jazzy

It's always fun guessing and looking back. Seeing people in 2015/2016 talk about Trump and seeing him win was pretty crazy. So let's make a thread for our eventual 2025 selves to look at Sure, a lot will change in two years, but who would you want to win, and who do you think will win, each primary in 2024? Ignoring who would win the overall race. Just candidates. Memes count (by all measure they could have a chance of winning at this point) R Who I want - Dan Crenshaw. He can come off as a little too extreme sometimes but he has a decent head on his shoulders. He has military experience which is a big plus when we consider statistics- more than half of all presidents had military service. Who I think - DeSantis looks really strong right now. I think Abbott is strong too, but DeSantis will probably do better. Trump will be too old IMO. D Who I want - Pete Buttigieg. Young, was a mayor, has military service, has experience running in the primary, and has cabinet experience. His 2020 campaign is on wiki and most, if not all, I agree with. I think his youth is a big plus in the current climate. He's not nearly as tainted as other people. Who I think - Honestly, no idea. Kamala seemed to be in line to get it but given Biden's mediocre performance, her own polling has hurt a lot. I think Pete Buttigieg actually has a good shot. Otherwise Gavin could make a run. Oh, and just for complete pants on head stupid- I hope Biden and Trump win their primaries and Andrew Yang runs front runner independent and clinches the vote. #yanggang

I have a headset and have played a variety of games. I'd be down to do something, I can't really play games with the active movement stuff as I get sim sickness, but I can do games that let you do teleporting, or don't require a lot of locomotion

bruh we two hours apart

Yeah you need to think a little bit more outward. I'm sure a mother raising a kid she doesn't want would totally pan out for the kid. Do you really think this is sustainable? Forcing women to have kids and raise them even though they don't want to? I'm sure that would be in the best interest for them. Also fails to account for rape

Reworded for you. How would you answer this question?

No, because you shouldn't be forced to keep another person alive/well using your own limited resources.

.... yes? You're not legally or morally obligated to take care of someone else, regardless of if it was your choice to bring that person into the world. You are legally able to give a child up to the state. Weren't you the one who said healthcare shouldn't be a human right?

So can someone please rebuke my last comment on this? How exactly is forcing women to have a child not slavery? The circumstances of one's creation are irrelevant, be it rape, incest, or consent with or without birth control. A woman must dedicate her next 7~10 months to the sustenance of another human being- her own money to receive medical care, her own money to provide more food for herself and the fetus, her own trauma, pain, blood, and risk to have said child. And on what basis? Because of something someone else did to her? A woman cannot get pregnant on her own. Yet every single component of pregnancy and birth falls unto her. Some people seem to think that abortion is the right, but abortion is just a means to an end: abortion is the tool that affirms women are not slaves to another human being.

Scheduling a vasectomy with a urologist next week. I was putting it off but fuck it

But that's my point. If you have people purposely limiting the intermingling of new ideas or perspectives this is dangerous. Sheltering your kids from the existence of gay ppl is not an adequate viewpoint in my opinion. It's a sign of fear or anger that your child could latch onto as well. I think you're trying to put words into my mouth. Not very comrade of you. This sounds like an argument of don't show kids drag queen shows. We're talking about two women having a kiss. Like I said, been done before with straight couples w/ no issues. See that's the crux of my argument- this doesn't sound very understanding Sure, nothing is set in stone. But my argument isn't just that they're hiding it. It's a very definitive sign they're bigoted if they're unfeeling enough to hide it. Like I said, there seems to be a serious connotation if you have a problem with the existence of gay people in movies that you would not approve of your child being gay.

