🔥 Popular | Latest

solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? The different between watching and playing is Watching you’re seeing someone’s experience Playing you’re experiencing it I watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it I have to go 50/50 on that one because I tend to avoid fights in AC: Syndicate Isn’t the whole point of AC to avoid fighting? Or did that change since Brotherhood? Syndicate is based on victorian era & there’s gangsI literally had to hide because I keep walking to area higher than my current level because of main story line Goddammit AC. You had one job: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? The different between watching and playing is Watching you’re seeing someone’s experience Playing you’re experiencing it I watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it I have to go 50/50 on that one because I tend to avoid fights in AC: Syndicate Isn’t the whole point of AC to avoid fighting? Or did that change since Brotherhood? Syndicate is based on victorian era & there’s gangsI literally had to hide because I keep walking to area higher than my current level because of main story line Goddammit AC. You had one job
Save
solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? The different between watching and playing is Watching you’re seeing someone’s experience Playing you’re experiencing it I watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it I have to go 50/50 on that one because I tend to avoid fights in AC: Syndicate Isn’t the whole point of AC to avoid fighting? Or did that change since Brotherhood? : solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? The different between watching and playing is Watching you’re seeing someone’s experience Playing you’re experiencing it I watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it I have to go 50/50 on that one because I tend to avoid fights in AC: Syndicate Isn’t the whole point of AC to avoid fighting? Or did that change since Brotherhood?
Save
solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? The different between watching and playing isWatching you’re seeing someone’s experiencePlaying you’re experiencing itI watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? The different between watching and playing isWatching you’re seeing someone’s experiencePlaying you’re experiencing itI watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it
Save
mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? : mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience?
Save
foxyplaydate: killer-pineapples: kittendesu: the-cell-block-tango: astronomyproblems: Idk if this counts as a peeve more of an art-astronomy pet peeve but when people draw the cresent moon and where the dark, shaddowed part of the moon is they put in stars like studdenly that part of the moon is invisible instead of just being in the shadow like wtf wait no peOPLE ACTUALLY DO THIS???  really stupid question though but like, aren’t there stars in front of the moon??? like??? space isn’t two dimensional so someone putting a couple stars in front of the shadow wouldn’t necessarily be wrong?? because aren’t there stars all around in space and?????? im just going to be confused forever frick uvu;  hun if there was a star infront of the moon we’d be fucking dead i’m fucking crying SUN GOD BURN US TO DEATH: foxyplaydate: killer-pineapples: kittendesu: the-cell-block-tango: astronomyproblems: Idk if this counts as a peeve more of an art-astronomy pet peeve but when people draw the cresent moon and where the dark, shaddowed part of the moon is they put in stars like studdenly that part of the moon is invisible instead of just being in the shadow like wtf wait no peOPLE ACTUALLY DO THIS???  really stupid question though but like, aren’t there stars in front of the moon??? like??? space isn’t two dimensional so someone putting a couple stars in front of the shadow wouldn’t necessarily be wrong?? because aren’t there stars all around in space and?????? im just going to be confused forever frick uvu;  hun if there was a star infront of the moon we’d be fucking dead i’m fucking crying SUN GOD BURN US TO DEATH
Save
earthsong9405: All done with Urbosa’s redesign and the additional sketches for her role in my headcanon! <: As usual I didn’t change too much but I gave her a slightly different hairstyle, some tusks (as is natural for Gerudo in my headcanon), and a brand new outfit! She has such lovely colors to work with, I love her so much ;-;But I’m sure ya don’t wanna hear me babble about how enjoyable her design is. So, let’s go straight into the headcanon! <:————————--Urbosa is the current chief of the Gerudo and serves as the acting Champion for them as well. As a Champion in this timeline, she holds a key component in gaining access to Old Hyrule-”Champion” in this timeline doesn’t fully hold the same function as it once did in BotW. Instead of being chosen to pilot the Divine Beasts, a Champion are a handful of chosen warriors that serve as Hyrule’s best line of defense against any threat. Despite every group of peoples having their own form of governing, culture, and way of life, all of them are still united under the banner of Hyrule, and the Champions could be the physical representation of this tight alliance. A Champion may not necessarily have a lot of political power by themselves but what they represent and what they stand for still puts them in a high position in social status and therefore their word often holds significant weight. As not only the chief of Gerudo but also their Champion, Urbosa is in a position of having more power than what would typically be seen for a Chief. Thankfully though, she doesn’t abuse it and leads her people well: there’s a reason she’s so well respected and loved among not only the Gerudo, but across Hyrule as well.