Seattleite

Aaah! No! Bad Alyxx, no spoilers!

Having a pointless argument with a friend of mine about whether his 14-year old daughter qualifies as a baby, a little girl, a girl, a young woman or just a woman. Anybody care to weigh in? Third party opinions might be a decent way to end the argument.

I think I have the armour system figured out. The key word there being "think". It looks like you get a part-specific point reduction and a percentage after it based on your total, armour and chems. Which is... Actually pretty badass. I am going to rewrite that part to accommodate the new system. EDIT: WRONG! Clearly the other value is not a percentage. I am just going to not fucking bother with it until I know exactly how it works.

XHERW5GT_Tk

Waiting for this stupid day one update.

And now to finally play Fallout 4. Thankfully, I preloaded so I don't have to wait hours to play... Huh, little... Update. Guess I should have seen that coming. And it's going to take... Hours. I still have to wait hours to play. Well, at least it's a single-digit number of hours. It wouldn't have been if I waited until now to buy it... That's a positive. It took TWO DAYS to preload on my shitty internet. Quit reminder to Fallout 4 haters: Fallout New Vegas was awesome. I had to wait SIX WEEKS after I bought it in order to play it. This little delay is meaningless.

That's what resolve does to them. -5% duration per point, and since max resolve is 10, that's a max of -50%, so three days. Also, just noticed I forgot the debuffs on several demons. They are all supposed to have one. Also also, the way the demon resistances worked in the tabletop may have actually made them more intimidating, without them actually being more capable. Also... The armour system might have to be redone, 'cause I have NO IDEA how Fallout 4's armour works. I figured it'd be Skyrim style, but nope.

That is what we like to call a "Critical Research Failure".

Writing a very long post. So long I have time to post here while I take a break.

Can you not lash out at people that have nothing to do with your situation, please? If you honestly can't handle that simple fucking rule, then go back to 4chan. You mean, can I not lash out at people who mock me about serious issues, who have done so before and I am sick of listening to? Sure. Blocking them is more efficient anyway. Unfortunately, not everyone can read minds. I'm still working on the problem. Moderate point of anger for today: Observing the existence of pretentious nonsense in what is considered 'news' these days. She doesn't need to read minds. She just needs to know the first thing about temp work, and not mock people until she knows what she's talking about. Maybe not even then, in this context. But, it has occurred to me that not everybody has done temp work, so here's the important thing: Temp work always has a set length on its contracts. Sometimes it's a week, sometimes it's a month, in the case of Aerotek contracts (Aerotek is my staffing agency) it's 1-11 months. Companies are NOT supposed to terminate your contract early unless YOU do something wrong. Not because they really only needed you for the christmas rush and they're all prepped for it now, which two clients in a row have done to me now. If Precor only needed me for the christmas rush, they should have signed me up for a 2-3 month contract and just ridden the remaining weeks out, like the agreement they signed with Aerotek and the contract I signed when I joined Aerotek both explicitly said. And if Nintendo only needed me for the christmas rush last year, they should have done the same. But instead, Precor and Nintendo pulled a bait and switch, Precor promising nine months after Nintendo last year had offered eleven. And I am extremely angry at this blatant disregard for the legally binding contract these companies entered into. Though, on a more positive note, I did DAMNED FUCKING GOOD to last six weeks. Most temps get bounced in a couple days for not keeping up with the expected pace or standards of quality, especially on night shift (where I was) where they also tend to quit because the shifts are ten hours. So... At least I can take some pride in lasting until they had originally intended to kill my contract anyway, even if that isn't what I was promised in a legally binding contract. As for the news: ic20MS58TkE Agreed. I find most family issues would be swiftly resolved if people would simply have an honest discussion about it. We've got the opposite issue with my roommate's boyfriend. He does everything his parents say almost without question even though he knows his dad is a complete fucking idiot. And once again, a little honesty there would go a long way.

I expected THE FUCKING NINE MONTH CONTRACT I SIGNED UP FOR, YOU STUPID BITCH.

My mood as of right now is somewhere between "enraged" and "murderous".

I was fired today for not wearing my glasses after my lead told me not to bother with my glasses. Also, "just got fired" means I am PISS DRUNK AND BUYING MORE. Because getting fucked up will take my mind off the FUCKING BULLSHIT that happened today. EDIT: IT WAS A LIE. They fired EVERY TEMP in the ENTIRE BUILDING. I did NOTHING wrong, they just didn't have any more use for us. Do me a favour and never buy anytging made by Precor.

