• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shoblongoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Somewhere in New Jersey

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Blazing Sword

Member Badge

  • Members
  • Staff


  • I fight for...

Recent Profile Visitors

363 profile views
  1. Anankos. In addition to the reasons raised by others here--i.e. arch-villain of the worst-written game in the series and poorly written to the point of plot nullification--this also has to be one of the most visually confused misfires of a creature-and-concept design I have seen not just in Fire Emblem, but in any game. First Dragon. It's a human face set in stone that breaks open to reveal--a faceless dragon with a ball of eyes in its mouth. And it's true form is tjust the ball of eyes. Like Grima wasn't a spectacularly-deep villain, but at least the visual profile read Fel Dragon--Bringer of Despair and Destroyer of Worlds. Anankos is the poorly-written big bad of a game with shit writing all-around and suffers the most from the shit writing, because it's all building up to him and what he's doing. Then on top of that, he's goofy-looking.
  2. know it probably would have been simpler if I had just posted the chart. Too many words. Here's a concise visual aid:
  3. …so Imagine for a moment that the political spectrum is a coordinate plane… The X-Axis, of course, represents the spectrum from Left to Right. The Y-Axis represents the spectrum from authoritarianism (UP) to libertarianism (DOWN). The political orientations of most persons—graphed out on this plane—will be broadly distributed across the X-Axis, representing a broad range of political opinions from Left to Right. But will display comparatively low variation from a value of zero (0) along the Y-Axis. Indicating that most mainstream political orientations—no matter how far left or how right—are neither extremely authoritarian nor extremely libertarian in nature, but somewhere in the middle. This is your standard spectrum of opposition between Left wing politics and Right wing politics. …now we start moving further up and down on the Y-Axis. This brings us to parties that—wherever their views may fall on the left/right spectrum—cannot be part of the mainstream dichotomy of left/right politics because they are so extremely authoritarian or libertarian as to be irredeemably off-putting to persons on all sides. i.e. even if you have someone all the way on the far-right who believes that abortion is murder. And you can have a left/right disagreement on whether or not that's true. Everyone is generally going to be in agreement that women who have abortions should not be executed by firing squad. That would be an extreme authoritarian position, and anyone who holds it would be generally dismissed as a lunatic extremist. This brings us to what has been labled the “alt-right” and the “alt-left.” Now I happen to despise both these terms. Because they are tame euphemisms for terms already in existence and that don’t need to be replaced; they serve only to put a positive spin on extremist political affiliations looking to rebrand themselves, after decades of being dismissed as lunatics under their preexisting labels. Like we have a pre-existing name for extreme right-wing authoritarianism--It’s called fascism. “Alt right” is literally just a euphemism that some fascists made up because nobody likes being called a fascist. ...Then Hillary turned it into a pejorative during the 2016 campaign... ...Then the Right copied her and started throwing around the term "alt left" to describe the extreme left-wing libertarians on the opposite end of the spectrum from extreme right-wing authoritarians (we have a name for those too--they're called anarchists.) This is completely unnecessary. Call an anarchist an anarchist and a fascist a fascist.
  4. If you equate Nazism, the KKK, and neo-confederates to shit like Antifa, Occupy Wall Street, and ISO. Then yes—you are apologizing for an ideology that is inherently murderous. Because you are equalizing said ideology to things that aren’t even in the same moral universe.
  5. As a general rule--no. With a caveat. Aversion to private, extralegal violence as an answer to hate groups presupposes the adequacy and attention of lawful channels of protection against them. Where a uniformed officer of the law will immediately use lethal force within seconds of arriving in a park where a 12 year old black boy is playing with a toy gun, and the law will deem his actions justified and appropriate in the reasonable interests of law enforcement. But an entire department will standby and watch columns of armed skinheads terrorize a community for hours, with not-so-much as a stand down order. And where the leader of the country cannot morally distinguish between the White Supremacists and the opponents of White Supremacy, but from the podium of high office declares an equivalency between the two. Then I cannot say punching Nazis should be legal. But I won't say that it is without excuse, or without grounding in reasonable fear whether everything will be OK if you just follow the law and leave it to the police and to the Justice Department to do their job. Like—if I’m a municipal court judge. And I’m sitting on the bench hearing a simple assault case. And if the Defendant tells me “Judge. That man is a Nazi. He was marching with Nazis. So I punched him.” I’m not dropping charges. But I’m weighing that as a mitigating factor, and giving the Defendant the lightest possible sentence I’m allowed to give him.
  6. My babies. The orange one is Beezel (aka "The Beebz"). He's 4 years old--his favorite thing is laser pointers. The grey one is Luna (aka "Lulu Poo"). She's 2 years old--Her favorite thing is cardboard boxes. ^My wife painted Luna and I painted Bee. My wife is the talented one. I can't paint.
  7. We're putting our thoughts in meme form now? Okay:
