CheezyWeezle

joined 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

No, my comment doesnt read like that at all. You literally had to insert the "like consoles do" in order to interpret what I said the way you did.

Also you are 100% projecting about me being an asshole. I was absolutely lighthearted and carefree about the situation, and you people interpret it as being vitriolic. That, my friend, is a problem with YOU, not with me. Maybe go touch some grass?

You think your shitty, incorrect, and idiotic interpretation of my comment is "the only logical way any human with English skills could possibly interpret it"? I literally already explained before how one would have to cherry pick that one sentence from the entire comment chain, disregard any other context, and have a presupposition of what I am saying to interpret it that way.

You're the worst kind of moron, the one that thinks he's the smart one.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I absolutely DO blame someone for thinking I am talking about PC games there lol... you would have to 1. Only read that one sentence out my single comment, none of the previous comments or the rest of my comment, 2. Misunderstand the premise of the sentence, and 3. Apply a preconception that I would be talking about PC games.

I dont care that someone misinterpreted what I said, and I dont think it's a big deal, but if you are going to make a call-out comment on someone you should probably apply reading comprehension well enough to actually understand the comment you are replying to, or else the confusion in the situation is just going to compound. If someone doesnt understand then they should ask for clarification first, like I did when I asked what they were on about, and then I clarified my original comment to clear the confusion.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (6 children)

What are you on about? I never said or even alluded to PC games not having settings... its pretty clear and obvious that I am talking about consoles when I mention consoles gaining a particular feature.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (8 children)

As a PC enthusiast my main gripe has always been the lack of choice over performance options. I want the choice between higher fidelity or higher framerates. The new generations of consoles have included this option, and it is awesome. I also like how newer generation hardware has been able to run the older games it is compatible with at higher fidelity AND higher framerates, bringing the hardware improvements to those older games and increasing their lifespan/playability.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

2K is supposed to refer to a 2048x2048 square 1:1 aspect image, same with 4K being a 4096x4096 image. This term is correctly used a lot when referring to texture sizes. A 4K texture is 4096x4096 texels.

I think the term started getting mixed up with people discussing what resolutions benefit from texture size increases. Generally, if you are running, say, 4K textures, you would really only always benefit from that if you have a 2160p screen, just because lower resolutions dont have the definition to actually display those texels. So, people start inter changing "4K screen" and "4K-benefitting screen" and we end up where we are now.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

Lmao Ubisoft of all folks should shut the fuck up about UI, they are literally the source of the meme about cluttered and overly complicated UI. If Ubisoft is complaining about a UI I have to automatically assume it is a good UI.

Also, if AAA developers have been paying attention for the last decade, they would know that consumers have valued quality and shown disdain for MTX since MTX started becoming pervasive. MTX overall can generate a lot of revenue, but it isnt sustainable, hence why there is always some sort of FOMO characteristic included with the MTX system, making things limited time and constantly shovelling low effort "new content" to fill out the MTX system.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Um, "the state" is whatever the government is. Are you actually suggesting that True Anarchy is the only leftist organizational structure that can fit the definition of "Leftist"? Because that's what you are alluding to.

Also, you absolutely did not provide the "definitions of left and right". These definitions aren't even universally agreed upon. I am assuming you mean "Liberalism and Conservatism" when you say "left and right", and it is just untrue that Liberalism is incompatible with authoritarianism, and it is equally untrue that conservatism must be accompanied by authoritarianism. For example, Libertarianism is a patently right-leaning ideology that completely rejects authoritarianism. At the same time, communism is state-imposed redistribution of economic means; that is 100% undeniably a left-leaning ideology that accepts and implements authoritarianism.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (7 children)

State-imposed collectivism is left-leaning authoritarianism. It is the authoritarian and non-voluntary implementation of leftist economic policy. It is an extremely simple concept that I cant fathom how you aren't able to grasp.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Hm, I see how their comment can be interpreted that way, and it definitely makes more sense like that. They worded it extremely poorly tho, and thus is left pretty ambiguous. I think it would have been much more clear if they just spelled out "conscription" again instead of resorting to the pronoun.

That said, since I do agree with your interpretation I will edit my comment to reflect that

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

If you mean that he can appeal a contempt charge, that is technically true, but the appeal for that would take place after the main trial and would not prevent him from being held in detention until then.

He can appeal from jail.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Cool so I can come in to your house and steal all your shit, beat up your children, and shoot your dog, and you aren't allowed to fight back because if it was justified, you wouldn't need to?

EDIT: I seem to have misinterpreted the comment, as you appear to be referring to conscription being unnecessary rather than the fighting. Taking the whole context of the comment supports that, but taking only the context of the final sentence makes it appear that you are saying "if fighting is justified you dont need to fight" rather than "if fighting is justified, conscription is unnecessary"

view more: ‹ prev next ›