The AI in terrorist hunt mode might actually be the best I've ever faced in an FPS. I play that mode more than the PvP tbh.

They react to sound like people, shoot blind through cover to probe for you, attack you where your are weak, pull back where you are too strong etc.

Bastards even recognise your choke points and sabotage them by opening other routes and or destroying obstacles. (Or recognise you are outflanking theirs if you make too much noise etc.)

Make you think and move more in terms of what makes real world sense than simply what will outfox the AI.

TBH they are often smarter than the human players who play like they are in COD or BF and wonder why the tactical players keep shafting them.

*promote

In the case of this particular example the airline did cite that reason (I remember the forum buzz about it at the time).

But, I still agree with your point there. I've never been keen on the vapers who like to belligerently assert their "right to vape" everywhere they can without engaging their brains, or a bit of basic consideration.

Doubly so when snus so easy to order online & "stealth vaping" in public spaces is so easy to do.

That said, most of the negativity I've had & seen personally over the subject has been largely moralistic in nature. Specifically either "still bad for you!" or "think of the children!".

This may have been a bad example, but I could dig you up about as many media & campaign group hit pieces as you'd care to read.

Right now it's resulting in some deeply ill conceived legislation. I recognise that some sensible legal regulation is needed, but that is not what's happening at the moment. It seems like a double pronged shafting from the tobacco/pharma cartel and the morality police.

Maybe I'm just too emotionally invested on that one.

As for the other bit's. Your dealing with classic scattershot Slavoj. He writes in a much more ordered way than he speaks, but he is still very much a stream of consciousness when he gets going.
I enjoy "truffle hunting in the forest of knowledge" like that, but I understand why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

I this case, I don't think the specific examples are as important as the idea he is expressing (to him or myself).

That said, couldn't said health organisation be seen as pushing a moral position there? I guess your arguing it was beneficial to their business in some way? (not informed enough to have a strong position either way on that, but I think I can see where your coming from)

As for it being more dangerous than overt totalitarianism. The argument would be that you can see and fight overt ideologies, as such they are considerably less of a threat in modern developed countries.

Here I think, it would be "more dangerous" simply in the sense that there is a greater danger of anything significant actually happening.

Naturally the jackboots and piano wire kind is infinitely worse in practice. But there seems considerably less danger of that kind of totalitarianism gaining a serious foothold in most of our cultures than in times past.

The policing of peoples thoughts, language and consensual behaviour on the other hand (epitomised by the PC gone mad crowd). Could perhaps be said to be more dangerous, simply in the sense that it has more potential to do actual damage.

You could accuse that of being a bit hyperbolic, but that's our Slavoj.

Derp?

*watches 1st half of vid*

Bit derpy but man may have a few points....

*watches 2nd half of vid*

Spoke to soon. Derp!

*promote (drunk with power points!)

The magnificent mad rambling Slovenian bastard nailed it again!

The e-cig thing in particular is a hot topic for me at the moment due to the moronic new EU legislation & combined media shitstorm.

As we shoot down the layers of poorly researched bullshit the anti crowd throw at us in arguments it generally seems come down to something along the lines of "you are setting a bad example", or "you'd still be better off not smoking".

At that point "mind your own fucking business you self righteous prude" starts to seem like a perfectly mature response.

I understand now why they always used to tell me off for not looking around enough when flying circuits!

Guy took it pretty well though. I think I'd have screamed outloud when the other plane appeared like that.

*promote

So because a moron hamfistedly voiced sentiments similar that then invalidates the whole position?

It's not self centred to value equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. In fact I would argue the exact opposite.

I think it not only illiberal to enforce "correct speech", but more importantly regressive.

i.e. I think the very progress the PC police are so desperate to create and defend, is a demonstrable product of the free flow of ideas and perspectives.

Anything which limits ones ability to think I believe could be considered regressive in such terms. This includes exploring "problematic" ideas and language.

I wont insult you by listing various ideas which were once suppressed, either culturally or legally. But the sheer length of it drives much of my conviction.

To put all of that into simpler terms; this film, to me, was much more about the dangers of group think than any one petty issue about the right word.

It's about what happens when critical thought is suspended, suppressed or demonised.

I'm not sure Donald Trump has ever had a critical thought in his life.

