Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Daily Gaming News > News Items

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Weekend Gamer: What are...
Last post by BytorUK
Today 12:50 AM
11 Replies, 734 Views
Heroes of the Storm 2.0...
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 12:18 AM
25 Replies, 1,194 Views
Overwatch Hits 30...
Last post by brandonjclark
Yesterday 09:58 PM
8 Replies, 1,119 Views
Shaq-Fu: A Legend Reborn...
Last post by Skunk
Yesterday 09:30 PM
4 Replies, 511 Views
Halo 5 Dev Acknowledges...
Last post by Terran
Yesterday 07:23 PM
4 Replies, 984 Views
Injustice 2 Joker...
Last post by Blog
Yesterday 06:28 PM
5 Replies, 954 Views
Middle-Earth: Shadow of...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Yesterday 06:04 PM
8 Replies, 1,153 Views
Nintendo Will Launch A...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Yesterday 04:06 PM
20 Replies, 1,362 Views
» Promotion


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-13-2017, 09:34 AM   #221
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel View Post
Fighting to force a video game to change a character pose is in no way good social justice, to use an example from this thread. All it does is perpetuate the ludicriously out of proportion "persecution mindset" that so many feminists have these days, while distracting from the real problems women still face. These problems are already incredibly small in comparison to the ones they used to have and still do in much of the world. While beating society over the head with a hammer until it finally understands that women deserve equal treatment was fine back in the day or in other locations on the globe, beating society with a hammer because someone expresses an opinion you don't like or makes an artistic choice that you dislike, is not okay.
This is a good example. I mean specifically the video character pose example. I really didn't care about the pose. I certainly didn't take action about the pose. Shit, I don't play that game, so it meant nothing to me. So, x happened in reaction to the pose and y was the result. What was the x that gets people so upset? I'm seriously asking. Was the game deleted, closed, shutdown for good, nobody was ever allowed to play again, servers exploded, company went bankrupt, jobs were lost, people were starved and killed? Those examples were obvious hyperbole, but what was the full and total extent of what happened without exaggeration? I honestly do not know. From my understanding, some people, I have no idea how many, exercised their right to free speech and complained about something. Maybe it was more than that, I truly don't know. But if I am close, then how is this a big deal? Why would anyone care? And, more to the point, are we actually suggesting that we censor or infringe upon the first amendment when we don't like somebody else's opinion?

I'm not saying they were right, I'm just saying why does anyone care? God knows that games and all sorts of crap have been changed based on fan reaction in the past if somebody thinks a level is too hard or a class is over powered. This is true for Blizzard games specifically. The 12 year history of World of Warcraft is an ongoing adjustment of classes and shit. Gamers can be whiny fuckers and I would hate to be in a community support job these days.

I guess a different way to look at this, is to say that it is a tragedy that this video game example is even considered Social Justice. I don't blame some people if they feel that games are over sexualized. Society is over sexualized, and I think it negatively impacts women. So I can understand if somebody has an opinion on this. But extending that to people who care about social issues affecting society as a whole seems like a huge shame.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 09:39 AM   #222
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Avatar View Post
No. Donald Trump was given a gift of a legitimate Purple Heart from a Veteran. Someone really won that Purple Heart. It was his medal to give away if that is what he wanted to do with it. Sure, it's kinda weird, but it isn't like someone was "awarding" Trump with that Purple Heart, they just gave him the medal as a gift.

Joe Biden was given an award he didn't deserve for accomplishments he doesn't have.

Previous Presidential Medal of Freedom winners include Margaret Thatcher, Stephen Hawking & the crew of Apollo 13. What has Joe Biden done that rivals that? (Unless you count putting his creepy hands on women during every photo opportunity... that's an accomplishment... like it deserves an "Anthony Weiner" award perhaps.)

Biden can't really name one significant piece of legislation he has written in 47 years of being a politician. Heck, Obama couldn't name any when he gave him the award. That's just sad.
I think 47 years as a civil servant is good enough, or at least as good as Colin Powell. The standard seems to be vague, but I understand your comments. I remember when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, and you wrote, "For What?" and I wondered the same thing. In hindsight, I think it was for bringing and end to the age of Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld, but that was more symbolic than anything Obama had achieved.

