It's almost like you're donating to charity or something and then getting mad at what you get back from it....
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait O.o Doing something out of goodwill instead of collecting games I am never going to play anyway? Who would do such a thing?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, to be fair, this is a product that they're selling here.
While yeah, it's easy to just think that it's for charity and due to that shouldn't be criticized, most people still bought this. They didn't just give their money away and happened to receive games for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting that the bundle has been up for some time now but I don't think I saw anyone mentioning or just seeing the rather obvious political message undertone in it as well, which may also contribute some to the whole success.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup, very political indeed. I've never seen them care about ACLU before...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you know that it is, yet you're using the tactic of "pretend that this any other opinion would be ridiculous".
Also, know that I'm not against ACLU. I'm just in the middle, since I think both sides have a point but also miss some marks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it's just that literally the biggest political controversy at this time is centered around what they stand for. The ACLU has become the symbol that liberals rally behind. Just because the organization is a-political, doesn't mean that it's not being used as a political tool and symbol.
The timing's a perfect example of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
They do champion progressive causes. The thing is non-progressive parties become acutely aware of such causes when they sit on the wrong side of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, you're right. But this is most definitely a political statement. The timing's just too perfect and because the ACLU just acknowledges those political views and doesn't make a statement, even though they know they're getting those donations due to the political state, means that they're not neutral at this moment in time. They can go back to that status, but currently, they're liberals.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, the issue is that the term "basic liberty" is already a political thing. For example, "Right to broadband". This is considered a basic human right to some and to some it's not.
ACLU should be standing out for the constitution for example, yet they're not defending the 2nd amendment. Whether we two support it or not, doesn't matter. The fact here is that the ACLU has most definitely taken a political stance.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you mean party neutral. There's NO WAY you would classify that as apolitical.
Comment has been collapsed.
ACLU has opposed democrats and the left many times before. You do realize this, right?
The ACLU ends up opposing the right and the GOP much, much more often because the right are the ones that wants to control women's bodies; throw people in prison, execute them; create naughty people lists; create restrictive voter fraud laws under the guise of integrity even though rampant voter fraud cannot be demonstrated; scapegoat muslims as terrorists while ignoring that other than 9/11 an American on American soil is more likely to die due to domestic terrorism. And so on.
Post 9/11 both parties are pretty okay with spying and privacy intrusions, which is probably the most likely reason in 2017 for the ACLU to take a fight to democrat officials.
"I'm just in the middle, since I think both sides have a point"
How you feel about fiscal issues, that can be debated. Based upon the results of the election and the actions of this administration, on social issues, the right is on the wrong side of history. You may disagree, of course. But I assure you, one side of the political spectrum is on the wrong side of history, and it is always the side that has the people saying, "go back to your country," and, "[a pregnant woman is just] a host."
Being in the middle is the same as remaining silent and complicit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Being in the middle is definitely not being silent. I'm in the middle. Being in the middle just means that you share some desires of every political party.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not what it means to be in the middle. First off, there is no such thing as being in the middle of "every political party". You can be in the middle of two parties in a two party system (though most people who think they are in the middle aren't), and you can be on the middle of some issues (when there is a middle), but you can't be in the middle of every party (even in a largely two party system) because politics isn't a spheroidal object, nor can you be in the middle of every issue.
For instance, there's no middle on whether the federal government should enforce its laws relating to growing, possessing, and selling marijuana in states where marijuana is legal or decriminalized. Either you think the feds should go in there and do whatever it wants, or you think the feds should stay out of it. There's no middle.
When the fight is about human rights and opposing tyranny, there's no "middle". You support the tyranny or you oppose it. That's all.
Granted, my characterization of there being a tyranny indicates my feelings about the issues in the next paragraph quite clearly.
Liberty, peace, harmony--these things mean nothing when things are going good. The measure of a man, of a nation, is how they respond when things are tough. When you close your borders to a specific group of people for no reason (other than your scapegoating and stereotyping of them that is not in line with reality); snatch away visas from people whom are already vetted; continue to promote the lie that the country is a violent cesspool of misery (when, relative to recent history it is quite safe); continue to spout the lies about voter fraud (whilst initially ignoring questions about the election you just won precisely because you just won); allow acolytes to go on TV and in front of the press and spout nonsense about the size of crowds, "alternative facts", about how and why Flynn resigned and when it was known that he broke the law and misled the administration; and so on, and so on, there is no middle to be had. Either you're okay with some or all of these things, or you aren't.
Are you fine with the promotion of a blatantly stupid, cognitively dissonant term like "alternative facts"? There's no middle on that subject. Are you in the middle about the White House being told about Flynn's conduct and not doing anything about it until the press got wind of it? Are you fine with undermining what was already an extensive vetting process for entering this country legally being tossed out the window at the whim of a man whom has insisted in the past that he knows more about ISIS than the generals? The immigration issue is complex, but whether you support the executive order or not isn't. You either do or you don't. There's no middle. Are you fine with the sore winner President asserting--without evidence--that he wouldn't have been trounced in the popular vote if not for the millions of illegal votes? There's no middle there. Either you find that assertion credible or likely or you don't. Perhaps, as I do, you think it is a narcissist's inability to acknowledge that his ascendancy to the highest office is due to a quirk of an undemocratic and antiquated voting system. But there is no middle. Either it is okay to spout bullshit like that or it isn't.
I doubt if you took a survey or quiz that summed and analyzed your beliefs to put you at a point on the political spectrum it'd find you right smack dab in the middle.
And as for silence, look here.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying "in the middle of every political party"... Being in the middle means centrism.
Also, you're talking about a perfect middle. That's too much, you need to broaden that up a bit. And yeah, you can be supportive of both sides relatively equally.
Oh boy... I'm not talking about in the middle of a single issue. I'm talking about being in the middle of many issues at once. So, I agree with, let's say 5 conservative ideas and 5 liberal. It'd still be in the middle if you were 4 conservative and 6 liberal. It's still pretty in the middle.
Also, with marijuana, there are more than two approaches, you know? Ban, medical, free, government operated growing, free growing but high taxes, free growing but low taxes, no selling only free growing and consuming and so on.
No, again, there isn't. Tyranny has many faces. Tyranny can come in the face of censorship, which I oppose. Tyranny can come in government owned companies, which I only partly oppose, since I thing the state should be able to own their own transport for example.
The measure of a man, of a nation, is how they respond when things are tough. - Smart words, nothing else to say about that one.
The thing is you've got a point, but I also disagree with something about the travelling. The idea of a travel ban isn't bad. It's just that Trump has banned the wrong people. Currently the situation in Europe is bad because of the migrants. Statistics, and not the "alternate facts" state that crime has increased everywhere. Bad people come in the countries. But at the same time, good people too and there are way more good people. It's just that this is a special situation that requires special ways to handle it. And putting in higher levels of security isn't racism, it's just a precautionary measure. People need a safe place, not a welcoming place.
Trump's made a lot of damn mistakes. More mistakes that should be allowed. There's weird stuff going on in there. I'm an avid critic of anyone. If you criticize Trump, then good. But... a lot of those people never criticized Obama... and that doesn't just make them hypocrites, it makes them idiots. Morons. Mongoloids. Whatever you want to call them.
I'm guessing you did get mad at Obama for increasing the debt into huge numbers. For screwing up Obamacare and causing many people to just suffer because of it. People that he said he'd help. For not understanding that socialism doesn't work well on a huge country, a country that's extremely in debt. And also, for not doing the thing that he always promised, year after year for 8 years... closing Guantanamo Bay. He did good things, yeah. It's just important to see the faults in things as well as the positives.
But as to the survey, I did come very close to the middle. I was middle and a slight bit down. About 15% towards the libertarians.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying "in the middle of every political party"... Being in the middle means centrism.
Also, you're talking about a perfect middle. That's too much, you need to broaden that up a bit. And yeah, you can be supportive of both sides relatively equally.
You're not in the middle of every party, you're not in the middle of every political idealogy, and centrism doesn't just mean being in the middle. If the dominant parties in the country become very left- or right-of-center centrism would dictate you move away from those parties and further toward parties that have little political power or voice so that you can actually maintain your centrist stance.
Oh boy... I'm not talking about in the middle of a single issue. I'm talking about being in the middle of many issues at once. So, I agree with, let's say 5 conservative ideas and 5 liberal. It'd still be in the middle if you were 4 conservative and 6 liberal. It's still pretty in the middle.
Also, with marijuana, there are more than two approaches, you know? Ban, medical, free, government operated growing, free growing but high taxes, free growing but low taxes, no selling only free growing and consuming and so on.
And you could still call yourself in the middle of it's 3 and 7. 2 and 8. 1 and 9. You can always claim a middle; that doesn't mean you're in the middle.
