Views: 1,003,367,549
11 users online: Children's Digest 1950-2009,  Fernap, JupiHornet, Kinkerton, Magmatic, MirrorReflect, Narcologer, OhMuramatsu, Romano338, SF - The Dark Warrior, SomeGuy712x - Guests: 76 - Bots: 150 Users: 54,839 (2,034 active)
Tip: Make sure there is no stylistic clash between the graphics you choose.
Not logged in.
Posts by Pyro X
Pyro X's Profile - Posts by Pyro X
Pages: « 1 265 66 67 68 »
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the forums seemed to be a lot more active pre 2012. You also had a lot more cult of personality amongst the admins and moderators - though maybe that was just I romanticized in my head because I was younger. IDK, just from a cursory glance here and there it doesn't seem like this place is quite as lively or vivacious as it used to be, which is likely a factor. There were tons of running jokes and gags that would abound, like the whole "im a music" thing, and I don't see that kind of thing as much whenever I visit.
Goldeneye: Rogue Agent was offensively boring and a snorefest. It's quite a shame too because they had some cool ideas like being able to dual wield different types of guns at the same time. It's just an unplayable game because of how boring it is.
Originally posted by FPzero
I mean, personally I think pewdiepie does have some form of social responsibility because he's done stuff like link to far-right personalities before in his videos saying he didn't vet them and apologizing, but when you have that kind of reach and impact you should conduct yourself, your brand, and your messaging responsibly.

Far-right, as well as "alt-right" is an extremely meaningless and arbitrary term at this point. It gets used to describe even moderately conservative opinions to paint people who are mostly just center right such as myself as extremists to sway independents away from any form of conservative thought, or to shame those who hold such thoughts into silence. Essentially the MSM uses it to smear people as "wrongthinkers". When people like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro (LOL!) get labelled "alt-right" or "far-right" you know there's something afoot.

As such, what you're suggesting is silly, because all it takes is a smear campaign by the media on any one of Pewd's affiliates to character assassinate him as guilty by association. No one can read the future to see how what they say or who they speak with might be twisted out of context to hurt them.

Originally posted by FPzero
I mean, just the other day you had UKIP, the UK Independence Party, which is a right-wing party that's wholly responsible for the propagation of misinformation about Brexit, tweet out that true "Patriots subscribe to PewDiePie!" Why in the world would UKIP, amidst all their rhetoric about keeping England for the English only, be telling people to go and sub to a Swedish Youtuber? Like what?

Lmao you just said it yourself, it's obviously a joke/meme, it's nothing to take seriously.

Originally posted by FPzero
At any point before this, he could have disavowed these groups. So he's either okay with some of the ideas extremists are espousing or he's totally unaware of these groups using his message as part of their extremist branding. But somehow, he's always let off the hook and never held accountable for his actions or inaction. It's ok, he's only got 83 million people following his words and deeds.

Dude what. Okay, here's the problem with "disavowal": it never satisfies anyone, especially not your enemies. If anything, it only gets weaponized further to smear whomever is being called to disavow.

An example: when David Duke, the leader of the KKK, endorsed Trump. Both Trump and Pence came out and disavowed him, obviously. But then after Trump disavows him, what kind of stories do you think the media ran? It was crap like "Trump Hesitates to Call out Duke", "Trump's Delayed Disavowal of David Duke: What's he Hiding?" Even more so with that whole Charlottesville debacle.

They just find something else to harp on, always. The timing was "too late." If Trump made the disavowal IMMEDIATELY after Duke's endorsement, then it would have been something along the lines of "Trump was TOO quick to disavow Duke, he must be guilty of something!" Completely Kafkaesque.

It would be the same exact deal here. Even if Pewds had made some sort of disavowal, you'd be lodging some other arbitrary complaint about it right now instead. Absolutely 100% guaranteed.

Why do I say that? Because you've already written him off as "guilty" and only look at things from the perspective. Your post reeks of it. Your mind is already made up and at this point you're only using confirmation bias to support your pre-determined conclusions.