-As one of the original Champions, Urbosa retains many of her memories from her past life, including what ultimately led to her death-I’ve always liked the idea of Urbosa being a motherly figure to just about anyone she meets, but that also includes being an actual mother! Her kid in this headcanon is Riju <:-While Urbosa isn’t actually related to Ganondorf, he refers to her as his “aunt”. Of all the Gerudo in his life, Urbosa was a consistent presence, often visiting him and his parents at their secluded home in the middle of Korok Forest. She’d bring stories of adventure and gifts and even helped train him to be a skilled warrior, but as much as she loves the boy her visits held an alternative motive.-As a whole, no one really knows of Ganondorf’s past as being the vessel for the Demon King, but if anyone would have any idea about it it’d certainly be the Sheikah and the Gerudo. As per tradition in their culture, a newborn Gerudo must be brought forth to a shaman for examination to ensure their health and to fully proclaim their citizenship as a new member of the tribe. When Ganondorf was examined, the first thing the shaman noticed was the peculiar mark upon his chest: a birthmark in the shape of the wound that struck Demise down all those thousands of years ago. In seeing the mark the shaman took the baby away from his mother and brought it to the council and Urbosa to discuss what to do with it.The Gerudo are intimately familiar with the history surrounding the Demon King and how he stole one of their own, so the mark was very telling of what the child once was. And given the long stretch of peace Hyrule was experiencing it understandably buzzed some fear among the elder council. Many were afraid his birth meant an end to that peace, that the Demon King had somehow reincarnated once more and meant to bring hell back to Hyrule.So in response to all of this, the elders argued amongst each other about a solution. Many ruled the boy too dangerous to allow him to grow older and demanded he be… dealt with. Others deemed that too cruel, even for a damned child, and suggested they simply leave him somewhere far away: let nature decide if he lives or dies. But, as chief and Gerudo Champion of Hyrule, it ultimately came down to Urbosa’s choice. She held the babe her council hissed demon, stared at the birthmark that marked him as a vessel, heard the pleading sobs of the boy’s mother over the whispers of “we’ll make it quick, but we mustn’t let him live”, “he is dangerous, he will bring doom to us all” “end it now while he is weak”.Stared at the supposed demon child, who simply yawned in her grasp and blinked up at her with innocent, yellow eyes. She met the Demon King once: she had stared into that monster’s eyes while she fought it to her death in her past lifetime. She knows soulless eyes when she sees them… and this baby didn’t have those eyes.So Urbosa made her decision: the boy will not die. It was largely met with disbelief and anger: you will doom us all! they said. Despite Urbosa staying firm in her decision, it took her days of arguing with the council and the aid of a Sheikah Seer (who examined the child themselves and confirmed that he didn’t house the Demon King) to finally reach a compromise: the boy will live, but he can’t live among the Gerudo. He had to live with his mother in exile, and his growth had to be monitored as a precaution. The monitoring came in the form of Urbosa’s frequent visits.-Urbosa is close friends with Zelda’s parents and is also something of an “aunt” figure to Zelda as well; Zelda absolutely adores Urbosa and even sees her as more of a secondary mother figure than anything.————————————Aaaaaaaaand that’s all I have for Urbosa for now! If I think of anything else I’ll be sure to add more, and of course if ya have questions you’re more than free to ask them. <: Otherwise I hope you enjoy! ^.