And the marijuana example wasn't about the policies that the feds or states choose--it was about whether federal law and enforcement should trump state law or not. It has nothing to do with what choices states make regarding marijuana as legal, decriminalized, or a medical option.
The thing is you've got a point, but I also disagree with something about the travelling. The idea of a travel ban isn't bad. It's just that Trump has banned the wrong people. Currently the situation in Europe is bad because of the migrants. Statistics, and not the "alternate facts" state that crime has increased everywhere. Bad people come in the countries. But at the same time, good people too and there are way more good people. It's just that this is a special situation that requires special ways to handle it. And putting in higher levels of security isn't racism, it's just a precautionary measure. People need a safe place, not a welcoming place.
And you're missing the point. "Trump has banned the wrong people." This is where you assert that you do not agree with the order. Full stop. I didn't opine whether or not there needs to be immigration regulation because the question of whether you agree with Trump's executive order is distinctly about what the order is, not about what is needed to do about immigration.
Further, Americans did not elect Trump to address crime outside of U.S. jurisdiction, since he has no power there. So in my talk about crime, I'm talking about the United States. Let me emphasize my original statement regarding crime:
continue to promote the lie that the country is a violent cesspool of misery
In context that means this country. And his statements about national crime trends are absolutely false. You're trying to undermine my point by addressing something other than my point, thus missing the point, or deceptively sidestepping it.
Trump's made a lot of damn mistakes. More mistakes that should be allowed. There's weird stuff going on in there. I'm an avid critic of anyone. If you criticize Trump, then good. But... a lot of those people never criticized Obama... and that doesn't just make them hypocrites, it makes them idiots. Morons. Mongoloids. Whatever you want to call them.
Lots of people did criticize Obama. He faced constant criticism from the right--much of it unwarranted--and a lot of criticism from the left--much of it warranted.
I'm guessing you did get mad at Obama for increasing the debt into huge numbers. For screwing up Obamacare and causing many people to just suffer because of it. People that he said he'd help. For not understanding that socialism doesn't work well on a huge country, a country that's extremely in debt. And also, for not doing the thing that he always promised, year after year for 8 years... closing Guantanamo Bay. He did good things, yeah. It's just important to see the faults in things as well as the positives.
Actually, socialism does work well. Europe has far more socialism than the United States--the United States has very little socialism compared to much of the rest of the western world. The lie that you can't have universal healthcare, or high taxes, has been fed to Americans for generations. The lie of American exceptionalism has been fed to Americans for generations.
As for Obama's failures, there are numerous. But the problem is we're talking about Trump and the clusterfuck that his administration is and you want to talk about Obama.
These are not two men of the same class. One was a public servant and constitutional lawyer whose election signaled a new era for a country, and a huge chunk of the population immediately rejected that new era. Eight years later it culminated in the election of a narcissistic buffoon who has never served any interest other than his own; casts every critic as his enemy, as failing, as corrupt, as fake.
But as to the survey, I did come very close to the middle. I was middle and a slight bit down. About 15% towards the libertarians.
I'm sure you did.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not in the middle of every party!!! That's my point... How else can I say it? I'm not in the middle of every party. I'm in the middle of the field.
Also... I'm not a centrist. I don't affiliate with them. I actually have my own brain and am not one of those sheep to put themselves in a camp.
"And you could still call yourself in the middle of it's 3 and 7. 2 and 8. 1 and 9. You can always claim a middle; that doesn't mean you're in the middle." - That's a slippery slope fallacy. You're stretching it further and further. No need to. Those were my examples, those are the examples. Easy enough. Don't add things to it.
Yeah, but I don't care what the government proposes. Why do you? If you have an idea, then say it. Don't say either yes or no. Think for yourself, my man. I'm saying that those are the actual options. You've just been spoonfed only two different ones. In reality there's more than 2.
"This is where you assert that you do not agree with the order. Full stop."
No... I don't agree with that part of the order. Stop trying to talk for me. I agree with a part of it, I don't with the other. Simple as that. I think that there needs to be a travel ban, I don't think there needs to be a travel ban on those specific people. It also doesn't matter what you told me. I won't ever say just a definitive yes or a no, because my brain doesn't work in binary. I can have more than just a yes or a no answer.
Trump was elected to help the US. Simple. He's seen the trends in Europe and he's trying to stop this happening there. That's what's happening.
He's posting false facts or "alternate facts" mostly, I agree. But I'm not talking about something that that idiot said. I'm talking about actual statistics.
"Lots of people did criticize Obama."
Compared to Trump? No... they didn't.
Obama's obviously done less wrong, but still, he had issues and the worst that happened was that crazy conspiracy theorists thought he was a secret Kenyan.
"Actually, socialism does work well."
Well, not anymore. I live in a socialist country (Estonia) and I know what's happening in an even more socialist country (Sweden) thanks to my relatives living there. This is what's happening. Estonians are taxed way too high. 50% of the working people are paid with taxpayer money and schools give away so many free spots that people just go to school just to be there. They don't actually have the passion or interest. And that's actually true, since I know way too many people like that. In Sweden, as you probably know, funds are running out and the country doesn't have the cash to keep everything up. Like for example the elderly were literally forcefully moved out of their homes to nursing homes due to the migrant numbers being too high to house them all. That's not a joke. Teachers are ready to quit in Estonia due to low funding. Most of our doctors went to Finland a few years back too. It's been unstable for a long time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know it's a slippery slope. That's the point. A person can always claim the middle. That doesn't mean they're actually in some sort of middle. Long story short what I was getting at it is that "the middle" is a mostly useless term. It matters what your position is on particular issues. At minimum, it's where are you on social issues and where are you on fiscal issues? Saying "I'm in the middle" doesn't tell me anything useful, since, you know, you can still lean Republican, or democrat, or be a libertarian, or progressive, or centrist, or techno-liberal, and so on, and so on.
Yeah, but I don't care what the government proposes. Why do you? If you have an idea, then say it. Don't say either yes or no. Think for yourself, my man. I'm saying that those are the actual options. You've just been spoonfed only two different ones. In reality there's more than 2.
Except the issue is whether or not you agree with the policies or actions of the administration. That there are more than two options is irrelevant--what is relevant is what is happening.
It's like saying that I'm not thinking for myself because I'm in an ice cream parlor debating between vanilla and chocolate and ignoring that there are 29 other flavors. That doesn't matter if the parlor says, "everyone gets banana walnut, and that's how it's going to be." That's what you're being asked, here. Do you like banana walnut? That's the question. Telling me pistachio and black cherry and rocki road exists is not at all useful.
"This is where you assert that you do not agree with the order. Full stop."
No... I don't agree with that part of the order. Stop trying to talk for me. I agree with a part of it, I don't with the other. Simple as that. I think that there needs to be a travel ban, I don't think there needs to be a travel ban on those specific people. It also doesn't matter what you told me. I won't ever say just a definitive yes or a no, because my brain doesn't work in binary. I can have more than just a yes or a no answer.
It's not trying to talk for you. It's that you said that he banned the wrong people. Then that's your stance on the executive order. This bundle is not about how you stand on immigration reform, and neither is the discussion. It is a response to this specific thing that has happened, this specific order.
You can't have more than a yes or no answer if the question is "do you agree with this specific action" and the answer is "no". I didn't ask you how you feel about immigration. I asked you how you felt about the order.
Trump was elected to help the US. Simple. He's seen the trends in Europe and he's trying to stop this happening there. That's what's happening.
I don't feel so bad about characterizing your analogies as stupid in another response. That you think Trump has or promotes an accurate vision of the political landscape in Europe is a monstrously deficient perspective.
He's posting false facts or "alternate facts" mostly, I agree. But I'm not talking about something that that idiot said. I'm talking about actual statistics.
Oh, so in between the falsehoods and cognitive dissonance, he's making a lot of sense to you? And wait, you're saying that we shouldn't follow the example of Europe, connecting it to crime in your previous answer. Because Europe has this big crime problem and we in the U.S. have demonstrated we have a superior judicial system. Right? What are you talking about?
Do you want to restrict it to just terrorism? Okay. But everyone agrees with the "stop terrorists" sentiment. That is never what the discussion is about. That you think that is somehow the discussion reflects poorly on your ability to understand that these discussions are never, "we gotta stop the bad people," but usually about the right way to do it.
"Lots of people did criticize Obama."
Compared to Trump? No... they didn't.
Obama's obviously done less wrong, but still, he had issues and the worst that happened was that crazy conspiracy theorists thought he was a secret Kenyan.