>Consolidate to 1 dedi Not to jump in here off an 8 year perm with little to no understanding of the last 3 years except word of mouth from random members on VC but why don't you guys just drop the dedi's and use high quality VPS providers line Linode, Lightsail, or even OVH (looks like your dedis are on OVH today anyway)? One VPS for one instance, delete the ones that die, create new ones to try new things. I mean shit you could even look at cloud-provider burstable instances so you accrue CPU credits for the downtime for use on burst levels later. I'd be curious to see what monitoring tools you're using and seeing how each of your ds instances are doing perf wise on idle & on max possible activity, bandwidth requirements, etc. Create an environment in the cloud where you scale up/scale down based on events. Automate server creation (guessing you guys already have scripts or use public/open source ones for spinning up dedi instances of various gameservers). Honestly I think I had said this 10+ years ago but SG should've just outright bought hardware and colo'd it somewhere and stuck with it. But now that seems like a foregone conclusion to do your own HW because cloud providers are undercutting eachother on the daily and it is way more economical to go that route. TTT - I feel like the csgo version is not great (2hrs played) and the gmod version is OK but there's a lot more gmod TTT servers and that's more competition. TBH I feel like it would be cool to just try and be the first ones on s&ndbox's implementation and ride that wave. I'm definitely going to play s&ndbox TTT when it drops. CSGO TTT seems REALLY foreign to me coming from gmod's version. Discord - I hope you guys continue to grow this. My feeling from participating in other communities that are as old as SG is this: SG has history and has a lot of people coming back, they pop into the discord and they chill. They play games with fellow old/new members and create new cliches/groups/times. They invite their friends and a community is built that is somewhat "decentralized." I really think communities like SG should emphasize how great discord is and really function within that scope. It feels like the younger gen doesn't like forums as much. Player servers are on the downturn and that's really just how it is, it's not an SG specific thing. There are many games that require communities and those can still be drivers for SG to keep memberships up but honestly I think across the board just pulling back "permanent" server presence and riding with the wave that is flavor of the month gaming is probably safer I think discord is great here but you guys could clean up some channels a little bit. I think there is too much usage of categories so it makes the UI looks cluttered for new users, presentation is really important and when you have 5-6 dead channels it looks really awkward when you can consolidate them down. My 2c is for the text channels: -----normal shit------ #general #random #politics/news #oc (covers food, art, yada yada) #aww (cute things, animals) -----games------- #games #specific-game-that-is-popular-1 #specific-game-that-is-popular-2 #specific-game-that-is-popular-3 #specific-game-that-is-popular-4 Really just what I want to push is scrolling thru this all the time to see who's in VC's below isn't great (also because they're off center) edit: also fully aware I deserve shit for coming back for less than 1 month and saying a bunch of stuff about do X Y. I'm not trying to ride anyone's dick I just wanted to give my experiences in the last few years still being terminally online and how that is maybe relevant to you guys. I really don't want to come in here and sound like I know best. I just want to give my perspective and I hope you guys won't totally roll me over the coals for that. Thanks!

Honestly after the discussion we had in VC it had me deep in thought a little bit on 2 things: (irrelevant) 1) It's kind of funny how the last 3 threads have all ended up revolving almost entirely around babies/children/kids/teenagers and almost all involving the same base topic- the idea that kids have very little rights/protections on their own and require external protection and/or supervision. The reality is our discussions, viewpoints, and voting habits determine entire lives of people because by in-large children have no recourse to change much on their own during adolescence. It's a little scary if you think about it! 2) Your comment (in vc) on children and their need for attention guiding their actions holds true, but I think it was a little too black & white the more I thought about it. I think back to studies that show just believing babies got hurt by doing something will cause them to cry, even though nothing really happened to hurt them other than that set expectation. But---- edit: just realized I didn't really fully finish this thought out, something something kids are also inquisitive and do need curiosity and can critically think about topics on their own something something I think it comes down to this: Parents make the immediate decision on what is best for their kids using their available knowledge, experience, personalty, blah blah etc. However, being a parent doesn't immediately make you right, and it doesn't and shouldn't mean you have complete and utter control. Universally we all pretty agree there's a level of biological right that everyone should be able to have kids, but there really isn't some sort of god given right you can be a parent. In fact, in almost all countries there are methods of separating unfit parents with children. So going into Gumline's point of (tldr: "it's their kid, their monkey, their circus"). To a point, yes. But there's a consideration of societal benefit in that. We probably all agree that someone cooking meth in the basement of their house as their 3 kids play upstairs probably isn't good for the kids, or society. In almost all states that's a felony outright (manuf/distr/poss of scheduled drugs in the presence of a minor). So when someone says "I don't want my kids seeing gay people kiss" I get nervous around this type of behavior. First off- is there societal benefit towards hiding the existence of gay people from a child? Considering we protect many classes of people and gay people are one of them, this fails the sniff test, in my opinion. It's really no different than hiding the existence of minorities, or even the opposite sex from your child. It comes off as incredibly dangerous- the failure to create an atmosphere where your child interacts with different types of people and understands and empathizes with them. But second off- it's not really just about gay people in kid's movies. There's a serious connotation that if you're unwilling to show the existence of gay people in movies, are you also accepting of them? If this closed minded movie-goer doesn't want to show his kids a gay person kissing, would he or she APPROVE of their kid being gay? The number one most important thing as a parent is really to keep them alive, keep them healthy, and prepare your child for society/real life/whatever. Are you adequately preparing your child by hiding things they should know? Gentoo's strawman is a little bit loose. I don't think anyone is saying what he's arguing, but honestly, shouldn't kids KNOW about sex, genders, races, religion, etc? If you don't really understand or are exposed to these things, this can be somewhat dangerous. Final 2 cents: One of my biggest failures as a person was on here when I attacked someone's sexual identity. It was a complete and utter moral failure on my part, and part of that antisocial behavior was the lack of understanding and empathizing environment surrounding it. It is 2022 and I saw someone make an almost word for word insult that I made just that small 10ish years ago. In some ways, it feels like little has changed here. A lot of the world has moved on but so many people in this community (until recently it seems) used the F slur, some people still use "gay" to mean lame, or dumb in discord. I think it's just an example of creating an anti-gay environment creates these kind of opinions and creates these rifts. Gay people are still treated like second rate citizens, and any attempt to normalize their existence is met with profound pushback from a die hard set of vocal people insistent on THEIR moral failures. We can say legalities this, legalities that, but I find myself in disbelief that not everyone on this community is on the same page- the idea that playing some sort of devil's advocate for these parents is a reasonable stance to make. We should inform, educate, and realign- not defend these viewpoints. Are these viewpoints really defensible? Were things like segregation defensible? To me the inability for many gay people in the world to still be included on a level playing field as hetero couples is just a sign of identity segregation. Pixar can make 100 movies with straight couples but the second they even hint at a gay couple its met with disdain? It ain't right, folks.

