A action figure having squeezable boobs is not going to affect them in anyway.

if you don't care about something just because it doesn't personally affect YOU, then you're a selfish cunt

People losing their shit over Quiet and I'm still there gazing at the paragon of masculinity that is Naked Snake

i don't think so

i mean, it's no secret that ko-meme-a is a closet faggot as well
i think there's a few better examples you could've given as a paragon of masculinity in his series though

like... liquid
and... raiden

well, maybe not raiden, he's kinda girly looking
but that's supposed to look masculine in japan, so

So what does that SJW term mean?

traditionally, someone who hates women

i use it more as a term to describe people who cavalierly or nonchalantly disregard all sexism towards women in the media and pass it off as nothing to complain about

these people indirectly subjugate women

sad thing is, a lot of them are women

not at the moment

that isn't to say one can't be developed

Reggie was playing a Virtual Boy there.

I think that's the first time they've acknowledged that thing's existence since it bombed.

and i'd actually argue very very many people look like ken--it's not that difficult to get a light build and a tan
but that's another topic

the reason you don't hear "SJWs" like me complaining about ken dolls is because ken dolls are ancient history
that doesn't mean i think it's okay, though

He didn't make Rumble Roses. He did, however, have characters from Rumble Roses in MGS3.

does he not have some kind of sex problem that makes him a lecher or something, though
i could've sworn i read that in an interview once

I mean, I guess I shouldn't be that angry, because we're talking about the retarded manchild who made Rumble Roses and lived in the sexual limbo that is Japan for his whole life, so...

LIKE

UUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Hideo Kojima is a piece of shit.

that's a rather flagrant use of the word "masterpiece"

i can't even count the games i'd call a "masterpiece" on one hand
because there's so few

Quote from: Verbatim on May 13, 2015, 01:28:34 PM

So in your world view, would there no longer be luxary/recreational items?  How would one go about buying/earning something like a 80" 4k tv or PC?

In my opinion, everyone should be entitled to their own comfortable home. Televisions are obsolete, and thus, unneeded. Everyone would have access to a standard, quality-assured personal computer that wasn't planned to obsolesce, unlike basically every electronic on the market. And by "everyone", I mean everyone. Everyone should have complete access to the infobahn. The Internet is an invaluable resource of information.

Is this feasible? Probably not. Is this a La-La-Land? Probably. But it certainly sounds a lot fucking better than the current world we live in, in my humble opinion.

You can talk all you want about how it won't work in practice. I think that's a pointless discussion to have, considering that we can't test it, and all we can do is look at historically failed attempts at socialist societies in the past (that most likely did everything wrong anyway). I'm not interested in that discussion. All I know is that it's rock-solid in theory.

Sorry for the wait.

just think of a pencil:

YouTube

All right, this was my favorite bit:

Each part of the pencil is the result of the collaboration and cooperation of millions of people. Together, they form a process that is constantly changing and adapting. A change in the availability or cost of material from one place might make another source more desirable, and the process changes and adapts fluidly. And there is a fact that's still more astounding: the absence of a mastermind of anyone dictating these countless actions which bring a pencil into being. Each member of this family tree supplies only a small amount of the necessary know-how needed to make a pencil. They do so voluntarily, not because they necessarily want pencils or like pencils, but because by working to create them, they exchange their labor and skills for the wages that let them buy what they want and need. What you're seeing is the market at work.

(As a quick aside, I saw Lee Doren's name in the credits there. I may vomit.)

Now, Mr. Leonard Read is absolutely correct there in stating that we create these goods voluntarily, NOT because we "necessarily" want them, but because it allows them to receive money. Money to buy things that they "want" and "need", but money. That's what people work for. But that's the problem.

In my opinion, that's not what people should be working for. That shouldn't be the control of the workforce. Frankly, people should work because it's the right thing to do. I know I use that phrase very often, but it's true. People don't make pencils because they like them? Well, why the fuck not? Pencils are pretty fucking cool. And useful. I'd love to make pencils. I'd love to do productive work, and I would do it for free. Everyone should want to work for free, because work gets shit done. That's really all the pay that you should need.

But since that's not enough for people, I'll stick to the next best solution that I can think of, and that's the concept of working for your bread, and not for green pieces of paper. I don't think anyone can really take issue with that, at least in theory.

There's also another bit earlier on in there that I'd like to address, because it illustrates rather decently my utter contempt for the very concept of "supply and demand".

A change in the availability or cost of material from one place might make another source more desirable, and the process changes and adapts fluidly

Exactly. Since water is so ubiquitous here, I can buy myself twenty-four bottles of water for about $2.50 (or £1.50). But if I were in the fucking desert, or Six Flags, or hell, the campus of my own university, I would be paying the exact same amount (or more) for one stinking water bottle. So yes, that's absolutely correct--the "value" (in the shitty, asinine capitalist sense of the word) of a good increases as it becomes more scarce in a specific area--even if the good isn't scarce elsewhere. The underlying problem with this should be tautological, but... perhaps not to a capitalist.

Obligatory videos:

YouTube

YouTube

Currently watching these, as I now have the time to do so...

Miserable depressed atheist.