PDA

View Full Version : A Political Message???



Beyonder1979
27th May 2016, 16:28
Yes...we get it IO. Anthony Troutt's persona is inspired by a certain political figure of the USA who also happens to be a center-right wing conservative politician who has funded his campaign from his own money. And as if the similarities weren't obvious enough, just take a look at the words used in the title of this article from August last year: http://www.bendbulletin.com/nation/3397454-151/trump-the-debater-may-be-an-elusive-target

Really IO? Just go ahead and say in openly. You read this article and made sure that this guy WILL (not just "may") be an Elusive Target... Sending a political message using a game, are we? Well, at least we now know that we're dealing with progressive-radical leftists here. I'll take a (not so) wild guess and say anarcho-communists.

It's not surprising really. Cultural Marxism has done a great job during the last 20 years. Especially in Europe. Besides, the opening of the game pretty much says everything: "HITMAN is a work of fiction designed, developed and published by a multicultural team from a wide range of ethnic, philosophical and religious backgrounds".

Yep! Cultural Marxism at it's best! Please, IO, allow me to give a suggestion on what to write in the opening of your next game: "Promoting multiculturalism and open borders! Illegal immigrants welcome! Death to Nations, Homelands and Religions! There are no races, no borders, no flags, no historical and national identities! We're all brothers and sisters! All hail the Global Proletariat! And if you disagree with us, please stop playing this game you racist/fascist."

AdenPhoenix
27th May 2016, 17:21
Maybe you should have gotten any of the details of the target before seeking a way to be offended or making a pathetic troll post.

Here, I will help you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43EU9AjLqmQ

Driber
27th May 2016, 18:10
Yes...we get it IO. Anthony Troutt's persona is inspired by a certain political figure of the USA who also happens to be a center-right wing conservative politician who has funded his campaign from his own money. And as if the similarities weren't obvious enough, just take a look at the words used in the title of this article from August last year: http://www.bendbulletin.com/nation/3397454-151/trump-the-debater-may-be-an-elusive-target

Really IO? Just go ahead and say in openly. You read this article and made sure that this guy WILL (not just "may") be an Elusive Target... Sending a political message using a game, are we? Well, at least we now know that we're dealing with progressive-radical leftists here. I'll take a (not so) wild guess and say anarcho-communists.

It's not surprising really. Cultural Marxism has done a great job during the last 20 years. Especially in Europe. Besides, the opening of the game pretty much says everything: "HITMAN is a work of fiction designed, developed and published by a multicultural team from a wide range of ethnic, philosophical and religious backgrounds".

Yep! Cultural Marxism at it's best! Please, IO, allow me to give a suggestion on what to write in the opening of your next game: "Promoting multiculturalism and open borders! Illegal immigrants welcome! Death to Nations, Homelands and Religions! There are no races, no borders, no flags, no historical and national identities! We're all brothers and sisters! All hail the Global Proletariat! And if you disagree with us, please stop playing this game you racist/fascist."

As much as I'm against the regressive left and cultural marxism, I think you majorly jumped the gun here, Beyonder1979.

The similarities between Trump and this elusive target are poor at best. And even if you're correct and someone at IO had Trump in mind when creating this character, I seriously doubt that one obscure article you linked to was their inspiration. That's just tin foil hat territory if you ask me.

As for "death to religions" - doesn't the game's opening line that you yourself quoted kinda goes against your logic? ;)

"HITMAN is a work of fiction designed, developed and published by a multicultural team from a wide range of ethnic, philosophical and religious backgrounds".

And I don't think that line is cultural marxism at all. If anything, it's there as a useful disclaimer to protect themselves from people like you who get very easily offended and see malice behind everything.

Furthermore, with Hitman known for being such a controversial game among actual cultural marxists (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI), I kinda think IO would be the last people to say "And if you disagree with us, please stop playing this game you racist/fascist.", heh.

Beyonder1979
27th May 2016, 21:21
AdenPhoenix. I HAVE watched the video AND read the briefing of the target. That's where I got the information I'm mentioning above from. Meaning the fact that the guy is supposed to be a center-right wing conservative. No, I'm not personally offended since I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm not even American actually. I'm just stating the fact that there ARE some similarities that we cannot deny... Ano no, I'm not trolling either.

Driber. No my friend, I don't think that the similarities are poor. They are FEW, yes. But I believe they're quite obvious. So, maybe you're right and the article I linked to was NOT REALLY their inspiration. Maybe it's just a (hell of a) coincidence. So what? The similarities still exist. They're still there in the target briefing. Just press the X button (on PS4) on the character photo and you can read his story in which his political views are mentioned.

Let's think about this logically. You're a game developer and you want to make your players kill a politician. Wouldn't it be more logical to make him belong to one of the far sides of the political spectrum? Wouldn't that justify his murder better? The guy could be a far-right, neonazi. Or he could be a leftist extremist/terrorist. But no. For some reason he's just your average "center-right conservative". Which pretty much means a patriot and a christian. And a guy who made his own fortune too. Hmm......

So yes. There ARE similarities and yes, the political choice and name ARE somewhat suspicious. And no, you cannot deny that. Other people HAVE started noticing too as a matter of fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPisS0ul5AY

As for the "death to religions" part. I only used it as an example to show the general beliefs of anarchists/communists. I'm not saying that it definitely IS the case with IO employees.

"And I don't think that line is cultural marxism at all. If anything, it's there as a useful disclaimer to protect themselves from people like YOU who get very easily offended and see malice behind everything."
Oh, come on! You're an administrator. Don't make this personal. And no, I don't believe that a game company needs protection from a random guy like me who is actually NOT easily offended NOR sees malice behind everything. Maybe they would need protection from one of them femi-nazis mentioned in the link that you posted. ;)

And that's pretty much it. You did the right thing of course to try and defend the developers since it's your job and all I suppose. Personally though, I'm not convinced. I still hold the opinion that there's something fishy with the choice of this character. I mean, all those similarities I mentioned and TROUTT??! Seriously man? :p

Anyway, have a good day you all.

TheZaqw
27th May 2016, 22:40
Okay then.

Driber
28th May 2016, 14:03
Okay I guess I have a better understanding of your POV now, Beyonder1979. I do still think your theory is way out there, but your response is at least more sensible than your OP. I'll go through your new post by responding point-by-point, not to 'pick it apart' or 'quote-mine' but just because it's more easier for me than writing a whole block of text. Please take no offense :)


Driber. No my friend, I don't think that the similarities are poor. They are FEW, yes. But I believe they're quite obvious. So, maybe you're right and the article I linked to was NOT REALLY their inspiration. Maybe it's just a (hell of a) coincidence. So what?

So what, you ask? It seriously undermines your argument because it indicates paranoia on your end. It's throwing occam's razor out of the window in favor of apparent confirmation bias. That's what.


The similarities still exist.

Yeah but that's like saying "Tomatoes are red. Grocers sell tomatoes. Vampires drink blood. Blood is red. So grocers are likely to be vampires."


They're still there in the target briefing. Just press the X button (on PS4) on the character photo and you can read his story in which his political views are mentioned.

If you post the actual text we can talk about the validity of it.


Let's think about this logically. You're a game developer and you want to make your players kill a politician. Wouldn't it be more logical to make him belong to one of the far sides of the political spectrum? Wouldn't that justify his murder better? The guy could be a far-right, neonazi. Or he could be a leftist extremist/terrorist. But no. For some reason he's just your average "center-right conservative". Which pretty much means a patriot and a christian.

Well, at face value what you're saying sounds reasonable, but just because your train of thought has consistent internal logic doesn't automatically give credence to the theory. By that same token, we should take every single thing coming out of the mouth of America's #1 nutjob, Alex Jones, seriously.


And a guy who made his own fortune too. Hmm......

That wouldn't be a similarity then, since Trump didn't make his own fortune; he was born with a silver spoon up his bottom, lol.


So yes. There ARE similarities and yes, the political choice and name ARE somewhat suspicious.

So are the 'puffs' coming out of the WTC as it collapsed in on itself, according to 911 thruthers. And then they easily were debunked, with reason.


And no, you cannot deny that.

http://i.imgur.com/XuEFHqg.jpg


Other people HAVE started noticing too as a matter of fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPisS0ul5AY

I'm not watching a freaking 2 hour stream. Timestamp the relevant bit if you want me to check out your argumentum ad populum.


As for the "death to religions" part. I only used it as an example to show the general beliefs of anarchists/communists.

The irony here is you'll find cultural marxists happily embracing religions, even the most oppressive and dangerous ones today, when it suits their agenda.


I'm not saying that it definitely IS the case with IO employees.

Then why bring it up at all in your post attacking IO.


"And I don't think that line is cultural marxism at all. If anything, it's there as a useful disclaimer to protect themselves from people like YOU who get very easily offended and see malice behind everything."
Oh, come on! You're an administrator. Don't make this personal.

Sorry to make it personal, but it's kinda hard not to when a large part simply comes down to personality. Due to the language you used in your OP you came across very Alex Jones-ey. It's not like you started a thread merely discussing a theory. No, you jumped in, guns blazing, making statements of matter-of-fact instead of framing them as theory/speculation, which is essentially what all of this is, barring any substantial proof of what you're claiming is true.


And no, I don't believe that a game company needs protection from a random guy like me who is actually NOT easily offended NOR sees malice behind everything. Maybe they would need protection from one of them femi-nazis mentioned in the link that you posted. ;)

I didn't say IO needs protection from one random guy, I said they may need protection from a whole bunch of people that do the same things you do, which is making wild assumptions and getting angry (at least you seemed to in your OP) over something that has not even been demonstrated to be correct. In other words, modern outrage culture.

Okay so you say you're not actually offended. Perhaps I misjudged you on that. But then I would like to know what was the point of that entire rant in the OP. Satire? If not, and if you're actually serious, one can only conclude that you do have a big objection to the idea of IO being inspired by Trump for this elusive target.


And that's pretty much it. You did the right thing of course to try and defend the developers since it's your job and all I suppose.

