Came here for this, we can't afford to keep using neutral language to describe malicious intent. He's not doing any of this by accident, it's what he's been paid for.
Because it too frequently props up opposing platforms who are objectively worse for customers as a comparison, and turns out to be Tim Sweeney in a mask. One monopoly's existence doesn't justify introducing competitors with worse business models just so their CEO can get their cut of the middleman action. I care about outcomes for end users, and most of the complaints I see about steam aren't reflective of my lived experience with the platform, nor are they accompanied by actual ideas for improving the model.
Heh, that's fair, I think everyone was asking that question, especially during the Red Hulk fight. Vibranium only goes so far as an explanation for superhuman feats, I think. Still there was more nuance in the story and moral goals of the movie than I noticed at the time, but it did end up feeling like kind of an empty bridge to the next MCU thing rather than its own story. Ah well, it still wasn't the worst.
Actually he's a pants-shitting, trundling confluence of all of the worst possible qualities a person could have in this context: He hates American citizens and believes he is above them, and he is personally embittered by the rejection he experienced by the elites and craves spite and retribution, and is committed to the interests of rival powers by choice or by pressure, and is a brainbroke stroke victim with advanced dementia who was never actually intelligent to begin with, and also is just in all of this out of self-interest, whether that's profit, indulgence, or just plain evading prison and consequences for his many many crimes.
The issue here is that it can be, and is, many terrible things at once, but we humans tend to reduce everything to a single and primary cause... That's not wrong to do, but it does blind us to the depth of the threat he poses and the future damage he will cause.
I agree, yet people are constantly asked if Israel has a right to 'defend' itslef when referring to precisely that behaviour in our biased legacy media, and then don't blink when confronted with video evidence of the IDF bombing groups of unarmed civilians with thermobaric weaponry... Or refuse to acknowledge that throwing rocks in the face of sniper fire is met with improsonment, sexual torture using trained dogs, and death. I just don't see how anyone can point the finger anywhere else when committing to those actions, and I'll be first to stress the fact that terror attacks by groups like Hamas are not justifiable, either. They're just not baseless or irrational, that too is self-defense, and every aggressive action whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria by the IDF is GOING to result in more of this, and the leadership knows that. People have to call out their disingenuous assertions that somehow this is unexpected or unreasonable, and that because of an iredeemable suffering inflicted 70 years ago they should be allowed to inflict the same on other people without question.
People can believe what they want, but I just have to reject that status quo on humanitarian grounds, and it's not negotiable. I'm not going to passively observe someone who is knowingly or otherwise enabling the narratives that pave the way for more of these actions.
He is a person so, you're wrong. Also not everyone agrees with your bias, especially when you include the appropriate context: "Does Israel have a right to exist as a state that inflicts collective violence and murder on unprecedented scales against a large segment of their population based on ideology and skin tone without consequence?". Does Isreal have a right to exist? As much as any other state, and NO state has a right to exist if that existence is centered on violent expansionism, bigotry and genocide. This is akin to how nobody asks if Israel is anti-Islamic, we're being fed carefully curated narratives to avoid the follow-up, and to that effect I'll ask you: Does Palestine have a right to exist as an independent state and defend itself against foreing aggression? If not, why?
It's the question that's weird actually. Does anyone ever ask if Australia has a right to exist? Does anyone ask if America has a right to exist? It's called sowing doubt, and it's always in this context and it's always the same goal in this current media ecosystem. Abdul is just demonstrating the nature of the question which you simply don't see people do, either becuase media outlets coach them not to, or they're caught off guard by the implicit gaslighting. If you and I had a public conversation and I, unprovoked, kept asking you if I have a right to live, people watching might start to think you don't think I do regardless of how you answer despite how absurd the question is to ask in what we consider civilized society.
Came here for this, we can't afford to keep using neutral language to describe malicious intent. He's not doing any of this by accident, it's what he's been paid for.
So, this meme is pro-surveilance and advertising based on the format. Weird flex, but I repsect taking ownership of the wrong perspective strongly.
Too weak to fight, too corrupt to step aside for those who will. Big donor dollars at work, folks.
Because it too frequently props up opposing platforms who are objectively worse for customers as a comparison, and turns out to be Tim Sweeney in a mask. One monopoly's existence doesn't justify introducing competitors with worse business models just so their CEO can get their cut of the middleman action. I care about outcomes for end users, and most of the complaints I see about steam aren't reflective of my lived experience with the platform, nor are they accompanied by actual ideas for improving the model.
