Your idea of a retcon is that the hospital looks different in the sequel game in that tiny cutscene you see? It’s not even true, the hospital is still dirty and dingy. You’re also claiming a character having a wishful opinion is a retcon.

Neither of these are retcons.

There’s zero plot or story changes here too to even start making the assertion a retcon happened. How and why are you escalating to accusing the entire TLOU2 of being a fanfic because of two extremely minor things about the previous game, one of which isn’t even true.

I wouldn’t call it “Walking Dead” style. If anything, it wears its Cormac McCarthy influences on its sleeve. If the first game was The Road, the second game is Blood Meridian. The story is intentionally dreary, miserable, uncomfortable, and emotionally draining. Kotaku’s review of the game was pretty on the money for a lot of people, it’s entirely possible to be so put off by the tone and story of the game because it’s so miserable.

The thing is that you play as Ellie and then as Abby to get both perspectives on the story. The entire message of the game is that revenge and unending conflict a downward spiral of self-destruction. Joel gets done dirty… but so does everyone. That’s the whole point of the game.

I dunno what you heard but the Fireflies didn’t get retconned.

Did what in the second one? Made the stealth action more involved?

You didn’t say anything shitty, you just didn’t know the full picture.

Everything about Dolly Parton can be summed up in how she chose to spread her wealth instead of getting richer. If she parked her wealth into investments like most rich people or celebrities, she’d have been a multi-billionaire a decade ago. She was still very wealthy thanks to an insane amount of musical and movie success but she did coordinate that wealth into good more than most. For example, the reason she made Dollywood was to give her extremely impoverished home county a booming industry and revenue. The park didn’t even have anything specifically Dolly Parton themed until a couple of years ago too, most of its life was dedicated to the characters from the various children’s books she distributed through the Imagination Library so kids could recognize characters when they visited her park.

She was the rare example of someone who got a massive amount of wealth through her own efforts and then used it to help others as much as possible. Her charities weren’t tax shelters, she really did contribute a lot to society on her own (very considerable) dime. When people say they wished rich people would help society more with their wealth, Dolly’s who they’re thinking of.

I’m not playing defense for any particular perspective, I just try to understand all sides and get other people to see different perspectives before forming their own opinions.

You’re not trying to understand all sides by telling people they should entertain far right, xenophobic, and racist perspectives while doing your best to not acknowledge that that’s what the perspective is. You’re basically trying to shame people into tolerating the intolerant by vaguely gesturing at a blunt virtue.

Don’t pretend like you’re here trying to convince someone who is against considering a stream of ontology because they prefer a different branch of it. We’re talking about not entertaining DHH’s specific values. If you can’t even admit what those values are when you’re trying to tell people they should respect them, then you must know it’s wrong.

As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.

Principles. Not feelings.

If you can’t argue your position without attacking a person’s character, you already lost the argument.

Is your argument on this matter your entire character? Because I clearly called your argument cowardly.

How rich do you think she was? She wasn’t a billionaire. The millions she put into that charity were not as much of a crumb to her as Taylor Swift’s $2 million donation to it.

Dolly Parton was not a billionaire.

Yes, your argument was cowardly since you are actively avoiding acknowledging what specific perspective you’re playing defense for.

There’s no good reason to hold strong principles vaguely except obfuscation.

Go ahead and explain why you think far right, xenophobic, and racist perspectives need to be given a platform.

If you can’t complain on the internet then there’s nothing to say? Interesting perspective.

Not only does that screenshot say it’s only a slight decrease and that it may be due to underreporting, it also says nothing about rates being down due to guns.

You’re still basing your entire idea that Europe has a “rape crisis” due to something some idiot gun instructor told you ten years ago.

I notice you couldn’t bring yourself to search up “USA rape crisis”.

The AI lies, especially Gemini which is frequently wrong about what its sources say.

It’s also a lie to say that those USA stats exist (you notably didn’t ask the unreliable AI about them) and that it’s all due to the presence of guns.

Remember, you’re claiming that the US has no rape due to all the guns. There is zero statistics that will back up such a claim. Your only source is some gun safety instructor from ten years ago who definitely did not prove any such statistics either.

Yes he was, and he taught you how to practice confirmation bias and how not to critically think.

You’re asking fucking Gemini to make up an argument for you now. Notice how you’re not even asking it for how it compares to US figures or how many sexual assault cases are not reported in both regions, and if that discrepancy lines up or can be attributed to gun ownership rates.

Next time you should open with this so people will understand exactly the kind of brainpower and information that you’re working with in the first place.

This is such a ridiculous thing to admit, that your entire belief that Europe has a lot of rape while the US doesn’t just because some guy teaching a fucking gun safety class said that guns stop rape.

I was just thinking the same. I remember when she was everywhere.

The stupidity is also bigger.

Everything’s bigger in Texas, including the raging stupidity and lack of respect.

deleted by creator

At 5 feet deep you wouldn’t hit your head on the bottom

Yes, you absolutely would if you dove headfirst into it. That’s why swimming pools say no diving when they’re less than 8 ft. deep.

You can also definitely break your neck diving headfirst into mud.

That’s not how it goes for Tyler Durden