itsamoose

Members
  • Content count

    646
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About itsamoose

  • Rank
    Zombie Thumb
  • Birthday
  1. I've actually been spending more time reading right wing news/opinion and so forth recently, and to be honest the unity the right appears to have is a sham. The only real unifying force is a vague sense of anger at political and media institutions that I don't think will be able to survive through any significant downturn in the country should one occur. The cracks are already beginning to show, and how the administration plays fast and loose with the truth is already starting to come back to bite them. There also seem to be growing liberal movements against trump (and more broadly the republican party) in areas that have been traditionally been republican, the only question is whether or not those movements and people will be as enthusiastic in local, state, and congressional elections. The far more concerning aspects of Trump's administration for me are appointments like Betsy Devos and Steve Mnuchin who will affect policies that will go largely unnoticed and not have their impact felt for many years to come. As bat shit as Trump's first month has been, I fear that his antics will ultimately blind people to the more mundane and far reaching harm done by such appointments.
  2. Man the western talk brought me back to my childhood, I can't remember how many I've seen at family gatherings or with my father. If you're looking for weird westerns, I highly recommend My name is nobody.It often manages to go from weird or flippant to sincere within the same scene, and feels like one of those movies that could only exist as a western. I'm honestly quite surprised we don't see more western games, particularly based on how influenced they are by Japanese films which seem to have influenced a whole host of game genres. I wonder if the cowboy fantasy just doesn't have as much traction outside the US, or perhaps it's just been replaced with a more modern and militaristic one.
  3. I just started this as well; I've only just arrived at addermire station so I might just be adjusting to the mechanics still, but I'm having a lot of trouble getting into this game. I quite enjoyed dishonored 1, but I feel like this game sacrificed a lot of readability for it's world design, which necessitates things like the always on screen UI indicators. So far none of the areas feel very memorable, and the encounters feel like they have too many enemies or participants in them such that they tend to result in complete chaos if the initial stealth is failed. Is this just indicative of the early part of the game? What I most enjoyed about Dishonored 1 was the tension it was able to create when stealthing around, this just feels too all or nothing at the moment-- I never have that sense of barely escaping without being seen or outwitting a guard as they're about to find me. Also, this is bit of a nit pick but I find the the lean mechanic infuriating. The extra visibility is nice, but it feels like this lean should also allow me to adjust the aiming center of my abilities, which doesn't appear to be the case.
  4. That was a very interesting article, thanks for posting it. I don't blame tweets necessarily, just that the emphasis on things like tweets created the environment where a candidate like trump was possible. As an example, fake news has gotten a lot of attention in this past election, but gallop research indicates that what mostly affected people's opinions on the candidates were what mainstream media outlets covered most (detailed in video below) which tended to be focused on social media posts from one person or another. I've seen a lot of discussion regarding old vs new media in this election, and while they are different perhaps in their delivery their mechanisms and structure are nearly identical. Both of these styles of newsmedia end, or even begin their programs by soliciting the opinions of their viewers, in some cases making those solicitations prior to having done any reporting on the topic--effectively valuing uninformed opinion over their own reporting. A service like twitter is a place where anyone can become a celebrity, if even for a short amount of time, for virtually any reason. While there is virtue in this to some degree I find the extreme focus on it, to the detriment of nearly all other endeavors to be a profound and largely overlook phenomenon. Like the Vox video states, places like the national enquirer have been around for decades at this point, they haven't been taken seriously. On the other hand their new media counterparts, which are similar in content have come to be seen as authentic. While this certainly isn't a scientific assessment, to me the emphasis of modern day yellow journalism betrays a distinct and recent trend in media, the origination of which must have come from somewhere.