It's not. My job as admin is to make sure the forums run smoothly. That's it. My opinion on the game is not really relevant, and is my own. I wasn't so much 'defending the devs' as I was countering unreasonable/false statements, as I tend to do on a wide range (http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/showthread.php?t=96641&page=1047) of topics :)


Personally though, I'm not convinced. I still hold the opinion that there's something fishy with the choice of this character. I mean, all those similarities I mentioned and TROUTT??! Seriously man? :p

You mean to say that "Troutt" sounds like "Trump"? Now you're just sounding like the regressive idiots at The Young Turks when they made a whole BS outrage over that Kavon Fortin 'character' in Watch Dogs.

lDZpsVbt8is

Check out that dislike ratio and the comments ripping TYT a new one. I really don't think you want to go that route, man :whistle:


Anyway, have a good day you all.

:wave::flowers:

Beyonder1979
28th May 2016, 20:32
Holy..... :eek:

Well, what can I say? You're asking me to not get offended when the entire purpose for posting the reply you posted above seems to be exactly that. To offend me...

Your reply is WAY too aggressive. Unnecessarily aggressive. I made sure to defuse the situation and end the whole discussion with my reply. As a matter of fact, you didn't need to reply at all. The whole topic could just have ended there man! But you really had to have the last word, didn't you? Why so vengeful? Why this desire to make it look like you're obliterating your opponent? Is it superiority complex? Well, I hope you feel very proud of yourself. How old are you? 20 and filled with the arrogance of youth?

Well, sorry, this is way too immature for me. And if your job is to make sure the forums run smoothly, then you pretty much just failed. It was all running smoothly until you posted that vengeful reply. Talk about "modern outrage culture"...

"I was countering unreasonable/false statements, as I tend to do on a wide range of topics (provides link)"
Are you that desperate to validate yourself? I DON'T CARE about your abilities my boy. If you think you're talented in discussions, go and become a politician or something.

"You mean to say that "Troutt" sounds like "Trump"? Now you're just sounding like the regressive idiots at The Young Turks when they made a whole BS outrage over that Kavon Fortin 'character' in Watch Dogs. Check out that dislike ratio and the comments ripping TYT a new one. I really don't think you want to go that route, man."

That's not only offending. That's verbally attacking in an indirect way. Basically comparing me with those guys, who are "idiots who say BS" and who "got themselves ripped a new one". And why all this? Why am I an idiot? Because I dared to say that I still hold my initial opinion and I think that IO is basically making us kill Trump. And after that comes the direct threat too: "I really don't think you want to go that route, man."

You know what? I'm not going to continue this discussion any more. I'm not going to even read your reply. Feel free to write whatever makes you feel like the Master of the Universe. Your attitude only proved to me that you're abusing your Admin authority to needlesly attack, harass and even threaten/provoke people. And that was the sole purpose of your reply. To provoke me so that I lose control, and so you can have the pleasure of banning me. You should be ashamed of yourself and I hope for the sake of everyone that your attitude gets you fired one day.

Edit: Here's some more proof: http://www.xboxoneuk.com/xbox-one/news/26-hours-left-for-hitmans-second-elusive-target/
I guess this Stacey Knowles woman must be as crazy as I am, assuming Troutt represents Trump and all...

Driber
28th May 2016, 23:12
Holy..... :eek:

Well, what can I say? You're asking me to not get offended when the entire purpose for posting the reply you posted above seems to be exactly that. To offend me...

It wasn't. You misread the tone of my reply.


Your reply is WAY too aggressive.

I wasn't being aggressive at all. What part specifically are you referring to?


I made sure to defuse the situation and end the whole discussion with my reply.

In your second post you were asking questions, being rather pushy with your opinions, bringing in additional links, and topping it all off with mockery. I would hardly call that "defusing the situation" or "ending the discussion".


As a matter of fact, you didn't need to reply at all. The whole topic could just have ended there man!

Nor did you have to fly off the handle like this and go full attack mode, yet here we are.


But you really had to have the last word, didn't you? Why so vengeful? Why this desire to make it look like you're obliterating your opponent? Is it superiority complex? Well, I hope you feel very proud of yourself. How old are you? 20 and filled with the arrogance of youth?

Holy mother of christ where are you getting all of this nonsense from. I'm guessing you're just projecting here.


Well, sorry, this is way too immature for me.

Apparently not.


And if your job is to make sure the forums run smoothly, then you pretty much just failed. It was all running smoothly until you posted that vengeful reply. Talk about "modern outrage culture"...

Actually, it's the reverse. Your OP was reported to the staff by our members because it was perceived as inflammatory. I actually steered what was an attack on the devs into an actual discussion. Only then you blew up for no good reason.


"I was countering unreasonable/false statements, as I tend to do on a wide range of topics (provides link)"
Are you that desperate to validate yourself? I DON'T CARE about your abilities my boy. If you think you're talented in discussions, go and become a politician or something.

Nothing says "maturity" more than condescending calling me "my boy" and trying to mock me.

And lol, no, I wasn't trying to "validate myself" nor do I think I'm "talented in discussions". I guess you completely missed the point I was making. But nvm, it wasn't important.


"You mean to say that "Troutt" sounds like "Trump"? Now you're just sounding like the regressive idiots at The Young Turks when they made a whole BS outrage over that Kavon Fortin 'character' in Watch Dogs. Check out that dislike ratio and the comments ripping TYT a new one. I really don't think you want to go that route, man."

That's not only offending. That's verbally attacking in an indirect way. Basically comparing me with those guys, who are "idiots who say BS" and who "got themselves ripped a new one". And why all this? Why am I an idiot? Because I dared to say that I still hold my initial opinion and I think that IO is basically making us kill Trump. And after that comes the direct threat too: "I really don't think you want to go that route, man."

Well so much for not easily being offended.

No, you got it all wrong, I wasn't calling you an idiot, either directly or indirectly. I called the idiots at TYT idiots because they have a long record (i.e. years) of demonstrating themselves as absolute idiots. When I said that I don't think you want to go that route, I meant that one should be careful not to fall into the trap of confirmation bias / ideologies, blinding yourself from opposing opinions and become an idiot.

I do not think you are an idiot. You've shown in your first reply that you can be reasoned with. That reply was more down-to-earth, for the lack of a better word, than your OP. So no, I wasn't lumping you in with the idiots from TYT.


You know what? I'm not going to continue this discussion any more. I'm not going to even read your reply. Feel free to write whatever makes you feel like the Master of the Universe. Your attitude only proved to me that you're abusing your Admin authority to needlesly attack, harass and even threaten/provoke people. And that was the sole purpose of your reply. To provoke me so that I lose control, and so you can have the pleasure of banning me. You should be ashamed of yourself and I hope for the sake of everyone that your attitude gets you fired one day.

Well at least you admit that you lost control. That much I agree with.


Edit: Here's some more proof: http://www.xboxoneuk.com/xbox-one/news/26-hours-left-for-hitmans-second-elusive-target/
I guess this Stacey Knowles woman must be as crazy as I am, assuming Troutt represents Trump and all...

How is someone else sharing your opinion proof of anything other than the fact that someone else shares your opinion?

What, because this person writes for some xbox fansite that somehow makes them an authority on the topic and gives credence to your argument? Come on, we all know the abysmal state of game's journalism these days. I see this as sloppy clickbait, nothing more.

BTW, Stacey Knowles is not a woman.

doom-generation
29th May 2016, 00:34
Christ almighty, this escalated quickly! :eek:

Driber
29th May 2016, 00:37
I think we've hit a new record, lol.

StaceyJK
29th May 2016, 21:42
How is someone else sharing your opinion proof of anything other than the fact that someone else shares your opinion?

What, because this person writes for some xbox fansite that somehow makes them an authority on the topic and gives credence to your argument? Come on, we all know the abysmal state of game's journalism these days. I see this as sloppy clickbait, nothing more.

BTW, Stacey Knowles is not a woman.

First, thanks, I am not a woman, so good of you to notice! Not that there's anything wrong with being a woman (except, you know, in the view of a misogynistic Presidential hopeful, and then, well, you're in the same boat as disabled people, Muslim people, poor people, rich people who aren't misogynistic Presidential hopefuls with dreadful hair, and Democrats...) but, as a Brit, I do appreciate factual accuracy.

And as for sharing opinions, well, isn't that what the Internet is for? I mean, that's all anyone can really seem to find these days. We Brits treat Trump - and American politics in general - as some sort of joke, and will continue to do so right up until the point where Old Tiny Hands gets elected. At that point the last thing I'll do before I seal myself in my Anderson shelter to ward off the impending and inevitable apocalypse is see if he'd like to buy this stockpile of anti-Mexican bricks I happen to have right here, for the wall he wants to build... I can offer a good deal, Im sure.

Of course, we poke fun at your political system only to distract ourselves from the complete hash we're making of our own.

Oh, and for any parallel - imagined or otherwise - between Troutt and Trump to be presented as "clickbait" it would have to be in the title, I believe? "26 hours left for Hitman’s second Elusive Target" Oh no, I stand corrected, that really was awfully clickbaity, eh? Sorry, chaps.

Although, you are right, we are in the business of writing things that people want to read, and that means we hope that someone will click on our articles and read them! On that basis, feel free to check out our considered review of your little murder simulator, and join the quarter of a million people who read each month.

http://www.xboxoneuk.com/xbox-one/hitman-episode-2-review/

We quite liked it, as it happens.

(Oh, and it's "games journalism." The apostrophe is quite redundant, I assure you.)

Driber
29th May 2016, 22:21
Hi Stacey and welcome to the forum.


First, thanks, I am not a woman, so good of you to notice! Not that there's anything wrong with being a woman (except, you know, in the view of a misogynistic Presidential hopeful, and then, well, you're in the same boat as disabled people, Muslim people, poor people, rich people who aren't misogynistic Presidential hopefuls with dreadful hair, and Democrats...) but, as a Brit, I do appreciate factual accuracy.

If slandering Trump as a woman hater and a racist is the British way of 'factual accuracy' I fear there is little hope left indeed.


And as for sharing opinions, well, isn't that what the Internet is for?

You are quite right, the internet is a cesspit of opinions, from the tame to the insane. However, the minute a website proclaims to be a news outlet and is obviously set up as one, it is no more than reasonable to expect basic journalistic ethics and practices from said outlet.


