealing and dysfunctional that girls would rather switch over to the Boy Scouts because it's better in almost every way. We truly live in the most ridiculous timeline.

The Boy Scouts organization really just needs to absorb the Girl Scouts, can all the previous executives, and then split the program into two halves for each gender. Then we can just have all the programs of each organization under one board of leadership and everyone is free to pick and choose.

um, girl scouts isn't worse because it's run by women/feminists--that's insane. it sucks because the people who run both are old-timey christians who believe it's better for women to learn to knit and stuff than do things that are actually fun and useful. de-segregating the clubs so girls can learn useful skills is not 'embarrassing for feminism' and I'm at a loss as to how you came to that conclusion

but I'd agree a single organization (probably just 'Scouts' not Boy Scouts) should exist and let everyone of both genders pick and choose.

276

Off Topic / Re: [HISTORIC] Boy Scouts to admit girls into their ranks

« on: October 11, 2017, 09:25:58 PM »

so let's force ourselves into a group not meant for us instead of leaving the girl scouts en masse and forming other organizations

telling girls they aren't allowed to learn valuable camping/life skills because they weren't born with a richard is insanely loveist and I'm not sure how you can support that bullstuff. GS and BS aren't the same thing. Girl Scouts sell cookies and make crafts while Boy Scouts go camping and do much more physical activities. This inherently enforces gender roles and anyone who warps their mind to believe this isn't true is full of stuff. If a girl wants to camp and a boy wants to sell cookies, nobody should care.

277

Off Topic / Re: Blade Runner 2049 thoughts

« on: October 09, 2017, 06:59:44 PM »

Yea, I was a little bummed Wallace didn't die or play a bigger role in the ending. Maybe it would be too unrealistic for the sociopath businessman to actually get in a fight with K but it felt like he just kinda dropped out of the movie and didn't come back for the end.

278

Off Topic / Re: Blade Runner 2049 thoughts

« on: October 09, 2017, 05:21:28 PM »

Yea, I took it as that flower he picked up being the grave of Rachel.

279

Off Topic / Re: oh by the way guys only 5 more topics till off topic hits 100k lol

« on: October 09, 2017, 12:23:50 AM »

at 100k topics the forums will shut down. nobody post any more

280

Off Topic / Blade Runner 2049 thoughts

« on: October 08, 2017, 11:49:50 PM »

My post doesn't have any spoilers, but the comments might.

Anyone seen it? I saw it tonight and loved it. Really slow pacing but it wasn't boring at all. The shots were beautiful and it might honestly be the best looking live-action film I've ever seen. The atmosphere was incredible, from the apartments to the cityscapes to the giant solar farms and ruins of Las Vegas, the entire movie felt incredibly real and chilling. Just the vast scale of every shot really blew me away. The city-sized landfill was incredible and the inclusion of LA and LV landmarks scattered throughout the background were clever nods.

Anyway I loved the plot. K's development was incredible and I'm really glad they didn't go with the obvious 'twist' (highlight for spoilers) [ (K being Decker's son) ] and instead flipped what I expected on it's head. The ending was really satisfying and all of the performances were incredible. My favorite scenes were those of him exploring the city (like talking to the giant naked pink girl and thinking about whether Joi is real or not) and visiting that crazy glass-wall brothel. The love scene with the women merging together was crazy and the awkward performances really made it feel genuine.

Only think I didn't understand was (highlight for spoilers) [ (why did Stelline implant K with her memories? Was it to make him find her father or to give the Replicants human emotions [because we learned real memories cause synths to develop emotions, thus why they are illegal]) ] but there are so many possible explanations and the movie was so consistently brilliant that I assume it must have been explained somewhere. Anyway, it's rare that a sequel lives up to the original, and even rarer that it exceeds it.

This movie is more emotional, less boring, and more visually appealing than the original Blade Runner. They took everything the original did and somehow made it more generally appealing while still being brilliant and faithful. Anyway, phenomenal film. 9/10 overall, 10/10 visuals.

