| Account Details | |
|---|---|
| SteamID64 | 76561198006886607 |
| SteamID3 | [U:1:46620879] |
| SteamID32 | STEAM_0:1:23310439 |
| Country | Korea, Republic of |
| Signed Up | October 2, 2012 |
| Last Posted | February 11, 2025 at 4:46 PM |
| Posts | 2381 (0.5 per day) |
| Game Settings | |
|---|---|
| In-game Sensitivity | 1.945 (9.4"/360) |
| Windows Sensitivity | 6 |
| Raw Input | 1 |
DPI |
900 |
Resolution |
1920x1080 |
Refresh Rate |
144hz |
| Hardware Peripherals | |
|---|---|
| Mouse | DeathAdder 2013 |
| Keyboard | Microsoft Rubber Dome, i ctap w/ RMB |
| Mousepad | Steel Series QCK (http://imgur.com/qim8wA2) |
| Headphones | Audio Technica ATH700x but not the black |
| Monitor | Benq panel that everyone else has idr |
bearodactylzheepTrolled By Elliot Once AgainsmesiEeelliot Is Very Good Poster Man-_- pls do not slander my name mister eee spells his name with two t's (elliott)
u managed to figure that out but 21 years of education and no one ive worked with can wtf
what single even killed this game the quickest?
I'd say the CEVO/ESEA split :)
Nub_Danish>what difference is there? Is the interpretation of "I'm going to hurt you" less valid than an interpretation of someone rejecting your core identity? This argument only works if you consider one type of threatening language more valid than another or don't consider rejection of someone's identity a threat.
rejecting someones core identity is not violence against them, whenever i decide i don't like someone i am not commiting violence against them by not liking them
your logic is ridiculous
Rejecting someone's identity is a form of dehumanization
if you don't consider that an active threat you're a bad person
(we already know you're a bad person but w/e)
>It's not like Hitler died and all of Germany became what it is today, trying to exclude the existence of Nazism from Germany is like saying America never had slaves, like it or not both had an affect on the country past and present.
man you're ACTUALLY retarded if you don't understand that free speech is part of the reason that nazism became powerful and the reason freedom to be a nazi is limited today
>Since you don't agree with what Tino has said, where do you think the line should be drawn? What is offensive and what isn't offensive? What is the standard and who decides what the standard is?
it's a completely arbitrary decision and I don't like using vague definitions with no concrete definition so i dont have an opinion
>There is a huge difference in not using someone's preferred pronoun and threatening some sort of violence to them because of them identifying as whatever.
what difference is there? Is the interpretation of "I'm going to hurt you" less valid than an interpretation of someone rejecting your core identity? This argument only works if you consider one type of threatening language more valid than another or don't consider rejection of someone's identity a threat.
Tino_It also has to do with use of said pronouns in contracts or business dealings. EG. If you go to a school and the school does not have your preferred pronoun as a option to use on the legal documents you can theoretically sue them for discrimination. And that is where this law get ridiculous, the law is no longer stating what cannot be said (in a racist or inflammatory matter) but it is stating what you must say for fear of upsetting someone. That is where the real issue with it is. As I said before, having laws in place to keep you from saying x or y to curtail hate is fine and needed. Having laws that tell you what to say on the other had is not. Its the difference between getting in trouble because you didn't hand in homework VS getting in trouble for handing in the homework, but its on a blue sheet of paper instead of green. Regardless of how correct the work is on the paper, or what you have done to get it in you are punished not because you didn't do it but because you didn't do it the preferred way. That't how preschool works not the real world.
Your argument here is that its dumb to get punished for not following directions, rather than trying to point out the actual flaws in the bill.
vibhavpeeeThe US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass
oh yeah man the Nazi regime was clearly known for it's freedom of speech and expression
u realize germany didn't spring into existence with the THIRD reich, right?
Tino_We are not arguing that having limits to what you can say is wrong, we are arguing that having limits that overstep basic logic is. Having pronouns classified as hate speech oversteps that line by a mile.
whats the difference?
ReeroeeeI'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
??????
The US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass
Tino_eeeaierahow is this even a debatebecause allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
There is a large difference between limiting things like racism and limiting how much you can or cannot speak out about the stupid SJW shit. Saying whatever you want with zero consequences is not ok especially when it is racist or hate speech, not being able to say he or she because he/she wants to be identified as a plant or some shit is stupid. Thats not freedom of speech, thats speech manipulation. Like if you want to identify as a plabt whatever, thats fine, its your life and your choices. But do not think for a moment that it is OK to push those choices onto me or anyone else and expect us to abide by your version of reality.
I dont wanna abide by the reality where blacks are equal to whites but the government will force that too
how is this different?
Geel9eeeaierahow is this even a debatebecause allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
Right, but "black people should be considered equals" was once considered an "undesirable element" of society. So why should people be able to subjectively define what these things are?
At any point in time where it would have been prudential to say that you'dve been able to say it, any other time you'dve been publicly ostracized without government intervention. There's only a notable difference between being able to say what you want and the government limiting it when what you're saying is absolutely off the grid publicly and defends all moral sensibilities in society. Currently, that sort of speech is banned de facto.
The government already sets a line of what is alright to say and no one complains about it. I dont see the difference between this and any other sort of limitation on speech that already exists
aierahow is this even a debate
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
u kind of have to try to not have >1000 DPM in ultiduo
when 4s was a thing every game or two someone would crack 900 or 1000 which was kind of neat
a consistent source of knowledge about Islamic and Syrian culture