|
Lightning Lord posted:I wish they really pushed the idea that Ren had his rear end kicked before that fight. Yeah, it's there but they left some reasonable doubt that let people get away with saying Rey's Superman now Honestly I don't think it would have mattered. Pain and even injuries are real abstract and difficult to convey without a really obvious gushing wound. Doubly so for nerds who indulge heavily in media where neither really exist at all. It's not surprising that the fact Ren has to pause in the middle of the fight so he can wail on himself to keep going, which is also a bit weird and hard to understand, didn't connect with a lot of people. Really the only thing they probably could have done would be to have some shots, either from Ren's perspective or focused on him, with the generic whining pain noise and blurry pain filters all over it. edit: I mean I guess they could have had closeups of his face and he's gritting his teeth or something? Like that's the other issue, the general way humans express pain don't really mesh well with the character of Murderlord the Living Hateboner. TGLT fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jun 26, 2017 |
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:Which is why it's weird to show him pulling that off early on. It would be more effective if we slowly realize all his power is projection and he's actually a rookie. He's not a rookie though. His fatal flaw is that he's deeply insecure, not that he's incapable. It's why he fucks up and ultimately lets the group escape Jakuu with BB-8 in the first place, and why he fucks off when he captures Rey instead of hanging around to grab BB-8 as insurance. The Last Order probably could have killed them all at the start and he probably could have grabbed BB-8 the second time they fought, but he has an overwhelming need to prove how big and bad and tough he is. edit: poo poo, even his refusal to kill Rey comes out of his desire to do something impressive instead of doing something safe. TGLT fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:like boner said it's projection and it's also that "emotional" is just their weird way of saying "empathy". for some reason """rationals""" see being empathetic as weakness. I don't know that it's projection so much as it is that anger is considered a masculine trait. Calling some one emotional is just a barely round about way of saying they're too feminine. They aren't emotional from their perspective because emotional only encompasses the bad unmanly emotions. TGLT fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
It's not a video game where if you get enough debate points an announcer shouts ANTIFA WINS and the nazis have to wait until the next round to try again. There is no defeating an ideology in debate except by convincing people that they're wrong, thereby starving them of support. And "you can't reason some one out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" is just dumb self aggrandizing poo poo. No, right wing ideas are not based on sound logic, but there are still reasons people believe in them. They're humans, not chaos elementals, and that "can't reason" adage is just a way to explain why your super cool rational logic isn't winning the day like Socrates while exempting you from actually trying to understand how people get to that point. I'm not saying you can win them over with good civil debates. Most people who stake out a public position aren't going to get swayed by that, and most people don't really care what some rando says, but there is a legitimate need to understand how people fall into stupid garbage beliefs other than "well they're just crazy and irrational."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
I mean, you give them enough time they'll just put the diapers on themselves. edit: Seriously though, I think the way western cultures, and especially white culture and nerdy culture, have enshrined spite, anger, and dominance are big reasons why debate with alt right types tends to fail. TGLT fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
temple posted:You aren't going to defeat ideology with a debate, its a substitute for violence. Its a confrontation. I mean you're the one that said it was a non-violent way to "defeat their ideology". But if you're not flipping anyone then you're not actually defeating anything you're just doing it to feel good, and at that point masturbation's a lot easier.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
temple posted:People change themselves. I don't mean defeat literally. Hope this helps. So what you're saying is people do need to be engaged with and that you can convince them to stop being "willfully ignorant"? Okay, this is the problem. If you aren't doing it to sway them, how exactly are you proposing they change? Do you think people just spontaneously become good? Or do you think the only merit to a debate is to an audience who is totally undecided? TGLT fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:mocking dumbasses isn't why trump is president. One might think that "except" is a key word in that sentence. MiddleOne posted:People can be convinced of anything. Propaganda works and ignoring it has never achieved anything. doin a thing reread temple's first post on this page
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Temple stated the idea that debating people is meaningful just to confront the ideas even if swaying the crowd might mostly be futile. I supplemented that reasoning by stating that propaganda works best in a vacuum and has to be confronted which supports Temple's argument. I'm specifically reusing Temple's terms to address the idea that people can't be convinced, since if they can't be convinced I'm not sure how Temple expects them to change anyways. The value of a non-violent confrontation, ie debate, is that it can avoid a violent confrontation later by helping people change. That or intimidation, but there are way better ways to intimidate people than saying "Hey I think you're wrong and here's why." temple posted:You can't convince them, you resist them and their ideas. They will decide where they stand. Fascism, racism, sexism, etc....should be confronted because it hurts people. And debating people who you think will never be convinced amounts to a resistance how? Arguing with people under the assumption that they'll never change isn't some heroic confrontation, it's just intellectual masturbation. If you don't think it works then cool, but be honest and consistent about it. Seriously, how many people on this forum have posted "I used to be a libertarian but then I read X and listened to Y and thought about Z"? That's how Contra describes her own path to where she is now. Shaun as well. There's nothing