Yeah, the commenter considers himself a legend, but he doesn’t get the joke in the image. It’s funny because his comment is unexpected as a response to the original poster’s caption.
yes, that's clear, but who the hell are those people, what is the context, why is this in any way relatable to a man holding a trophy next to the woman holding a trophy, did he come in second, is that the gag, we don't know these people
Winner of UEFA player of the year (football award). Man- Erling Haaland Woman- Aitana Bonmat
What you’re supposed to understand idk. But I’d assume it’s a sex joke, it’s always a sex joke. Or maybe there’s not supposed to be anything to understand in which case ‘only legends will understand’ followed by noone understanding would imply the reader not being a legend and hence a roast.
The negative opinions basically boil down to the following:
people who have played the game and genuinely don’t like it (like asmongold) and have good arguments why they don’t like it. I respect these people opinions. You can tell them apart because they actually name the things they don’t like in the game with constructive arguments.
People who haven’t played the game and probably never will and just regurgitate what the hate train is saying. If you ask them why it usually boils down to “it looks boring”, okay cool have played it? No? Okay is there anything else you don’t like? Then the usual “bethesdaslop” and calling people idiots or shills start. I mean what are you even trying to accomplish? Are they just annoyed others are having fun while they’re angry? I don’t take these people seriously and you can usually easily pick them out of the comments.
The game will probably get review bombed on metacritic and the likes, I’m calling it now. Just the amount of stupid articles and YouTube make it a self fulfilling prophecy. I won’t give a shit, I’ll try it on gamepass when it comes out. If I like it I will keep playing it and if I don’t I will stop. It’s as simple as that.
I really don’t see why people feel the need to jump on some hate train just for the sake of disliking something. It’s just as annoying as people who want to be contrarian just to look interesting.
I don’t really want to rewatch the 4 hour or so stream but off the top of my head’ -ship combat wasn’t fun (he didn’t get it and found it unreasonably hard) -he did not care for the RPG elements and doesn’t like games where you have to play for a lot of hours before it becomes fun -he found the combat clunky compared to other shooter games
He admitted he probably wasn’t the right audience for the game since he never really liked Bethesda games. He just wanted to try something different. Also story seems to be not that important to him generally. I personally love Bethesda games and can get completely absorbed in them. But I can also definitely understand it’s not for everyone.
All that makes sense. I remember him defending P2W action games. And I did stumble onto a reaction video of him laughing at random things that CP2077 thought of but weren’t in Starfield. Fair enough.
Why would you defend a guy who ordered deaths alongside Lenin then immediately left and cozied up to 1920s American fascism to make books about “The Betrayed Revolution” because he didnt get his share?
Trotsky was a socialist. After his defection, he did next to nothing to advance socialism, only to passively denounce the closest thing the world had then to a Socialist Order. And he did this by going to their enemies, objectively the least socialist-tolerant bloc on Earth. Archetypal example of a self-centered “leftist” who folds inward and exclusively talks about their own life/‘persecution’ after one falling-out with the organized left. Look at Trotskyists nowadays and tell me they aren’t walking parodies who talk like Broadway characters. It says a lot abt how off-kilter you have to be to throw yourself behind Trotsky’s weirdo ‘cause’
EDIT: To be clear, while I havent seen much of his work, I respect parts of his legacy. I’m sure there’s a lot of insight in his writing - reading criticism from a seasoned former Bolshevik is interesting, and the perspective is useful for making sense of the wider movement. I also understand he was under a lot of personal pressure at the time he fled the USSR. Despite any merit Stalin showed in WW2 or the Union’s massive industrialization effort, it must’ve seemed unfair to many party members that he was chosen to succeed Lenin (not sure of specifics on that event). I’d even say his assassination wasn’t necessary, and the graphic details aren’t something I take pride in. However, at the end of the day Trotsky’s decision to defect was a net negative for socialism in the early 20th century. He should’ve tried to be a different kind of conscientious objector, not a voice of anti-Soviet dissent.
Wow. I guess someone has never actually read Trotsky or anything from Trotskyist. Try some Tony Cliff. Also, how you think Trotskyist sound today is not an indictment of Trotsky. Being critical of a revolution that has failed and the leaders and politics that followed is not the crime you think it is.
Jesus fucking Christ this is not the revolutionary left we need. Grow the fuck up.
edit: That’s funny, either you posted your edit while i was typing my response or I didn’t see it some how. either way. I’m sorry for being such a dick. I’m just so fed up with folks online regarding, what i would call state capitalist countries as genuine socialism, and rejecting any criticism of said states, as capitalist loving trash. Somehow Marxism has become a ridged dogma for these people. With the campist and the tankies distorting revolutionary socialism so much i fell like i live in upside down world. again sorry comrade. I would suggest “the two souls of socialism”. side note Trotsky was Lenin’s pick as leader not Stalin. Had he not “defected” he would likely have been killed by Stalin much earlier, like many of the seasoned former Bolsheviks who lead and then tried to defend the revolution against Stalin.