I bet you can still spell "EYES" though

I have limited experience with slinging, but IMHO it's already very much the same as just throwing a stone out of your hand in terms of aim and how it feels.

You basically just release the knot at the point of the swing where you would anyway. Feels very natural.

There's also very little gain in swinging it more than one revolution above your head, almost all the power comes from the flick at the last moment.

I found getting a good power stroke (ooh er Mrs etc.) was the harder part.

A good afternoon of farting about and you could probably kill someone fairly proficiently with one though.

Someone with a lifetime of practice would be terrifying, at least as much as a good archer I would imagine.

Poor George, doesn't really get it even now.

It wasn't the fantasy/family subtext that drove your fans away, if anything that's part of the reason Starwars has such universal appeal.

It was that you quickly became a psychopathic alien toad-man overlord with an ego visible from space!

Episode 4, Written and directed, but not produced by GL. Good.

Episode 5, neither written nor directed nor produced by GL.
Outstanding.

Episode 6, mostly-written but not directed or produced by GL. Passable. (half baked script that gave us a glimpse of what was to come IMHO)

Episode 1,2,3, almost entirely written, directed and produced by GL.
Dogshit.

Awesome! Seems very reminiscent of the Voynich manuscript.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript

^ There appears to be a lot of sand in my vagina today! Sorry if that came across as overly harsh.

It would appear arguing with SJW trolls on youtube is harmful to ones soul.

Pretty sure I'm to some extent projecting my frustration with other similar styles of movement here. Though my underlying concern about such propaganda still stands I think. (& PETA can still more or less fuck off)


@iaui I have absolutely nothing against you and none of my vitriol was at all directed towards yourself. This was a perfectly legit thing to be sifting and I would hate for you to take anything I've said as an attack on yourself.

I'm not even sure it was really an attack on this specific movement, outside the insidious nature of it's propaganda.

It just left a bitter taste and much like I find myself having to stand up for people I deeply dislike and disagree with (re: freedom of expression). I also find myself having to take people to task even though I might like them or agree with the underlying premise of their position (a bad argument is a bad argument).

I'm now going to go away and watch frolicking kittens until I stop feeling like such a touchy twat...

"What if I told you that tickling them was like torture?"

Then I'd say: "please explain why this is and how you worked it out so I can contribute meaningfully to the issue."

Genuinely had to check after watching that this wasn't a hoax/satire. I'm not sure it could have come across as much more patronising and manipulative if they had tried.

Really reminded me of G.E.F.A.F.W.I.S.P. thing from brasseye in it's style and presentation. (Poe's law etc.)

Not that I disagree with the underlying point being made (most exotic pets have massive hidden costs to the animals well being), but I think they made it very poorly indeed.

If tickling is indeed torturous to them, then maybe make the flagship advert for your campaign do more than glibly announce "they don't like it!" whilst showing a video of what, to uneducated human sensibilities, appears to be joy/pleasure.

I'm not suggesting they are wrong, but even their website provides no materials or evidence to back up what they are saying. With a term as emotive and loaded as "torture", that comes across as rather disingenuous and makes me naturally somewhat suspicious as to their motives.

i.e. that they are likely ideologically opposed to most/all animal trafficking already and will happily muddy the facts & manipulate emotions if it furthers their higher purposes.

^ I don't want the above to come across as support for the Slow Loris pet trade, their unsuitability to domestic life and the need for pretty specialised knowledge to keep them healthy is reason enough (same as the vast majority of exotics). Chris Packham is one of the supporters and I have a great deal of respect for the guy's knowlage on such subjects.

But this, if anything, makes that advert seem all the more distasteful. YOU HAD EXPERTS! Persuade me better!

I also don't want to come across as suggesting that tickling definitely isn't deeply unpleasant for them for whatever reasons, but a cursory google and inspection of their own campaign site yielded nothing of any substance on the subject either way. (maybe my search-fu was lacking today?)

Again, I'm willing to accept the premise. If it will stand on it's own merits then I would like to understand. I will even advocate for the movement myself! But I'm not going to endorse anything I either can't or don't yet properly understand myself.

For every level headed campaigner with a basic sense of discernment and empathy for other creatures, there seems to be a mob of authoritarian ideologues eager to beat us around the head until we see things exactly their way and deny and semblance of nuance (i.e. PETA).

Automatic up vote for Pope Bob!