I mean, that's all anyone can really seem to find these days.

Sad, but true. However, I do not see how anyone can seriously use that fact as an excuse to not even try. That's the same logic as saying "Oh well, all these game companies are all doing these microtransactions and episodic releases, which nobody really wants, but since everyone is doing it...."


We Brits treat Trump - and American politics in general - as some sort of joke, and will continue to do so right up until the point where Old Tiny Hands gets elected. At that point the last thing I'll do before I seal myself in my Anderson shelter to ward off the impending and inevitable apocalypse is see if he'd like to buy this stockpile of anti-Mexican bricks I happen to have right here, for the wall he wants to build... I can offer a good deal, Im sure.

I have no problem joking about American politics, go right ahead. I can joke about UK politics just as much, if not more. For every crazy far right wing US politician there seems to be an equally crazy far left wing UK politician trying to take people's freedoms away. At the end of the day we are all being screwed, from all directions (that totally didn't sound pervy). And not only by our political opponents but even by those who are supposed to be on our side. Meh, that's life I guess, waddayagonnado.


Of course, we poke fun at your political system only to distract ourselves from the complete hash we're making of our own.

Little correction here in the name of factual accuracy - it's not my political system.


Oh, and for any parallel - imagined or otherwise - between Troutt and Trump to be presented as "clickbait" it would have to be in the title, I believe?

That I'm afraid is incorrect as well.

"click·bait
ˈklikbāt/
nouninformal
noun: clickbait; noun: click bait
(on the Internet) content, especially that of a sensational or provocative nature, whose main purpose is to attract attention and draw visitors to a particular web page."

source: google.

Notice how the definition says nothing about a page title specifically.

Your article could have simply contained the facts, as a respected news source ought to do in my view (and in the view of thousands and thousands of disenfranchised gamers alike). But then, that will of course result in less clicks. Case in point, your article wouldn't even have come up here in the first place if it wasn't for the Trump sensationalism in the text. It is of course entirely your prerogative to run your site (I'm assuming; correct me if I'm wrong) how you see fit, though. But by that same token it is also your viewers' prerogative to call out practices they deem to be harmful to the industry.

doom-generation
29th May 2016, 22:24
First, thanks, I am not a woman, so good of you to notice! Not that there's anything wrong with being a woman (except, you know, in the view of a misogynistic Presidential hopeful, and then, well, you're in the same boat as disabled people, Muslim people, poor people, rich people who aren't misogynistic Presidential hopefuls with dreadful hair, and Democrats...) but, as a Brit, I do appreciate factual accuracy.

And as for sharing opinions, well, isn't that what the Internet is for? I mean, that's all anyone can really seem to find these days. We Brits treat Trump - and American politics in general - as some sort of joke, and will continue to do so right up until the point where Old Tiny Hands gets elected. At that point the last thing I'll do before I seal myself in my Anderson shelter to ward off the impending and inevitable apocalypse is see if he'd like to buy this stockpile of anti-Mexican bricks I happen to have right here, for the wall he wants to build... I can offer a good deal, Im sure.

Of course, we poke fun at your political system only to distract ourselves from the complete hash we're making of our own.

Oh, and for any parallel - imagined or otherwise - between Troutt and Trump to be presented as "clickbait" it would have to be in the title, I believe? "26 hours left for Hitman’s second Elusive Target" Oh no, I stand corrected, that really was awfully clickbaity, eh? Sorry, chaps.

Although, you are right, we are in the business of writing things that people want to read, and that means we hope that someone will click on our articles and read them! On that basis, feel free to check out our considered review of your little murder simulator, and join the quarter of a million people who read each month.

http://www.xboxoneuk.com/xbox-one/hitman-episode-2-review/

We quite liked it, as it happens.

(Oh, and it's "games journalism." The apostrophe is quite redundant, I assure you.)

:eek:

Best post on the forum to date.

http://driber.net/os/popcorn.gif

Driber
29th May 2016, 22:41
Kudos to doom for using the Jon GIF this time! You get cookies :D

http://driber.net/os/chocolate-chip-cookies.jpg


Now if only we could somehow get a GIF of Trump doing the popcorn meme. Preferably with him wearing a Mexican sombrero to cover up that toupée comb-over on that bloated head of his. That would be totally awesomesauce.

doom-generation
29th May 2016, 22:57
Kudos to doom for using the Jon GIF this time! You get cookies :D

Thanks, that was deliberate, just for you :)


Now if only we could somehow get a GIF of Trump doing the popcorn meme. Preferably with him wearing a Mexican sombrero to cover up that toupée comb-over on that bloated head of his. That would be totally awesomesauce.

Not likely, not from future President Trump... God it pains me to say that.

I've replied to your last PM, by the way, not sure if you'd had time to read it yet.

Driber
29th May 2016, 23:07
Thanks, that was deliberate, just for you :)

I feelz so special now!


Not likely, not from future President Trump... God it pains me to say that.

I've predicted it a long time ago and I'll predict it again - Shillary will be the next pres. Count on it. The cult of feminism will make sure of that. Case in point the 'sexism' card that was pulled right here in this very thread. Women are being shamed en-mass to vote for Hillary just because she has the correct baby making parts down there. And look at all those actors who are childishly threatening to run away to Canada if Trump is elected (good riddance, I guess? :whistle:). In short, gender politics today is a force not even the Trump can stomp. Heh. So he's not gonna make it.


I've replied to your last PM, by the way, not sure if you'd had time to read it yet.

Not yet, sorry. I got the notification but I wasn't able to sit down for it yet. I'll get to it soon! :)

Beyonder1979
29th May 2016, 23:09
Hello again everyone. I know I said I wouldn't continue the discussion. And honestly, I'm not going to. I'm not here to argue or anything. No hard feelings. I'm here to just provide some more proof that more and more people seem to be sharing my delusional idea that "Troutt" is somehow a hidden symbolism for Trump.

https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/elusivetarget?source=feed_text&story_id=10154286959698987
Look at the post called "The Congressman is leaving Sapienza in less than three hours! Don't miss your chance to eliminate him!". Now read the first comment by that Houdifa person. The one with 19 (so far) likes and 3 (so far) answers. Read the answers as well. Gee... Must be one of those shared delusions...

Also, Driber, I believe that last post of yours about Troutt's comb-over is lowering the level of the discussion. Please act more professional and give a good example.

Beyonder1979
29th May 2016, 23:19
Even more conspiracy theorists have surfaced!
https://twitter.com/LOLGuy213/status/736451434703663104

Hmm... Seems this mission is gonna be more difficult than expected for Agent 47 to cover-up after all...

doom-generation
29th May 2016, 23:20
I've predicted it a long time ago and I'll predict it again - Shillary will be the next pres. Count on it. The cult of feminism will make sure of that. Case in point the 'sexism' card that was pulled right here in this thread. Women are being shamed en-mass to vote for Hillary just because she has the correct baby making parts down there. And look at all those actors who are childishly threatening to run away to Canada if Trump is elected (good riddance, I guess? :whistle:). In short, gender politics today is a force not even the Trump can stomp. Heh. So he's not gonna make it.

I see a lot of reports about how Hillary is actually turning off a lot of women. That it's Bernie that's got as much if not more female support. Between Hillary and Trump than yeah sure, they'll vote Hillary. Either way, I hope Obama leaves a humdinger of a fart in the Oval Office on his last day. Immature of me, sure.


Also, Driber, I believe that last post of yours about Troutt's comb-over is lowering the level of the discussion. Please act more professional and give a good example.

:eek: Good lord! This thread just keeps on giving!

Driber
29th May 2016, 23:25
Hello again everyone. I know I said I wouldn't continue the discussion. And honestly, I'm not going to. I'm not here to argue or anything. No hard feelings. I'm here to just provide some more proof that more and more people seem to be sharing my delusional idea that "Troutt" is somehow a hidden symbolism for Trump.

https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/elusivetarget?source=feed_text&story_id=10154286959698987
Look at the post called "The Congressman is leaving Sapienza in less than three hours! Don't miss your chance to eliminate him!". Now read the first comment by that Houdifa person. The one with 19 (so far) likes and 3 (so far) answers. Read the answers as well. Gee... Must be one of those shared delusions...

Facebook isn't working properly on my end for some reason (I guess they don't want logic and reason to infiltrate a site that's thriving on narcissism?) but I'm guessing what you're saying is that the theory is catching on with a few additional people. I'm sorry but consider me still unimpressed.


Also, Driber, I believe that last post of yours about Troutt's comb-over is lowering the level of the discussion. Please act more professional and give a good example.

Pointing out that Trump is rocking a comb-over (an actual factual statement) is apparently 'lowering the level of discussion' but outright slanderous statements such as "Trump is a misogynist" are seemingly perfectly peachy. Makes sense.

Beyonder1979
30th May 2016, 00:20
Whether you're impressed or not, my point stands. MORE AND MORE people have the opinion that Troutt is a deliberate attempt to make fun of Trump. Even Stacey seems to think so on his article on an official and major UK gaming site! That maybe doesn't impress you, but it does impress me. It shows that the theory is indeed catching on and many people are pointing something that I personally consider obvious...

But I believe you're missing the point here. The point is not to prove or disprove that IO is making a mockery of Trump. The point is that you consider ALL people who share this opinion delusional, conspiracy theorists etc. These were your words. You're trying WAY too hard to prove that all these similarities are coincidental. Why?? Is it fear of a potential lawsuit? Let's assume that IO is indeed making fun of Trump. Just like they made fun of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in Hitman 2: Silent Assassin. So what?! It won't hurt to admit it... If anything it would be honourable to admit satire. But it sure takes balls to admit it. Going so far as to claim that all people who see similarities between the 2 characters are idiots or whatever, and even attacking the credibility of a well-known UK gaming site shows great panic in my opinion.

Stacey can say whatever he likes Driber. He doesn't have any professional responsibility towards the forum. He's just another member here. He's NOT an Administrator... Nor is he supposed to help make sure with his behaviour that the forums run smoothly...

Clear enough?