^: earthsong9405: All done with Urbosa’s redesign and the additional sketches for her role in my headcanon! <: As usual I didn’t change too much but I gave her a slightly different hairstyle, some tusks (as is natural for Gerudo in my headcanon), and a brand new outfit! She has such lovely colors to work with, I love her so much ;-;But I’m sure ya don’t wanna hear me babble about how enjoyable her design is. So, let’s go straight into the headcanon! <:————————--Urbosa is the current chief of the Gerudo and serves as the acting Champion for them as well. As a Champion in this timeline, she holds a key component in gaining access to Old Hyrule-”Champion” in this timeline doesn’t fully hold the same function as it once did in BotW. Instead of being chosen to pilot the Divine Beasts, a Champion are a handful of chosen warriors that serve as Hyrule’s best line of defense against any threat. Despite every group of peoples having their own form of governing, culture, and way of life, all of them are still united under the banner of Hyrule, and the Champions could be the physical representation of this tight alliance. A Champion may not necessarily have a lot of political power by themselves but what they represent and what they stand for still puts them in a high position in social status and therefore their word often holds significant weight. As not only the chief of Gerudo but also their Champion, Urbosa is in a position of having more power than what would typically be seen for a Chief. Thankfully though, she doesn’t abuse it and leads her people well: there’s a reason she’s so well respected and loved among not only the Gerudo, but across Hyrule as well.-As one of the original Champions, Urbosa retains many of her memories from her past life, including what ultimately led to her death-I’ve always liked the idea of Urbosa being a motherly figure to just about anyone she meets, but that also includes being an actual mother! Her kid in this headcanon is Riju <:-While Urbosa isn’t actually related to Ganondorf, he refers to her as his “aunt”. Of all the Gerudo in his life, Urbosa was a consistent presence, often visiting him and his parents at their secluded home in the middle of Korok Forest. She’d bring stories of adventure and gifts and even helped train him to be a skilled warrior, but as much as she loves the boy her visits held an alternative motive.-As a whole, no one really knows of Ganondorf’s past as being the vessel for the Demon King, but if anyone would have any idea about it it’d certainly be the Sheikah and the Gerudo. As per tradition in their culture, a newborn Gerudo must be brought forth to a shaman for examination to ensure their health and to fully proclaim their citizenship as a new member of the tribe. When Ganondorf was examined, the first thing the shaman noticed was the peculiar mark upon his chest: a birthmark in the shape of the wound that struck Demise down all those thousands of years ago. In seeing the mark the shaman took the baby away from his mother and brought it to the council and Urbosa to discuss what to do with it.The Gerudo are intimately familiar with the history surrounding the Demon King and how he stole one of their own, so the mark was very telling of what the child once was. And given the long stretch of peace Hyrule was experiencing it understandably buzzed some fear among the elder council. Many were afraid his birth meant an end to that peace, that the Demon King had somehow reincarnated once more and meant to bring hell back to Hyrule.So in response to all of this, the elders argued amongst each other about a solution. Many ruled the boy too dangerous to allow him to grow older and demanded he be… dealt with. Others deemed that too cruel, even for a damned child, and suggested they simply leave him somewhere far away: let nature decide if he lives or dies. But, as chief and Gerudo Champion of Hyrule, it ultimately came down to Urbosa’s choice. She held the babe her council hissed demon, stared at the birthmark that marked him as a vessel, heard the pleading sobs of the boy’s mother over the whispers of “we’ll make it quick, but we mustn’t let him live”, “he is dangerous, he will bring doom to us all” “end it now while he is weak”.Stared at the supposed demon child, who simply yawned in her grasp and blinked up at her with innocent, yellow eyes. She met the Demon King once: she had stared into that monster’s eyes while she fought it to her death in her past lifetime. She knows soulless eyes when she sees them… and this baby didn’t have those eyes.So Urbosa made her decision: the boy will not die. It was largely met with disbelief and anger: you will doom us all! they said. Despite Urbosa staying firm in her decision, it took her days of arguing with the council and the aid of a Sheikah Seer (who examined the child themselves and confirmed that he didn’t house the Demon King) to finally reach a compromise: the boy will live, but he can’t live among the Gerudo. He had to live with his mother in exile, and his growth had to be monitored as a precaution. The monitoring came in the form of Urbosa’s frequent visits.-Urbosa is close friends with Zelda’s parents and is also something of an “aunt” figure to Zelda as well; Zelda absolutely adores Urbosa and even sees her as more of a secondary mother figure than anything.————————————Aaaaaaaaand that’s all I have for Urbosa for now! If I think of anything else I’ll be sure to add more, and of course if ya have questions you’re more than free to ask them. <: Otherwise I hope you enjoy! ^.^

earthsong9405: All done with Urbosa’s redesign and the additional sketches for her role in my headcanon! <: As usual I didn’t change too...

