#regardless. Kind Of Rigged??? but like probably on accident somehow?

[protectorcraft]

waiiiit a fucking second. if they've set a daily point limit for the number of points you can earn for your team in the tourney. that means its entirely based on day to day participation and the number of individuals on each team, as opposed to skill.

which means the tourney very well may be rigged in a specific teams favor. thatgamecompany you guys are morons.

[nullconvention]

I *am* actually interested in a gun discussion at some point, because I think we should probably acknowledge that while gun control might be something achievable in the future, it's kind of the left's "abortion," in the sense that most Democrats aren't especially keen to institute restrictions but it makes a good election issue. Meanwhile, gun manufacturing lobbies push an incredible amount of money into campaigns, and supporters of gun ownership on the right are especially ardent. I'm not really sure, though, if we're being honest, that even the most rigorous gun control laws would do much to solve reactionary violence at this point. Driving cars into crowds is practically a meme, and just as horrifying. We end up with some terrible tragedies that should be avoidable, but while Sandy Hook should have been stopped, there are almost no restrictions that we would have been able to pass that would have stopped Stephen Paddock - white, wealthy enough to buy anything at almost any cost, no history of mental health issues on the books, no crimes. Just weird, reclusive, and wealthy. So, it is what it is. Many of us recoil (no pun intended, or WAS IT?) from the prospect of owning firearms because the prospect of using them on another person seems abhorrent. But, you know, there are many on the right wing of the spectrum that feel entirely comfortable with stating loudly and publically that they ought to be able to have as many firearms as they'd like in case the unwashed masses assault them, or for the purposes of a militia, or in order to provide a check against government violence. They hold office, work as contractors for the military and police, they work as civil servants, they have office jobs - with never a blink of an eye. When those on the left advocate gun ownership, they're treated as extremists or outliers - they buck the typical trend of liberal left thought. This is something of a reminder that right-wing authoritarian strains of thought aren't especially considered challenges to our existing system, but leftists who use the same logic are thought of as somehow systemically dangerous radicals. I think I see a chill spread through people when I suggest backpedaling from a staunch gun control position, because the implications seem dire, but they're not any more than the real life situation that exists when something like 3% of the population of gun owners control half of the guns. Most of these people are recreational shooters and collectors, and I'm not sure that statistic takes into account things like black powder or collectables you wouldn't fire, but it almost certainly (accidently) skews heavily towards the right wing of the political spectrum where we know, statistically that the major stockpilers of firearms are "our" political enemies. While my friends don't take this position (so don't think I'm pointing a finger at you guys!), many gun ownership advocates wouldn't be extending their advocacy towards all population demographics. In open carry states, a black man with a toy gun will still be fired upon by the police without warning, for example. Right wing white protestors can form a militia and march down the streets of Charlottesville fully armed, but the ACLU takes a picture of a single black counter protester with a bow, regardless of legality. The double standard is pretty clear.  I feel like it's somewhat foolish for the left to pursue arming itself with the intention of standing up to police or military operations, and I haven't heard that many people suggest it was a reasonable course of action, even in speculation, and even among the very "extreme." However, I think it's safe to say that the pro-gun argument was never designed to extend to black civil rights groups, LGBT support groups, native americans on reservations, latinx support networks, or poor working class whites attempting to keep unions alive in middle america when prosperity has passed them by. The right supports gun rights, but not CIVIL rights - I say, fine. Perhaps we will live with the legacy of that decision. For every person denied their civil rights, the right to a fair wage, the right to medical care, what if we were to take the right up on that offer? Remove our rights, but give us all assault rifles. What are the implications of THAT policy?