dashofweak

Green Hell. Greeeeeen Hell....it's pretty good. Most survival games are honestly pretty simplistic when it comes to the survival part of the whole equation, which probably has to do with a three-way conflict between how complicated real life survival actually is, wanting a unique game (like exploring an ocean) on top of the survival mechanics, and the desire to not overwhelm the player. A lot of survival games in general seem to have just three bars of food, water, and sleep along with health. There's a lot of games that have the survival aspect nailed to an existing game...or don't go as far as they could. Green Hell seems to be a game that wants to directly counteract that and I'd say it succeeds. The game really is just trying to survive in a hostile environment. One thing that I really really like is the fact that you don't just have a "food" meter. You gotta eat protein, fats, AND carbs. It means you can't just hog one food source and live off that. Nah son, you gotta find a complete breakfast. And it is always commendable when a game makes it clear just how much we take for granted in our modern day. Playing this game with a machete right away would be like playing resident evil 3 (the original) on easy mode. There's also a bunch of little things you can do to make your life easier, lots of little survival tricks, fire is a genuine advantage, and it doesn't NEED to introduce aliens or a super secret mystery. Just carving a living out of the dense dangerous jungle is enough but the story mode they have is pretty good. Plus the resources you use to make stuff seems to be pretty "realistic" no workbench made out of a collection of random stuff. If you like survival games, give it a shot! If I had to play just one survival game...it would be Subnautica. If I could play TWO this would be the second one.

Well I figured I would post my favorite soundtrack I have ever heard. I don't have much better for an actual source than a YouTube video, however: https://youtu.be/unpgolUFpXw My personal favorites are at: Open The Door: 26:34 Time Suspense: 30:19 Residue: 45:35 And my absolute fav of the bunch: Shocking! 25:00 I think most of these are worth listening to. And it's been awhile since I've heard a soundtrack that sounds so industrial and bizarre...which absolutely fits the show.

Good news! In episode 20 Freeman mentions that he's going to move out of New Mexico no matter what his lease says after seeing a river of radioactive waste. Well, as part as New Mexico's renter's rights laws, a person can break their lease with cause if their dwelling violates health codes, and unsafe drinking water 100% applies. Even if it took awhile to fully seep in and cause cancer, demanding that some kind of test to be preformed would reveal worrying amounts of radioactivity in the water supply.

All of those are (relative to population anyways) small groups that act on their own. Rather than one of two entire political parties for an entire country. I'm not responsible for the actions of The Three Percenters or the Proud Boyz and the people of Quebec aren't responsible for the Front de libération du Québec. But even if you were to increase the scale your point wouldn't work. For example as a leftist I'm not responsible for the actions of the GOP or the extremists that aren't being held accountable by the GOP. But you don't even need to be opposed to not be held responsible: the Church of Mormon isn't responsible for the actions of the GOP or their extremists as a whole even if a lot of their members are part of the GOP. They would be responsible for any extremists within the Church of Mormon itself however, see how that works? However, they wouldn't be responsible for anyone claiming to be part of the Church of Mormon if they had been (sincerely) disinvited from official gatherings, were told they can't associate with the church anymore, whenever those committed extremists acts they said they don't agree and wish they'd stop saying they're a part of their church. But what the GOP is doing is REFUSING to call out their own side's extremist behavior, making it clear that they don't mind those people being associated with the GOP, maybe repeating false to flimsy statements that aren't direct statements of support but give credence to the batshit things the extremists say (ex. I'm not anti-vaccine, but...). It's about voluntary groups holding their own members accountable. And I shouldn't need all of that to explain to you (or let's be real anyone reading this because we both know what you're really trying to do) that general associations like "Part of the Muslim Brotherhood" or "Part of the Republic of Ireland" aren't the same as "The political party you identify with".

I'm not sure if he's even picked up a grenade for the smg launcher yet, but when do you think he will use it for the first time?

Agreed, all the republican party has to do to become an extremist party is never stop, apologize for, or hold accountable the extremists in their ranks. If no one stops them, then that means they have the approval of the GOP to do whatever they want.

Sure buddy, whatever you say.

