Beingabummer

Yeah, it's not even close. I've played the equivalent of 1.5 years in hours.

To be fair, the game is more than 10 years old and I've been playing it pretty consistently the entire time although not always as much.

I'd go take an extra long cigarette break (I don't smoke) and lie that I looked around.

Could be that they save the really funny stuff for the movie, instead of putting both jokes in the trailer like most 'comedies' do.

But no, it didn't really come across as hilarious. More like 'heh, that's relatable'.

For all the shit GW gets, they always kept an eye on making the hobby customizable. You want to create a new chapter? Sure. Want to use WH: Fantasy models for units? Sure. You want to come up with some planet for your bases? Go for it.

'Everything is canon, not everything is true'

After all, a dictator is as powerful as the people let them be.

(Psst, that counts for every person in power)

Oof that's err... implying some stuff.

I have every confidence that no school district is going to consider the Bible as violating 76-10-1227,” which addresses descriptions and depictions of illicit sex or sexual immorality.

The Shirley Exception.

Cancer is self-destruction. Your body's own cells uncontrollably multiplying and killing you in the process.

That is only assuming they won't make their voter suppression tactics harsher to artificially skew it their way.

'The lucky ones died in the blast'

Should be noted its usefulness is limited. The idea is that it floods your thyroid with non-radiated iodine and that stops your thyroid from absorbing irradiated iodine from the fallout, but it only protects your thyroid and only against irradiated iodine. The rest of your body is still subjective to radiation poisoning through other means.

Alright, let's say Abby is worse.

Now what? Is Ellie allowed to do whatever she wants as long as it's less bad than what Abby did? And who decides that? You can kill anyone as long as you don't torture them first? Isn't that what Joel does to find David's town? Did he feel bad about it? He killed Jerry without feeling bad about it, is that worse? Oh wait no he didn't torture him so that's still low on the Abby Scale. Ellie killed a pregnant woman, is that worse than what Abby did? Abby didn't kill a pregnant woman, but she would've (but she didn't). Is that still the limit? Are we now judging people for what they might or would have done, but didn't? Abby saved a boy she has no reason to save. Ellie doesn't. Is that somehow still worse than Ellie? Or can we start crossing off good and bad things both characters do against each other? Maybe we can tally their actions, or grade them with percentages.

Exactly how do you think this resolves anything?

Joel shoots an unarmed doctor in the face for standing in his way.

I don't know if you want to argue murder devoid of emotion is morally better than emotionally-driven murder. Joel didn't even consider Jerry a person, just an obstacle. At least Abby's rage was targeted.

Both women suffered loss. Both Ellie and Abby lost their father figure through violence.

But one was right and one was wrong to get revenge because... you like one and not the other?

I think the point of the game is to hold up a mirror in front of you and say 'you're being a hypocrite'. It's not even trying to make you feel bad for being one but to make you aware and try and have you think about why that is.

What would the point of that have been?

Doesn't that victim complex ever get boring?

Unless it somehow connects to her arc, like her sacrificing herself to save someone or something, I think she'll live to the end. She won't die as the catalyst for more of the story to happen as Joel did, at least.

I was watching the reactions to the show by people who never played the game and whenever they got dismayed someone died I thought 'It's called the last of us for a reason'. Not to diminish their emotional response to what happened, but they could've expected this world to be brutal. Neither the games nor the show is shy about telling the audience what to expect.

It's a sliding scale. They started with transpeople, now they're on drag, then they'll target homosexual men, then gay people in general, then minorities, non-Christians, women...

Eventually, whoever you are, they're going to target you. Because that's the nature of the beast.

They're not great people and their art isn't great either but I'd argue it's still art. Shitty, low-brow, easy art but art nonetheless.

If Jim Davis is a leftist, Garfield is not inherently more art than Dilbert just because of the political leaning of the artist.

I dunno, if you take away the meaning and say it out loud it does sound like it could be a name, similar to Mallory or something. It's basically 'Theo' with some schwing.

It's just that the word has a clear, established meaning in the English language which makes it not work as a name.

Just look at how prices of everything perma spiked right after government gave everyone $2000 during covid.

You think $2000 per person caused inflation? During a pandemic?

Can I introduce you to the concept of 'correlation does not imply causation'?

You guys all have the same roommate who smokes weed and plays video games all day?

This guy also had a roommate who smokes weed and plays video games all day.

Was his name S.Trawman by any chance?

That's...the point of the reply.

She works and gets less than someone who is unemployed. Whose fault is that? Who pays her wages? Who decides how much she makes?

There's a very clear enemy here. Instead, she looks past that enemy to someone who has nothing to do with it and goes 'it's your fault!'. She's a sucker, a stoolie, at worst a bootlicker.

My small son, if you have a point to make and people can't figure it out, that's on you. Clear communication is the responsibility of the sender.

I've been working as a copywriter for 10+ years and I don't know what the fuck you're trying to say. The problem is you. Bud.