Explore our other sites
  • kotaku
  • quartz
  • theroot
  • theinventory
    avclub-be8734bcfe4e973bd6617858797d1180--disqus
    jmr
    avclub-be8734bcfe4e973bd6617858797d1180--disqus

    Gonna have to disagree here. I'd argue that what you have here is more alike to the Little Red Hen story, where the companies wait on the sidelines of some social issue until all the groundwork has already been laid by activists. Once the protesters have protested and the sit ins have been sat and the tides of public

    Fun story from a game of mine to do with the semi-recent changes to councils that gave us the favor system.

    Jill mentions it to him though while he's in New York. She pitches it as having him naked on the stage covered in milk and then makes sure we know that that's a metaphor for rebirth because theater is pretentious.

    I don't know that this is an emotional bait and switch, though. It's just a dropped story line. There's not really any emotions to have about it because it simply didn't happen.

    Beyond that, they made a pretty big deal about Bojack going to New York to be in a Broadway show. But then they just use that as a joke about theater being pretentious and have him shoot down the pitch out of hand and never mention it again. I thought that was particularly odd.

    How comfortable are you with using mods? Because if you are okay with it, I'd recommend installing DarthMod Empire. It rejiggers some of the game mechanics and the AI to make them a bit less awkward, and adds stuff like drum and fife music.

    A few things to consider:

    It wouldn't, because Littlefinger is not a blood relation of Robin. The title would pass to whichever Arryn relative was closest to Robin, a cousin or some such. Littlefinger has nothing to gain by killing Robin.

    If by "invade Japan" you mean the Home Islands, I'm not aware of any Soviet plans for that.

    I can halfway agree with what you're implying that first sentence. Is Legend of Korra imaginative? I would say so. Is it insightful, though? There I'm less convinced.

    Ah the good ole' "is-ought" problem rears it's head again. Just because something is does not mean that it ought to be. Just because unfairness is a fact of life does not mean we must sit on our hands and accept it.

    Might want to watch where you point that Godwin, there, pal. After all, Hitler's entire ideology revolved around culling the weak to make room for the strong.

    Really, the whole "President" thing could have helped us better understand a lot of these issues if they had just bothered to explain it to any degree. We're never told even the most foundational basics of this system, so for all we know the President is some sort of bizarre elected autocrat, which hardly seems like

    You say that as though it is trivially true that it is fair for a handful of people to be payed millions of dollars to play a game while billions break their backs trying to scrape together a living. I won't deny that professional athletes work very hard to get where they are, but their massive financial success is

    Except that choice is still just as false, because it's still saying "agree with us or be a terrorist". We're not allowed to choose to acknowledge the existence of social and systematic inequality that holds certain people back through no fault of their own and still be reasonable about it. You can in fact believe

    Except the whole "Tall Poppy Syndrome" argument requires an even playing field to make any sense. It relies on those who are wealthy, powerful, etc. having earned that wealth and power through their own hard work, thus invalidating any sense of unfairness on the part of those who don't, who "had their shot" but "blew