Obama wasn't the clusterfuck that Trump is. You do realize he was criticized for his use of executive orders, right? And that Trump isn't interested in passing a bill in the GOP-controlled congress, just issuing orders, yeah? You realize that ACA was criticized for death panels, a thing that doesn't exist? You realize that the current President is one of the truther conspiratorial nutjobs who promoted the birther issue?
If you think Obama wasn't constantly criticized it's because you weren't paying attention.
You realize Trump promised to drain the swamp? But he drained the swamp and then put more concentrated swamp into the swamp.
Well, not anymore. I live in a socialist country (Estonia) and I know what's happening in an even more socialist country (Sweden) thanks to my relatives living there. This is what's happening. Estonians are taxed way too high. 50% of the working people are paid with taxpayer money and schools give away so many free spots that people just go to school just to be there. They don't actually have the passion or interest. And that's actually true, since I know way too many people like that. In Sweden, as you probably know, funds are running out and the country doesn't have the cash to keep everything up. Like for example the elderly were literally forcefully moved out of their homes to nursing homes due to the migrant numbers being too high to house them all. That's not a joke. Teachers are ready to quit in Estonia due to low funding. Most of our doctors went to Finland a few years back too. It's been unstable for a long time.
First off, if you think I want to make a comparison between the U.S. and your country, a poor ex-Soviet satellite nation, you're wrong. I have no interest in the vast majority of the former Soviet sphere as a point of comparison. Western Europe, and Northern Europe are much better examples.
Secondly, accepting a ton of immigrants in a short period of time tends to do things like strain social systems. The strife of massive immigration is not inherent to a socialist system. As for Sweden, the Swedish economy is still growing and they are still some of the happiest people in the world in spite of the EU's poor policies right now.
You want to know the two problems that the EU has? Suboptimal immigration policies, which has little to do with socialism, and fiscal policies that don't match monetary policy, which again has little to do with socialism.
Socialism isn't perfect, but please don't tell me Trump is avoiding the problems of Europe with his policies here. He isn't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Saying that you're a republican or a democrat or whatever is as useless as saying you're in the middle. Also... why would anyone actually say that? Again, affiliating with sides and stuff is pointless. I said I'm in the middle because I thought you'd care. I don't. I just told you the answer to the quiz that I took and that's it. I don't support any side more than the other. I pick candidates based on their policies, rather than their side.
You've got a point with the "we have no choice" thing. But at the same time I was mostly aiming at the idea of not settling for what the government wants. The more different ideas move around the more likely it is to actually get a chance at voting them in.
Also, I don't think that it's as black and white as you claim it to be. I'm not 100% sure on this thing, but I'm pretty sure that there are nuances that will be figured out as well. It's probably not just a do it all or do nothing type of deal.
If you want a binary answer about the travel ban, then you won't get it. There are some aspects there that I agree with and some that I don't. Simple as that. It's not just a simple yes or no question for me.
Aw hell nah, you didn't just say that I think Trump's has an accurate vision of what's going on! I never claimed that. I said that he's seen the trends in Europe. Literally all that means is that he's seen that crime's on the rise here and people are unhappy in general. Plus, the massive increase in patriotism and nationalism due to the immigrant crisis. That's just a known fact. If you think that I think that Trump has an accurate vision, well... you're sorely mistaken.
"Oh, so in between the falsehoods and cognitive dissonance, he's making a lot of sense to you? And wait, you're saying that we shouldn't follow the example of Europe, connecting it to crime in your previous answer. Because Europe has this big crime problem and we in the U.S. have demonstrated we have a superior judicial system. Right? What are you talking about?"
This whole thing is just a mess of random words.
I'll break down what I said:
Trump says dumb stuff. Trump sometimes says correct stuff. I agree with you about the fact that he's posting dumb stuff mostly.
But as for the rest of the text, it's literally gibberish to me. I don't understand what you're trying to convey.
"Do you want to restrict it to just terrorism?" - No. Never said that.
You're right by saying that Obama wasn't as bad as Trump. But I'm talking proportionally. Trump's said the truth/mostly truth about 30-40% of the time according to PolitiFact. Obama's 70% on that. Now, Trump's getting way more hate. If Obama were to be as untruthful as Trump, then he'd still get proportionally less protests. That's what I'm saying.
Obama was mostly during the elections. This one and the 2012 one. But that's with every president, so that's nothing special. It'd happen even if you happened to be perfect.
...buddy, Estonia's not the "poor Soviet satellite state"... That's actually surprisingly typical to hear from people who are either from the UK or America. Nothing against you by the way, just a thing to mention. Your impression of us is dated by about 15 years. Literally.
Estonia has one of the best performing education systems in the world, we're one of the, if not the most advanced in cyberdefence and in terms of cyberinfrastructure. We've got the most start-ups per capita as well. What you're saying is just completely ignorant. You literally have no idea about this country yet you spew out random things.
Also, you did know that East-Germany was a soviet state, right?
But anyways, Northern Europe, you mention? Well, that is a very good place to start. I'm guessing from your knowledge about the Baltics that you don't know about the parallels between Finland and Estonia, right? Well, the idea's this: Finns were free and developed quicker, Estonians are playing catch-up. We followed in their footsteps and suddenly their country was in a crisis essentially. Everything became unstable. High taxes and no real use for it. Big companies started falling apart and suddenly Finland's not the Europe's giant that it used to be.
Well, the issue with the EU is the immigration policy. Which basically didn't exist until some months ago. Also the issue of them actually trying to become a country. You know, them trying to actually build an army...
Okay, so the supports will be straining the economy. Where do you take the money? To let you know, the taxes are so high in most socialist countries that they're pretty much on the verge of breaking it. Seriously. Companies can't even afford to hire people due to the taxes and the minimum wage.
"Socialism isn't perfect, but please don't tell me Trump is avoiding the problems of Europe with his policies here. He isn't." - I haven't. I won't say that anyways. Why would you think that? Just because I don't support one thing means that I support the other? The world isn't black and white.
Comment has been collapsed.
Saying that you're a republican or a democrat or whatever is as useless as saying you're in the middle. Also... why would anyone actually say that? Again, affiliating with sides and stuff is pointless. I said I'm in the middle because I thought you'd care. I don't. I just told you the answer to the quiz that I took and that's it. I don't support any side more than the other. I pick candidates based on their policies, rather than their side.
And when did I advocate saying, "I'm a democrat"?
You've got a point with the "we have no choice" thing. But at the same time I was mostly aiming at the idea of not settling for what the government wants. The more different ideas move around the more likely it is to actually get a chance at voting them in.
Also, I don't think that it's as black and white as you claim it to be. I'm not 100% sure on this thing, but I'm pretty sure that there are nuances that will be figured out as well. It's probably not just a do it all or do nothing type of deal.
Sure, you can find nuance if you wish. And miss the point. The point is that not everything has a middle.
If you want a binary answer about the travel ban, then you won't get it. There are some aspects there that I agree with and some that I don't. Simple as that. It's not just a simple yes or no question for me.
You fail to understand the purpose of being tasked with condoning or condemning a fairly simple action or policy. Congrats on trying to find a nuance where it is not necessary and missing the point. Congrats on finding balance where none is required. You embody all that is wrong with the modern voter's confusion about what is critical thinking and what is false equivalence.
Also, good job continuing to call it a "travel ban". Your antiseptic term for the executive order indicates your lack of comprehension regarding what the Trump administration is about.
"Oh, so in between the falsehoods and cognitive dissonance, he's making a lot of sense to you? And wait, you're saying that we shouldn't follow the example of Europe, connecting it to crime in your previous answer. Because Europe has this big crime problem and we in the U.S. have demonstrated we have a superior judicial system. Right? What are you talking about?"
This whole thing is just a mess of random words.
I'll break down what I said:
Trump says dumb stuff. Trump sometimes says correct stuff. I agree with you about the fact that he's posting dumb stuff mostly.
But as for the rest of the text, it's literally gibberish to me. I don't understand what you're trying to convey.
Because you're picking out kernels of corn in piles of shit and saying there's a meal to be had. You're forcing me to respond to these tangential arguments where you miss the point I was making. Here's the thing: I was talking about crime in the U.S. Trump didn't run his campaign based upon crime in Europe, so this
Currently the situation in Europe is bad because of the migrants. Statistics, and not the "alternate facts" state that crime has increased everywhere. Bad people come in the countries. But at the same time, good people too and there are way more good people. It's just that this is a special situation that requires special ways to handle it. And putting in higher levels of security isn't racism, it's just a precautionary measure. People need a safe place, not a welcoming place.
In response to this
continue to promote the lie that the country is a violent cesspool of misery (when, relative to recent history it is quite safe)
and this
Are you fine with the promotion of a blatantly stupid, cognitively dissonant term like "alternative facts"? There's no middle on that subject.
is missing the point.
