deleted by creator

Authoritarian

Montana farmers trusted Trump to look after them?? Are they the dumbest people on the planet?

Considering the results, their problem was that the US electorate wanted much worse politics than just bad.

TotK may as well be DLC for BotW, and Windwaker would have been more similar to those titles were it not for the technical limitations of the Gamecube.

You haven’t played ToTK at all. And what is this weird statement about WW supposed to prove about how the Switch games are the worst? Are you suggesting WW would have been the “worst” Zelda game if the GC had the power of a console that came 15 years later?

This isn’t even getting into how you’re going to need to show your work for how Zelda 2, Skyward Sword, some of the mobile entries, and that CD-i game are all better games than BotW or TotK.

You’re really gonna look at all those 3DS attempts to reboot the same NES game and tell me that’s not slop?

Yes. Things aren’t “slop” just because they’re not great. Otherwise most things in existence are slop. You haven’t thought this through.

Pokémon is seeing the worst quality of the whole franchise on Switch

You don’t know much about Pokemon games if you think the recent entries are the worst received generations.

apparently Pokémon Go was just to train military robots or some shit.

Pokemon Go is notably not a Switch game.

You’re really gonna look at 3DS models in a Switch game and tell me that’s not slop, my opinion is just wrong?

Yes. An uninformed opinion that misuses terms is a wrongly derived opinion.

Smash Ultimate’s online play has 11, ELEVEN frames of input lag under ideal circumstances, the metagame has been busted since Steve, DLC characters are OP, patches were promised, then canceled, and support is over now. You’re really gonna tell me that’s acceptable, totally not slop, my opinion just sucks?

Yes, the opinion of someone who forgot about Brawl isn’t worth much.

I hope you play Switch games forever, and I hope you love it.

This does not hit the way you think it does. Most people don’t have such an irrational hatred for the Switch that they’ve convinced themselves of a lot of untruths to justify their weird hatred.

The use of superlatives on a highly subjective statement also don’t signify quality. If anything, their presence implies irrationality.

The thing about Special Forces is that they have the same amount of HP as everyone else.

Which jurisdictions have this regulation? I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as a leading retailer having to implement a disadvantageous sales agreement for the sake of their competition.

If Jordan Peterson died falling drunkenly off a balcony, we’d all keep saying bad things about him.

OP needs to keep a dictionary in the shower.

Very curious about what this Laura Loomer statue looks like.

Again, this is a standard retail clause that has existed long before Steam. It would apply no matter what combination of retailers they choose to sell at because they all have this. This is why digital games are sold at the same price as physical copies when they cost less to distribute: the brick and mortar retailers have this same clause.

There’s no good reason to treat this like a Steam-specific thing. Every retailer has such a clause, big or small. This entire idea is based on a frivolous class action suit that is not going anywhere because it’s launched on the shaky grounds of the belief that Steam exclusively uses the MFN clause and that they think a 30% cut is too much.

That’s a pretty standard retail agreement clause that’s been around for decades before digital distribution. It’s not unique to Steam at all, letalone them doing it uniquely.

This would be the comment I would write if I was promoted to respond like the most stereotypical reddit gamer possible.

Of course it’s senseless. That’s why I’m asking why you think it’s happening here. There’s no reason to accuse people of being unable of separating the art from the artist because they reject any brand marketing otherwise. The implication of identifying that as the driving factor suggests that you believe engaging in buying these doughnuts is a statement that you are separating the art from the artist and it is very unclear how that’s the case.

You’re saying I am personally virtue signaling because you want it to be happening, not because it’s actually happening. You’ll notice I actually haven’t said a word for or against JK Rowling, Harry Potter, or this marketing campaign this whole time. You’ve been arguing with a boogeyman everytime you want to accuse of virtue signalling, not me.

Frankly you just don’t seem to understand any of these terms or concepts your using, including “moving goalposts” now if you think restating the same question over and over is a form of it. This is what it means to use a term “properly”: using the term according to its actual definition and connotation, not according to whatever talking points sounded good to you from a Facebook comment.

Block me all you want, but you’ve already shown everyone how little you understand of what you’re saying that you can’t even defend from from simple followup questions without going apeshit.

No, the question was always if you’re sure you’re applying separating the art from the artist properly. Not anyone else who just go in and eat a doughnut because they like Harry Potter and they like doughnuts so why not. That makes sense, that’s what normal human beings do. What they don’t do is start justigying their description as an ability to separate art from the artist.

I’m wondering why you saw people who oppose this because they hate JK Rowling and any opportunities where she generates revenue and decided this was a case of an inability to separate art from artist, as if Harry Potter was a doughnut flavour and not a book series. This is why I keep asking you to explain how buying these doughnuts is closer to showing appreciation for the art than it is enriching the artist since you are operating on the belief that rejecting this marketing opportunity means rejecting the art.

The more you keep insisting that all hate for JK Rowling is performative virtue signaling, the less I’m convinced you’ve actually thought any of this through. How do you figure nobody could actually hate JK Rowling specifically if they don’t go around finding reasons to hate any and all artists? Do you go around telling people who say they hate broccoli they are performativity virtue signaling because they’ll eat lettuce without considering it shares vitamins and nutrients with broccoli too?

I just can’t stand these fake leftists who just use terms they don’t understand and outrage to look cool for other fake leftists on the internet.

You’re arguing about brand recognition, not separating the art from the artist. This is a consumerism campaign to tie a commercial product to another business brand, not an artistic endeavour to encourage or appreciate the books directly as if it’s a public reading or a themed event. Nobody had an issue with the fan-generated gathering at King’s Crossing Station a few years ago for the anniversary of the books.

So how does buying these doughnuts show an appreciation for the art more than it enriches the artist? This is what needs to be explained since you believe the concept of separating the art from the artist apparently is the concept at play here.

The question was about how you see buying these doughnuts as appreciating the art more than supporting the artist, not how much you care about giving the artist a penny.

Unfortunately your problem is that I understood your words too well. How else would I be able to tell that you didn’t respond to what I said at all? If I had a poor understanding of words, I’d see all your big words and how many of them there were and think “Wow, this guy must be correct”.

So, since you were the one to fail to respond to what was asked in the first place, the question is which words I used were so incomprehensible that you ended up spending 20 minutes typing up something that didn’t apply? Was it “correctly”? Maybe “doughnuts” since it’s spelled in a regional way?