I think the part I wasn’t getting is that this stuff is actually reviewed by people. I mean...there’s lots of ways people can figure out to grief in any game, because people are assholes.

Nobody advocates “tolerance to opposing opinions no matter how absurd”. I would argue that, in itself, is absurd. I’m not tolerant, for example, of someone who thinks that all Jews are lizard people and should be killed. That is an absurd belief that I, and I would argue most people, would be intolerant of. And I…

Oh okay, thanks. I’d do a “more you know” gif but I’m on my phone...so just picture it in your mind.

So you admit to making a bad argument, and to not engaging honestly, and it’s the other people who have a problem? Tolerance is not extended to dishonesty, chief, and nobody ever claimed it was. This is why your arguments arent taken seriously: they are bad.

I love first person shooters to kill some time. I am not really good at them. I haven’t played Global Offensive. I assume this griefing they’re talking about is related to team killing? Serious question: How do they separate the douche from the chaff (Chaff being the people who just aren’t particularly good)? And I…

I didn’t see oiliness or paint. I thought it was shaving cream.

I like that they did this, but I think they should go a step further. In a world where streaming integration is becoming the norm, gameplay should be easy to record, right?

I feel like this is a cultural change—and one that only hurts consumers and helps game companies, who have already made it a norm not to give refunds even if their product is crap because of copyright. I feel like at this point the only thing that could be done is making a policy that any game which refuses to give…

The obvious and, frankly, pathetic hypocrisy of someone who has replied to me more than I’ve replied to him attempting to claim that I’ve posted a lot on this is laughable, especially given that you started this with an invalid comment, and all I’ve done is reply each time you’ve made a stupid point, whether it was…

Nothing says “I totally have a reasonable point and am not an idiot” quite like a “you’ve never done x” ad hominem.

Words are always subject to interpretation. That doesn’t make all interpretations equally valid. Your interpretation was invalid, for the reasons that’ve been noted.

You’re interpreting his words to be “Never pay when you are being marketed to”. He was obviously saying “Never pay for the purposes of being marketed to”. Hence, “Never pay to be marketed to”.

Incidental: “accompanying but not a major part of something.”

Your assumption is flawed, due to your failure to understand that people pay to see the team compete, not for anything related to the advertising. The advertising is incidental. Look up the word of you don’t know it— that the stadium is named “staples” is definitionally incidental. I also didn’t insult anyone’s…

That’s a dishonestly false scenario.

None of those are paying to be marketed to. The marketing in each is incidental...that you don’t understand the difference indicates profound ignorance.

It’s funny how few people understand how ethics work, and think they can make blanket statements that ignore the nuances of the question without it being obvious that they don’t understand.

It is not “insane”.

Obviously, there’s certain parallels here with the Gawker case, but I feel like the conversation about privacy always friggin’ weird.

 This article (The title makes you think it’s going to be a terrible article, but while it mentions the shitty victim blaming, it seems like it comes down against it) says that it was reported her BAC was .13 hours later (Which means it was higher during), but I still am not certain. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/maryvill…