  5. I think this is going to be a major theme of the next 4 years, where even if Trump does something that is an obvious conflict of interest or violates some law I don't think the political will is there to do anything about it. Almost all of the anti trump senators have already fallen in line and generally put their personal fortunes and careers above the good of the country. On the social front there are quite a few protests going against him, both in the US and internationally, I'm just not convinced of their effectiveness. If the campaign showed us anything it's that there aren't enough pussy hats on the planet to affect Trump's opinion on anything--if you really want to affect his opinion the protest must take a form that affects him personally, or more pointedly his personal vanity and worth. I've also heard from a few sources, but certainly not definitively, that the majority of these protests happened in places where Clinton enjoyed broad support, so I'm not yet convinced that these will amount to anything in the future. It doesn't matter how many more latinos get registered to vote in California, they won't have any effect on the electoral college in 2020, and perhaps since Trump generally sucks all the oxygen out of the room people seemed to have missed the fact that in this election republicans won a majority in all branches of federal government, almost 2/3rds of state governorships and legislatures, and will likely have control of the gerrymandering process after the next census. On the whole though, I'm not as pessimistic about his administration, at least on the federal level. There is certainly the will to oppose his specific policies on the federal level, like with what just happened with the deportation order, and if he turns out to be serious about infrastructure projects he'll likely do some good during his administration provided congress even puts those bills up for a vote. What scares me the most about the next election, including all the local, state and senatorial elections coming up in the next 4 years is that the democratic party doesn't appear to be interested in or even capable of being a strong opposition party given the electoral realities in the country today. The upcoming leadership of the DNC seems even more intent on creating enemies where they don't need to exist, and generally playing into the narrative that Trump's campaign peddled throughout the election-- a narrative that will likely become more stark as the Trump administration soldiers on. Also a side note, this last week I went back and did some research into federal elections since 2008, and I've come to the conclusion that Trump's election can be most easily blamed on the media's obsession with ratings finally catching up with them. People tend to forget that Trump ran for the republican nomination both in 2008 and 2012, and was laughed off the stage both times. If you look at the things he was suggesting back then, they weren't all that different than what he did in 2016--something changed in his ability to garner attention in that time. In my estimation places like the Huffington post and CNN should be credited for Trump's success more so than fox or breitbart because in that period of time it was largely the liberal publications that conditioned the public to see a tweet as not only a new story, but a top of the banner/front page news story. in order to live in a world where a tweet from Trump is an important news story, we must first live in a world where a tweet is an important news story, and I don't think Trump's rise to popularity would have been likely or even possible without that. I'm not putting the blame on their shoulders entirely, but they certainly hold a significant amount of responsibility for creating the environment where someone like Trump is possible. TL:DR; Trump's a nut, might do some good, but at least I have whiskey. Also call your congress person.
  6. I feel like the bit with Diego shooting the defector is getting a lot more credit than it deserves. The man is an assassin (or we know at least a spy at that point in the movie) within an armed resistance, it's not like the rebels are some kind of nonviolent opposition up to that point. The rebels clearly have support from a broad range of groups, and it doesn't seem like they are hurting for manpower or equipment, so I don't get it wouldn't then be taken as a given that they have spies and assassins. If the creators wanted to make the point that the rebellion has been encouraging people to give in to their barbarism they had many opportunities to drive that point home but never really did. To some extent I think this is my own pet peeve, but it's just that this kind of inconsistency really prevents me from enjoying the film. Even thinking back on it, and hearing other people's reactions, I still don't really have a sense of what this movie was trying to be. The characters didn't feel like they were driven by any kind of consistent motivation, they just did whatever the action needed them to do at the time. It all just felt very paint by numbers.
  7. This perfectly sums up my thoughts on the movie--it and the new star wars movies don't seem willing to break from the traditional formula. I'm not sure why the story needed the lead scientist's daughter to be the one to take it down, it seems done that way because of the emphasis on family from the prequels. As entertaining as that final battle was, it painted a picture of the alliance as almost an equal match for the empire, which is why I think the final scene with Vader was such a great one in that it showed the overwhelming might of the empire that the rebels were facing. For those that haven't seen the film yet, I don't think it's a bad movie, it's simply a passable one that would likely have been forgotten were it not set in the star wars universe. For those looking for something new to happen in that scenario, it's death by 1000 cuts. Basically, this:
  8. I just saw this movie, and had very much the same reaction to it that I did episode 7--I liked it at first but it quickly became grating to me. I'm not sure how much of that is just my nostalgia for star wars hyping me up, but I feel like ultimately the new movies don't really have the direction or perhaps the courage to strike out on their own. I don't see a button for spoiler tags so hopefully the ones I added are actual spoiler tags, and if not SPOILERS BELOW!