Save
foxyplaydate: killer-pineapples: kittendesu: the-cell-block-tango: astronomyproblems: Idk if this counts as a peeve more of an art-astronomy pet peeve but when people draw the cresent moon and where the dark, shaddowed part of the moon is they put in stars like studdenly that part of the moon is invisible instead of just being in the shadow like wtf wait no peOPLE ACTUALLY DO THIS???  really stupid question though but like, aren’t there stars in front of the moon??? like??? space isn’t two dimensional so someone putting a couple stars in front of the shadow wouldn’t necessarily be wrong?? because aren’t there stars all around in space and?????? im just going to be confused forever frick uvu;  hun if there was a star infront of the moon we’d be fucking dead i’m fucking crying : foxyplaydate: killer-pineapples: kittendesu: the-cell-block-tango: astronomyproblems: Idk if this counts as a peeve more of an art-astronomy pet peeve but when people draw the cresent moon and where the dark, shaddowed part of the moon is they put in stars like studdenly that part of the moon is invisible instead of just being in the shadow like wtf wait no peOPLE ACTUALLY DO THIS???  really stupid question though but like, aren’t there stars in front of the moon??? like??? space isn’t two dimensional so someone putting a couple stars in front of the shadow wouldn’t necessarily be wrong?? because aren’t there stars all around in space and?????? im just going to be confused forever frick uvu;  hun if there was a star infront of the moon we’d be fucking dead i’m fucking crying
Save
Necessarily: dalekitsune the phrase "curios ity killed the cat" is actually not the full phrase it actually is "curiosity killed the cat but satisfaction brought it back" so don't let anyone tell you not to be a curious little baby okay go and be interested in the world uwu consultingmoosecaptain See also: Blood is thieker than water The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb Meaning that relationships formed by choice are stronger than those formed by birth. espurr-roba Let's not forget that "Jack of all trades, master of none" ends with "But better than a master of one." It means that being equally good/average at everything is much better than being perfect at one thing and sucking at everything else. So don't worry if you're not perfect at something you do! Being okay is better! thelastmellophone These made me feel better thelifeofatubaplayer Also, "great minds think alike" ends with "but fools rarely differ" It goes to show that conformity isn't always a good thing And that just because more than one person has the same idea, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. becausetheintrovert what the fuck why haven't i heard the full version to any of these unlimitedtrashworks "Birds of a feather flock together" ends with "until the cat comes. It's actually a warning about fair-weather friends, not an assessment of how complementary people are. monsters-and-teeth I've always felt like these were cut down on purpose. evil-shenanigans-alpha I really like these phrases and plan on spreading this knowledge. alwayswillgraham The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. its-kk-yo I want to make designs out of these. sunderlorn Funny how all the half-finished ones encourage uniformity and upholding the status-quo, while the complete proverbs encourage like... living exciting, eclectic lives driven by choice and personal passion.
Save
cisphobicmac: thecringeandwincefactory: i-hate-chick-fil-a: This guide will be useful to Americans when we need to protest This is great stuff for situations where you’re dealing primarily with cops - just please keep in mind that one size does not necessarily fit all situations. We’ve found locally, for instance, that nazis here like to use knives. A lot of knife injuries come from attempting to fend off an attack, and thus result in slashing injuries to the arms. Fortunately there are very light, flexible, and relatively inexpensive products originally intended for butchers to use that are great for this and will cover your whole arm or forearm. Always research this stuff ahead of time and look at what other people in similar situations are doing and share the information you find. And remember that you don’t need to reinvent the wheel to protect yourself. And always mask up. This persons comment wasn’t rebloggable but I felt was an important addition. : Hong Kong Protest Gear Summer 2019 Yellow construction helmet Goggles For flying debris Protects against rubber bullets, tear gas canisters, flying bricks Gas Mask Protecting against tear gas, which Hong Kong police use liberally Broad face cover To counter facial-recognition technology Black t-shirt Uniform adopted by Hong Kong protestors in contrast to white Ts, worn by Beijing supporters Backpack Typically holds snacks, water, change of clothes. tools and sometimes laser pens Lycra skin covers To protect against tear gas effects to shine in officers eyes. Elbow& knee pads For for falling, crawling and scuffing on city streets Umbrella Protection against rain and pepper spray Loose change For subway fare, to avoid being tracked through electronic transit passes Heat-resistant gloves To throw hot tear gas canisters back at police Photo: Saša Petricic/CBC cisphobicmac: thecringeandwincefactory: i-hate-chick-fil-a: This guide will be useful to Americans when we need to protest This is great stuff for situations where you’re dealing primarily with cops - just please keep in mind that one size does not necessarily fit all situations. We’ve found locally, for instance, that nazis here like to use knives. A lot of knife injuries come from attempting to fend off an attack, and thus result in slashing injuries to the arms. Fortunately there are very light, flexible, and relatively inexpensive products originally intended for butchers to use that are great for this and will cover your whole arm or forearm. Always research this stuff ahead of time and look at what other people in similar situations are doing and share the information you find. And remember that you don’t need to reinvent the wheel to protect yourself. And always mask up. This persons comment wasn’t rebloggable but I felt was an important addition.