What kind of revolutionary left do you want? Regardless, wanting to hard-reboot an existing radical movement over its perceived “failure” - while it’s still gaining traction - is what Trotsky did, and it just threw a wrench into things.
And not to be that guy, but the negativity isn’t doing you favors. I made an effort to be reasonable and objective (except the Modern Trotskyites bit, since they honestly feel too sus and self-destructive to take seriously). If you’re feeling threatened by that, idk what to tell you. This is just what we believe. No one pays us for it.
In none of this exchange did you demonstrate a fraction of the knowledge as the person you’re berating. You just genuinely don’t seem to know anything except how to sound confident in an online argument. So I’m sorry but listening to you lament all the wayward academics and telling people to grow the fuck up just doesn’t land. I think you’re just full of shit.
Why would the Commissar of Military and Naval affairs under Lenin, who was instrumental in founding the red army and oversaw the purging of Mahknovists and other anarchist elements in the early USSR be less authoritarian than Stalin?
If you spent more time explaining things rather than “dunking on libs” maybe your movement would be less on the fringe. I don’t have an opinion on who is more authoritarian, which is why it was obnoxious that you matter-of-factly made your point without any substance.
Genuine question, if you don’t have a stance on Trotsky, and you don’t know fuck all about him, why are you wading into this comment chain in the first place?
You see, the comment sections of divisive posts are a place that you can learn about opinions different than your own or to learn new things. If you want, I can go back to the neoliberal echo chambers where people are actually engaged in discussing things in good faith.
If you want to know something you merely have to ask. Maybe explain that you don’t know much about a subject matter.
My initial comment was to someone who has an opinion on Trotsky and thus probably knows who he was, so I didn’t feel like typing up a whole-ass essay on the guy. Y’know?
This post is the natural reaction to a failed dunk. Perhaps if you want to counter a controversial point without explaining it, don’t bother posting otherwise it’s the intellectual equivalent of “no, u”.
It was one of the King Kong movies. Bugs are huge and eat people. I just saw it once I don’t remember anything else about the movie but the bug parts are burned in my mind.
Seriously.
I’ve seen more than my share of extremely graphic movies, but for some reason, this one scene is forever etched in my brain near the top… and I’ve only ever seen it once (in theater). Something so horrifying about the way it moves, its glistening translucent flesh, and the casual nature of the violence.
Bleh!
Showed this pic to my co workers (steelworkers/blacksmiths) and only the old guys knew what was funny about the pic… Gen z think that calipers are toy guns…
Oh, I thought the joke was that the hole the customer was complaining about was the hole this pipe was supposed to fit into, and that they were measuring the inner diameter rather than the outer.
The joke is they’re supposed to use the end with the spiky bits to measure the inner diameter of the pipe. It’s even more baffling they’re using a mechanical readout when a digital display would be easier to measure with IMO.
Realistically, how many people need calipers in their life? The vast majority never used one because a ruler or tape is enough for pretty much anything in a house.
One of the differences between wild and farmed salmon is their color. Wild salmon gets its pink color from the natural astaxanthin found in their diet, while farmed salmon is fed synthetic astaxanthin or dyes to give it a similar color.
Wild salmon has a more vibrant color compared to farmed salmon, which can appear pale or dull.
Markets are inherently problematic and lead to wealth being centralized in the hands of the few owners. A well regulated market ignores the problem which must be addressed; the dichotomy of workers and owners. Class struggle won’t be fixed if not addressed. Neo-liberalism markets can’t be fixed with more neo-liberalism.
Even if everything was worker-owned, markets present problems. Through luck and circumstance, some buyers and sellers will have an easier time to the detriment of others. Some will be priced out. Wealth and power will concentrate. With that comes regulatory capture. There goes the idealist “uncorrupt government.”
Anti-social strategies like loss leaders pricing out competitors and price gouging and collusion don’t go away with worker ownership.
It’s still a system of self-interested parties. Social Darwinism over collective well-being.
… not only vertical relations of capitalist exploitation based around the wage labor–capital relation — capitalists exploiting their workers — but also horizontal relations of exploitation — wealthier firms exploiting poorer firms. Horizontal exploitation can occur even between worker-owned cooperatives, which leads you to argue that market socialism may be exploitative in much the same way capitalism is.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.