Art, ideas, they're both universal. No one can control who ends up liking their content, or who uses it to spread a warped message, especially under the domain of free speech. Put yourself in his shoes. If someone took your words and ideas and twisted them to support an agenda that completely contravenes yours, would you feel as though that was really on you? You have zero control over what others do, after all. And if everyone was demonizing you over how other people chose to falsely interpret your message, what would you do? You could spend all your time apologizing, disavowing until you're blue in the face, but it would never be enough, people will still attack you on your supposed affiliations with the people you have nothing to do with.

ALLLLL this to say though, don't really care about the issue in OP. It just seems inevitable with the proliferation of technology and internet access across the globe that a country with a massive population like India would eventually make a more dominant presence on the internet, and that includes YouTube. We'd probably have seen the same with China already if their internet wasn't so heavily censored and monitored. I don't even care about Pewds content at all really, I just hate hate hate the slimy, underhanded tactics from the MSM that are used to smear and demonize him and how some people just eat it up wholesale.
idk why but I can't really stand the NES graphics - probably because I grew up on the SNES and GBA versions so that looks more "correct" to me. It just looks kinda bland and empty in comparison. I really wish they added the SNES/GBA style in Mario Maker, I would've actually made SMB3 levels otherwise.
Originally posted by Minimay
Alt-right definitely isn't a meaningless term. Look it up.

The "alt-right" has always had a loose and subjective definition. Here's what Google says:

"an ideological grouping associated with extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints, characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content."

Again, that's kind of vague, and is up to a very subjective interpretation to consider what's "extreme" and "controversial". The bolded part however is definitely true - I was on the ground floor when "alt-right" came into circulation and even though it lacked a concrete definition, it was denoted by a rejection of the GOP in favor of a new face for right-wing politics, one that ditches traditionally neo-con values like religious fundamentalism or proxy warfare in the Middle East. A right-wing package made to be more palatable to the average, centrist American. Most of these people, myself included, resent the current GOP.

But since the elites fear a new wave of populism dethroning them, they've of course obfuscated the term by dubbing it as neo-Nazism, white supremacism, etc. in order to scare people away. Those groups definitely exist but they're a minority made out to be a bigger boogie-man in the media than they actually are.

However, this is straying from the point. The reason I know that "alt-right" is a meaningless term is because it gets lobbed around SO MUCH against so many different people that it has actually lost all meaning, much in the way of the word "literally". If we're going by the left-biased charge of "alt-right" meaning "extreme conservatism" then it makes no sense for people like Jordan Peterson and Sargon of Akkad to get labeled as "alt-right", as they have been by the media and blue ticks on twitter, when they both identify as liberal. And if you go by the "white nationalist" definition then it makes no sense for someone like Ben Shapiro who has also been labeled as "alt-right" considering he is Jewish.

"Alt-right" and "far-right" are arbitrary, boogie-man terms. It's just a code for "wrongthink" that gets lobbed around waaay too much.

Originally posted by Minimay
Because why is this that fucking hard to distance themself from literal nazis and white supremacist? They tend to call out them only when they are pressured real hard.

Again, this is my point from the last post: no amount of disavowal will ever be enough. EVER. You are showing exactly why right now too. "They don't disavow!" "Okay, they disavowed but THEY WERE PRESSURED SO IT DOESN'T COUNT IT'S INSINCERE". I'll say it again, disavowing satisfies nobody, ESPECIALLY not your enemies.

The more you disavow the more strongly you link your ideology to those you are trying to distance yourself from, too, since you have to keep bringing them up constantly when you present your views.

Furthermore, I can tell you exactly why I don't like the "white nationalists" amongst the right-wing, but does that really even matter to you? You'll just keep on lumping average, everyday Americans who lean right, like myself, in with them.

Originally posted by Minimay
But what other fucking side? The "other side" doesn't do such fucked up shit and spew literal hate than then transforms into real-world violence.