Crime in Europe, and how much of it is committed by immigrants has nothing to do with Trump's false statements about crime in the United States or his immigration policies.
You're right by saying that Obama wasn't as bad as Trump. But I'm talking proportionally. Trump's said the truth/mostly truth about 30-40% of the time according to PolitiFact. Obama's 70% on that. Now, Trump's getting way more hate. If Obama were to be as untruthful as Trump, then he'd still get proportionally less protests. That's what I'm saying.
Show me where Obama is an abnormal politician as it relates to telling the truth. You can't. Show me where Trump is normal in that regard. You can't.
Trump is the outlier. Obama/Clinton/Romney/Messi/Baby Jesus aren't.
...buddy, Estonia's not the "poor Soviet satellite state"... That's actually surprisingly typical to hear from people who are either from the UK or America. Nothing against you by the way, just a thing to mention. Your impression of us is dated by about 15 years. Literally.
Estonia has one of the best performing education systems in the world, we're one of the, if not the most advanced in cyberdefence and in terms of cyberinfrastructure. We've got the most start-ups per capita as well. What you're saying is just completely ignorant. You literally have no idea about this country yet you spew out random things.
My bad. Having per capita GDP and wage rankings that place you in the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Portugal, Mexico class of nation totally compares to western and northern Europe, right?
Maybe you shouldn't get angry by a perceived diss of your nation right after you down it and tell people that President Cheeto Buffoon is trying to avoid the mistakes your nation made, especially when he couldn't find your nation on a map.
Also, you did know that East-Germany was a soviet state, right?
But anyways, Northern Europe, you mention? Well, that is a very good place to start. I'm guessing from your knowledge about the Baltics that you don't know about the parallels between Finland and Estonia, right? Well, the idea's this: Finns were free and developed quicker, Estonians are playing catch-up. We followed in their footsteps and suddenly their country was in a crisis essentially. Everything became unstable. High taxes and no real use for it. Big companies started falling apart and suddenly Finland's not the Europe's giant that it used to be.
Yes. But the other part of Germany wasn't. If it was all under Soviet , there's a good chance it would probably fail to be the top nation in Europe even after 25 years.
The parallels between Finland and Estonia are many, but the fact is that Estonia was being fondled by the Soviets for decades. That's my point. "Estonians are playing catch-up." That's my point. "Finland's not the Europe's giant that it used to be." You have an odd definition for "giant".
Well, the issue with the EU is the immigration policy. Which basically didn't exist until some months ago. Also the issue of them actually trying to become a country. You know, them trying to actually build an army...
Also the discrepancy between the monetary and fiscal policy. The economic crises in countries like Greece weren't the result of immigration, but that discrepancy and the decisions that were made that exploited it.
Okay, so the supports will be straining the economy. Where do you take the money? To let you know, the taxes are so high in most socialist countries that they're pretty much on the verge of breaking it. Seriously. Companies can't even afford to hire people due to the taxes and the minimum wage.
But this is true of any problem. Costly programs are costly. What does this have to do with the basic model of universal health care, maternity leave, paid vacation; inexpensive or free education; day-care or home care programs; and so on? Nothing. Doesn't matter what socioeconomic system you have--if you strain it, it will break.
The U.S.'s distaste for socialism has nothing to do with what is going on in Europe right now, I assure you. It never has.
"Socialism isn't perfect, but please don't tell me Trump is avoiding the problems of Europe with his policies here. He isn't." - I haven't. I won't say that anyways. Why would you think that? Just because I don't support one thing means that I support the other? The world isn't black and white.
Wait, didn't you...
Trump was elected to help the US. Simple. He's seen the trends in Europe and he's trying to stop this happening there. That's what's happening.
Okay.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I've been a long-time supporter of ACLU. My point was just that oddly enough, Humble Bundle never cared like that about them before.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not just civilian rights, the refugee one as well. That combination with this timing and the bundle name "Freedom", plus how they are channeling every cent + add their own is kinda not really hiding a nice protest aspect.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I guess I missed those because console then ;)
When was the HandyGames one though ?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm a bit baffled why it's always "Humble is getting political". It's the developers that initiated the ACLU support, long before that bundle came online. And if developers want to give 100% to a charity, why would Humble refuse to participate, if that is exactly the reason what for Humble was established?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think the point here was to point the finger at a specific entity (be it either Humble or the devs). Just noticing, Trump gets elected and suddenly everyone (as in, all those who didn't care before) starts caring about freedom.
Here we talk about the charities picked in this Humble Bundle, but it's the same on Groupees (https://groupees.com/bma4), and more generally, services like Protonmail gained a mass of users who previously couldn't care less about privacy (aka the freedom not to be snooped upon).
Of course IMO it's a very good thing, but it also shows those people don't really realize what they're signing up for. Freedom goes both ways, it's not something you fight for just when you don't like the current government. As va3victis pointed out:
The ACLU has defended the American Nazi Party and the KKK, as well as gay rights and teaching evolution in schools.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that's the result of Trump's ban having an immediate impact on many developers. Very many were concerned if they could visit the GDC, E3 or dare to leave the country.
And I'm pretty sure that most people supporting ACLU are smart enough to understand what they support, while we might not always cheer for the side being defended by ACLU. It's never that they defend a racist for being racist, for example, but because of rights that would be at risk for everyone, if it would be accepted to deny those rights to some, just because they are "nasty".
Comment has been collapsed.
And I'm pretty sure that most people supporting ACLU are smart enough to understand what they support
Let's hope so... Time will tell 😇
Comment has been collapsed.
I saw a couple of conservative people talking about switching charities in Mille's thread but apart from that I think most people are too happy getting tons of games to complain.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, this is why I like this bundle, it is a clever little one from Humble. With their 300k, it is at 4.5M now, that is a nice money even by US standards for non-profit organisations.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not just conservatives, international buyers as well - I didn't, but I can completely understand not wanting to fund a charity that's only/mainly active in a different (developed) country than yours, regardless of political views, when there are more international options that also need the money.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like ACLU but I think Tor or the EFF are more in need of funds, that's why at the moment I only pick bundles where I can switch to those.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can select a charity of your choice. I slided most of my contribution towards Doctors Without Borders.
It's nice there is a choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mentioned in the first thread that I liked that they're supporting the ACLU. I don't really see anything wrong with them picking political sides and helping them. Obviously though, a lot of people are going to buy this bundle that are conservatives and are going to thus be "tricked" into donating to a "charity" that they don't support, because they're not used to Humble being political. If it were the other way around I know this would infuriate me(as it in fact did, re: Chick-fil-a issue). I would therefore usually say that it's important to talk about this and make it clear to people what side this is supporting. Then again, that would result in the ACLU getting less donations. So I guess the question is do I care more about human rights or my moral principles? I'd say the former, but then I can see how that kind of makes me a tautological templar.
Interesting question to think about. Thankfully I don't have to do that as I don't even have 30$ to give right now and honestly I might still not buy it even if I did. I like the ACLU, but I can get better value for money elsewhere and I already direct most of my donations on Humble to Planned Parenthood, which I actually like quite a bit better.
Comment has been collapsed.
The ACLU leans left politically because one side of the political spectrum is far more hostile to liberty.
The gaming/tech industry has opposed net neutraility and other issues affecting their industry and society in the past.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also how could $600 of stuff be worth a mere $30, dear god
Comment has been collapsed.
That's $600 without a sale. During a sale, your $600 gets reduced to $150 - $250.
Also, most games have already been in a bundle, a.k.a. available for an even cheaper price. And so on and so forth.
Comment has been collapsed.
55 games for $30 it's a good deal and 100% goes to charity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Three issues with this statement.
One is that it's a bulk purchase of certain games. With normal bundles you also know what you get, but you're paying way less. $30 is just objectively more and there's a way smaller chance that you'll like a big percentage of the games.
And the second is that so what that it goes to charity? It's a product that's being sold. Even charities can be scrutinized. Otherwise PETA would still be considered the flawless gods that they think they are.
And third, you could always donate 100% of your bundle price to charity. What stopped you then?
Comment has been collapsed.
Weirdly enough, I thought about it when posting my message, but decided to go for a classic instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are some people like that all the time. "Rise of the Tomb Raider AND Just Cause 3 in SqEnix pack" " Bandai Namco bundle add new games, it will be DS 2 (or 3) and another Naruto game!" When people themselves can believe in such unrealistic scenarios, it's not hard to understand why the good old lying and promising works in politics :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I still don't get why they're showing Subnautica there. This is pretty much just false advertising, since the only difference between the out of stock annoucements and out of sale announcements is just one or two words in the fine print.
Comment has been collapsed.
