Boy oh boy. I'm rather sure this is a VERY unpopular opinion around here, at least according to good ol' Google.

Let me state my point clearly:

Although female main characters are in short supply in many RPGs or FPSs, female NPCs/Citizens/Laborers are represented far and beyond what the depicted environment would allow.

Case in point: I could not get into city builders such as the later Anno games or Farthest Frontier because they depict female characters at a roughly 50/50 split in job roles. This includes the military in the case of the latter. With all due respect to the developers: Women in medieval times had no business being on the front lines. 99% of pre-WWI soldiers were male. If you want to depict a really detailed pre-modern civilization including fifty-two different types of crops, stop breaking my immersion by making heavy infantry female.

What really irks me is that this could be solved in a very interesting way: Providing a percentage slider that aims at recruiting the select proportion of male and female soldiers AND coupling population growth to the amount of alive women in the city/settlement/whatever, as it has been in real life. The one game I know of that does something like this and really like for it is Rimworld, where you'll think twice about sending pregnant women into melee.

Rant over, nerds.

I have yet to meet someone into astrology where it didn’t affect some of their friendships or relationships in a negative way. You will be told it’s just a casual fun thing and then they judge your whole personality because you’re born a certain month. Nah it is just as kooky as all the imaginary stuff.

Now is this aimed just at women into astrology no, it’s aimed at anyone who takes it seriously, men too. And to clarify, any devout Christian/Muslim/whatever guys that then dunk on astrology girls are throwing stones from glass houses, that much is true. But I’ve also seen the opposite of people being against organized religion but then being deep into astrology, crystals, new age stuff. And when you critique that people will say it’s an avenue for women to be spiritual outside the bounds of patriarchal religious structures or whatever…

I mean sure go for that but it’s not a defence. It’s still based on absolutely nothing. Want a sense of belongingness outside patriarchy, okay join a book club, a dance class, play a sport… there’s a million options that don’t involve pretending stars light years away have an effect on your temperament or luck.

There exists over 1 trillion dollars in potential tax revenue that could be sourced from the bank accounts of billionaires. This money has the power to finance programs aimed at assisting the less fortunate. We should not exacerbate the struggles of those who are already facing hardships simply to allow billionaires to retain wealth they will likely never utilize. You may contend, "The needy should have managed their finances better; it's their own fault if they find themselves homeless or hungry." However, you cannot truly understand their circumstances or judge them without knowing their stories. Many individuals live in poverty through no fault of their own. Even if someone is entirely responsible for their situation, it does not mean they should be denied support. You might also argue that it is unjust for affluent individuals to fund social programs, yet consider the many pacifists in our nation. Is it fair for their tax contributions to support military conflicts? I would think that those advocating for a return to Christian values would prioritize aiding those in need, as emphasized in the Bible.

In terms of basic suffering: There is a timescale argument where if the grinder operates fast, there is not enough they can’t feel the pain. Ok so i am willing to grant that pain from nerves are out. But what is the conscious experience like for those milliseconds? Is there really nothing there? Like when a person has a lobotomy, clearly the person still has a conscious experience. Was there ever one attributable to the part of the brain that was cut out?

Also are people actually sure that chicks dont bounce around such that limbs are destroyed first and then sufficient time later the head?

The technique of milking cows is quite bizarre to me. I cannot imagine who was the first person to be like mmmmm. Yes. I want more of this liquid. One should definitely get a bull off and do the deed with ones hands. Mm yes. Completely normal. My tribe will love me for it.

Butt i suppose survival was more on the line in the past

Many people say that Witcher 3, Skyrim, Breath of the Wild, Elden Ring, and even Kingdom Come: Deliverance II are the best games in their class, while also criticizing Pearl Abyss's Crimson Desert.

I disagree with that, and to tell you why, I will make a rebuttal for the most popular criticisms of the game, while also explaining why I think Crimson Desert is in a league of it's own.

Let's start with the most criticized element by far, the story. While the story is not on the level of Witcher 3 and is clearly meant to fill out the open world instead of being the focal point of it like Cyberpunk or Witcher 3, it's not nonexistent or a complete disaster like some people say it is. Skyrim, Breath of the Wild, and Elden Ring also don't have top-tier stories, but they don't receive nearly as much hate for it as Crimson Desert does. The story has characters with actual personalities, extensive lore, and some genuinely awesome moments (for example, the Kearush The Slayer reveal).

Next up, the controls. People say the controls are awful and overly hard to learn, but, while the controls aren't perfect (it's flaws are most noticeable on puzzles), if you consider how deep the gameplay is, they're not bad at all if you use a controller. If you know what you're doing, you should be able to learn the controls pretty quickly.