It's actually worse than what you describe, because if you ask why they're being so cruel they'll feign offense and whine about how they aren't cruel, and "you're just being mean because you don't agree with me".

To give a more concrete explanation: Notice the difference in how the GOP talks about Joe Biden and Barack Obama Like, the GOP won't even say "fuck Joe Biden" out loud, they have to call him Brandon or some shit. But Obama? Muslim, not born in America, outrage after outrage, dolls depicting him getting linched. Why? Because Joe Biden would do well under their system, since he's a White, Straight, Rich, Man But Obama just had one missing and that changed what they felt comfortable saying.

It's important because it describes who gets hurt, who does the hurting, and what behavior is tolerated and from whom. Plus, this is a frame I find more predictably applies to GOP behavior. You can plug in many different political parties and beliefs into "they want to hurt people who aren't them". But I'm very specifically talking about the GOP and why they appear to be such blatant hypocrites and liars to the outsider. A fact that Mr. Unemployed seems to want to really not talk about for....some reason.

You didn't address any of the three points I made towards the end. Some crucial points. Big one. Ones that, if I thought were wrong or questioned my credibility, I would want to address right away. Instead you want to get bogged down in the tiny technical stuff, trying as hard as you can to not talk about how the GOP is a vehicle for manifesting a white supremacist system with the very wealthy on top. That seems like something much more worth talking about AND is actually very relevant to the entire point of this thread. Rather than the semantics argument you so desperately want to have instead. What is very telling is the things you DON'T respond to, at all. Almost like you really really don't want to talk about them. Instead you're more interested in a rhetorical shell game. Why is that? With that in mind, let me ask for a 2nd time: what is YOUR source for what fascism is. So far all you've posted is people talking about if Trump is fascist or not instead of what you would consider fascism to be.

Very convincing

You know what the funny thing is? I responded to your post before, figuring I was right, but also figured, "Hey, let's read the article, see what the man has to say. And literally one of the FIRST PARAGRAPHS cites Robert Paxton: So the author that you just called a "Pundit" is literally saying on the Vox article that YOU provided AND said made some good points about the topic of fascism has the literal author that I cite for my views on fascism agreeing with me. AND from that same article: So even the author doesn't have a problem with me calling Trump a fascist. AND the sheer fact that this is matter of honest debate is a problem in of itself because it meant Trump engaged in a lot of behavior we know leads to authoritarian governments. AND I've yet to hear you cite a source besides this one about where YOU are getting your beliefs of fascism from. AND none of this disproves what I'm saying. In fact, you dodging the question SO MUCH and trying to get stuck in the mud with this kind of thing kinda tells me you'd like to talk about anything other than the GOP being a vehicle for manifesting a white supremacist country with the wealthiest on top.

Dude The guy had a hotel that people were openly bribing him in. He mocked a disabled reporter on camera. "Grab them by the pussy". We're talking a problem of degree not of kind. And you bring up an excellent point with Cumo because remember how most mainstream democrats came to his total defense without question, said that the women reporting the assaults liars, and how Cumo, despite all of that, is still an influential figure in the democratic party? No? That's because that's not how it went down. There was an investigation and def some dodgy answers from major politicians before that investigation was completed. But that doesn't come close to the amount of leeway or even praise that Trump received for his bad behavior. AND let's not forget just how often the GOP seems to spawn sex criminals now that you've brought it up. Gaetz, Juliani, Trump, Kavanaugh, Roy Moore, or hey, Herman Cain before he died of a virus that he thought couldn't hurt him. The GOP really seems to have a problem with sexual predators.

A. All of this still doesn't address the main point, even if Trump wasn't a fascist. B. Trump is absolutely a fascist. Ever read "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert Paxton? Because I have, twice in fact, and Trump checks like, every box. It's why I said if Trump isn't a fascist Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco aren't fascist. All of these leaders line up perfectly to the definition. I COULD go through all the attributes, but I would mostly be copying the book. And if you disagree with Paxton's point that means you think you know fascism better than someone who pays his bills through research about this exact topic. Unlike Shapiro, the man isn't a propagandist, but a scholar. So also don't claim this book is "leftist propoganda" because then I'll know for sure you aren't interacting in good faith. But instead trying to performanatively "own" me.