Looks exactly like it does when it's out of stock. And it has happened multiple times before. Using the same overall look for a different message is pretty scummy in my opinion. They have literally no reason for keeping this in there, other than to make the bundle look better and to increase the amount that the charities earn.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aand when they removed games from page, people complained about that too ...
Comment has been collapsed.
I personally would prefer just separating those games from the actually available games. Keep it on the same page, just put it at the bottom with a larger sub-title, like "No longer available".
Comment has been collapsed.
Why not just put it to the bottom of the page? Under the category of "No longer available" or something. People can see it there, yet it's also separated enough to not cause confusion.
But to be honest, it's normal to just remove it. It's a store after all. Wouldn't it be ridiculous to just have milk sell out and instead of just not having it in the store, you just put a carton of milk there, but say in a small text: "We're not selling this any more"
Comment has been collapsed.
True, it could be confusing, but there are two things to kind of try and void that issue:
1) With normal bundles, they're selling a product for their own profit. In those cases most devs don't actually care about the charity aspect, since if they did, the default percentage wouldn't be that the charities only get a measly 15% of all sales, not per developer. Because of that, the worst that would happen is that they temporarily run out of keys, but it'd be most certainly be restocked. They're getting money from that, after all.
2) But let's say that there's a new 100%-to-charity bundle, which sounds very possible. In reality, there's literally no reason for Humble to showcase the no longer given games. So, what I'd propose is a dropdown menu. Click a button and all the removed games will be displayed to you. No unnecessary clutter and also no unnecessary confusion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reading is fundamental.
The bundle says it is sold out for new customers. There's really no way to see Subnautica in the bundle without seeing that it is no longer available.
Anyone buying the bundle that refuses to read the bundle page or misinterprets what "sold out for new customers" means is their own enemy.
Your "make the bundle look better" line only makes sense for stupid people. Considering that the bundle has been a massive success, I don't subscribe to your cynical take.
Knowing what once was available but no longer is is valuable information. Knowing who donated 100K or more keys is valuable information.
Comment has been collapsed.
What's wrong with the idea of separating it? Why's that such a bad thing that it should be just counted out?
And yeah, it does look better as if such a game's still there. Just even for the fact that it'll make the mass of games look bigger. If you had a game that's 9,99€ and they'd add another thing that's pointless just there, then it'd still look like you're getting 2 items instead of 1, making it look better. It is only for stupid people or impulse buyers, yeah, but why would you be so anti-consumer and just want them to make this mistake instead of finding a solution?
Obviously you should read something, but the info could be accessed in a different way. So, put it to the bottom of the page with a different sub-title ("No longer available"). Also, no one actually cares about earlier games in general, and if they do, then there's so many different ways of finding it out. Google it and you'll get the original games in the HB articles or forum posts... Example.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing is wrong with the idea of separating it. This is perhaps the best solution. However, you stated that not separating it was a ploy to get people to buy the bundle irrespective of their ability to read exactly what the bundle says, that you will not get those items.
You have chosen to promote the most cynical interpretation of why the sold-out games are simply grayed out with a note about them being sold out even though the reason they're sold out in the first place is because of the massive success of the bundle.
Your point is further undermined by the fact that only charity benefits from the proceeds of the bundle.
"Obviously you should read, but"
There's no but. You're spending $30 on a bundle. You should know whom it benefits and what you are getting. The yellow text denoting that the particular game is sold out stands out quite well.
Why should someone have to Google or go to some other forum to learn information about which games were originally in the bundle, what they "missed out" on by being too slow. Your point make no sense. It's basically people should read, but, they could also go elsewhere to read. That's silly.
It's not that none of your points make sense, it's that the only one, that maybe there is a better way to present the information, is overshadowed by your cynical assertion that they want to trick people, and your nonsensical assertion that information about what was in the bundle but is no longer available do to the success of the bundle could be presented somewhere other than the bundle page.
You should just stick to asserting that they could have moved information about what was but no longer is available to the bottom of the page. That's a solid point. The rest is not well thought out.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Nothing is wrong" you had me at that.
yeah I am still lurking around
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not exactly saying that it's a malicious plan, no. I am saying that they're trying to sell more copies though. And yeah, that'll still be my opinion and you'll have yours. I just meant that they probably didn't just not notice that the game was still advertised on the top of the page. I doubt that the Humble staff is that dumb, but maybe they are.
No, it's not the most cynical, again you're reading it as if I said that it was some crazy masterplan. I said that for the impulse buyer, this could flame the fires of buying the bundle. Simple. I could've mentioned that it's not malicious, but I never thought that you'd assume that. I'm only talking about the unnecessary confusion there. And yes, people are confused. I've had 2 people actually message me, asking whether I think they'll bring it back and the best I could say was: "Probably not". There wasn't anything definite, because they never brought it away or moved it away from the spotlight. It's like having a carton of milk on store's shelves and then saying: "You can't buy this!" instead of just not having it there, like any normal retailer does.
And yeah, running out of keys is normal. It makes sense in fact. No more free stuff.
Okay, so I should read. But understand that just because you should do something, doesn't mean that they actually do it. But if keeping a site as inconvenient as possible is your goal, then fair enough. No need to go hard and say, "well, people shouldn't be so lazy". It's just not how the world works. Human progress came because of laziness. They want the easiest option, why else would Steam still exist. Simplicity and convenience.
Why would someone Google for info about archived info? Why would people have to read a small text just to make sure that what games will they get in reality? What's wrong with Googling now if reading a few lines of text isn't? Yeah, my point is that they should go somewhere else. No need to trash the site up. You don't need the excess junk there. There's a reason why there aren't just old bundle archives thrown into the main site...
Comment has been collapsed.
The impulse buyer that can't see the bright yellow text, just sees a grayed out game and immediately goes to buy?
And you can't have it both ways, you can't say, "I could've mentioned that it's not malicious," and say, "They have literally no reason for keeping this in there, other than to make the bundle look better and to increase the amount that the charities earn." You're describing an intent to deceive, which is inherently malicious.
"I'm only talking about the unnecessary confusion there. And yes, people are confused. I've had 2 people actually message me, asking whether I think they'll bring it back and the best I could say was: 'Probably not'."
An inability to understand basic English it the buyer's own fault. There's no 'probably'. "This item is sold out for new buyers," is unambiguous.
"Okay, so I should read. But understand that just because you should do something, doesn't mean that they actually do it. But if keeping a site as inconvenient as possible is your goal, then fair enough. No need to go hard and say, 'well, people shouldn't be so lazy'. It's just not how the world works. Human progress came because of laziness. They want the easiest option, why else would Steam still exist. Simplicity and convenience."
First off, there's no lack of obligation from a user to inform themselves about what they're spending their money on. It's not like the text doesn't stand out. It stands out. The fact that it stands out undermines your point. It'd be different if the text was easy to miss, but it isn't. It'd be different if the text was difficult to understand, but it isn't. And that people shouldn't be lazy when the information is presented in front of them and highlighted is exactly how the world does and should work. And human progress does not come about due to laziness. You don't seem to understand the difference between convenience and laziness. They aren't the same.
The text is bright yellow below a grayed out item. Anyone who fails to notice it is at fault 100%. I understand your points. They are completely and utterly unpersuasive.
Comment has been collapsed.
The impulse buyer might spot it, might also not. But that should be enough. If there's a chance for the consumer to be mistaken, then why not just throw it at the bottom instead of being in the most noticable spot (top and middle).
Oh boy... again... you can say it both ways... They left it there with good intentions. Like you said, "to see what was there". In my opinion, they have no reason to keep it there, yes. But for you, there is for example. So, they might've thought the same... As business people, I just have a feeling, that in reality they know it too.
Basic English? The issue here is that Humble has never just run out of keys and not restocked them. People just didn't expect that after the 20 times it's happened, they just change it. Also, they restocked "Monster Loves You" after saying it's no longer available, like with Subnautica.
For sure, a smart consumer is prepared and reads and researches. What's your point? It's a fantasy realm, where people are just smart consumers. Is this tough love you're trying to enforce here? To throw them in the deep water without help to teach them swimming? But, let's just ignore those people then. Next time if someone asks for help in SG, let's just all ignore them too, since everything can be found and researched. They're dumb for not looking it up and instead of doing something extremely miniscule to help them out, let's just not.
No, convenience and laziness aren't the same, but one influences the other. If someone's lazy, then making something more convenient is going to be their goal. Why else are there tools to automatically make trains now? It was developed because of people's laziness, to bypass the necessary labor.
Comment has been collapsed.
The impulse buyer has no one to blame for their mistakes in impulse buying other than themselves. What is this defense of the impulse buyer? The impulse buyer is reckless and foolish if their impulse leads them not to weight the pros and cons, or even read relevant information about their purchase that is right in front of their face.