special about people on this forum that made them good people, and there's nothing about the far right that makes them magical dumb dumbs that are just cursed to forever be poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:People can change their ideas, problem is that is something must they do on their own. Debates are team-oriented events and are inherently unsuited for convincing anyone of anything but what they do accomplish is eroding the foundations of arguments by either challenging dominant explanations or providing alternative ones. Propaganda is the art of presenting seemingly reasonable arguments in an environment where the assumptions of the argument can go unopposed. In the current social media climate debates are valuable because they present one of the few avenues for reaching audiences which can otherwise be completely isolated from opposing viewpoints and hopefully planting the seed of doubt before they're too far gone. See, in this case I think we just have a different definition of convince. For me, planting those seeds of doubts and eroding the foundations of an argument is convincing some one. Nor do I see it as an entirely external or internal process. I don't see convincing someone as a binary in the moment sudden flip. I see it as a gradual process that a bunch of people generally contribute to, including oneself. temple posted:Because I keep telling you over and over that you don't debate them to change them. gently caress stop responding to me with that same point. Like I said, if that's how you feel that's fine but you ought to be honest that it's just feel good bullshit then, not some sort of meaningful confrontation or resistance. Groovelord Neato posted:debates are always intellectual masturbation. it's why in debate team you get assigned a position - you'll often have to debate a position that is objectively untenable or morally reprehensible. hillary destroyed trump in the debates and what good did it do. pence lied the entire debate against kaine but the media acted like pence won just due to how he acted. You get assigned a position because it's about your capacity to craft an argument not about actually convincing people at debateathon 2017. I hope. I hope no one is secretly weaponizing debate clubs. But I do agree with you that I think big public debates, particularly ones that get treated as a spectacle like presidential debates, aren't really a great way to convince much of anyone . There needs to be a fundamental willingness to change that people don't tend to bring to big public debates like that. I don't think that means you can't reach people though, I think it just means you need to figure out how they came to their positions instead of just writing them off as wholly irrational. People don't just pluck ideologies like racism and poo poo out of the void, people reached them before. And hey, maybe you personally can't reach them. Maybe some one's ideologies predominantly formed based on the opinions of people they already respect and elevate, and if you're not gonna be able to get into your position that's just how it is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:DS2 and DS3 both have an unacceptable amount of fan service and call backs to DS1. DS2 barely has any though other than Ornstein, and DS3 has a whole bunch because the point of that game is Dark Souls the video game series needs to end so they can go on to do other things. edit: Seriously, it's not just "Oh it's Anor Londo!" it's "Oh it's Anor Londo and oh jesus it's covered in slime and oh god that gross slug ate most of Gwyndolin and oh man everything's just gone to poo poo." bessantj posted:While trying to find out who Tara McCarthy is I came across this Youtube channel Hi, I Think I'm Real who seems to be some 'centrist' alt-righter who did a video on McCarthy calling her a SJW back in August, he seems to have done these videos on a few of the alt-right women so I guess they're just not alt-right enough. Well yeah, she's a woman talking politics. Hopefully this whole thing helps some of these women understand that just because they're white and say the right things doesn't mean a bunch of misogynists aren't gonna treat them like poo poo for being women. TGLT fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Then you've not paid attention. NG+ has boss souls from DS1 dropping from bosses. I'm aware. It's the lore explanation for why they have the capabilities they have and why they are the way they are. Also Nashandra and the other queens are fragments of Manus. edit: There's a few weapons also, but Ornstein is the only thing that comes to mind that just seems to exist because. Heide's Tower of Flame is probably not Anor Londo and Ornstein probably did die back there, so shadow Ornstein is pure cameo. TGLT fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:... So because they say it's lore, it's suddenly not fan service or a callback. Then nothing in DS3 is fan service or a call back because it's got lore explanations as well. Except Andre, as far as I can remember. It's not lore, it's the story. The Great Souls and Manus are the old creeping back into the new. It's a game where the downfall of everything and everyone is obsession, it's fitting that for the main four this is partly an obsession with power and the past. DS3 does have a lot of fan service, like Storm Ruler and Seigward basically being a slightly more brave Siegmeyer (edit: man I flipped them and got their names wrong, that is how much they are the same character and also how dumb that is), and probs demon ruins which is again trash poo poo, but a fair chunk of the stuff from the past isn't just fan service. I mean I haven't played the DLC so gently caress me if they went all in, but stuff like Anor Londo is back but rotten because the point of the game is things die and it's okay to let things end, and just desperately clinging on to things is bad. Like the endings for DS3 are: try to keep everything the way it is and fail, let things keep festering and be the king of a heavy metal album cover, or let the dark souls universe finally die so that something new can take it's place. Groovelord Neato posted:ornstein and smough in ds1 were illusions. You got their souls so I'd say they were probably legit? I dunno that whole thing's weird. TGLT fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:Ohhhhhh my god shut the gently caress up about Dark Souls. No, all threads are Dark Souls threads. But in response to that story, "computer-learning" hasn't exactly done a lot of good for content moderation on Youtube. I'd bet it's gonna start tagging a lot of videos about people discussing ISIS and poo poo alongside whatever ISIS videos it does catch.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 18:30
|
|