Just take them as a big joke. You'll have a blast. This was an "infinite plane" flat earther, too. Double the hilarity.

Julius Caesar vs Shaka Zulu. My phone doesn't copy+paste, sorry.

Just finished an argument with a flat earther... So... Yeah. Currectly laughing my ass off. Will be for a while.

I only felt the need to say it changes nothing because every single time a female turns out to be a paedo, like 60% of the population feels the need to make excuses for them.

Every day the story gets worse. Now the principal has doubled down on his "suggestive" comment, saying he had his hand on her chest and she had a leg over his. Chest grabbing: 1. So what, there's nothing there because she's FIVE. 2. So what, babies and small children touch females' chests, it's just a thing they do. Ask any daycare worker, they deal with it all the time. So do your own kindergarten teachers. So do all the female students as well, even though they have nothing to grab. It is just a thing that happens. 3. So what, that's just a comfortable position for the hand if you can't get it around your cuddle buddy. Where else is the lower arm going to go, lackwit? Verdict: Not suggestive. Leg up: 1. So what, this is just a natural sleeping position, any two people with legs are likely to do this unless the size difference is colossal (then the smaller party would be all the way on the larger one), and she's slightly smaller so of course it's more likely to be her leg over him. 2. Only a fucking pervert would consider this sexual. Verdict: You, sir, are a fucking paedophile. Okay Alyx. I agree with you now. This guy is a paedo. Unfortunately, I am not the one who needs to press charges. Edit: Apparently the principle is female. Changes no part of my assessment other than the pronouns.

Prison is two of them, sometimes three, four and occasionally five. So then, do we count Jim Crow, the concerted effort to put as many black people in jail as humanly possible, as an act of genocide? Because technically it fits. But using the same term for Jim Crow as you use for the Holocaust just seems wrong. And even outside of prison, you can hit all the marks with a small group and many people have. The term is too loose, and only exists now as a buzzword for politicians to exploit.

Let's look at that definition. A definition I was already aware of and have read.: A. Technically, any time you kill anybody, this would make it genocide. That's absurd. B. And now torture. Even more absurd. Also, this is the definition used by rednecks to claim "white genocide" is a thing. Which it is not. Any overhaul of the term worth a damn would strip this one out of it. C. Now prison counts, too. Jim Crow = African American Genocide? I think not. D. Okay, got nothing for this one. Not that it can't apply to small scale crimes, but I just can't think of any examples. E. So, if I took all the children out of northern Nigeria and moved them to the US, that'd be considered genocide by this definition. Can't say I at all care for the existence of definition E. The problem is "part of the group" is too nebulous, and allows this kind of political abuse. Add a percentage or something, and it'd be better off. But the way it's used now renders it worse than useless, and redefining the term would not have an effect for many years and possibly not at all. It's time to retire it.

Well, at least now they have two whole weeks together. That should cheer the little cuties right up. @Jeb_CC I feel your pain, I lost my phone a little while back. A nice Nokia, too, now I'm stuck with a friggin' Zinger because it's all I could afford. Hopefully, that does not happen to you. But hiding from the revelation won't change the end result, you need to just gouse it and find out.