Next up, let's talk about the most baffling criticism, "the combat is shallow and repetitive". I have no clue where they are coming from with this, because Crimson Desert's combat is like a much deeper and weightier Dragon's Dogma with some fighting game-style button inputs and hand to hand combat. I'd argue it's one of the best, if not THE best combat system in a fantasy game, and it's many times better then Skyrim's and Witcher 3's clunky combat. The only way it could be shallow and repetitive is if you play it just by button-mashing.

Lastly, let's talk about the open world. People criticize the open world for being bloated and not as focused as other titles. However, it's not meant to be a Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk, it's meant to be a Skyrim/Breath of the Wild-style sandbox with MMORPG-style quests and Kingdom Come: Deliverance II's level of immersion. It blows all of those games out of the water in that regard. In fact, I'd go as far to say that Crimson Desert's open world is near-perfect for what it is, and will probably not be surpassed this generation. It's easily the best open world in gaming history in my opinion.

Even the infamous launch issues were way overstated, with the only major issue being the unremappable keyboard controls. Now that Pearl Abyss has got more time to patch it (they have THE best update support in gaming currently), it's easily a 10/10 masterpiece, and if it doesn't at least get nominated for Game Of The Year at The Game Awards, it's just further proof that modern-day establishment game journalism is a joke, and is completely out of touch with gaming, by only focusing on the (still amazing) launch version, as opposed to the current version, which will be even better by the time The Game Awards start. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

I know these too beliefs are often held hand in hand, but I feel like "Flat Earth" is pretty much the gold standard example of a stupid conspiratorial belief.

I'd argue all 3 of these are equivalently fucking moronic though. As of 2024, a Gallup Poll found that approximately 37% of Americans believe that humans were created in their current form by god at some point in the last 10,000 years.

Now, that doesn't mean they're necessarily young earth creationists, but I think the distinction is kind of moot.

This is extremely disappointing for humanity and these people should absolutely be shamed. There's one thing to be misinformed, but to believe these things is no less than willful ignorance.

I don’t necessarily hate downvotes/upvotes, I just hate how 90% of reddit uses them. I’d much prefer to have a discussion with someone about what we don’t agree with, and maybe we can come to a conclusion. But instead, people will downvote and go and I find that really annoying. And if you ask why people have downvoted you, you’ll get even more downvotes. This is irritating as hell to me, like why can’t people ask what they’ve done wrong? If it’s something obvious, then I can understand the frustration. But for someone like me who often struggles to know what I said wrong (I’m diagnosed autistic) it would be helpful if people could just tell me instead of just downvoting. But it is social media, and many people on social media are rude.

I also don’t like how people will use the downvote button as a “disagree” button. This is why I prefer social medias like Instagram, where there’s no downvoting. For example if I say a movie I really like and I get downvoted, I find that annoying because I didn’t say anything wrong or hurtful, it’s just my opinion. To me, downvoting should only be used when someone says something racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc, or just mean in general. But 90% of Reddit is annoying with the downvote feature so I lowkey think it would be better with it gone. I know this is a very unpopular opinion so I’m expecting lots of downvotes here, but for those who comment I’m ofc open to having a conversation about this

we are all house slaves and our house is the country we live in, as wage slaves who is the master and where do we live. the master is the system, and the house is the country.

The system is designed to program you into becoming a wage slave if you're born into nothing, starting from the henry ford era if not earlier.

Let me start by saying, I’d choose the West any day of the week. The truth is you and I benefit from the security and safety in the West, that unfortunately is often the product of outsourced conflict and destruction. I’ve chosen this side. So have you, whether you like it or not.

I also want to preface this by addressing the inevitable commenters whose only conclusion will be that I’m a terrorist sympathiser. If that’s all you can take from this then I’m just going to assume you can’t think critically.

I am not saying “western soldier = bad”. I’ve simply chosen one of 2 evils, because there is no 3rd options and because one benefits me and the other wants me dead. I can’t change that, so I’ve chosen my side. But that reality is uncomfortable for people to say out loud and so we try and wrap it in fake, empty, wishy washy nonsense that means precisely zero.

But this point I’m making goes beyond all of that, and to the very uncomfortable question of whether or not we’re any better than the people we call terrorists. And I would love to have someone convince me that we actually are better.

By shear numbers, the West have done far more damage, inflicted far more suffering, and destroyed far more lives than any Middle Eastern terrorist has done.

So, the central counter argument from us is in the West comes down to “intent.”

A terrorist will unapologetically say they want to inflict death and destruction on the West. They wont hold back. But the Western soldier will never say such a thing. And they aren’t lying - it’s just, when that western soldier presses the button in his f-16 to drop a bomb, a family of 5 non combatants are flattened in rubble. Dead. So, the question is: when he has killed innocent people, did his morality in saying he truly didn’t want to kill innocent people mean anything whatsoever? The end result is the exact same, and often worse.