Due to some recent threads I think it would be helpful to compliment one another instead of insulting each other. The only rule in this thread is compliments only. I will go first: @GentooI appreciate that you are willing to discuss topics, even when we disagree. I think you're an upstanding guy even though our belief systems are different and I appreciate that you're always willing to bounce stuff around in VC in a respectful manner

None of them at all? Whatsoever? You cannot make that decision? So I just want to make sure- if the movie showed a black person and the parent of a child said they didn't want their children exposed to black people, you would say that they are allowed the right to hold that moral and prevent their children from watching black people in a movie? Edit: Just to affirm the reason I'm replacing gay people with black people is because I think you're a homophobe and have no respect for gay people. I'm just wanting to replace it with a racial minority so I can call you a racist, too.

#mythreadmychoice You should look up the definition for bigotry, then you might understand why it's not ok to hold some morals over others!!

So just go abstract here and let's assume we're talking about someone not wanting to show black people to their kids in a movie.

Nah bro it's their right to shelter their kids from gays kissing obv

No because you can't be bigoted towards technology. But saying outright "I don't want to show this movie to X because it has gay people" is literally bigotry. What exactly do you think is an example of bigotry if not outright saying you don't want gay people in your movies???? Are we back to the legality == morality argument? Are you asking me if christians are immoral?

Dozens of Disney movies where characters kiss and not a peep, but as soon as it's a gay couple it's problematic? These people on metacritic are directly referencing the fact that it is "gay" that is why they do not want their children seeing it. That's bigotry.

So is it bigotry or not? Not talking about legalities of hiding the idea of being gay from your kids.

So you would probably agree this is a bit bigoted, right? The idea that kids shouldn't be exposed to gay people existing, living their life just as straight people do? Certainly I doubt this person would realistically ever complain about a straight, married couple sharing a kiss in a Disney movie.

Can you explain to me what exactly their opinion on the movie is? It must take me four years of film study to determine the intricacies of this in-depth and loquacious review that goes into great detail of the movie's characters and plot. Really, after reading the review I've certainly been convinced this is a 0 star movie!!

What's worse than a shameless movie spin off to a beloved childhood Disney film? Two grown women kissing each other, of course. This latest movie from Disney has been making its rounds on the internet and stirring fights everywhere after Disney included a previously cut scene regarding the expression of a relationship between two parents, who happen to both be women. The review bombing is small but at an audience score of 4.9 on metacritic, you can read some comments for yourself: https://www.metacritic.com/movie/lightyear-2022/user-reviews?dist=negative You can also see more reviews on RT albeit they don't seem to have any valuable sorting method so it's a bit annoying to find negative reviews given its highly positive rating: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lightyear/reviews?type=user For decades kids movies have shown heterosexual relationships between parents, teenagers, and even kids. Playful childhood relationships only ever between a boy and a girl. As soon as you show even two gay parents in a kid's movie people lose their mind saying "NOT IN A KID'S MOVIE" as if showing someone who is gay is still too indecent for kids.

Sounds like a violation of my 2nd amendment right

Do you speed when you drive? How far over the limit do you go typically? Just curious. I used to speed around where I live until I got a $200 ticket. I might go 3-4 mph over. If I travel out of state to bigger cities I notice almost everyone speeds, and it can almost be a hazard to drive the speed limit because you cause dozens of people to pass you dangerously, so I try to match the flow of traffic.