Driber
30th May 2016, 01:20
Even more conspiracy theorists have surfaced!
https://twitter.com/LOLGuy213/status/736451434703663104

Hmm... Seems this mission is gonna be more difficult than expected for Agent 47 to cover-up after all...

Did you even read his follow-up at all? The guy himself admits to it being a joke, for Pete's sake.


I see a lot of reports about how Hillary is actually turning off a lot of women. That it's Bernie that's got as much if not more female support. Between Hillary and Trump than yeah sure, they'll vote Hillary. Either way, I hope Obama leaves a humdinger of a fart in the Oval Office on his last day. Immature of me, sure.

Aye, I've heard the same; Hillary is turning off a lot of women lately. And that only makes sense, since not every single woman has been infected with feminism and can still think outside of this destructive ideology. IIRC I've seen polls that indicate that 20% of Americans label themselves as feminist. At first glance that is a comforting thought; most people are intelligent enough to see that the movement does way more harm to society than it does good. But when you look into it deeper, I think you'll find that elements of feminism are more wide spread than the number of actual self proclaimed feminists will show. I'd go into detail but I'm afraid I'd end up writing a 35 page sociology essay that no one here probably wants to read :p

Long story short, I think that despite the fact that Hillary is slowly being outed as NOT the best choice for women to vote for, it's a case of too little too late.

Bernie currently seems like the best candidate, indeed. But a big short coming of him is that he's weak. And at the end of the day Americans want a strong leader, whether that's a democrat or a republican. Or other. Well that, and the fact that Hillary has had the (unchecked :p) privilege of rooting herself into the system over the past god knows how many years, bribing god knows how many politicians, business leaders and lobbyists, who will help make sure she'll get the vote.

What do you mean exactly with that humdinger comment? :scratch:


:eek: Good lord! This thread just keeps on giving!

It's funny, isn't it. Whenever these people proclaim to be 'done', they can never resists to come back to sling some more dung.


Whether you're impressed or not, my point stands. MORE AND MORE people have the opinion that Troutt is a deliberate attempt to make fun of Trump.

Which gives ZERO credence to the legitimacy of your theory. We do not measure things to be correct by the number of people believing in it.


Even Stacey seems to think so on his article on an official and major UK gaming site! That maybe doesn't impress you, but it does impress me. It shows that the theory is indeed catching on and many people are pointing something that I personally consider obvious...

You're right, it doesn't impress me. In fact, it impresses me even less so, now that he came here just to write that snarky post in defense of his article when the whole thing was really a non-issue.

And the fact that you're giving a lot of weight to a self proclaimed unofficial fan site and trying to prop it up as an "official and major UK gaming site" speaks volumes to me.


But I believe you're missing the point here. The point is not to prove or disprove that IO is making a mockery of Trump.

I don't believe that for a second. You've been deliberately phrasing your arguments with words like "proof", "undeniable", "obvious", etc. I think you are very much trying to proof your Trump theory to the world. That's why you keep coming back here, despite claiming to be "done" and "ending the discussion", posting link after link, being very pushy with your opinion.


The point is that you consider ALL people who share this opinion delusional, conspiracy theorists etc. These were your words.

No, those are not my words. Quote me where I said "ALL". Quote me where I said "delusional".

I'll wait...


You're trying WAY too hard to prove that all these similarities are coincidental.

Wrong again. Unlike you, I'm not trying to "prove" anything. All I basically said is that I don't believe your theory unless we get some official information from IO that it is correct. That's all. You've been riding my back like crazy for simply having an opinion opposite to your own. Apparently it's so difficult for you to accept that we disagree, that's why you keep throwing ad hominems at me.


Why?? Is it fear of a potential lawsuit?

Nope, completely irrelevant.


Let's assume that IO is indeed making fun of Trump. Just like they made fun of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in Hitman 2: Silent Assassin. So what?! It won't hurt to admit it... If anything it would be honourable to admit satire. But it sure takes balls to admit it. Going so far as to claim that all people who see similarities between the 2 characters are idiots or whatever, and even attacking the credibility of a well-known UK gaming site shows great panic in my opinion.

This right here only compounds what I said about you coming across as a tin foil hat conspiracy person. I don't work for IO, mate; I have nothing to 'admit'. I don't CARE if their inspiration was Trump.


Going so far as to claim that all people who see similarities between the 2 characters are idiots or whatever

Nothing says intellectual dishonesty more than repeating an accusation that has already been demonstrated to be false.


Stacey can say whatever he likes Driber. He doesn't have any professional responsibility towards the forum. He's just another member here. He's NOT an Administrator... Nor is he supposed to help make sure with his behaviour that the forums run smoothly...

Clear enough?

Right, Stacey can say whatever he likes here as long as he abides by our forum ToU. And his post was fine, so I have no idea why on earth you think I have a problem with his post. He posted in a civil manner what he thought of my comments and I responded in a civil manner what I thought of his comments to my comments. No problem there.

You, however, are in constant violation of our ToU. So you might want to reassess your strategy going forward if you wish to remain a member here. Clear enough? If not, PM me. Stop dragging this 'professional' issue you have with me out in public any further.

doom-generation
30th May 2016, 02:36
Whether you're impressed or not, my point stands. MORE AND MORE people have the opinion that Troutt is a deliberate attempt to make fun of Trump.

Can we make a distinction here? Is the character inspired by Trump? Possibly. Impossible to know for sure, but possibly. Is it making fun of him? I don't see how it is. The character does/says nothing particularly out of the ordinary to imply a mockery of Trump. Also, Trump does not need any help in making a mockery of himself.


Let's assume that IO is indeed making fun of Trump. Just like they made fun of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in Hitman 2: Silent Assassin.

I think those are even more of a stretch than Troutt = Trump, to be honest. So because you kill targets in Afghanistan in SA, that means one must have been Osama Bin Laden? Ridiculous. Sorry, but I really don't like how you throw that opinion out like it is a fact to try to back up another opinion.


Aye, I've heard the same; Hillary is turning off a lot of women lately. And that only makes sense, since not every single woman has been infected with feminism and can still think outside of this destructive ideology. IIRC I've seen polls that indicate that 20% of Americans label themselves as feminist. At first glance that is a comforting thought; most people are intelligent enough to see that the movement does way more harm to society than it does good. But when you look into it deeper, I think you'll find that elements of feminism are more wide spread than the number of actual self proclaimed feminists will show. I'd go into detail but I'm afraid I'd end up writing a 35 page sociology essay that no one here probably wants to read :p

I think it depends on what definition of the word "feminism" people chose to believe in, as it seems very much up for interpretation these days. If it's the older, more genuinely equality based version that comes more or less into line with humanism, then fine. However, the more modern, poisonous, self-defeating, man-hating "internet-feminism" can **** right off.


Long story short, I think that despite the fact that Hillary is slowly being outed as NOT the best choice for women to vote for, it's a case of too little too late.

Bernie currently seems like the best candidate, indeed. But a big short coming of him is that he's weak. And at the end of the day Americans want a strong leader, whether that's a democrat or a republican. Or other. Well that, and the fact that Hillary has had the (unchecked :p) privilege of rooting herself into the system over the past god knows how many years, bribing god knows how many politicians, business leaders and lobbyists, who will help make sure she'll get the vote.

I understand the desire for a strong leader to represent the country (my own voting habits here the UK have reflected this) but where do you draw the line? Trump is certainly the strongest personality of the three, absolutely no doubt about that, but do you think that might do the country more harm than good? I'm thinking, for example, about how Putin has expressed positivity towards Trump as a strong leader, but I don't think anybody for a second thinks that Putin genuinely respects the man, do they? I fear a Russia who sees a Trump Presidency as an opportunity to act more irresponsibly than they already do.


What do you mean exactly with that humdinger comment? :scratch:

Ahah! Apologies, I wasn't sure if that would translate well to a non-Brit. I guess in the context, the word heinous would suffice.


Which gives ZERO credence to the legitimacy of your theory. We do not measure things to be correct by the number of people believing in it.

I wish more people understood this, ironically :)


And the fact that you're giving a lot of weight to a self proclaimed unofficial fan site and trying to prop it up as an "official and major UK gaming site" speaks volumes to me.

29 year old British gamer right here who has never heard of it. Just sayin'.

TheZaqw
30th May 2016, 02:53
Troutt is clearly a parody of a trout; if not a fish himself. It's true -- it's true, because his last name is troutt. Just look at his face. Case closed. He's a fish; a act of blatant speciesism.
Poor fish, I'm sorry I killed you! I thought you were a congressman, but you simply wanted the sea.

doom-generation
30th May 2016, 03:26
Troutt is clearly a parody of a trout; if not a fish himself. It's true -- it's true, because his last name is troutt. Just look at his face. Case closed. He's a fish; a act of blatant speciesism.
Poor fish, I'm sorry I killed you! I thought you were a congressman, but you simply wanted the sea.

Kanye? ;)

Driber
30th May 2016, 10:00
I think it depends on what definition of the word "feminism" people chose to believe in, as it seems very much up for interpretation these days. If it's the older, more genuinely equality based version that comes more or less into line with humanism, then fine. However, the more modern, poisonous, self-defeating, man-hating "internet-feminism" can **** right off.

I would argue that feminism did start out as an unreasonable, radical, childish, bra-burning, post office-bombing, man-hating, armpit hair obsessed movement. The idea that "old/true feminism was/is good and noble" is largely a myth, perpetuated by... wait for it... feminists. So if we want to split hairs I suppose we could talk about the distinction between historical feminism and the old suffrage movement (not to be confused with suffragettes) which, as you say, went more in line with humanism as they brought equal rights and all that good stuff, but we obviously already agree that what feminism is today is utterly toxic and damaging society in a profound way.

We find ourselves in an age of oppression, censorship and extreme tension between the genders/races thanks to feminism. Lives are being completely destroyed due to feminism. False rape accusations; Duke Lacross, Rolling Stone UVA rape case, mattress girl, and more recently, the Jian Ghomeshi trials. And those are just the cases we hear about in the media; it's just the tip of the iceberg. And people are even driven to anxiety disorders and suicide thanks to feminism. Father's rights taken away, battered men shelters closed by feminists, support groups disrupted, (perceived) MRA meetings receiving bomb threats, people being taught to hate themselves because of their gender. The list goes on and on.

