chrissedoff

This stuff is truly unbelievable; the Japanese side is the one taking decade-long development cycles to make staid, pretentious nonsense and it's Eidos who pays the price despite the fact that they've been turning out quality on a consistent and timely basis. It's basically a Cinderella situation where the spoiled daughters constantly get rewarded for being bratty layabouts while the stepdaughter is just shat upon and tormented constantly for doing everything that's asked of her.

The Daily Show has really gone downhill, huh? When they canceled the Nightly Show, they should have booted Noah and let Wilmore host.

Oh, and Drew is on television! Hooray!

For me, it's a tie between every character from a Zelda game that would hide in Link's pocket and jump out to longwindedly nag him about obvious stuff.

That sounds like the new Shadowrun games.

We all know that those games haven't aged well and are, for most people, no longer fun to play. Resident Evil 3's story takes place simultaneously with Resident Evil 2's. All you need to know from the story is that Umbrella Corp. sends in mercs to blow up Raccoon City but Jill escapes. Weirdly, much more story-relevant stuff happens in Code: Veronica. Not that it's worth playing either.

I thought it was pretty boring. It's just a lot of stylish killing and everything else about is pretty shallow and ridiculous. I feel like much of the reaction to the movie is a result of the paucity of R-rated action movies for the past couple of decades. When you're hungry, everything tastes better.

@owack6: Carson has repulsive views on LGBT people. The SPLC has apparently decided his views do not, in fact, rise to the level of making him an extremist and they removed him from their site a long time ago, so whaddaya crying about? I'd better not catch you citing homophobia and transphobia as problems within Islam, though, if you're going to go to bat for the garbage Carson has spewed out on that subject or you're going to look really stupid.

As for the likes of Nawaz and Hirsi Ali, I honestly think that Nawaz is just a neoconservative charlatan and a huge idiot who is often used as cover by extremist bigots. Even reading SPLC's site's justification for him being up there, I have to say he doesn't strike me as an anti-Muslim extremist - just an opportunistic piece of shit. Hirsi Ali, however, is inarguably an anti-Muslim extremist. The only argument you can make in her defense is that she's had a lot of really awful experiences and that is not a license to push hate speech unchecked.

David Horowitz, the man about whom the SPLC was first cited, has his totally outrageous lies and hate speech printed right there on the same webpage on which Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are listed, so you can try to question the credibility of the SPLC if you really want to, but there's no argument to be made about whether David Horowitz is a liar and a despicable human being, so what would even be the point?

SPLC is an excellent source. chaser324 is being far too accommodating --possibly dangerously so-- to smears on what is the authority on identifying hate groups in the United States. It's just a sign of the times that identifying somebody as a bigot makes you a bigger meanie than being part of a hate group.

Yes, two sides: true and false. Not every political assertion people make is legitimate. Incorporating history, stats, scientific research, the social sciences and lived experience usually gets you pretty close to the truth. Knee-jerk denial of scary scientific conclusions and ugly parts of your country's past and present aren't a recipe for a worthy counterpoint. Intellectually honest arguments would be that climate change shouldn't be dealt with because who cares about future generations, people should have all the guns they want because they are cool and make me feel safe, the government shouldn't get involved with healthcare because social Darwinism is better than paying taxes. Anything else is gaslighting and denialism.