No, you can't say they left it there with good intentions and say "They have literally no reason for keeping this in there, other than to make the bundle look better and to increase the amount that the charities earn." These are statements at odds with each other.
Basic English? The issue here is that Humble has never just run out of keys and not restocked them. People just didn't expect that after the 20 times it's happened, they just change it. Also, they restocked "Monster Loves You" after saying it's no longer available, like with Subnautica.
Humble has also never has a bundle this huge, a bundle this huge that benefits only charity. I've been HBing for years, and I never saw a message about not having keys until the other day when I saw that a key for a game was temporarily out of stock. Temporarily. Temporarily. I understand what temporarily means.
As for this bundle, the Monster Loves You people obviously decided to give up more keys. That's their decision. Humble's obligation when they first run out of keys is to state that there will be no more unless they learn otherwise. It isn't their job to demur on the topic, or to give false hope. "This is no longer available" is the proper response.
For sure, a smart consumer is prepared and reads and researches. What's your point? It's a fantasy realm, where people are just smart consumers. Is this tough love you're trying to enforce here? To throw them in the deep water without help to teach them swimming? But, let's just ignore those people then. Next time if someone asks for help in SG, let's just all ignore them too, since everything can be found and researched. They're dumb for not looking it up and instead of doing something extremely miniscule to help them out, let's just not.
This isn't about being a smart consumer. This is about being a normal person who sees a page of items, a couple grayed out with bright yellow text under them, reads the text, and comprehends the message contained within it.
Your water analogy is stupid, your example about helping people on SG is stupid as well. You're trying to draw parallels to things that are not a parallel. A parallel would be a restaurant that has one of those big blackboards on the sidewalk at its entrance that lists today's special multi-course meal that does not erase a dish from the meal that is no longer available that day, but does highlight in a different (and brightly colored) chalk that the item is no longer available. The patron now knows what was available, what might even be available later (that the restaurant has no obligation to provide), but is not available right now. That's an example that works. Not throwing a non-swimmer into deep water to drown. Not telling anyone seeking assistance on SG to just Google it.
No, convenience and laziness aren't the same, but one influences the other. If someone's lazy, then making something more convenient is going to be their goal. Why else are there tools to automatically make trains now? It was developed because of people's laziness, to bypass the necessary labor.
No, one doesn't necessarily influence the other. Here's the thing: people who are lazy tend not to make things. People make things more convenient because what makes things convenient usually make things better. The invention of the car allows ordinary people to cover greater distances. It was invented to replace the labor of an animal like the horse, not because people were too fat and lazy to walk from their front door to the mailbox at the end of the driveway.
Allowing people to make trains automatically allows people to make more, and longer trains. The idea that it exists just because people are lazy is in fact an example of laziness as it is a lazy analysis.
The more you try to provide examples to strengthen your position, the weaker it becomes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, again, buying with an impulse is what has kept things like Steam so successful. I just thought that companies might be interested to keep that massive cashflow coming in.
I already said what you've missed in the good intentions and bad intentions clashing for me.
Yeah, I understand what temporary means too. But I'm saying, there's no reason to keep it there if it's no longer available.
"Monster Loves You" got more keys. They could've just added it back to the page after removing it once because it ran out. Nothing harmful would've happened.
Again, why not just separate the titles instead of having yellow text on the list of games? Just separate them and it'd be fine.
Yeah, they have no obligation to separate it, sure. And? Steam didn't have an obligation to make the refund policy. They just did it because it was the good thing to do. But, yeah, capitalism, free market, yadda yadda... everyone can do what they like as long as it's legal. I just think that not everything should be accepted, even if it's legal.
Water analogy works with the way you think. You want people to start researching more and instead of helping them out with just separating the games, you just decide to do nothing and let them jump into the water without help.
Laziness is also averse to activity, or exertion. And that's not just work. People want to find the easy way. And to make it easy, they find a way to bypass the things they don't want to do. They tend not to, but some still do.
You say my water analogy is awful, yet you bring the car example... irony.
No, they invented the car because a car is cheaper and faster. A.k.a. it's not as laborious. They were... averse to activity and/or exertion. Costs more money, meaning you have to work more. Is slower, meaning that you have to do it for longer.
No, you could still make long trains... before that plugin, there were long trains. It's just easier to do it now. You can always do something long. It's just the question of whether you're willing to do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, again, buying with an impulse is what has kept things like Steam so successful. I just thought that companies might be interested to keep that massive cashflow coming in.
Valve is not involved with this bundle. You're connecting things that have no connection. First you say that impulse buying has made Steam successful. Okay. Actually, it's not impulse buying but the cognitive bias that you will make time and get around to playing a game. It's inherent to the way pricing and acquisition in digital distribution works, and it's a lot more than just impulse buying. But fine. Impulse buying. How is that connected to Humble Bundle offering a charity bundle. They're so greedy, they're greedy even on behalf of charity? Okay. Fine.
But the thing is, you then tried to walk that back later, saying you weren't describing malicious intent. You said there was no reason other than malicious intent though. So what, it's just thoughtless on their part? Well, no, you said they knew what they were doing.
Okay. Fine. Walk it back if you wish.
Yeah, I understand what temporary means too. But I'm saying, there's no reason to keep it there if it's no longer available.
But there are reasons. Like knowing what was available. Or, with Monster Loves You, what may be available (but you shouldn't expect to be available). It's a charity bundle. Maybe throwing Subnautica off the page and out of sight just because they aren't offering more than 100K keys isn't part of the goal. Maybe the fact that they offered any keys matters too, and the best way to do that is to leave things as is except for indicating quite clearly that you will not get that item.
"Monster Loves You" got more keys. They could've just added it back to the page after removing it once because it ran out. Nothing harmful would've happened.
But nothing harmful did happen. People who can't read or comprehend need to find a way to inform themselves irrespective of their disability. People who won't read deserve no sympathy.
Again, why not just separate the titles instead of having yellow text on the list of games? Just separate them and it'd be fine.
That's a good point. If you had made only that point you would have had something. But that isn't what happened here.
Yeah, they have no obligation to separate it, sure. And? Steam didn't have an obligation to make the refund policy. They just did it because it was the good thing to do. But, yeah, capitalism, free market, yadda yadda... everyone can do what they like as long as it's legal. I just think that not everything should be accepted, even if it's legal.
Actually, Steam instituted it in part to satisfy laws in countries like Australia, and they were smart enough to realize that some people having the option of a refund while others don't is a bad, bad idea. So they didn't do that.
Water analogy works with the way you think. You want people to start researching more and instead of helping them out with just separating the games, you just decide to do nothing and let them jump into the water without help.
False. I want people, when they go to the bundle page, and see what games are in the bundle, and see Subnautica, and see that it's grayed out, and see bright yellow text underneath, to understand the message being conveyed. That's not "research". That's basic consumer behavior. "Here is the information regarding the thing I wish to purchase right in front of my face. Here is a note about a particular detail of that thing highlighted in bright text."
You really want to use a water analogy. Okay. It's kind of like a beach that has several signs, easily visible and read from a distance, that say, "no lifeguard on duty."
If you want to swim at a beach where there's a lifeguard on duty due to your lack of swimming ability, then you should heed the signs. If you want Subnautica and you didn't get this bundle when it was available, you should see it's in the bundle, see that it's grayed out, see the bright yellow text, and say to yourself, "I'm not going to get Subnautica in this bundle," and probably not get it.
Laziness is also averse to activity, or exertion. And that's not just work. People want to find the easy way. And to make it easy, they find a way to bypass the things they don't want to do. They tend not to, but some still do.
I don't know your relationship with the English language. I'm a native English speaker. Please do not tell me that convenience and laziness are inextricably linked. They aren't.
I do not need a lecture on what laziness is. This is where you first brought it up:
Okay, so I should read. But understand that just because you should do something, doesn't mean that they actually do it. But if keeping a site as inconvenient as possible is your goal, then fair enough. No need to go hard and say, "well, people shouldn't be so lazy". It's just not how the world works. Human progress came because of laziness. They want the easiest option, why else would Steam still exist. Simplicity and convenience.
I never said people shouldn't be lazy. All I said was that the message was easy to see and easy to understand. This idea that people should be able to buy the bundle without reading anything or taking note of why something has a different visual appearance than the rest of the items, or why it has bright yellow text underneath is silly.
The people who are too busy or stupid to notice deserve no sympathy. Someone who struggles with the comprehension, on the other hand, should take care to clarify to their own satisfaction what is being conveyed.
You say my water analogy is awful, yet you bring the car example... irony.