Viva New Vegas is good, look into Tale of Two Wastelands too, both are wabbajcak supported, and there's probably a lot of crossover in mods.
Ah I did not notice that, I often listen primarily to the streams, man that's disappointing.
Heh, that's fair, I think everyone was asking that question, especially during the Red Hulk fight. Vibranium only goes so far as an explanation for superhuman feats, I think. Still there was more nuance in the story and moral goals of the movie than I noticed at the time, but it did end up feeling like kind of an empty bridge to the next MCU thing rather than its own story. Ah well, it still wasn't the worst.
Based on nothing at all I'm going to assert that Epic's CEO Tim Sweeney is directly responsible for this attack.
that's a fact
Wow finally someone who actually watched the movie and paid attention, thank you for the comment!
Just want to point out that the Marvel president did at least end up in superjail... so... Still fiction, but not entirely fascit apologia.
The Majority Report with Sam Seder - politics and humor
Crash Course - general learning
Just Have a Think - climate tech news
Astrum - cosmology and astrophysics learning
Some More News - politics and humor
Zeteo with Mehdi Hasan - politics
Josh Johnson - comedy
Actually he's a pants-shitting, trundling confluence of all of the worst possible qualities a person could have in this context: He hates American citizens and believes he is above them, and he is personally embittered by the rejection he experienced by the elites and craves spite and retribution, and is committed to the interests of rival powers by choice or by pressure, and is a brainbroke stroke victim with advanced dementia who was never actually intelligent to begin with, and also is just in all of this out of self-interest, whether that's profit, indulgence, or just plain evading prison and consequences for his many many crimes.
The issue here is that it can be, and is, many terrible things at once, but we humans tend to reduce everything to a single and primary cause... That's not wrong to do, but it does blind us to the depth of the threat he poses and the future damage he will cause.
I agree, yet people are constantly asked if Israel has a right to 'defend' itslef when referring to precisely that behaviour in our biased legacy media, and then don't blink when confronted with video evidence of the IDF bombing groups of unarmed civilians with thermobaric weaponry... Or refuse to acknowledge that throwing rocks in the face of sniper fire is met with improsonment, sexual torture using trained dogs, and death. I just don't see how anyone can point the finger anywhere else when committing to those actions, and I'll be first to stress the fact that terror attacks by groups like Hamas are not justifiable, either. They're just not baseless or irrational, that too is self-defense, and every aggressive action whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria by the IDF is GOING to result in more of this, and the leadership knows that. People have to call out their disingenuous assertions that somehow this is unexpected or unreasonable, and that because of an iredeemable suffering inflicted 70 years ago they should be allowed to inflict the same on other people without question.
People can believe what they want, but I just have to reject that status quo on humanitarian grounds, and it's not negotiable. I'm not going to passively observe someone who is knowingly or otherwise enabling the narratives that pave the way for more of these actions.
He is a person so, you're wrong. Also not everyone agrees with your bias, especially when you include the appropriate context: "Does Israel have a right to exist as a state that inflicts collective violence and murder on unprecedented scales against a large segment of their population based on ideology and skin tone without consequence?". Does Isreal have a right to exist? As much as any other state, and NO state has a right to exist if that existence is centered on violent expansionism, bigotry and genocide. This is akin to how nobody asks if Israel is anti-Islamic, we're being fed carefully curated narratives to avoid the follow-up, and to that effect I'll ask you: Does Palestine have a right to exist as an independent state and defend itself against foreing aggression? If not, why?
Fair, that was a bad example lol
It's the question that's weird actually. Does anyone ever ask if Australia has a right to exist? Does anyone ask if America has a right to exist? It's called sowing doubt, and it's always in this context and it's always the same goal in this current media ecosystem. Abdul is just demonstrating the nature of the question which you simply don't see people do, either becuase media outlets coach them not to, or they're caught off guard by the implicit gaslighting. If you and I had a public conversation and I, unprovoked, kept asking you if I have a right to live, people watching might start to think you don't think I do regardless of how you answer despite how absurd the question is to ask in what we consider civilized society.
EA, it's in the grave.
tax him double if he moves away, the cowardly traitor tax they're calling it.
picklerick? More like gigajerry.