Of course, we have to insert the disclaimer #notall (https://twitter.com/hashtag/notall) for those who look at this and knee-jerkingly go "How dare you generalize like this! There are also good feminists! I personally know one!" Yeah, so do I, and I'm never attacking them.


I understand the desire for a strong leader to represent the country (my own voting habits here the UK have reflected this) but where do you draw the line? Trump is certainly the strongest personality of the three, absolutely no doubt about that, but do you think that might do the country more harm than good? I'm thinking, for example, about how Putin has expressed positivity towards Trump as a strong leader, but I don't think anybody for a second thinks that Putin genuinely respects the man, do they? I fear a Russia who sees a Trump Presidency as an opportunity to act more irresponsibly than they already do.

I think the main difference between Hillary and Trump is their level of unpredictability. They are both unpredictable (Hillary is a serial liar and a shill who will pander to whatever is the popular opinion as opposed to firmly stand for her own beliefs - if she has any, that is.) but with Hillary I can at least sort of picture what a Hillary presidency is going to look like; I can't so much picture what a Trump administration will look like, other than he's obviously not going to be this loose canon that he is now when he's trying to get people's support. I refuse to give into the fear mongering that's going on about Trump "leading the world into Armageddon" and all that nonsense.

Trump is an intelligent man and he's a successful business leader, which takes a basic amount of reasonableness. He's not going to send nukes off to North Korea and the Middle East once elected into office, like some pundits will have you believe. I would be way more worried about giving the keys to the nukes to someone like Ted Cruz or Mitt Romney, who are coo coo religious fundamentalists. Say what you will about his verbal delivery, I think behind that pompous and politically incorrect (which I love, BTW) exterior is a man of reason.

As for Putin's views on Trump, that's hard to put my finger on, mate. The Russians are a whole nother breed! And I say that as someone who's grown an affinity to Russians over the years. They are a curious bunch, and I certainly don't dismiss the idea of people like Putin actually respecting Trump. Will a Trump presidency cause Russia to act even more irresponsibly? Possibly. Or perhaps Trump is exactly what the world needs right now to kick Russia in their behind to shape up. What has Obama done so far? Or the West at large for that matter? Russia invaded Crimea only recently and took it from Ukraine like a piece of candy from a baby. And the world stood by and did nothing. I certainly can't picture Hillary being a match to Putin, let alone Bernie.


Ahah! Apologies, I wasn't sure if that would translate well to a non-Brit. I guess in the context, the word heinous would suffice.

I see :)


Troutt is clearly a parody of a trout; if not a fish himself. It's true -- it's true, because his last name is troutt. Just look at his face. Case closed. He's a fish; a act of blatant speciesism.
Poor fish, I'm sorry I killed you! I thought you were a congressman, but you simply wanted the sea.


Kanye? ;)

:lol:

doom-generation
30th May 2016, 12:12
I would argue that feminism did start out as an unreasonable, radical, childish, bra-burning, post office-bombing, man-hating, armpit hair obsessed movement. The idea that "old/true feminism was/is good and noble" is largely a myth, perpetuated by... wait for it... feminists. So if we want to split hairs I suppose we could talk about the distinction between historical feminism and the old suffrage movement (not to be confused with suffragettes) which, as you say, went more in line with humanism as they brought equal rights and all that good stuff, but we obviously already agree that what feminism is today is utterly toxic and damaging society in a profound way.

Yeah I didn't mean its roots, but an older, less-poisonous interpretation of it.


I think the main difference between Hillary and Trump is their level of unpredictability. They are both unpredictable (Hillary is a serial liar and a shill who will pander to whatever is the popular opinion as opposed to firmly stand for her own beliefs - if she has any, that is.) but with Hillary I can at least sort of picture what a Hillary presidency is going to look like; I can't so much picture what a Trump administration will look like, other than he's obviously not going to be this loose canon that he is now when he's trying to get people's support. I refuse to give into the fear mongering that's going on about Trump "leading the world into Armageddon" and all that nonsense.

Agreed. Certainly I don't think Trump would lead us into Armageddon, but I do think he'd do more harm than good. I see Trump's success as in no small part due to the Republican Party's complete failure to be reasonable over the last several years. Say what you will about Obama, but the Republicans have stamped their feet his entire presidency. There's no spirit of "for the greater good" in Washington, it's all "Us vs Them", and it's that attitude that has made people want a non-politician in power, just to do things differently.


I would be way more worried about giving the keys to the nukes to someone like Ted Cruz or Mitt Romney, who are coo coo religious fundamentalists.

Definitely agree. Keep your religious views out of political power.


As for Putin's views on Trump, that's hard to put my finger on, mate. The Russians are a whole nother breed! And I say that as someone who's grown an affinity to Russians over the years. They are a curious bunch, and I certainly don't dismiss the idea of people like Putin actually respecting Trump. Will a Trump presidency cause Russia to act even more irresponsibly? Possibly. Or perhaps Trump is exactly what the world needs right now to kick Russia in their behind to shape up. What has Obama done so far? Or the West at large for that matter? Russia invaded Crimea only recently and took it from Ukraine like a piece of candy from a baby. And the world stood by and did nothing. I certainly can't picture Hillary being a match to Putin, let alone Bernie.

I don't see Putin taking a Trump Presidency seriously, though as you point out, I can say the same for Hillary and Bernie. I think he probably does have respect for Obama, begrudging as it may be. I get mixed feeling on Russia... They did more to win WW2 than anyone else, and I do like that they just decided, pretty much on a whim it seemed, to move into Syria. Even if it was for the wrong reasons, I admire how they could just do it, no drawn out discussions in their parliament or anything. Or the other side, they're a terrible place to be a homosexual, and they just seem determined to be un-cooperative with West just for the sake of it sometimes.

Driber
30th May 2016, 16:34
Yeah I didn't mean its roots, but an older, less-poisonous interpretation of it.

You mean to say feminism started off bad, then become good, and then bad again? I don't subscribe to that idea either. Feminism has always been wonky movement at best and a backwards cult at worst. There have been individual feminists who just focused on equal rights in a reasonable non man-hating way, sure. But the movement as a whole never deserved any cookies IMO.


Agreed. Certainly I don't think Trump would lead us into Armageddon, but I do think he'd do more harm than good. I see Trump's success as in no small part due to the Republican Party's complete failure to be reasonable over the last several years.

Let's not forget the democrats smothering people with P.C. and other regressive nonsense. That's driven people to Trump as well. There has been no major democratic politicians defending true freedom of speech. In the UK the left is even imprisoning innocent citizens for saying politically incorrect things. As I said earlier, we are all getting screwed from both sides of the political spectrum.


Say what you will about Obama, but the Republicans have stamped their feet his entire presidency.

Indeed. Completely and utterly childish behaviour. If Trump is elected, though, I expect to see much of that coming from the democrats this time around. Them dems sure aren't above stooping to the lows that we've all gotten used to from the right.

Just look at some of this juvenile stuff coming from major left wing news outlets - blurring Trump in their coverage:

http://i.imgur.com/8ozMYrN.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/biSMFKX.jpg

This is the kind of childishness that almost makes me wish Trump does get elected. Almost.


There's no spirit of "for the greater good" in Washington, it's all "Us vs Them", and it's that attitude that has made people want a non-politician in power, just to do things differently.

Very much agree.


I don't see Putin taking a Trump Presidency seriously, though as you point out, I can say the same for Hillary and Bernie. I think he probably does have respect for Obama, begrudging as it may be. I get mixed feeling on Russia... They did more to win WW2 than anyone else, and I do like that they just decided, pretty much on a whim it seemed, to move into Syria. Even if it was for the wrong reasons, I admire how they could just do it, no drawn out discussions in their parliament or anything. Or the other side, they're a terrible place to be a homosexual, and they just seem determined to be un-cooperative with West just for the sake of it sometimes.

Russia gets no cookies for their role in winning WWII. They completely ****ed over all those countries they were supposedly "protecting from Hitler", taking them over by imposing their own oppressive regime. While the countries freed by the Western allied forces all prospered and went on to become the world's leading economies. Oh yeah and then there was also the mass rape of women of "freed" countries right after the war by Soviet troops. So yeah, no cookies.

As for Russia moving into Syria, I'm sure that's all self interest as well and far removed from humanitarian reasons. Remember that Russia has been at war with Muslim extremists for the longest time now, so it's in their best interest to tackle ISIS. And as you rightfully pointed out yourself, Russia treats gays horribly. And that's something that goes right up all the way to the government. So I don't believe for a second they "help" out in Syria out of the kindness of their hearts.

doom-generation
30th May 2016, 18:11
You mean to say feminism started off bad, then become good, and then bad again? I don't subscribe to that idea either. Feminism has always been wonky movement at best and a backwards cult at worst. There have been individual feminists who just focused on equal rights in a reasonable non man-hating way, sure. But the movement as a whole never deserved any cookies IMO.

I mean the basic tenents of not being considered inferior to men, and things that are still ongoing today, like the wage-gap for example.


In the UK the left is even imprisoning innocent citizens for saying politically incorrect things. As I said earlier, we are all getting screwed from both sides of the political spectrum.

If you're referring to some incidents that I think you're referring to, the cause of arrest most certainly wasn't for being politically incorrect, we wouldn't have anything on television if that in itself were an arrestable offence :p, but for "inciting hatred". That charge is of course, up for interpretation.


Russia gets no cookies for their role in winning WWII. They completely ****ed over all those countries they were supposedly "protecting from Hitler", taking them over by imposing their own oppressive regime. While the countries freed by the Western allied forces all prospered and went on to become the world's leading economies. Oh yeah and then there was also the mass rape of women of "freed" countries right after the war by Soviet troops. So yeah, no cookies.

Oh they were certainly no angels in the immediate aftermath of the war, no doubt about that, I just meant in terms of sheer lives thrown at defeating the Nazis. The plight of the Jews in the Holocaust aside, the Russians suffered terribly.