My point about the purple heart wasn't that that man wasn't allowed to give it to Trump. Certainly Obama is "allowed" to give the medal to Biden. It was that Trump expressly said that he always wanted to receive a Purple Heart without earning one, which is the actual definition of stolen valor, I believe.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 10:30 AM   #223
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I think 47 years as a civil servant is good enough, or at least as good as Colin Powell. The standard seems to be vague, but I understand your comments. I remember when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, and you wrote, "For What?" and I wondered the same thing. In hindsight, I think it was for bringing and end to the age of Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld, but that was more symbolic than anything Obama had achieved.
Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize has made a mockery of the award. It's interesting that you think it's for bringing an end to the age of Bush despite him continuing to use military force (insisting he didn't need Congressional authorization, unlike Bush, which is to say Obama took an even more authoritarian approach) to cause chaos, and then torpedoing much of the gains made in places like Iraq for political points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
My point about the purple heart wasn't that that man wasn't allowed to give it to Trump. Certainly Obama is "allowed" to give the medal to Biden. It was that Trump expressly said that he always wanted to receive a Purple Heart without earning one, which is the actual definition of stolen valor, I believe.
Stolen Valor is when you claim to have been awarded something without being awarded it. That's not what Trump did, as silly as his comments regarding receiving a Purple Heart were. Obama and Biden essentially awarding themselves medals isn't Stolen Valor either -- it's simply an act of cheapening the award.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 10:44 AM   #224
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize has made a mockery of the award. It's interesting that you think it's for bringing an end to the age of Bush despite him continuing to use military force (insisting he didn't need Congressional authorization, unlike Bush, which is to say Obama took an even more authoritarian approach) to cause chaos, and then torpedoing much of the gains made in places like Iraq for political points.

I wasn't saying that he had earned the peace prize, just that I think that is what they gave it for. His subsequent actions don't affect what I think they awarded it to him for at the time. Also, in terms of Iraq, what political points did it earn him? Are you saying we should have left our troops there despite what their government wanted and what the American people wanted? Maybe we should have, but wouldn't that have been even more mavericky?
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 10:57 AM   #225
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I wasn't saying that he had earned the peace prize, just that I think that is what they gave it for. His subsequent actions don't affect what I think they awarded it to him for at the time. Also, in terms of Iraq, what political points did it earn him? Are you saying we should have left our troops there despite what their government wanted and what the American people wanted? Maybe we should have, but wouldn't that have been even more mavericky?
And that's the problem -- he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based upon what I view as the Left's idolatry of President Obama rather than any actual accomplishments.

You don't recall the boasting of "ending the war in Iraq" when he withdrew forces?



We absolutely should have left our troops there. You know, considering our troops are once again there. Removing the U.S. troop presence was the maverick move, as keeping a presence was the recommendation and also fell in line completely with past conflicts/wars from lessons learned.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 01:10 PM   #226
Anemone
Evil Dead
 
Anemone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Autarchist
Posts: 6,092
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I remember when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, and you wrote, "For What?" and I wondered the same thing. In hindsight, I think it was for bringing and end to the age of Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld, but that was more symbolic than anything Obama had achieved.
What's more, Obama doubled down on Bush-era foreign policy. Made it much worse.
__________________
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front.
Anemone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 01:35 PM   #227
Mad Max RW
Reaper
 
Mad Max RW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 165
Biden is clearly a hero for sticking with those hair plugs.
Mad Max RW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 02:08 PM   #228
Booda
Beam another Blast
 
Booda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Streets of Dis
Posts: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I wasn't saying that he had earned the peace prize, just that I think that is what they gave it for. His subsequent actions don't affect what I think they awarded it to him for at the time. Also, in terms of Iraq, what political points did it earn him? Are you saying we should have left our troops there despite what their government wanted and what the American people wanted? Maybe we should have, but wouldn't that have been even more mavericky?
Quote:
WASHINGTON ó President Obama came into office seven years ago pledging to end the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.

If the United States remains in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until the end of Mr. Obamaís term ó a near-certainty given the presidentís recent announcement that he will send 250 additional Special Operations forces to Syria ó he will leave behind an improbable legacy as the only president in American history to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.

Mr. Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and spent his years in the White House trying to fulfill the promises he made as an antiwar candidate, would have a longer tour of duty as a wartime president than Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon or his hero Abraham Lincoln.
Quote:
This month, President Barack Obama officially became the U.S. president to have been at war the longest ó longer than Lyndon Johnson, longer than Abraham Lincoln and certainly longer than George W. Bush.
Lol! You couldn't make this shit up if you tried.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/u...nd-troops.html

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/16/no...can-president/
Booda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 03:33 PM   #229
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,348
Three bombs EVERY HOUR for all of 2016 from our Peace Prez...over 26,000 overall. Good thing he doesn't call it 'radical Islam' or 'Islamic fundamentalism' or 'Islamic terror.' That might hurt their feelings.
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 03:57 PM   #230
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booda View Post
Lol! You couldn't make this shit up if you tried.
What is your point? I have no idea why they gave him the peace prize, but I have my own theory about what it could possibly have been.

