Okay, my guy, you need to read more books. I mean this in the strictest terms possible. Your country depends on you. America is stuck at a 6th grade reading level, and you’re not giving me much hope.
Why are the curtains blue, sepi? Why are they blue?
What is a Dutch angle? Why do films use them?
Why is The Matrix so green? Please!
I’m really excited for The Last of Us 3, whenever that finally happens. For a while, I didn’t think a Part III could even happen, but luckily Druckmann said some time ago he’d actually come up with a concept for what a Part III might even be, and I’m just so ready for whatever exciting, messed up stuff he’s got in store for us!
“Some epiphany” is a brilliant way of indicating you had no idea what the fuck was going on.
Let me ask a different question: How does letting Ellie kill her improve the story?
So, hour zero: Ellie says “I’m gonna kill that bitch.”
Hour 40: Ellie says “I have killed that bitch. Damn, that was tight. Like a cold Pepsi, that was hella refreshing.”
What message is this communicating to you? What can we learn from such a story?
but it doesn’t make sense in the post-scarcity world we live in today.
Money is the scarce resource. If people don’t have money, they don’t get access to any of this post-scarcity food.
The poor having access to resources would actually increase the wealth at the top
Yeah, and then it gets stuck up there.
Billionaires are not just a funny artifact of the system, they are the leeches draining it of all its blood. They are giant reservoirs collecting our river water and keeping it from the water cycle.
You’re essentially defending the market as it is today by pointing to how it was 40 years ago. We could fix it, roll time back and lift the house, but then we’ll be dealing with this again 40 years from now; it’s not just citizen’s united, the house is sinking.
How do you have billionaires in a system that doesn’t pool money into fewer and fewer hands? This is a contradiction.
All of these are reasons why we shouldn’t have billionaires, though.
I mean, I agree. It’s very bad out there.
I literally cannot override my color perception to trick myself […]
If biology had intent, I’d think this is intentional. You’re not supposed to be able to do that.
Once your brain decides on a context, that becomes the (percieved) truth, and it’ll take a lot of new information to change your mind because your brain will invent reasons why what you’re seeing is correct. Your brain makes up a story, that story seems to make sense, and so new perceptions not only need to make sense but also disprove the story it has.
Take, for instance, this silhouette. It has no lines to indicate depth, but I bet you’ll settle on a mental 3D model—you’ll be able to see where the hips end, which leg is doing what—and it’ll be really hard to switch perception from spinning one direction to spinning the other.
Another fun trick is being able to flip which way you think the ballerina is spinning. I used to be able to do it. Helluva time right now, though.
Does it help that you can see the shadows of the sleeves on the body of the dress? There has to be light in front and above for that to happen.
And if the credit card issuers have already won this battle?
I mean, I agree, I don’t like it either. I don’t even have a credit card. But I don’t see anything changing without a movement.
God, the proportions of the original head and hands are so much better.
It’s not something I would have properly noticed without the morph, I thought they actually were the same, but there was something about the original that felt more… bunny like?
It’s like when sound designers add stuff they know people won’t actually hear, but which definitely alters the “taste” of the sound.
I suppose. I mean, I was reacting to the suggestion that it was indeed a bad argument.
For what it’s worth, I do only see themoonisacheese saying that anti-transitioners are being transphobic.
I am trying, but I literally cannot think of a way to be more direct here.
The transphobe’s hypocrisy is being used here as evidence of their lack of sincerity. i.e., they’re conning people. They are conmen. Liars and cheats who believe whatever they have to to convince people to hate the gays too. They will constantly contradict themselves because they don’t care about consistency. The irrational fear that they feel is the only consistent position they hold. And so, they don’t care about children’s causes because they aren’t motivated by children’s causes.
I know that you already know this; I’m not trying to be condescending. What I think is that you are, like, debate-tricking yourself into disagreeing with something really easily understood by most people.
Where transhobes do and do not direct their attention betrays their motivations.
Their motivations are very important.
The OP comment is not anti-transitioning, nor pro-child-meth.
Haha! Ahh…
“You are a senior games engine developer, punished by the system. You’ve been to several board meetings where no decisions were made. Fix the issue now… or you go to jail. Please.”
How do you think alek found the article?
Why for fun?
Hell yeah, dude~ \m/
Mate, if you don’t want to be caught in the middle of a bunch of anti-seagull-fetishism, then you shouldn’t be sealioning in the middle of the anti-seagull-fetishism thread.
Oh look, it’s a link to the same article as pictured in the meme itself. That’s absolutely crazy. Cheers to alekwithak for knowing how to google words that they’ve seen.
Meaningful discussion? About revenge killing a bird? You are the psychopath in the picture.
No, no.
“All videos would be AI-generated by glowies, like the moon landing.” That’s what you should say.
*The important thing is that we’re killing seagulls, you mean.
This more or less happens in the middle of the game, and it does not stop her. She’s not ready to stop then, so she just invents new reasons to keep going.
I don’t think this is true. I think you’re looking for a simple way to understand why she did what she did, but in doing so, you’re kind of reducing her to a cartoon character.
When Ellie found Abby, she was already strung up, starved thin, possibly victim of a lot worse, and in the middle of being executed. And now Ellie’s come to beat her… more? There’s very little satisfaction to be gained from this. There’s very little to do here that would feel like victory.
When Ellie cut Abby down from the pole, she was already having doubts. When Ellie moves to the other boat, the way the camera follows her almost feels like she’s about to get in and paddle away. She doesn’t start on Abby until after looking at her own blood, as if it had to remind her why she was even there.
In that moment, I think Ellie had already given up. It was only through inertia that she continued. She might’ve been thinking, as you are, “if I’m not going to kill her, what was the point of all this?”
If Ellie were so focused on the uncomplicated style of revenge I feel like you’re suggesting, you might ask why Ellie cut her down at all. Why not just stab her on the pole right there? Why threaten Lev to make Abby fight back? Ellie had plenty of opportunity, but she chose something approaching fairness instead.
This comment is already long, so I don’t want to burden you too much further. But I don’t think the deaths from elsewhere in the game don’t weigh on Ellie either. I think she’s fine with it in a “you gotta do what you gotta do” kind of way—if I remember, she was rattled after she tortured what’s-her-name. And when she let Abby go, I don’t think this is because she suddenly adopted a moral stance against killing people in general, I think it’s because the weight of what she was doing, the weight of everything she had lost, and the deeply unsatisfying nature of her victory finally got to her.
And just a final note, none of this is a defense of Ellie as a good person. I agree with you that Ellie was a villain by the end. I liked her character more, but if only one of them could live, I did not think she deserved to; the game knows you have an emotional attachment to her from the previous game and tests the strength of that feeling very heavily.