As for Russia moving into Syria, I'm sure that's all self interest as well and far removed from humanitarian reasons. Remember that Russia has been at war with Muslim extremists for the longest time now, so it's in their best interest to tackle ISIS. And as you rightfully pointed out yourself, Russia treats gays horribly. And that's something that goes right up all the way to the government. So I don't believe for a second they "help" out in Syria out of the kindness of their hearts.

Oh no I absolutely agree, hence when I said it was for the wrong reasons. Self-interest is all Russia knows. "Humanitarian" isn't in their political lexicon. I don't see Russia having any real interest in tackling ISIS; it just served as an excuse to push back those other groups that want the Pro-Russian Assad out of power in Syria. It's self-interest every step of the way.

Driber
30th May 2016, 21:46
I mean the basic tenents of not being considered inferior to men

The thing is that women are not considered inferior to men here in the West. Not now, not 100 years ago. If anything, women have been put on pedestals and treated as a protected class.


and things that are still ongoing today, like the wage-gap for example.

Looks like you've bought into one of the many feminist myths. There is no pay gap. Just like there is no "1 in 5 women get raped in colleges". This is all feminist propaganda and manipulating statistics. Women are not the victim of systematic gender wage discrimination or rampant sex crimes.

For crying out out, 1in5 would mean that women today are raped more than those women after the WWII as we just discussed! Even bloody Obama parroted this crazy propaganda. How can so many people believe this is an actual plausible scenario in a modern Western country like the US. Truly baffling!

Sorry, got a bit ranty there, heh. Not aimed at you personally, Doom :)

Anyway, here's the pay gap myth debunked: http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/


If you're referring to some incidents that I think you're referring to, the cause of arrest most certainly wasn't for being politically incorrect, we wouldn't have anything on television if that in itself were an arrestable offence :p, but for "inciting hatred". That charge is of course, up for interpretation.

Muslim Police Chief Says ‘Offending Culture, Religion And Tradition’ Not Protected As Free Speech

source (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/09/muslim-police-chief-says-offending-culture-religion-tradition-not-protected-free-speech/)

----

Greater Glasgow Police Twitter Account Warns Of A 'Visit From Us' If You Post An Offensive Comment

http://i.imgur.com/RVBgqdn.jpg

source (http://www.dailywire.com/news/4599/greater-glasgow-police-twitter-account-warns-visit-aaron-bandler)

----

Police In Scotland Tweet Out Plans To 'Investigate' Any 'Offensive Comments' On Social Media
http://i.imgur.com/7gmdR2i.jpg
source (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141230/11280629551/police-scotland-tweet-out-plans-to-investigate-any-offensive-comments-social-media.shtml)

----

UK police arrested a man for making a joke YouTube video about his girlfriend's pet dog being a Nazi.

58l9a6y6Rkc

I can go on and on...

Yes, "inciting hatred" is indeed very much up to interpretation, that's the whole problem in the first place. UK police arbitrarily decides on their own what they deem to be "inciting hatred" by going around policing the internet and sticking their noses into people's personal lives and then arresting people BEFORE a judge has ruled what they did was indeed "inciting hatred".

Satire? Hatred!

Jokes? Hatred!

Political commentary? Hatred!

Let's round people up and throw them in jail willy nilly over facebook posts that hurt someone's feelings. We'll figure out later if they are innocent or not. First it's thought crime punishment time to scare the public straight.


Oh they were certainly no angels in the immediate aftermath of the war, no doubt about that, I just meant in terms of sheer lives thrown at defeating the Nazis. The plight of the Jews in the Holocaust aside, the Russians suffered terribly.

I still can't give cookies to a government that throws their citizens into war like cannon fodder and then screws over the countries it supposedly "freed" from Hitler by turning them into Soviet satellite states.


Oh no I absolutely agree, hence when I said it was for the wrong reasons. Self-interest is all Russia knows. "Humanitarian" isn't in their political lexicon. I don't see Russia having any real interest in tackling ISIS; it just served as an excuse to push back those other groups that want the Pro-Russian Assad out of power in Syria. It's self-interest every step of the way.

That is probably true, yeah.

Beyonder1979
30th May 2016, 23:13
@doom-generation: "I think those are even more of a stretch than Troutt = Trump, to be honest. So because you kill targets in Afghanistan in SA, that means one must have been Osama Bin Laden? Ridiculous. Sorry, but I really don't like how you throw that opinion out like it is a fact to try to back up another opinion."

The facial texture as well as the clothes of the 2 targets were almost IDENTICAL to bin Laden and Hussein. Come on man! What are you and your pal Driber gonna say next? That Mario and Luigi Saltatore, the Red and Green Plumbers in Sapienza, are actually NOT representing Nintendo's Super Mario Brothers? Am I a conspiracy theorist for believing that too? Get real.



@Driber: "Which gives ZERO credence to the legitimacy of your theory. We do not measure things to be correct by the number of people believing in it."

As a matter of fact that's entirely false. We do. And it's called DEMOCRACY. Let me give you an example: Many decades ago people believed that Homosexuality was a mental desease and it was actually illegal. After decades of lobbying in arts, sciences and politics, the public opinion changed. Pressure was put to the political system and new laws were passed. And Homosexuality is considered just a normal sexual preference today and is absolutely legal. This feat was achieved by people who fought for decades with science and art as their weapons and slowly managed to change the public opinion. Then the people voted and voila! So yes, we DO measure and DECIDE on what is right or wrong based on the number of people believing in it. DEMOCRACY is the only way we decide on anything really. I trust that you DO believe in Democracy, right?

"You've been riding my back like crazy for simply having an opinion opposite to your own. Apparently it's so difficult for you to accept that we disagree, that's why you keep throwing ad hominems at me."

That's exactly what you have been doing to me actually.

"This right here only compounds what I said about you coming across as a tin foil hat conspiracy person."

This accusation again. You insist on saying that I'm a conspiracy theorist because I believe that Troutt is a representation of Trump. What about all the other people who share this opinion? Using your logic, they're all conspiracy theorists!

"Right, Stacey can say whatever he likes here as long as he abides by our forum ToU. And his post was fine, so I have no idea why on earth you think I have a problem with his post."

But you DO have a problem with his post! You said it yourself in your previous reply to me: "Pointing out that Trump is rocking a comb-over (an actual factual statement) is apparently 'lowering the level of discussion' but outright slanderous statements such as "Trump is a misogynist" are seemingly perfectly peachy. Makes sense." You also said it in your reply to him: "If slandering Trump as a woman hater and a racist is the British way of 'factual accuracy' I fear there is little hope left indeed." You CLEARLY had a problem with his post. But I didn't see you threatening to ban him...

[redacted]

Also, for the record, here is the picture with the likeness of Anthony L. Troutt and the description of his political views: http://hitman.wikia.com/wiki/Anthony_L._Troutt

And we already have a major gaming news site http://www.xboxoneuk.com/xbox-one/news/26-hours-left-for-hitmans-second-elusive-target/ as well as people on social media, noticing or even claiming that Troutt is indeed representing Trump. And sometimes, that's all it takes really...

Thank you for your understanding and co-operation.

doom-generation
30th May 2016, 23:34
@doom-generation: "I think those are even more of a stretch than Troutt = Trump, to be honest. So because you kill targets in Afghanistan in SA, that means one must have been Osama Bin Laden? Ridiculous. Sorry, but I really don't like how you throw that opinion out like it is a fact to try to back up another opinion."

The facial texture as well as the clothes of the 2 targets were almost IDENTICAL to bin Laden and Hussein. Come on man! What are you and your pal Driber gonna say next? That Mario and Luigi Saltatore, the Red and Green Plumbers in Sapienza, are actually NOT representing Nintendo's Super Mario Brothers? Am I a conspiracy theorist for believing that too? Get real.


The "facial texture" and clothes are almost identical? Well that sure is mildly offensive. Nice stereotyping. Here's the first Afghan target from SA:

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/hitman/images/9/96/Ahmed_Zahir.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120118043548

Know what I see? An Afghan adult male. That's it.

Target 2: http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/hitman/images/b/bc/Mohammad_Amin.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120118045857

Wow, that's Saddam's mustache alright, couldn't possibly just be another Middle-Eastern male.

Target 3: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/hitman/images/a/a2/Abdul_Bismillah_Malik.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120118055501

Target 4: http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/hitman/images/f/fb/Yussef_Hussein.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120118045546

A Khan and a member of the Afghan Army, respectively. No on both.


@Driber: "Which gives ZERO credence to the legitimacy of your theory. We do not measure things to be correct by the number of people believing in it."

As a matter of fact that's entirely false. We do. And it's called DEMOCRACY. Let me give you an example: Many decades ago people believed that Homosexuality was a mental desease and it was actually illegal. After decades of lobbying in arts, sciences and politics, the public opinion changed.

You actually just proved Driber's point, rather than your own.


As a matter of fact, I would like to have witnesses here. And I made sure to keep a copy of this entire discussion because, you never know who else might have been notified and is reading it... And just in case, NO, you do NOT have the right to disclose my personal information here in public.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/mer6pqlwb5ssyrle6s0x.gif

Driber
31st May 2016, 00:43
Beyonder1979, I warned you to stop breaking the rules. I edited your post to take out the inappropriate bits. You have a copy so you know exactly which parts I'm talking about. You now have an infraction on your name. Next time will be a ban. This is your last warning - take that issue into PM.


What are you and your pal Driber gonna say next?

You hear that, Doom? We're pals :friends:


@Driber: "Which gives ZERO credence to the legitimacy of your theory. We do not measure things to be correct by the number of people believing in it."

As a matter of fact that's entirely false. We do. And it's called DEMOCRACY. Let me give you an example: Many decades ago people believed that Homosexuality was a mental desease and it was actually illegal. After decades of lobbying in arts, sciences and politics, the public opinion changed. Pressure was put to the political system and new laws were passed. And Homosexuality is considered just a normal sexual preference today and is absolutely legal. This feat was achieved by people who fought for decades with science and art as their weapons and slowly managed to change the public opinion. Then the people voted and voila! So yes, we DO measure and DECIDE on what is right or wrong based on the number of people believing in it. DEMOCRACY is the only way we decide on anything really. I trust that you DO believe in Democracy, right?

As Doom pointed out, you just ironically proved my point. A lot of people used to believe that homosexuality is a mental decease. And they were wrong. See, the amount of people believing in something false didn't make it true.