1. Dude, I'm just using this to get at a point about the word "genocide". I only have to play Devil's Advocate here for another, like, five minutes. 2&3. There's still precedent here. Stalin, the Kims and FDR *all* put minorities perceived as political opponents into prison camps where many died. Not one of them has ever had their actions called "genocide". As for the death marches, the US has done that a LOT throughout its history, and never had it called genocide. 4. I wasn't talking about the Muslim population, I was talking about the persecution of Turkish Jews, Christians and Pagans, Atheists and political opponents of the current establishment. And the simple fact is that not only did the Turkish government kill non-Armenian minorities, it killed members of the majority that vocally disagreed with them as well, and they killed several times as many non-Armenians as they did Armenians. So the name is just wrong on the "Armenian" end. But it's the other end that's important here. Let's take a good, hard look at the word "genocide". If the term was used right and what was done to the armenians qualified, then there's a LOT of things that need to be added to the list. The US sending Guatemalan immigrants back to be systematically murdered in their home country is participating in a genocide, the US internment of Japanese-Americans killed many of the people interned and would be considered an abortive genocide, what the US, British and Spanish did to the natives of North and South America would be the single biggest genocide in human history. What Stalin did to his people? Genocide. What Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong Un have been doing to their people since the 1950s is an ongoing genocide. So then, why are NONE of these things considered genocide? What distinction do they ACTUALLY have from the Armenian Genocide that makes it a genocide and them not? Yeah, I can sum up the entire reason the Armenian Genocide is called a genocide by most countries but not by the one that committed it or its allies, and the reason none of those on that list are ever called genocide by anyone. Political convenience. That's it. The term genocide is used when it's politically convenient for the people using it, and not used when it is politically inconvenient. The Armenian Genocide is recognized by 26 countries because it is politically convenient for them to show support to the Armenian people. It is not recognized by Turkey because admitting a genocide, even a hundred years gone, would reflect poorly on them and Turks are big on national pride. The US doesn't recognize it as a genocide either, not that you knew that part, because Turkey is an ally and it doesn't want to anger them. The reason the US doesn't admit it's been complicit in the Guatemalan Genocide is because it would cause outrage (not that it hasn't already), and it would remind people what the "good old days" of the US was really about (RACISM in all capital letters) and how shitty it really was to admit that the Japanese Internment was taking steps towards genocide. Admitting that the US was a huge part and the last actor for over a hundred years in the single greatest genocide in human history, the genocide of the native Americans, would be politically inconvenient. And as for the genocides under the dictators of the Soviet Union, North Korea and China? That's equal parts not giving a fuck about their people and not wanting to upset three current major world powers (the Russian Federation might not be the USSR, or even close to it, but it doesn't recognize the genocide). So, if the term can be used entirely based on political convenience, and its dictionary definition is so nebulous that it can be applied to things as small as the Charleston Church shooting, does the term really have meaning anymore? I, personally, think the word "genocide" itself should be retired because it was a poorly defined term and now only serves political ends. And that's my actual point.

I wouldn't go that far.

1. Wikipedia is not a source. 2. Even your only source admits nobody was actually killed. They were forcefully deported and died in transit or on arrival. If that counts, we should be upset by the ongoing "Hispanic Genocide", as most of the people the US deports to central America die. But nobody calls that a genocide, do they? Hell, nobody even calls the forced relocation of most native tribes (which killed far more people, and many more were directly and deliberately killed in the process) a genocide. 3. There was also no intent to destroy the armenian people. All of the killing was done strictly to get rid of political oppositiom to the new cunts in charge, and it is debateable if the killing was even deliberate since they died of natural causes in travel or on arrival. If that counts, then let's talk about Joseph Stalin committing a "Soviet Genocide" when he killed over ten times as many people for equally political reasons, with far less ambiguity of intent. 4. The "Mostly Turks" part refers to there being 850,000 dead armenians dead from all causes in that period (there in no evidence the other 650,000 ever existed, because *all* the data comes from before and after CENSUS information and the census says the Armenians in Turkey went from 950,000 to ~100,000), but in that same period 2.5 million Turks were *killed*. Because the target was groups thought to pose a political threat, regardless of ethnicity, the Muslim Turks just thought that all Christians (and Armenians were mostly Christians) qualified. So if we must call it a genocide (we'd need to call a whole bunch of other things genocides too, you would be buried under all the fallout), we can at least be honest and call it the "Ottoman Genocide" or something. Really, there's nothing about this whole, frequently repeated narrative that holds up to scrutiny. Not even the name. Now, if you want to twist the definition of genocide until it fits, I'm game. But the name has to go, and twisting the definition to fit adds new genocides in the US, Mexico, Central America, eastern Europe, China, North Korea, every single nation on the continent of Africa, and many more around the world that don't occur to me right now. Many of which were MUCH worse, but nobody calls genocides for some reason.

The Armenian Genocide: THE most debateable use of the word "genocide", the most debatable body count in a "genocide", and the most misinformation from deceptive phrasing to twisted statistics and outright lies (on *both* sides, which is especially frustrating) in any historical event of the modern era. And let's face it, at this point nobody honestly knows what actually happened and there's almost no evidence other than a lot of bodies (mostly Turks, not Armenians, figure that one out) and a lot of comtradictory accounts with no backing. And yet, people get EXTREMELY heated over it. So... Been too long since we had a good flame war. Discuss. I'll be watching from my hunker for safety's sake.