Are you suggesting that they had information about the future that they should have factored into their decision in 2008? I never said he created peace in the middle east.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 04:07 PM   #231
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 5,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
What is your point? I have no idea why they gave him the peace prize, but I have my own theory about what it could possibly have been.

Are you suggesting that they had information about the future that they should have factored into their decision in 2008? I never said he created peace in the middle east.
The point is Whimbrel, because you obviously need to be hand held to understand what things mean, is he did NOTHING to deserve it, like Biden has done nothing to deserve getting a medal for anything.

You're quite alright with it though because they're progressives. Really Obama has been at war longer than any President in the history of the US and what, we should give him kudos for that?
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 04:23 PM   #232
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,348
The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be awarded for 'outstanding contributions to peace' over the previous year. Alfred Nobel's will here. In his own words, referring to the award: "and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

When Obama was awarded the prize he hadn't done a damn thing to actually earn it. It was an entirely political exercise on the part of the Nobel committee:"The award, made by the committee in response to Obama's stated aim of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, came nine months after he took office. "Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake," Lundestad wrote in "Secretary of Peace. 25 years with the Nobel Prize". "In that sense the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for," he said, noting that Obama himself rarely mentions the prize."

They awarded it ENTIRELY for political purposes, tarnishing the award. Obama himself tried to get out of actually going to get it ("Lundestad also claims the White House even used back channels to find out if the award could accepted in absentia."). Even little kids know when a 'participation trophy' is being given and they haven't earned it. You know he knows that about his Nobel.

"In a just-released book, Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute for 25 years until stepping down last year, said the prize committee had expected the honor to deliver a boost to Obama, something he believes did not happen."
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 04:32 PM   #233
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
What is your point? I have no idea why they gave him the peace prize, but I have my own theory about what it could possibly have been.

Are you suggesting that they had information about the future that they should have factored into their decision in 2008? I never said he created peace in the middle east.
That's the exact problem; they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without awaiting to see his actions. Many on the Left have idolized President Obama as if he were a religious figure.

Obama took office on January 20th, 2009 and it was announced he'd receive the Nobel Peace Prize on Oct 9th, 2009; the award came a mere 9 months after taking office and was based upon nothing but words instead of actions.

According to Geir Lundestad, former director of†the Nobel Institute for 25 years until resigning in 2014, offered the following reasoning for awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize: "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this effect."

The Nobel Institute is now without question a partisan political organization in my view.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 05:55 PM   #234
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
That's the exact problem; they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without awaiting to see his actions. Many on the Left have idolized President Obama as if he were a religious figure.

According to Geir Lundestad, former director of†the Nobel Institute for 25 years until resigning in 2014, offered the following reasoning for awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize: "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this effect."

The Nobel Institute is now without question a partisan political organization in my view.
I think we are in agreement here. I'm just a bit baffled by the three or four posters who keep bringing up the ongoing wars at the end of 2016 as some kind of factor in a prize awarded 8 years ago. The question I was addressing was what could have been the possible reasoning of the committee in 2009, not did Obama earn it or what has happened since. I think I said in 2009 that I thought it was a bizarre choice.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 06:21 PM   #235
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I think we are in agreement here. I'm just a bit baffled by the three or four posters who keep bringing up the ongoing wars at the end of 2016 as some kind of factor in a prize awarded 8 years ago. The question I was addressing was what could have been the possible reasoning of the committee in 2009, not did Obama earn it or what has happened since. I think I said in 2009 that I thought it was a bizarre choice.
As you pointed out, the Nobel committee didn't have a way to see into the future; that is precisely the problem. I think we're mostly in agreement, except I don't think their choice was bizarre -- it was a symbol of the idolism of Obama. These awards are supposed to be for accomplishments, not for faith that the person receiving the award will eventually accomplish something.

It's made the prize, in my view, an absolute joke. Hell, Lundestad touched on nuclear non-proliferation, and Obama gave the world the Iran nuclear deal; a deal it's widely reported that the Iranian regularly don't adhere to; a deal Ben Rhodes, whom Obama put in this position of authority and was supportive of, openly bragged that he, along with ideological and ignorant reporters who were sympathetic to the Obama admin, created an "echo chamber" to brazenly lie about the deal to the American public in an effort to garner support for it. The Iran deal echoes that deal Bill Clinton made to stop North Korea from developing a nuclear weapon. Seriously, even look up the phrases they use to sell both deals. How'd that work with the North Koreans? Pretty well. For the rest of the world, not so much.

As much as I obviously believe the Iranian deal to be a bad deal, if the Nobel committee had at least waiting until that dirty deal was made they could have then pointed at least argued they thought it was an accomplishment.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
sjw, snow flakes

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 AM.