And FYI, what proved the theory to be false was science. Not democracy. We don't hold public votings on what gets into the DSM-5.


"You've been riding my back like crazy for simply having an opinion opposite to your own. Apparently it's so difficult for you to accept that we disagree, that's why you keep throwing ad hominems at me."

That's exactly what you have been doing to me actually.

I don't think you understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.


"This right here only compounds what I said about you coming across as a tin foil hat conspiracy person."

This accusation again. You insist on saying that I'm a conspiracy theorist because I believe that Troutt is a representation of Trump. What about all the other people who share this opinion? Using your logic, they're all conspiracy theorists!

You are wrong in two ways. First, I have not actually accused you; I gave you my opinion on how you come across. Second, no, not everyone is a conspiracy theorist. That tweet you posted for example was clearly a joke; the guy did not seriously put forward the theory Troutt = Trump. You, however, are. Relentlessly.


"Right, Stacey can say whatever he likes here as long as he abides by our forum ToU. And his post was fine, so I have no idea why on earth you think I have a problem with his post."

But you DO have a problem with his post! You said it yourself in your previous reply to me: "Pointing out that Trump is rocking a comb-over (an actual factual statement) is apparently 'lowering the level of discussion' but outright slanderous statements such as "Trump is a misogynist" are seemingly perfectly peachy. Makes sense." You also said it in your reply to him: "If slandering Trump as a woman hater and a racist is the British way of 'factual accuracy' I fear there is little hope left indeed." You CLEARLY had a problem with his post. But I didn't see you threatening to ban him...

There was no problem with Tracey's post from a forum ToU perspective. He didn't break any rules whereas you did. So no warning (I gave you a warning, not a threat) for him necessary. I don't know how much more plainly than that I can put it.


Also, for the record, here is the picture with the likeness of Anthony L. Troutt and the description of his political views: http://hitman.wikia.com/wiki/Anthony_L._Troutt

"A decorated war hero." That doesn't sound like Trump at all. More like McCain if anything.


And we already have a major gaming news site http://www.xboxoneuk.com/xbox-one/news/26-hours-left-for-hitmans-second-elusive-target/ as well as people on social media, noticing or even claiming that Troutt is indeed representing Trump. And sometimes, that's all it takes really...

All it takes for what? For your theory to become fact? I'm sorry but that's not how things are done.


The "facial texture" and clothes are almost identical? Well that sure is mildly offensive. Nice stereotyping.

I was thinking the same thing.

Quajek
31st May 2016, 14:17
Beyonder1979 is outraged that someone would do something that hurts his precious feels.

I'm sick of this overly PC right-wing culture, where you can't say anything without getting attacked by the whiny right wing.

If your political ideology is so frail that a character in a game that doesn't look or sound anything like your chosen candidate but you're choosing to conflate the two for the sole purpose of getting upset can somehow destroy it, then maybe you should re-examine your entire ideology.

You can't say anything without these people getting offended and whining!

Toughen up, Beyonder.

desperado1089
31st May 2016, 22:07
While I didn't even think twice about who Troutt is supposed to represent (I still don't think that he represents Trump), I will add this to the discussion: calling Trump a misogynist, or a racist, or an ableist, is NOT slander. It's a factual analysis of his character, based on some, if not all, of the inflammatory statements he has made at rallies and other public appearances. He has certainly "incited hatred" too...I particularly recall one Trump rally attendee stating that he would kill a so-called "terrorist" whose only crime was protesting the rally, if he saw this poor person (who of course was a non-white) protesting another rally. Yes, I am liberal in my political views, but that doesn't mean I subscribe to the idea that any joke that COULD be interpreted as offensive to ANYONE should be censored and/or banned. Political correctness is just about as much a gray area as feminism: some who subscribe to either one of those are reasonable and don't believe in TOTAL suppression of the targeted group/idea/action, but the unfortunate truth is that for the most part, both ideologies are toxic to society. And for the record, I am a male yet believe that the way women are treated in SOME instances is absolutely horrible; while I don't necessarily believe that the whole 1 in 5 women stat, or the wage gap stat, are true and/or objective, I do believe that when a rapist is put on trial, the defense can and does attempt to make it sound like it was the victim's fault, and that SOME companies either consciously or unconsciously pay their female employees less than their male counterparts.

desperado1089
31st May 2016, 22:16
P.S. What actually IS slander is claiming Obama is a Muslim terrorist. Slander is, by definition, an untrue statement, is it not? So calling Trump a racist, based on his inflammatory statements attacking Muslims and other ethnic minorities and his desire to build a wall between the US and Mexico in order to keep out the "riffraff" (I'm paraphrasing), is not slander.

Driber
31st May 2016, 23:27
While I didn't even think twice about who Troutt is supposed to represent (I still don't think that he represents Trump), I will add this to the discussion: calling Trump a misogynist, or a racist, or an ableist, is NOT slander. It's a factual analysis of his character, based on some, if not all, of the inflammatory statements he has made at rallies and other public appearances.

If you're referring to the Mexican rapists comment, that one has been quote mined to death and blown way out of proportion. Not wanting to let rapists into the country is not racist, that's just common sense. He never said that all Mexicans are rapists. So yes, calling Trump a racist because of that is wrong and slanderous.

And I'd love to hear the evidence for the "misogynist" accusation. Saying some unflattering things about SOME women is not misogynist. It's rude, but not misogynist. Same with saying some unflattering things about some men. And he has. But no one pays attention to that, because apparently it's only wrong when it concerns women. And that's kinda sexist if you ask me.

[edit: I'm not accusing you, desperado1089 :)]

And 'ableist' is a BS term that means nothing. Just like 'fattist', 'ageist', and all other SJW nonsense terms designed to censor people's free speech.


He has certainly "incited hatred" too...

He hasn't. At least not to my knowledge. If you have some concrete evidence of him actually demonstrably inciting hatred I'd love to see it.


I particularly recall one Trump rally attendee stating that he would kill a so-called "terrorist" whose only crime was protesting the rally, if he saw this poor person (who of course was a non-white) protesting another rally.

Bernie/Hillary supporters are the most aggressive and violent of all political candidate supporters. They go out and randomly beat up Trump supporters for no reason other than simply being Trump supporters, threaten to assassinate Trump, stopping traffic, shutting down events, lying, are racist as hell, and spreading hatred on the internet like there's no tomorrow.

So... according to your standards Bernie and Hillary must be "inciting hatred" as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/21/police-officer-trump-protesters-were-the-most-hateful-evil-people-ive-ever-seen/

Read the full article. Especially note this part:

“I gained a lot of respect for Donald Trump,” Tatum said. “I think that if you want to know the truth about stuff, you got to examine it, you got to physically show up. You show up to events and you’ll get a perspective of what’s really going on and you won’t have to listen to what anybody else says.”


Yes, I am liberal in my political views, but that doesn't mean I subscribe to the idea that any joke that COULD be interpreted as offensive to ANYONE should be censored and/or banned.

:thumb:


Political correctness is just about as much a gray area as feminism: some who subscribe to either one of those are reasonable and don't believe in TOTAL suppression of the targeted group/idea/action, but the unfortunate truth is that for the most part, both ideologies are toxic to society.

Apart from the grey area bit (both ideologies are inherently oppressive and flawed, no matter how many reasonable people subscribe to it) I agree; they are toxic and we need to do away with both of them altogether in regular society. Leave political correctness to politicians is my motto.


And for the record, I am a male yet believe that the way women are treated in SOME instances is absolutely horrible

Sure, SOME. But the same goes for men. We don't need feminism for either.

If anything, feminism is increasing the gender divide and heightening the tensions between the sexes, causing more instances of horrible treatment on both sides.


while I don't necessarily believe that the whole 1 in 5 women stat, or the wage gap stat, are true and/or objective, I do believe that when a rapist is put on trial, the defense can and does attempt to make it sound like it was the victim's fault

That's a lawyer's job, to try and get him off or reduce his sentence. The same is done for women on trial; their lawyer will do everything in their power to help them. You should see the crazy stuff women are acquitted off in court. They get away with murder. Literally.


and that SOME companies either consciously or unconsciously pay their female employees less than their male counterparts.

Women tend to be less aggressive in negotiating their salary. That's neither the fault nor responsibility of the company; it's the flaw of the woman who isn't as good at it as her male counterpart.

And you know how feminism is trying to fix this? Encouraging women to be stronger? Of course not. That would be way too reasonable for feminists. God forbid we stop treating women like damsels in distress. No, feminists are demanding laws forbidding companies from engaging in salary negotiations during the hiring process. Absolute insanity. Talk about being condescending to an entire gender and treating women like children. So again, no, we don't need feminism. Feminism isn't helping society, it's hurting society.


P.S. What actually IS slander is claiming Obama is a Muslim terrorist.

Yes, calling Obama a terrorist is slander.


Slander is, by definition, an untrue statement, is it not? So calling Trump a racist, based on his inflammatory statements attacking Muslims and other ethnic minorities and his desire to build a wall between the US and Mexico in order to keep out the "riffraff" (I'm paraphrasing), is not slander.

Trump didn't "attack Mexicans", he attacked Mexican rapists. Quite a difference.

Trump didn't "attack Muslims", he attacked Muslim terrorists and extremists. Quite a difference.

Pointing to a problem with an intent to fix the problem isn't racism. On the contrary, it's the right thing to do. Everyone should be doing this. Especially the people who belong to the group where the problem is occurring.

And wanting to build a wall on your country's border couldn't be a more innocuous statement. What do people think borders are for? Exactly, to keep out people who are not allowed to enter your country. Most countries in the world have borders that have some sort of physical barrier. This really is nothing out of the ordinary.

In summation; yes, it is slanderous to call Trump a racist when he clearly is not. A racist wouldn't speak favorably of other races. Which he does. Including Mexicans and Muslims.

doom-generation
1st Jun 2016, 03:28
bnb
If you're referring to the Mexican rapists comment, that one has been quote mined to death and blobn2bn2wn way out of proportion. Not wanting to let rapists into the country is not racist, that's just common sense. He never said that all Mexicans are rapists. So yes, calling Trump a racist because of that is wrong and slanderous.