Dude, you have had organizations such as BLM and Antifa that have gone around throwing riots, destroying property, and assaulting people. There are plenty of videos out there of Antifa's cowardly attacks, the bike lock professor being the most notable example that jumps to mind. In Dallas, Texas, near where I grew up, a black supremacist shot a bunch of white cops out of racism. That's not to say there haven't been peaceful protests by these groups but their record of violence is well-documented and you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not see it - either that, or you think it's justified, but I'm going to give your character the benefit of the doubt on that one.

So then, is it fair for me to expect every left-leaning person to disavow Antifa with their every breath? Or should I just understand that a subset of people might not be representative of the whole? Why does that courtesy not get extended to right-wing people?

Originally posted by Minimay
Big corporations like YouTube should really step up with punishing removing such harmful shit to show that this is not acceptable at all.

What you're advocating for is the direct censorship by unaccountable tech giants of opposing viewpoints, which IMO if you ask me is at best misguided, and at worst, straight up evil. Free speech should be protected at all costs, even unsavory positions that you don't agree with, because otherwise you might find yourself at the receiving end of censorship if you don't go along with the agenda of those in power.

Originally posted by Minimay
directing them to content without opposing opinions (look up information bubble)

I think you are projecting on this one very bad. You just literally called for the censorship of opposing viewpoints, then criticize others for not listening to opposing viewpoints? That's some straight up hypocrisy, no joke. Very seriously consider that what you said here might actually apply to you.

Originally posted by Minimay
They could use their fucking goddamn power for good for once.

Yeah, again, this mindset of "the greater good" is a very dangerous way of thinking, since it's so subjective and you yourself could be targeted if those in power so chose if you don't have the liberties in place to protect yourself.
Originally posted by Minimay
Maybe I overreacted a bit, but take a quick look at 4chan's /pol/ or some of the alt-right subreddits. It's so sickening and this sort of content definitely isn't worth protecting or defending.

Trust me I'm around them enough. r/cringeanarchy has been my favorite sub ever since the 2016 election, but ever since reddit has been on a huge banning spree of "wrongthink" subs such as r/milliondollarextreme, they've all congregated on the cringeanarchy and 99% of posts now are just complaining about "MuH Joos!!!". It's nauseating and annoying af but even so I don't think they should be censored.

The problem of censorship is that it's "out of sight, out of mind" but they never actually go away. Targets of censorship, pretty much no matter who they are, already feel marginalized and attacked, and acts of censorship only serve to confirm their beliefs. They either spread out, or keep festering in their own rage, silently, no place to vent. I think you would get a lot more radicals that way, ironically.

I agree that YouTube, and by extension Google, engages in some really BS business activities, and that's unfortunately been a problem for a long time.

However, in the day and age where the internet is becoming more and more of a utility rather than a commodity, I think it's important to keep free speech a central component. What if other utilities, like water, heat, gas, electric, etc. all decided to cut you off because of your opinions? What about banks? If they all suddenly decided to shun you because of your beliefs, would that really be "freedom"?

It's a bit of a precarious issue I'll admit, as I typically prefer small government to big government, but there needs to be a balance in place, because then it's either the government who will rule over you, or Big Business oligarchies. We're already seeing this with the Silicon Valley tech giants.

Originally posted by underway
Thought this was a pretty good video on the whole pewdiepie situation. While he's obviously not majorly to blame for the NZ shooting, figures like him do carry some amount of responsibility and should address potential extremist groups in their viewerbase accordingly.

I tried watching a bit of it but the 30 minute length seems a bit excessive. The idea of memes leading to violence that I've gleamed from skimming the video and the comments is on the same level of video games leading to violence. Actually, no, it's a way dumber assertion.

People keep saying that he needs to distance himself from people like Tarrant. He. Has. He's on record of denouncing the terrorist. How much is required before his decriers are satisfied? It's a trick question, 'cause they never will be as I said in my last two posts. He could publicly castrate himself and convert to Islam and that still probably wouldn't sate his detractors.