No, they invented the car because a car is cheaper and faster. A.k.a. it's not as laborious. They were... averse to activity and/or exertion. Costs more money, meaning you have to work more. Is slower, meaning that you have to do it for longer.
No, actually, cars weren't faster. They were quite slow at first. And you're not understanding the point.
The point is that a living entity that performs a task requires all of the things that living entities require, like sustenance, shelter, care, rest, and is subject to the vagaries of mood, performance, injury, and ultimately dies or becomes too old or weak to perform the necessary task. Cars don't. Understand that the car replaced the horse. The car was not cheaper than the horse, and it wasn't faster (you do realized prior to there being cars, there weren't roads for cars, yeah?)
Anyway, the point was that the car wasn't invented because people were lazy.
Human progress came because of laziness.
That's what you said. I think that statement is simplistic and idiotic.
No, you could still make long trains... before that plugin, there were long trains. It's just easier to do it now. You can always do something long. It's just the question of whether you're willing to do it.
I never said you couldn't make long trains before. I said that a tool that allows you to do something faster, and perhaps better, inherently helps the thing be done more often and to a greater extent. That's the very definition and purpose of a tool--to improve the ability to perform a task.
For some reason you have this need to frame things that help people do more with less effort as promoting, rewarding, or being motivated by laziness.
To that I say: why don't you stop using your lazy-ass computer to post replies to me on this forum and instead write out your response in a letter and send it to cg by carrier pigeon.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Valve is not involved with this bundle. You're connecting things that have no connection."
I'm not talking about the bundle. I'm talking about stores. But nice try to straw-man. Also, impulse buying
No, again, nothing malicious. It's not intentionally harmful, it's them thinking that it's not as bad as it actually is. A.k.a. them being ignorant.
"But there are reasons. Like knowing what was available."
Put it to the bottom of the page. Seriously, I want your explanation as to why not put them to the bottom of the page. What's the harm in that?
"People who won't read deserve no sympathy."
Fine, but why not avoid that issue entirely? Or is it just cool to feel superior to others who genuinely make that mistake? Again, what's the harm in preventing that?
"If you had made only that point you would have had something."
I love how points just disappear once there's more than one of them.
"If you want Subnautica and you didn't get this bundle when it was available, you should see it's in the bundle, see that it's grayed out, see the bright yellow text, and say to yourself, "I'm not going to get Subnautica in this bundle," and probably not get it."
Again, what's the harm in just preventing this kind of an issue and just separating those titles from the middle of the screen?
"I don't know your relationship with the English language."
I'm a C2 international level English speaker. But with the laziness and convenience, I just think that if you're lazy you'll try and find the most convenient solution. You don't. Fine. It's the weirdest thing to get stuck on to debate about.
"All I said was that the message was easy to see and easy to understand. This idea that people should be able to buy the bundle without reading anything or taking note of why something has a different visual appearance than the rest of the items, or why it has bright yellow text underneath is silly."
Again, what's the harm in just preventing this kind of an issue and just separating those titles from the middle of the screen?
"No, actually, cars weren't faster. They were quite slow at first."
I guess scientists couldn't see potential back in the day, maybe it wasn't invented yet. Ok, now I'm getting stuck at a random sentence. (Also, all of this was just a random thing, please don't acknowledge it as anything)
"I think that statement is simplistic and idiotic."
Ok, I don't really know what you expect from this... Laziness and human progress is basically a way to say that even lazy people have a potential. Literally nothing else. The whole thing was just a way to say that people usually make progress because they're trying to make things better. But you took it as a literal statement. At first I humored it, thinking we were just joking about, but my bad then.
"I never said you couldn't make long trains before. I said that a tool that allows you to do something faster, and perhaps better, inherently helps the thing be done more often and to a greater extent."
And boom, there it is. The point of my claim was that the creator probably thought that it was tedious to make a train and wanted to fix it. Not to just maximize the efficiency of making a train to increase the wagon per second rating or something.
"why don't you stop using your lazy-ass computer to post replies to me on this forum and instead write out your response in a letter and send it to cg by carrier pigeon."
Implying that the computer's lazy. Implying that you can use a carrier pigeon for SG. Implying that I know cg's location. And so on :D
Comment has been collapsed.
"Valve is not involved with this bundle. You're connecting things that have no connection."
I'm not talking about the bundle. I'm talking about stores. But nice try to straw-man. Also, impulse buying
What "stores"? This discussion is about the bundle. How do "stores" have anything to do with people's decisions regarding this bundle.
"nice try to straw-man". I didn't straw-man. You're connecting things by implication and I refute it.
Oh, I know what impulse buying is. The point is impulse buying is one small factor in the biases inherent to purchasing PC games. There's also sunk cost fallacy, planning fallacy, and many others.
People don't have 1000+ games in their library merely because of impulse buys. The bigger factor is that we make valuations about the products in the bundle that are too independent or detached from the reality of our lack of time to play all the games we already have or a objective assessment of our likelihood of playing the games in the bundle before us. We do this irrespective of whether we buy the bundle immediately or think about it and buy it later. Even when we acknowledge these things, we still buy bundles. Most gamers who have bloated libraries know that they're just not going to play all their games. That doesn't mean they stop buying bundles. Doesn't mean a buy is an impulse buy. It does mean that for digital gaming in 2017 for a lot of gamers there is a lot of utility derived (as well as angst, sometimes) from the acquisition of games--not merely playing them.
It's a lot more than impulse buying.
No, again, nothing malicious. It's not intentionally harmful, it's them thinking that it's not as bad as it actually is. A.k.a. them being ignorant.
Weird, because you said this first:
Using the same overall look for a different message is pretty scummy in my opinion. They have literally no reason for keeping this in there, other than to make the bundle look better and to increase the amount that the charities earn.
I said you could walk back that it was malicious. I didn't say I'd buy it. You keep trying to assert something different now without acknowledging or comprehending that your original assertion was not what you want to pretend it was.
"But there are reasons. Like knowing what was available."
Put it to the bottom of the page. Seriously, I want your explanation as to why not put them to the bottom of the page. What's the harm in that?
I never argued that there was harm, nor that moving it to the bottom of the page wasn't better. My entire counter to you has been about your characterization about not moving it and your tenuous duty of care for people whom click buy without exercising the basic diligence which is the consumer's responsibility.
"People who won't read deserve no sympathy."
Fine, but why not avoid that issue entirely? Or is it just cool to feel superior to others who genuinely make that mistake? Again, what's the harm in preventing that?
Yes, it is cool to feel superior to people who blindly blunder forward without a pause. These people--when faced with a peril worse than blindly buying a bundle that is sold out of a game they wanted--are useful to us all. They earn the much-coveted Darwin Awards and serve as examples to us all.
Or maybe it isn't that serious and you should stop advocating for people who don't want to read? If you had quoted my much more sympathetic statement about people who had trouble understanding the message, you'd have a much more solid point. The idea that the Humble Bundle or the world should accommodate people too lazy or stupid to exercise the most minimal diligence is repugnant to the point of being offensive.
The world doesn't need to be stupid-proof. We need people to be less stupid. Does that mean it's okay to take advantage of stupid people? No. But we shouldn't need television commercials to say, "do not try this at home," when depicting a man juggling flaming chainsaws, or for a sticker that says, "placing plastic bag on head has risk of suffocation," for packing materials. But we have these things, because of lawsuits. The availability of Subnautica is clear, and is clearly expressed. That's the line. Would it be better to place it elsewhere on the page? Sure. So what?!
"If you had made only that point you would have had something."
I love how points just disappear once there's more than one of them.
More like the overall tone of your message is the sum of your statements. It's difficult to get people to focus on you saying that it'd be easy for them to change the layout (maybe it is in fact easy), when you describe their motivations as malicious (yes, yes, I know, you've tried to convince me that you didn't mean that. I remain unconvinced about how any reasonable person is supposed to interpret your original statement).
It's like, during the course of our discussion here I have stated that a couple things you have said were idiotic. I said a lot more than that, but even in saying that I do realize that it is not the optimal characterization here if my goal is to emphasize the other points I made and persuade you. I certainly can't later claim that my only intentions here were for the furtherance of a completely civil and pleasant dialogue.
"If you want Subnautica and you didn't get this bundle when it was available, you should see it's in the bundle, see that it's grayed out, see the bright yellow text, and say to yourself, "I'm not going to get Subnautica in this bundle," and probably not get it."
Again, what's the harm in just preventing this kind of an issue and just separating those titles from the middle of the screen?
Here's what I said in my second reply:
Nothing is wrong with the idea of separating it. This is perhaps the best solution. However, you stated that not separating it was a ploy to get people to buy the bundle irrespective of their ability to read exactly what the bundle says, that you will not get those items.