He never said the sentence "all Mexicans are rapists", but he did, when talking about Mexicans, say "they're rapists". Not "some of them are rapists", just "they're rapists". That's tarring them with the same brush.

Driber
1st Jun 2016, 12:01
bnb

He never said the sentence "all Mexicans are rapists", but he did, when talking about Mexicans, say "they're rapists". Not "some of them are rapists", just "they're rapists". That's tarring them with the same brush.

No, he wasn't talking about all Mexicans, he was referring specifically to Mexican immigrants who try to enter the country illegally and how there are a large number of rapists among that specific group of people. That's quite different.

And he's right, there are a lot (by "a lot" I mean disproportional) of rapists among that specific group. And the irony is that Mexicans themselves are agreeing with Trump because it's them who are getting raped the most. Studies have shown that up to 80 percent of Mexican women are raped while trying to reach American soil, by Mexican men.

So he clearly isn't talking about all Mexicans, no.

Furthermore, he even specifically said that there are a number of good people among the group he was referring to (illegal Mexican immigrants), so people can't even make the case that he was talking about all illegal immigrants.

So yes, calling him a racist based on those twisted quotes is slander.

Quajek
1st Jun 2016, 13:48
You guys know this is a forum for the Hitman video game, right?

I mean, it's great that you want to talk about why you think feminism isn't necessary (I'm going to guess you're not a woman), and your thin justifications for why Donald Trump saying “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. ... They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people" isn't racist.

(In reality, illegal immigrants are not more predisposed to violent crime than any other group, and actually, are more incentivized to NOT commit violent crimes due to their immigration status. Immigrants in general have a stronger incentive than native-born Americans to stay out of legal trouble — especially undocumented immigrants, who risk deportation.

Immigrants in general — unauthorized immigrants in particular — are a self-selected group who come to the U.S. seeking work. They aren't here to commit crimes, and they’re very sensitive to the fact that they can be deported, which would ruin their chance at the financial freedom they came here for in the first place.)

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/files/2015/07/aggfelonsCRS.jpg&w=1484

Now, can we please spike this thread? It's gotten way way way off topic.

Driber
1st Jun 2016, 20:28
You guys know this is a forum for the Hitman video game, right?

Yup. And you're in a thread about politics. And you are perpetuating the discussion by quoting Trump, introducing theories on crime, and posting stats. So... glass houses, much?


I mean, it's great that you want to talk about why you think feminism isn't necessary (I'm going to guess you're not a woman)

I love the irony of this sexist remark here. Apparently, only men can be against feminism. Nevermind the millions of female non-feminists and anti-feminists around the world, huh.

https://www.google.com/search?q=women+against+feminism


and your thin justifications for why Donald Trump saying “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. ... They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people" isn't racist.

There is no justification necessary for stating facts. The facts are simply the facts. People may not particularly like the facts, or the implications of them, but merely stating them doesn't make Trump racist. Slandering Trump as a racist is a dishonest shaming tactic to try to stop the discussion from taking place.

Yes, there is a butt load of drugs coming in from Mexico. That is a fact.

Yes, there is a culture of crime in Mexico. That is a fact.

Yes, a disproportionally high number of Mexicans illegally crossing the border are rapists. That is a fact.

People can easily find the reports if they interested in the actual numbers. They are not small!


(In reality, illegal immigrants are not more predisposed to violent crime than any other group, and actually, are more incentivized to NOT commit violent crimes due to their immigration status. Immigrants in general have a stronger incentive than native-born Americans to stay out of legal trouble — especially undocumented immigrants, who risk deportation.

Immigrants in general — unauthorized immigrants in particular — are a self-selected group who come to the U.S. seeking work. They aren't here to commit crimes, and they’re very sensitive to the fact that they can be deported, which would ruin their chance at the financial freedom they came here for in the first place.)

In the US, 47 thousand illegal immigrants in 2011 committed the crime of drunk driving. An estimated 4700 people are killed every year by illegal immigrants drinking behind the wheel. Another 43 thousand were convicted of drug offenses. Another 100 thousand committed assault, robbery, sexual assault, larceny, fraud, burglary and other crimes. source (http://cis.org/revolving-door-deportations-of-criminal-illegal-immigrants)

So much for your theory.

And FYI, this is not just happening the US. We're experiencing the same thing all over Europe. Right now we're being hit with a wave of violent crime including assault, sexual assault and rape due to the massive Muslim immigration crisis we're in the middle of. Clearly, your theory is flawed. Clearly, a huge chunk of illegal immigrants are not deterred by the risk of deportation and commit crimes anyway.



https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/files/2015/07/aggfelonsCRS.jpg&w=1484


Not all illegal immigrants are criminals. Great. No one is saying they are.


Now, can we please spike this thread? It's gotten way way way off topic.

Nothing wrong with a bit of off topic as long as it's constructive. And so far, most people have been civil in this discussion, so I'm okay with it.

But let me ask you, why does it bother you? Do you want to talk on topic about Troutt? If so, what is stopping you? And if nothing is stopping you, what difference does it make?

tph007
3rd Jun 2016, 04:02
This is the funniest thread I have seen in awhile. How in the heck did a video game go so political? Even if this character was built around a political figure, who cares? If it was someone I favored or liked, I would still have fun taking them out in a video game. Not quite as much fun as taking out certain existing players in our administration, doesn't mean my video game actions would carry over in real life or I would want that result, that is why it is just a game.

So here is a fun one, you have the option of disguising yourself as Trump and you have to take out a Bernie in a fire while saying... "Feel the Bern!"

I love the OP though, I think it is hilarious someone got offended by a video game character.

Enjoy life guys. It doesn't have to suck!

desperado1089
6th Jun 2016, 18:00
Well, I can't provide the direct link to the article, but I DO remember distinctly reading an article on Yahoo about the incident I described in my previous post (i.e. the rally attendee who threatened to kill the protester for no good reason other than the fact he was African-American). So he is inciting hatred, no two ways about it. Maybe the things he said that made him seem like a racist/misogynist/person who cannot tolerate disabled people WERE blown out of proportion. I for one don't want to take the risk that they weren't. I'm glad that I was at least able to "get right the first time" the bit about PC-ness and feminism both being toxic to our growth as a society. BTW, I am not against women being treated equally, or any other group of people for that matter. I just dislike such changes in societal norms being motivated by propaganda and selfishness, rather than truth and the common good.

Driber
7th Jun 2016, 11:34
So here is a fun one, you have the option of disguising yourself as Trump and you have to take out a Bernie in a fire while saying... "Feel the Bern!"

:D


Well, I can't provide the direct link to the article, but I DO remember distinctly reading an article on Yahoo about the incident I described in my previous post (i.e. the rally attendee who threatened to kill the protester for no good reason other than the fact he was African-American).

Sorry but without any evidence I have to call BS on that story. (Not saying you are BS'ing.)

I don't believe that Trump supporters randomly go around threatening to kill people just because they are black. If anything, it's the other way around, for example many BlackLivesMatter members are some of the most disgustingly racist and violent people in America, who spout the most vile black supremacist crap. I'm betting the story you're talking about revolves around one of these aggressive, racist BLM people who deliberately got in the faces of Trump supporters to provoke them into saying or doing something so they can go around and pull the victim card and yell "RACISM!". They have been shown to be extremely manipulative like that. So I have absolutely no sympathy for those kinds of people and don't care whatsoever if they receive death threats due to their despicable behaviour.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/09/02/exposing-black-lives-matter-for-what-it-is-promotion-of-cop-jilling-n2046941


So he is inciting hatred, no two ways about it.

If that yahoo story is your reason for saying that Trump is 'inciting hatred' then you have to conclude that also are Hillary and Bernie are 'inciting hatred' by supporting a violent and racist hate group like BLM.

My guess is that you're going to deny this and say "Hillary and Bernie are not responsible for what some violent people decide to." Right, and neither is Trump.


Maybe the things he said that made him seem like a racist/misogynist/person who cannot tolerate disabled people WERE blown out of proportion.

I'm sure they were. Trump hasn't said a single racist or misogynistic thing. It's all been spin, quote-mining, taking out of context and strawmanning by the media/politicians/activists to vilify the guy because a lot of what he says makes a lot of sense but people (especially establishment politicians) are afraid to talk about those subjects, probably because they know Trump is an intelligent man who's unbeholden to anyone and can thus speak his mind and that he is onto something and they know that he'll crush them in an truly honest debate, so they resort to slander in a desperate (and hilariously backfiring!) attempt to cut off the discourse and manipulate people into distancing themselves from Trump.

And it looks like this is working like a charm on some people. Case in point your next sentence:


I for one don't want to take the risk that they weren't.

Translation: "I don't want to listen to Trump or appear to support him because I feel in my gut he's a racist and a misogynist. I don't have any actual proof, but I don't want to take the risk of saying something positive about Trump because then I may be labeled a racist or misogynist. So better to play it safe and distance myself from Trump as much as possible in case the rumours are true."

Would you say that's an accurate assessment, or did I miss the mark?


I'm glad that I was at least able to "get right the first time" the bit about PC-ness and feminism both being toxic to our growth as a society.

Yes you are absolutely right on that. Both are a cancer to our society and are literally killing people. No exaggeration.


BTW, I am not against women being treated equally, or any other group of people for that matter.

No one is. And it's ridiculous we even have to keep putting that disclaimer out there. 99.999% of the people here in the West believe in equal rights for women. Which they have. Feminism is redundant at best.


I just dislike such changes in societal norms being motivated by propaganda and selfishness, rather than truth and the common good.

Spot on.

LukeSlade
7th Jun 2016, 23:52
You just know a game is crap when people start getting into a debate about feminism on the game's forums.

Driber
8th Jun 2016, 11:53
You just know a game is crap when people start getting into a debate about feminism on the game's forums.

It's nothing to do with the quality of the game. Feminism is a hot topic right now all over the internet. Many game forums are having discussions about it. The Gamespot forums are filled to the brim (https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+site%3Awww.gamespot.com&oq=feminism+site%3Awww.gamespot.com) with threads on feminism. We're pretty modest here in comparison.