Seriously.
I liked something and wrote about why I liked it. This ain’t an ad. I also write about stuff I don’t like and why. Those aren’t ads either.
“Why do they call it a Nintendo Playstation 360,000? Because when you see it you spend $360,000 and walk away.”
FF7:R feels like an interpretation of how someone who was young when it came out remembers the original game. Through rose colored glasses shrouded in the fog of days gone by, they recall crazy sword fights and a man with gun for an arm yelling out obscenities while blasting his way out of trouble and a flower girl…
Oh FFS man...
His theory ignores the fact that the past and future don’t actually exist like some recording we are watching. That’s why the energy requirements are so high. You need more energy than is available in the universe because you are essentially reversing entropy on the scale of the whole entire universe itself. It’s not…
Really a individual tastebuds thing. Red bull, to me, is about the worst flavor in the world. Can’t do it as a mix in, flavored, e.t.c.
As soon as I saw the headline my first thought was “I wonder what the Kotaku comment section will find to make negative comments about”. And yup, not disappointed.
Look, you can enjoy these pretzel abominations if you want, but I’m tired of Kotaku perpetuating the myth that BSC is the best Pop-Tart flavor. I’ll take s’mores and cookie dough and probably half a dozen other flavors over BSC any day.
The interesting thing about the show too, is that while it contains some of the usual exploitative anime tropes, it actually portrays the sex industry and sex in general in a very positive light. Everyone is consenting. Everyone is (mostly) having fun.
The Netflix show is worth your time. It is one of the best fantasy shows they have published in recent years.
It may be old (originally written for Japan’s PC-98 sometime before 1989, when it was ported to Macintosh), but there’s actually an x64 port for modern Windows versions.
This is the best response here. Props.
There is a meaningful, logical difference between “this term has been used in some contexts in ways that were harmful” and “this term is harmful in all contexts”. This article seems to be implying that the former conclusion should always lead to the latter. I do not believe that is a rational viewpoint.
As someone all for trying to put more thought into the language used and it’s appropriateness going forward, I’ll ultimately have to admit this fell short of convincing.
Agreed. Intent and context always matters.
In my opinion, this article feels a bit damaging to general cultural progress if you’re trying to handcuff someones intent to something they didn’t intend. Historically, there is a million ways we all could be up in arms against every facet of everyday life if we want to deadlock ourselves to the negative and ignore…
Why do we need to go back in time to rehash a bad game yet all the while attempting to make it “not so bad” 10 years later?