281

Off Topic / Re: rick and morty szechuan sauce promotion went great

« on: October 08, 2017, 11:16:23 PM »

wtf I've never seen the internet turn on a show as fast as R&M. the stuffty cancerous anti-R&M circlejerk just took over the internet in the last 1-2 weeks. I've legit never met an annoying R&M fan (tho I only know a few) and none of them have ever had anything even remotely resembling the copypastas. tbh at this point the counter-circlejerk is a lot more cringey than the supposed fans who think they're rick... since the former actually exist. anyway its an example of stuffty hive mentality and anyone who joined in on the anti-r&m circlejerk should feel bad because they're a handicap who gives in to peer pressure too easily.

personally I like the show, but I'm not a big fan. really hit & miss though. like 50% of the episodes are not worth watching and the other half are pretty great. I'm not sure where the idea that people watch it thinking it's like "smart people tv" came from. It's just funny? I always thought it was one of the universally funny shows where pretty much anyone would like it.

oh yea, the szechuan sauce joke was pretty but who the forget is willing to eat at a mcdonalds just to try that stuff. like the joke is that it's a really random sauce from 1998. I've legit never eaten at a mcdonalds (and I couldnt eat chicken nuggets anyway) and I have zero inclination to go try that sauce

282

Off Topic / Re: youtube ads have a new standard

« on: October 08, 2017, 12:57:16 AM »

who do you think he paid to make that intro in blender

283

Off Topic / Re: Gay coffee shop owner kicks Christians out of cafe, goes on vulgar rant

« on: October 07, 2017, 08:44:05 PM »

I mean, Ver kinda has a point in that you can be overly-defensive. If Rally wrote 'lol libtards' and I wrote an essay you could say I was overreacting. But I wrote around the same amount of text in response so that I could engage most of what he said.

Out of curiosity, I pasted our posts into https://wordcounttools.com . I wrote 178 words in response to Rally's 284. Ver has now written 202 in response... so, uh... that might have backfired a little.

284

Off Topic / Re: Gay coffee shop owner kicks Christians out of cafe, goes on vulgar rant

« on: October 07, 2017, 07:08:48 PM »

You are probably the least intellectually impressive person who has ever called me stupid.

I thought you just talked about how it was a bad idea to start your post with an insult? Kinda hypocritical, don't you think?

And we literally agree about that. Some of the grittier details obviously not but this was the entire point I was making.

If you want to make an argument that this is all about them being anti-abortion then that's fine with me. It's my understanding that some people in this thread were making the point that they should be legally able to kick anybody out even for a characteristic like "Being a christian" which we obviously both disagree with.

Okay--glad to agree. We both think discrimination is bad. A bold step forward!

I mean I think it's stupid that you'd support the notion of any private business being able to permanently deny service to somebody for something like, say, supporting gun control, but if that's the world you wanna live in then that's the world you wanna live in.

The forget?! When did I saw this? I literally called the dude an starfish for kicking them out. I'm just defending his literal right against people who suggest the appropriate counter-measure is to ban gays (which is illegal).

This is loving wild lol. Normally I'd just skip over stuff like this to a part of the argument that is actually worth my time but this is so incredibly ridiculous that I actually feel compelled to ask you why you are so triggered over the "Also liberals:" post. It's literally just a contraction that I personally observed and I posted it publicly in case anybody wanted to comment on it. The forget is actually wrong with you bro

Really? You were in a cesspool of conservatives jacking one another off about what a stuffty friend this guy was before you proudly announce 'AND TO ALL YOU LIBERALS IN THIS THREAD WHO SAY X' despite the total lack of anyone who fit that caliber. I singled that out because it's hilarious how warped your perception of those events was. You were surrounded by people that agreed with you and still felt like you had to call out the 'swarming liberals'. You're literally virtue signalling.

Well it's a good thing they've never done anything wrong

Completely irrelevant. I don't have to agree with the law to defend it as the law.

reminder
every race is and has been in slavery at some point before

Yea but we live in the United States where the vast majority of slaves were African Americans. What happened overseas isn't relevant to our people.

285

Off Topic / Re: Gay coffee shop owner kicks Christians out of cafe, goes on vulgar rant

« on: October 07, 2017, 06:58:28 PM »

And the original Constitution mentions race no where correct? Yes local authority at the time was definitely tribal but no where in the over reaching document is it ingrained in this nation.

The hell does the Constitution have to do with anything? You realize that the Constitution was just our first drafted set of laws--we have way more (that are totally tribal). I'm not sure why you're obsessing over the fact that our very first order wasn't tribal when we passed literally thousands of tribal laws afterward.

which is exactly why most of the founding fathers were very pro slavery, right?

Uh... almost all of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, though most of them recognized the moral quandary of 'all men are created equal... except blacks.'