  9. What kind of deeper dives are you looking to do? Something specifically with Unity or programming generally? In either case, I tend to recommend http://www.3dbuzz.com/ since they place a strong emphasis on both practical application and coding practices with exhaustive explanation, which seem trivial or perhaps frustrating when you're first getting into programming but are hugely beneficial later on. Beyond that, if you're comfortable enough with programming/reading code and working with Unity to strike out on your own, I'd recommend just trying to recreate a mechanic from some game you like. Also, a great resource for figuring out how to take the next step is something called .net reflector if you can spend the money, or http://ilspy.net/ for an open source solution. Then head on over to steam and pick up Bastion from Supergiant games if you don't own it already (or pick up the demo), decompile their dlls and take a look. Really any C#/.net assembly will work, I only suggest Bastion because it's what I did when I was learning to program. You might not be able to understand it all just yet, but I personally found it helpful to understand what a fully fledged game project looks like. I found the hardest thing to learn about game development generally wasn't how to get started, everyone and their mother seems to have a guide for that, it's how to go from the Hello world style projects to something that has interacting systems, game rules, and so on.
  10. I'm not necessarily saying people aren't motivated by positive things, or that only two extremes exist (despite those extremes getting the most attention), just that anger is a more effective motivator. Obama could not have won if he didn't tap into the frustration the american people had with their government. Look at all the post Brexit interviews, many from people who regret their vote, and you find their reasoning was that they wanted the establishment to feel their voice, and the same is true for Trump's support and in some respects Obama's support before that. I have a number of friends who supported Trump, most of which are fully aware he's an unmitigated asshole but didn't care because they angry about Benghazi or emails or some other blown out of proportion scandal. I don't think it's possible to win an election in the modern age, or at least in the modern US without tapping into the anger and frustration of the electorate regardless of one's sympathies to those feelings. Like I said before you could put C'thulu on the ticket and 40% of the population would vote for him based on whether there was an R or D next to his name. It's really about winning those 10,-20% of voters who end up swinging the election one way or another, and in terms of being helpful, what could be more helpful than winning? Even back as early as Adams' presidency after Washington mudslinging has been present in the background of the electoral process, while virtue is paraded publicly. I know I'm coming off brash here, and I apologize for any offense i might be causing, it's just that I'm incredibly frustrated with my liberal leaning friends who insist that an institution and process like politics, marked by deception, enmity and defamation literally since it's inception can be won nicely. It simply can't, it never has been, and while I wish those things weren't true, people outside of particular circles couldn't give less of a shit about winning by the high road. This election should have been the easiest thing in the world for Democrats, they just weren't willing to be honest about the process or their position in it.
  11. Obama's slogan was hope, but his message was anger at the republicans for getting us involved in wars and letting infrastructure crumble. He challenged the political doctrine of the time, whereas 8 years later that doctrine had changed and was being supported by the new democratic nominee. I know we tend to look back at things through the lens of history and it's easy to lose sight of this, so here's one quick example from a speech Obama gave in 2008 when describing how Bush handled the office of the presidency: "That's not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress," or another statement where Obama accuses Bush of negligence in his duties regarding the FEMA effort in New Orleans: "When the people of New Orleans and Gulf Coast extended their hand for help, help was not there. When people looked up from the rooftops, for too long they saw an empty sky. When the winds blew and the flood waters came, we learned for all of our wealth and our power, something wasn’t right with America. We can talk about what happened for a few days in 2005, and we should. We can talk about levies that couldn’t hold, about a FEMA that seem not just incompetent but paralyzed and powerless, about a president who only saw the people from a window on an airplane instead of down here on the ground, trying to provide comfort and aid,” Obama said then. “We can talk about a trust that was broken, the promise that our government would be prepared, will protect us, and will respond in a catastrophe.” Obama's campaign, while defined as hopeful and along racial lines in most respects, still had a large portion of it that was a backlash to the previous administration. Clinton on the other hand found herself selling more of the same, which doesn't really work in a country as distrustful of it's institutions as the US. Imagine how different the response to Clinton would have been if her message had been that she was fighting the establishment her entire career, she'd been stymied at every turn, made to support things that were wrong because of the culture of Washington, and finally sought the office of the president because she was tired of politics as usual and wanted to finally have the influence to flip the system on it's head.