This was not about whether moving it was an okay idea, but your characterization of their motivation.
"I don't know your relationship with the English language."
I'm a C2 international level English speaker. But with the laziness and convenience, I just think that if you're lazy you'll try and find the most convenient solution. You don't. Fine. It's the weirdest thing to get stuck on to debate about.
It's not a weird thing. Convenience has a lot more to it than laziness. You're using a lazy individual's motivation to characterize convenience rather than defining convenience on its own merit. And you said
Human progress came because of laziness.
This is dumb. I will never not refute that statement as dumb.
"All I said was that the message was easy to see and easy to understand. This idea that people should be able to buy the bundle without reading anything or taking note of why something has a different visual appearance than the rest of the items, or why it has bright yellow text underneath is silly."
Again, what's the harm in just preventing this kind of an issue and just separating those titles from the middle of the screen?
No harm. There is harm in straw-manning my criticism of your statements by pretending I have not acknowledged that separating the titles is a good solution.
"No, actually, cars weren't faster. They were quite slow at first."
I guess scientists couldn't see potential back in the day, maybe it wasn't invented yet. Ok, now I'm getting stuck at a random sentence. (Also, all of this was just a random thing, please don't acknowledge it as anything)
That's not the only thing you're stuck on.
"I think that statement is simplistic and idiotic."
Ok, I don't really know what you expect from this... Laziness and human progress is basically a way to say that even lazy people have a potential. Literally nothing else. The whole thing was just a way to say that people usually make progress because they're trying to make things better. But you took it as a literal statement. At first I humored it, thinking we were just joking about, but my bad then.
So a "way" to say that people usually make progress because they're trying to make things better is by saying "Human progress came because of laziness."
That was humor? This is what constitutes humor in Estonia? Seems like you haven't made much progress there when it comes to what is funny.
"I never said you couldn't make long trains before. I said that a tool that allows you to do something faster, and perhaps better, inherently helps the thing be done more often and to a greater extent."
And boom, there it is. The point of my claim was that the creator probably thought that it was tedious to make a train and wanted to fix it. Not to just maximize the efficiency of making a train to increase the wagon per second rating or something.
And your point is what? That we should endeavor only to have things be difficult so that we can see who really wants it badly enough? That's dumb.
"why don't you stop using your lazy-ass computer to post replies to me on this forum and instead write out your response in a letter and send it to cg by carrier pigeon."
Implying that the computer's lazy. Implying that you can use a carrier pigeon for SG. Implying that I know cg's location. And so on :D
Where's the joking? I wasn't joking. I was serious. Start using a means of communication in this thread that indicates that you have the will, that you want it badly, that you are willing to put forth the effort, that you aren't lazy. Stop being a lazybones using an electronic device. Back when I was a wee lad, we didn't have no fancy-pants computer. We chiseled messages into stone and then carried them on our backs for miles through the snow.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just throw away those keys and pretend they weren't in bundle?
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean the initial part was already more than enough for the 30€ asking price and for something that we were "maybe" getting it could be worse. Not like it's the Yogscast JingleJam 2016 bundle amirite.
Comment has been collapsed.
They were added and the price didn't change. At this point I have to assume that the joke is you just pretending to be upset.
Comment has been collapsed.
So bad xD really good replacer for Super Meat Boy and Subnautica
Comment has been collapsed.
So it worth before for 30$, but now that there is more games added, it's not...
Comment has been collapsed.
came here to say this. either OP messed up the wording or OP is dumb
Comment has been collapsed.
it's like buying overgrowth and getting 30 extra games for free. :P what the joke is here is that they apparently run out of digital games in the bundle so you don't get all the games listed apparently.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's still an amazing bundle for a good cause, don't really see the problem here.
Also isn't GRAV like a decent full title (despite its own issues with early access)?
Comment has been collapsed.
I played the free weekend for grav a while ago and thought it was fun.. biggest issue is the lack of players... they have like none. lol might spike from this bundle. but only for a few days for sure.
Comment has been collapsed.
i dont think that bundle worth 30 bucks since i already own like 60% of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think some stuff in there is so good I'd love to give them to friends.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not just those kind of additions, for example Beat Hazard Ultra is a decent game. They also restocked on Monster Loves You!.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's all steamgifts' fault for not allowing us to gift those games.
cg, do something!
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't forget the Guns of Icarus Online. But I think these were just kind of bonus games for those who didn't already have them or didn't have chance or knowledge getting a key from giveaway. ^_^
PS. Trump for the win. Wohoo! 😆
Comment has been collapsed.
Why isn't anyone talking about how it has books hidden in middle? You're buying a bundle for tons of games and suddenly you get books that you're supposed to read! Wont anyone think of the children?
Comment has been collapsed.
There are some audiobooks though, if you don't want to read ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Those are just a gateway to get kids hooked, they will more onto harder covers in no time.
Comment has been collapsed.
First the kids are all, "I'm just going to do some light reading, I won't be long," and then next thing you know, they're sitting in a dark corner hunkered around the drug, losing all sight of reality for hours on end.
:shakes head: What a tragedy.
:returns to reading their book:
Comment has been collapsed.
I started reading around 7 and finished my first book, and I still can't get off from it. Such a burden... just because so many people are affected it's not a negligible problem!!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
Damn, sorry to jump in and say this but your parents were really, really like totally irresponsible. Instead, they could have sat you in front of a TV, at least there you could have learned something like totally knowledgeable, duh! NOW LOOK AT YOU! But hey - it's never too late to turn your life around... :)
Comment has been collapsed.
If anybody isn't so offended by the freebies and wants mine then let me know.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't quite understand what is being offered here but I support it 100%.
Comment has been collapsed.
To clarify - I've got the following games that I can't make giveaways for and have apparently devalued the bundle by their existence;
Potatoman Seeks the Troof
Rituals
Q.U.B.E: Director's Cut
Guns of Icarus Online
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand now. Sorry, my Limey to Merkin translator was down for a bit.
I need to check my old key list against ungiveawayables.
P.S. Thank you for opposing my country's stupid administration.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually I'm unfamiliar with the ACLU and I've heard mixed things about them - I thought Doctors Without Borders was a safer bet for my slider. But I do still think Trump is a bit of a tit...
Comment has been collapsed.
ACLU is fine. They defend liberty, even if the people being defended are awful human beings. Which is the only way to defend liberty in the first place.
Anyway, you still oppose my administration, so my thanks still stands. Maybe.
You know what? I'm retracting my thanks. I'll just pay the shipping and restocking fee.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll take Potatoman and/or Rituals if you still have them.
Thanks for the offer regardless =)
Comment has been collapsed.
When someone gives me two pieces of pie,
and I've only paid for one,
I don't make a thread.
I eat more pie.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've had a craving for some strawberry-rhubarb since I posted this yesterday.
Rhubarb is out of season, though. ;_;
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't enjoy pies since I came across a taste-testing in the local supermarket. My stomach just can't take it, my hands won't stop shaking if I want to buy it, knowing that I already had it once for free :\
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand and sympathize with your plight.
Free pie always tastes better.
Giving away pie sometimes helps that feeling.
You like to give away pie, too, so I know that you understand. ;_;
Comment has been collapsed.
did you try ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ← → ← → A B Start to unlock the hidden giveaways?
Comment has been collapsed.
Needless to say they also added 2 games that were in previous monthly bundles, so it's still a great deal
Comment has been collapsed.
What did you expect? GTAV, Witcher 3 and Watchdogs 2?
There's some INCREDIBLE stuff in there for the price:
The Witness
Stardew Valley
Nuclear Throne
Octodad
Invisible Inc.
Super Meat Boy (no more keys tho)
The Stanley Parable
Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP
Guacamelee
GRAV
And that's only the one's I know are great. Had I 30 dollars, I'd purchase the budle even if I already own half of it.
ALSO
Can you get the "free stuff" for free now? Like, right now?
That's what I thought.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like to say that these "freebies" were added later and humblebundle team didn't even know if there would be even more games , these bonus games were not planned from the beginning...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you know, they did not even promise to add anything, they said they would try to. Definitely, the first bunch of games was the better ones, I'd say they were well worth the price, even if you don't care about any of the charities. But the majority of the added ones have not been free before. And, as far as I know, they haven't been given away recently, so I'd say, if you own them already, you will find people in the orphan key drop thread who will be glad to get them. If you are not into the idea of giving them away for free, maybe you could even find a trade for them if you are lucky - of cause not for big stuff, but maybe for something you missed when it was given away for free.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just saw the new games added on Freedom Bundle and I think it doesn't worth it now. Because they putted Freebies ! Games given away for free :
Comment has been collapsed.