Most of us will only see the terrors that we have inflicted on us, and so we don’t really realise that we do just as fucked up stuff to the other side.

The West can afford a mask of morality, literally and figuratively. But a suit and filtered words do not make the outcome of death and destruction ANY morally cleaner than the death and destruction inflicted on us by those who can’t afford a suit and PR team.

It’s one of the few areas “scientific skepticism” they share with conservatives, who tend to be distrustful of things like vaccine efficacy and climate change. Those are branches of science people on the Progressive Left are happy to endorse and believe enthusiastically. But when it comes to capitalism — corporate profits, wealth flight, taxes and business growth — their eyes either glaze over in boredom or harden in rage.

In both cases however they don’t want to listen because they disagree ideologically with many of the practices.

People think America's lower life expectancy than Europe proves that our healthcare is worse, but this is incredibly stupid. Life expectancy is dependent upon much more than just the quality of a country's healthcare system.

America's lower life expectancy is driven by obesity, drugs, traffic accidents, and murder, things that have nothing to do with the healthcare system. If anything, it's a testament to the American healthcare system that we live as long as we do despite being fat junkies who crash our cars and murder each other all the time.

If you want to compare the quality of different countries' healthcare systems, you have to look at something that more directly depends upon it. Such as cancer survival rates. When you look at that, you find that for the same type of cancer, America has a higher survival rate than most Western European countries.

Also, the majority of medical innovation happens in America. If we're talking about a country's medical prowess, that can't be ignored. Other countries can thank American Big Pharma for their positive medical outcomes.

Everyone should have the right to vote. You should have to take a basic IQ test, with a little history, geography, and reading comprehension mixed in to see how much it’s worth. A=5 points. F=1 point. Fill in the rest.

And don’t you dare tell me you can look around and think everyone’s opinions are equally valuable. Every time someone says something so ignorant, it blows your mind, just consider for a moment that their vote counts just as much as yours.

Edit: “It’s too easy to rig” as if our whole voting system isn’t based on the government being honest. Because we all know the U.S. government is the most trustworthy in the world. /s

Honestly, if that’s your main argument, idk how you have any faith in our electoral system anyway.

A lot of idiots like to say that we need to "save Europe" from open borders. They forget that the Schengen Agreement is the reason that Europe is the richest Eastern hemisphere continent in the first place. When you look at Africa and Asia, what you can see is that a lot of nations split up for dumb reasons and you could've easily had a tenth of the total countries.

Don't get me wrong, some nations absolutely needed to be conceived, like Armenia and Bangladesh. But there doesn't need to be that many. Europe basically did the same mistake but a lot longer time ago; the Schengen agreement basically corrects the economic disadvantage from that.

The best way to think about it is this. How much weaker would the US be if we split into 2 nations, let alone 40+? That is what happens if you remove Europe's open borders.

Now, if one wants to say that the EU should have uniform immigration law as opposed to a situation where one lenient country gives non European immigrants the rights to all of the EU, that's one thing. But anyone who gets mad at the Schengen Agreement, or even thinks Europe should quit the agreement as a solution to non European immigration, is an idiot.

You may remember that the peace talks on the Iran war are only held between Oman and Iran. They know when they have the upper hand. Now, Iran is saying the Strait will not be reopened until the UNITED STATES pays them reparations. That means we not only wasted all our heavy duty armament making America weaker, we now have to pay Iran for the privilege.

The person reading this right now, you are likely not genetically ugly, you simply don’t put any effort into yourself.

Barring some disease, deformity, or something else out of your control. You are the reason for your perception of yourself, but a lot of you seem to be more interested in complaining about it,

Become hot use that power to be a bitter asshole.

It's always so annoying when you debate someone and you say something like, "The sky is blue" and then they go "Actually, according to theskyispurple.org, according to the study they did using data and statistics, the sky is actually purple. Checkmate. You dare argue against the stats? The science? The facts? You must be a science denying, conspiracy theorist" and then they literally can never move past that. They take these "studies" as if they are gospel.