  12. This is similar to the conclusion I've come to since the end of the election, but with one caveat. It wasn't necessarily that the democrats lost, its that they were playing the wrong game. Trump understands that on social media, the usefulness of a statement is far more important than it's actual content, and while his campaign was often negative and disparaging of people they made incredible use of the handful of times Clinton was overtly negative. Trump's ability to identify with anger, however vaguely or paradoxical that relation was, turned out to be incredibly effective where it was needed. Clinton's strategy of selling a similarly vague message of hope and shaming Trump played directly into this strategy. I think what the internet, and more broadly social media has shown us in recent years is that things like anger, fear and hate are far more effective motivators than hope and conciliation. Ironically she may have had more success if she had ran a more radically feminist campaign--one that spoke to the anger we're now seeing in protests from the left and was more willing to turn on it's own establishment like Trump did. Trump was able to speak effectively to the anger people felt for both the political system and the establishment that ultimately birthed him, while Clinton didn't really run a campaign that appealed to people's feelings in the same way or at all. As much as it sucks to say, political campaigns in recent years that appealed to some sense of morality have been utter failures and Trump is just the most recent. I don't know how long we've been here, or how long it'll last, but what's clear to me is that "Fuck that person because I'm angry" is a far more effective message than "This person is great because XYZ". For most people the election decision came down to 1 particular thing that irked them more so than a complete assessment of the whole.
  13. While that would be nice, one look at the GOP's platform tells a very different story, at least on social issues. A few of the big ones are Ban abortion with constitutional amendment Define marriage as 1 man and 1 woman nationally, constitutional ban against same-sex marriage "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service", no women in combat roles No federal student loans, instead insure private loans More oil, natural gas drilling, reject international climate accords Undo Iran agreement, walk back Cuba remove contribution cap for political donations require state issued ID for voting no stem cell or other research with religious objections There are a few more, but those positions I feel like aren't things that the republican party will be willing, or in some cases able to negotiate on as the nature of some of the proposals don't afford any kind of a middle ground. Now that republicans have control over the presidency and the legislature, many of these proposals can become reality, particularly with a Trump who is likely to surround himself with sycophants and yes men. Remember that decisions like Obergefel v. hodges, Roe v. Wade and others were based on there not being explicit language about the issue in question in the constitution, and that is what is really at stake here.
  14. I'm not so sure he'll be stopped really on anything he truly wants to do. Republicans control the senate, house, presidency, and when Trump puts up his own nominee the supreme court as well. Now that they finally have the control of the entire government, what they've been driving at for so long, I don't see any amount of those groups banding together to stop the most popular man in their coalition. I don't see a republican house, senate or judiciary taking any serious steps to stymie his attempts to get his agenda across, and he'll be more than willing to put things like abortion restrictions, anti-LGBTQ propositions, etc on virtually any piece of legislation to get some deal done. The question, really is how effectively will democrats be able to filibuster these attempts or take back senatorial control in upcoming elections, or even limit the damage. Let's not forget that while many of the republican establishment are wary of trump, his running mate who is estimated to have a lot of power to set agendas in the administration is in lock step with the republican platform on social issues, and from his governorship in Indiana has shown his willingness to pursue that agenda.
  15. This is exactly the reaction I've been seeing. Whenever my staunchly liberal friends go on rants like this, trying to blame everyone and everything it's no wonder liberal viewpoints are so reviled by those who would otherwise be sympathetic but don't hold them at the time. It's easy for people who live in cities with public transportation, garbage removal, and so on to vote for having the benefits of government involvement in their daily lives (which is again what happened), but if you put yourself in the shoes of rural America the government is really only something you interact with on a need to basis and usually in a way that will cost you money or prevent you from doing something you've become accustomed to. I don't think it's that hard to see why people who live in these kinds of places, Trump's major source of support, would vote against larger government at any cost, and I think that is the concern that the democratic party failed to address, particularly in the rust belt. My biggest concern at the moment is how Trump's leadership will affect press freedoms. If he does the things he's been claiming, and his personal history would suggest, regarding "opening up the libel laws" I don't think it's a far way to go from that to a situation where politicians can sue news outlets to have damaging stories taken down even if they are in the public interest.