  8. As a fellow Hebrew, I second that. Also absolutely hilarious that he bristles at this and reads into this that you're making some derogatory statement immediately after he's just finished telling us how much he hates the overuse of crying "racism!" exactly the problem... People get over-sensitive about stupid things. And are then morally numb when we're talking about Nazis. Like--for real, Comrade? You're looking at someone to dump out on for Jew-hating. And you can't bring yourself to call out the guys with torches and Seig Heils, but you're gonna bitch out Raven??? ...come on dude...
  9. I'm very happy we live in a society where outing a racist as a racist turns said racist into a social outcast. That's a sign of progress. Here's the problem, as I see it. Its the-boy-who-cried-wolf scenario. If you overuse the charge of racism in situations that do not call for it, you are blunting the impact of the charge. You are turning it into something expected. Unremarkable. A casual insult for things you don't like to be generally disregarded as hyperbole and sensationalism. And then you can't properly ostracize a bone-fide, swastika waving racist as a "racist." Because the word has lost all meaning. You call a White Supremacist a racist and the White Supremacist says something to the effect of: There you intolerant libtards go again--trying to lable everyone on the right a "racist." I'm not a racist. I'm proud to be White. There ain't nothing racist about being proud to be White. Its only in the moral ambiguity created by overuse of the charge as a blanket accusation against--say; everyone who doesn't share your views on immigration or criminal justice reform--that a White Nationalist can say that with any fucking semblance of a receptive audience. But that seems to be where we're at right now. Good god man. We're in trouble as a country if we're at a place where we can't uniformly identify Nazis, KKK, and Confederates as deservedly rebuked piece-of-shit racists; separate-and-distinguishable from their opposition as such.
  10. There is such a thing as a "double-negative." In both mathematics and language arts--it is a very basic concept. Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance. I don't understand why this is hard.
  11. Don't even go down that road. You ever wonder what you would have done during slavery, segregation, or the Holocaust? This is it. You're doing it right now. There is no justification or excuse for White Supremacy. You see it--you condemn it. Period.
  12. ...Its pretty much everyone except Trump, the paid spokesmen who would Defend Trump if he took a dump on their desk, and the Nazis and Klansmen themselves saying it. He's drawing universal condemnation from all sides. (FOX News could not get a single elected Republican on television to defend the president's remarks. And not for lack of trying.) Trump's White House aids put out a statement immediately after the Press Conference essentially saying: "This is all him. We didn't sign off on any this." His own generals at the Joint Chiefs of Staff are condemning him. Republicans in Congress are condemning him. His entire economic advisory board of private CEOs has now disbanded in protest, and is condemning him. Now why for Trump in particular this is such a damning indication of where his true heart lays--because lets be honest here--this is not a man who is known for pulling punches or showing a restrained hand or playing the "...well lets not be unfair...there's two sides here..." game. When he is genuinely bothered by something, he will immediately and in the most crude and visceral manner go-for-throat. And we've seen this time and again with everything from his attacks on journalists to judges to political rivals. We saw it at that disgusting press conference he gave, where the second he's taken to task by reporters he goes after them and starts in with these, zealous, gut-level, reflexive attacks on "fake news." That's the instinctive swiftness and unequivocal surety you use to fucking condemn Nazis. The New York Times. CNN. The Washington Post. POLITICO. John McCain. Susan Collins. Rosie O'Donnell. New York Federal District Court. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Joe Scarborough. Angela Merkel. NATO. The Government of Mexico. Meghan Kelly. The State of New Hampshire. Sadiq Khan. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mika Brzenzinski. These are things Trump has an easier time going after then fucking Nazis.
  13. Full transcript here. It's bad:
  14. I'll give a proper rebuttal to Sully's confederate pride response at some point because Holy Shit--what a post. For now; noting that 3 more CEOs have quit the president's manufacturing counsel and stated they do not wish to be associated with Trump in anyway + that walking away from his administration is "the right thing to do," following his response to Charlotsville. That brings the grand total up to 4. Paul Ryan also just released a statement condemning the president's remarks and plainly stating--there can be no moral ambiguity or blame-shifting or claims of equivalency when condemning White Supremacists and Nazis. KKK grand wizard David Duke has also issued a statement: "Thank you Donald Trump." (Trump had more things to say about Charlotsville and Nazi violence today. It wasn't good.) Curious to see what his approval ratings look like in a week. This is the first moment of his presidency where he's been called upon to show moral leadership in a crisis (a real crisis--a national tragedy. Not a PR flub or a staff shake-up or a scandal of his own making). He can't do it.
  15. ...I mean I'm sure there were campguards at Aushwitz who believed in the cause, and did what they did with drive and dedication. You'd be hard-pressed to find a living German proud to be their descendants, or fighting to preserve their statues.