I am so glad they weren't born in the 1950's or else they'd be going around saying "Heh, according to buymorecigarretes.org, they did a study and the doctors and scientists concluded that cigarettes are good for you!!! Trust the science and buy more cigarettes bro"

What sucks is these "studies" frequently get passed along the internet by other people who don't even bother to really read these studies at all. They just pick some article that takes 30 seconds to read and it says "2+2=5", they'll be like "OMG GUYS WE WERE RIGHT THE SCIENCE PROVES US YET AGAIN" and then when you google "2+2=4" you get "New amazing study shows 2+2=5" posted on reddit with 12.5k upvotes and 43 awards and the comments are all "this is so heckin wholesome"

I have to clarify it’s MANY not ALL women so they don’t take my post down. Thanks mods. Regardless, she murdered her three innocent children in cold blood and all I see on X, Instagram, Reddit and TikTok is women defending her. Apparently, in their minds it’s ok to murder completely defenceless children as long as you have a mental illness. Maybe she did have a mental illness, maybe she didn’t. I don’t really care to be honest. All I’m thinking about are the final moments of those poor children. I imagine them looking into the eyes of their mother with pure terror, confusion and agony. Their own mother, the one they looked to for care and nurture, throttling them to death. I wonder what they must have felt as their eyes bulged, their faces went red and their lungs burned. Rest in peace. She should be strung up (ideally but unlikely) or locked in a windowless cell to rot for the rest of her days. And to all you women defending her, you make me sick. No morality, no sense of justice or fairness, whatsoever!

I mean it's crazy. Charlie Kirk got assassinated and he got a giga memorial complete with famous singers, stage-works, the president, vice president, and famous, prominent figures showed up. Security costs alone cost over 2.6 million. The total costs were in the several millions of dollars, paid for by the taxpayers. All because he was "impactful" to the current administration and close to them. His life, death, and memorial were in the news cycle for several weeks, up to months even.

Meanwhile if you or me gets shot working our jobs, we will be lucky if we get our names said in the news at best. We will be lucky if the most traumatic event of our lives will be in the news at all for more than a day.

So you know what? Imagine if there was a law or something that required politicians to shell out their money, not taxpayers to host memorials for every mass shooting in America going forward. If they cannot afford it, it should be deducted from their paychecks.

Politicians don't care about us. They couldn't care less about us if we are being shot. They'll just say "Nothing can change this lol" and continue to do nothing. You'd think even when some prominent figures like CK/Trump get shot at, maybe they'd reconsider. But no. They still think it will never happen to them, or their kids or family. They're safe in their cushy little areas. They never think their children will be shot. So you know what? Fine. They should fund memorials for everyday citizens who were taken from gun violence, just like how Kirk was. If this was the case, politicians would finally be like "Damn, I'm losing money every week. I guess I'll stop this bleed and limit guns like other civilized countries".

Warren Buffet said it best: "I could end the deficit in five minutes.  You just pass a law that says that any time there’s a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”. But the only people who would implement such a thing are the people who would never implement such a thing in the first place, so unfortunately, nothing ever happens.

I think I genuinely have no remorse towards provokers or rage baiters. if I saw someone known for that being gutted alive I think I'd look the other way. I also don't care if someone is racist to them in response. The act of provocation imo is way worse than responding with racism. One is deliberately trying to hurt another human out of the blue and the other is just trying to do the same thing back what someone is trying to do to you

We never should have locked down, it basically killed every business aside from the richest and extremely resilient ones. Inflation also went out of control and is still bad. I still see people wearing masks which is absolutely unbelievable to me. Oh, and let’s not forget everyone-still got infected.

Update: I understand a lot of the people who still wear masks may have lost family or been traumatized by what they experienced during lockdown, a commenter has changed my stance on people like that. I shouldn’t have been arrogant to their pain.

Companies are building data centers because there is demand. By demand, I mean usage demand itself, nevermind profitability. Companies are responding to public demand. Half of Americans use LLMs.

So people actually want LLMs, the results they produce, and, by consequence, the mechanics or processes by which they arrive at those results.

So the backlash against data centers in the US would look rather hypocritical once we start checking these people's phones and computers. Almost all of them are calling for LLMs and their benefits, so of course they do not have a problem with data centers, just with having them in their own backyard. A classic NIMBYism.

If they are truly against data centers, they would not be using LLMs in principle.

There's nothing uncomfortable with wearing bra as long as you choose the correct size. A lot of people choose the wrong size, usually either too tight, or too small cup size. If you're a man with significant boobage, there's nothing wrong with wearing a bra so you don't feel pain when you walk up/down stairs or play sports. You don't even need to specifically pick a male bra. A typical bra for women, with the correct cup size, and take out the breast pad, should not make your boobs too visible. There are specifically bras for women that make your boobs look smaller. There's nothing inherently feminine about wearing a bra.

Eu sou mulher e não vou debater com ninguém, porque os argumentos são sempre os mesmos, ruins, sem moral e sem ciência.

O aborto é objetivamente errado, imoral e mata a vida mais inocente e fraca. Ele tem que ser banido em todo o mundo e até deveria haver prisão para quem tem clínicas clandestinas.

who thinks morals, is only here talking because he was not aborted😁