The second amendment clearly states that the "right of people to keep and read gay books shall not be infringed"
Zozano
joined 2 years ago
Was at the beach with some mates and had some sunblock, after I SlipSlopSlapped, I asked if my black mate if he wanted some, then quickly corrected myself saying "nah you're alright, anyone else?"
He had a chuckle and said "fuck you", then I gave him the tube because black people still get sunburned.
I was impressed, until I realised a person typed it. I'm still impressed, just not as much as I was before lol.
Sorry, as aforementioned, I'm just not seeing what you're seeing.
Not wrong lol. Australian humour is a very tricky thing to understand for outsiders.
I was once accused of being racist for telling a story about how I joked that my black friend didn't need sunscreen.
Unless you understand how Aussie humour works, you won't understand that I'm actually saying "I don't give a shit about what colour your skin is".
For the uninitiated, much of Aussie humour revolves around how much you can "take-the-piss" meaning, "I know where your boundaries are, and I'll show you that I respect you by walking up to that line, but not crossing it".
Maybe it's just may way of looking at things, but I think for something to be culturally appropriated, it would need to be done with sincerity.
Ironically dressing up in Native-American headwear for a frat-party doesn't seem like cultural appropriation, just kinda fucked up (like doing blackface).
They should be.
Fair enough. It reminds me of the whole conversation about critical race theory. It isn't what most people think it is, and is reserved for discussions regarding much more nuanced understandings.
I still think it's hard to distinguish whether something is, or isn't cultural appropriation. Where is the line between inspiration and a knock-off?
I find it hard to not be a sarcastic asshole sometimes lol.
So Wolfire's idea of being anticompetitive is to restrict how many features a platform may offer?
Honestly, it just sounds like Wolfire has an axe to grind. Steam doesn't price in the features it offers, their 30% cut existed a long time before most of this stuff was added.
Something like this will never be implemented. Consider the outcome: Steam decouples the marketplace from the extra services, so they create a separate application and offer it as a free service, and creates a link between the two services. There are a hundred ways around this, and all of them inconvenience the consumer.
I still don't see what you're seeing.
Just to play devils advocate, what do you think Valve should do differently?
After learning more about it, I'm understanding the problem is that Wolfire (and every other developer/publisher) has a contract with Valve, in which they aren't allowed to sell their game on another PC market for a cheaper price than Steam.
Though, I wouldn't describe that as anticompetitive, rather, neutrally-competitive. Valve is offering a level playing field, they can take it or leave it. This is a fairly standard practice among businesses (though I understand this does not make it right).
If valve wanted to be anticompetitive they would dictate that games published on Steam are exclusive to Steam on PC.
Okay, so your solution for people who don't want children is to give them "children lite"?