Another thing that I haven't even thought to bring up is the fact that the whole Pewdiepie thing from the shooter is just one of many memes he used in his manifesto and in the shooting. It's a red herring, bait that he knew journalists and thousands of youtubers would eat it right up. People often look for a scapegoat to lay (even partial) blame on in the face of tragedies such as this, and it's a lot easier to latch onto a particular individual than it is an abstract and faceless concept like the "alt-right", and he threw it like a bone to a dog. If Pewds didn't exist he'd just have used the next biggest internet personality. He in no way committed the shooting out of devotion or genuine love to Pewdiepie, and I think that becomes pretty obvious if you look even for five minutes into his manifesto. The whole thing about Pewdiepie in regards to this shooting is incredibly tangential.

I think another reason Pewds is being targeted is precisely because of his large audience, people are trying to guilt and manipulate him in order to control him so he doesn't engage in anymore "wrongthink" that might be inconvenient to their agenda. It's actually pretty underhanded, in my opinion. Pewdiepie in no way asked for the attack to happen and to try to guilt him into publicly castrating himself is kind of twisted. It's all a concerted effort to rein him in and keep him controlled, and it's not new, they've been doing it for awhile. This just poured gas on the fire. The elites know he has a large following and that it can be used against them, hence all these attacks on him.

And keep in mind, I'm not even a fan of Pewdiepie - not my style of humor at all, so I hope my comments here don't get misconstrued as fanboyism. I can understand very fully well why people might not personally like him all that much and I'm not arguing that people should find his more controversial content funny. However, I very strongly disagree with the treatment he's been receiving by journalists and wannabe YouTubers who are just trying to use this tragedy to bolster their own image and popularity. I disagree fundamentally that he's responsible in anyway for the NZ shooting, just as no one is responsible for the actions of another individual.

I think it's intellectually dishonest in a lot of ways, too. Flip the script, a Muslim commits a terror attack against Westerners (no shortage of those, either). The rhetoric is often then that the attacker is a "lone wolf" and that the attack doesn't implicate an entire group of people. It's the fault of the attacker and the attacker alone - we can't blame the ideology or his community. That rhetoric doesn't seem to apply here at all. And it's not even a fair comparison, really. There are passages directly codified into Islam's Quran and Hadiths that specifically allow and call for the violence against non-believers, on top of other subversive tactics. That's a lot closer linked to Islamism than Pewdiepie is to white nationalism.

But I'm not deflecting here - what happened was a tragedy, and to carry an attack on a group of unarmed people is despicable. However this idea that Pewdiepie bears some responsibility is utterly ridiculous, and I think people who say that are just looking for an outlet for their rage, one that was conveniently placed by the shooter who wanted to create more division and discord in society, which he definitely got.

Anyway, sorry if this post seems more rambly than the others, it's past 3 A.M. and my brain is fried at this point after trying to sort out all of my thoughts.
Originally posted by Giftshaven
Gosh, I feel like an idiot for rushing to get the DLC and only realizing afterwards that the Fighter Pass is actually a better buy.

It's only, what, one dollar more expensive per character? So 5 more dollars if you buy them all individually.

While I was definitely happy with Joker being put in (loved P5 and this is coming from someone who doesn't usually like JRPGs), I definitely didn't care for any of the new additions that were in the Smash 4 DLC (don't care about Cloud, Ryu, or Bayo). So I'm playing it safe again and buying individually depending on whether or not the remaining DLC are characters I even want to buy in the first place, as I never even bought Cloud, Ryu, or Bayo for Smash 4. If I end up liking all of them it'll only cost me 5 dollars over the course of months so eh not a big loss.
Pages: « 1 265 66 67 68 »
Pyro X's Profile - Posts by Pyro X

The purpose of this site is not to distribute copyrighted material, but to honor one of our favourite games.

Copyright © 2005 - 2022 - SMW Central
Legal Information - Privacy Policy - Link To Us


Follow Us On

  • YouTube
  • Twitch
  • Twitter


  • Super Mario Bros. X Community
  • Mario Fan Games Galaxy
  • sm64romhacks