Save
gffa: Way of the Apprentice | by Jude WatsonI GIVE ANAKIN A LOT OF SHIT, BUT I REALLY LIKE THIS MOMENT A LOT.  I love that he feels a restlessness that the other Jedi don’t, because they grew up in a safe, secure, supportive environment, and Obi-Wan gets that Anakin isn’t quite the same and needs to run around a bit more.  It’s just FEELINGS ALL OVER THE PLACE FOR BOTH OF THEM.And I love that it shows the balance Obi-Wan is striking with Anakin–”either you obey a rule or you do not” is cutting through to the spirit of things, but that’s not necessarily a judgement thing.  Obi-Wan himself is “breaking the rules” by turning a blind eye to Anakin going out at night, because it’s for the good.  It fits so much with how it’s not about the letter of the law but about the spirit and intention of what you’re doing, the motivation behind it, the why of it, the bigger context of it.  That’s why it’s important to put in that Obi-Wan could sense the shift of an emotion in the blink of an eye, why it’s tied into the same context of Obi-Wan turning a blind eye when Anakin genuinely does need to get out and move.And I love that Anakin recognizes this part about himself.  He spends so much of his life not really understanding himself or what he really needs, that this moment of something that actually seems to help, along with how heartbreaking it is that he has to experience this feeling at all, just makes me allp.s. “Obi-Wan was amazingly perceptive.  He could sense the shift in emotion or thought faster than an eyeblink.” oh my god Anakin sounds EXACTLY LIKE ME when I talk about Obi-Wan, “He’s the greatest person who ever lived, he’s the smartest person who ever lived, THERE IS NO ONE BETTER.”SAME, ANAKIN.  SAME.  RIGHT DOWN TO I AM MAKING THE SAME EXACT FACE WHILE READING THIS BOOK.: Technically, he wasn't supposed to be outside the Temple at all, not without Obi-Wan's permission "Technically" is just another way of saying you are breaking the rules, Obi-Wan would say. Either you obey a rule, or you do not He was devoted to his Master, yet sometimes Obi-Wan's earnestness could really get in the way. Anakin didn't believe in breaking Jedi rules. He just wanted to find the spaces between them Anakin was well aware that his Master knew of these midnight jaunts. Obi-Wan was amazingly perceptive. He could sense a shift in emotion or thought faster than an eyeblink Thank the moon and stars that Obi-Wan also preferred not to hear about his midnight trips. As long as Anakin was discreet and didn't get into trouble, Obi-Wan would turn a blind eye Anakin didn't want to trouble Obi-Wan, but he couldn't help himself. As the night wore on and the Temple quieted, as the Jedi students turned off their glow rods and settled down for night meditation and sleep, Anakin just got restless. The lure of the streets called him. There were projects he had to complete, droids he was building or refining, parts to scavenge, rusty treasures to uncover. But mostly he just needed to be outside, under the stars Only those of us who have been slaves can he sometimes thought. really taste freedom, gffa: Way of the Apprentice | by Jude WatsonI GIVE ANAKIN A LOT OF SHIT, BUT I REALLY LIKE THIS MOMENT A LOT.  I love that he feels a restlessness that the other Jedi don’t, because they grew up in a safe, secure, supportive environment, and Obi-Wan gets that Anakin isn’t quite the same and needs to run around a bit more.  It’s just FEELINGS ALL OVER THE PLACE FOR BOTH OF THEM.And I love that it shows the balance Obi-Wan is striking with Anakin–”either you obey a rule or you do not” is cutting through to the spirit of things, but that’s not necessarily a judgement thing.  Obi-Wan himself is “breaking the rules” by turning a blind eye to Anakin going out at night, because it’s for the good.  It fits so much with how it’s not about the letter of the law but about the spirit and intention of what you’re doing, the motivation behind it, the why of it, the bigger context of it.  That’s why it’s important to put in that Obi-Wan could sense the shift of an emotion in the blink of an eye, why it’s tied into the same context of Obi-Wan turning a blind eye when Anakin genuinely does need to get out and move.And I love that Anakin recognizes this part about himself.  He spends so much of his life not really understanding himself or what he really needs, that this moment of something that actually seems to help, along with how heartbreaking it is that he has to experience this feeling at all, just makes me allp.s. “Obi-Wan was amazingly perceptive.  He could sense the shift in emotion or thought faster than an eyeblink.” oh my god Anakin sounds EXACTLY LIKE ME when I talk about Obi-Wan, “He’s the greatest person who ever lived, he’s the smartest person who ever lived, THERE IS NO ONE BETTER.”SAME, ANAKIN.  SAME.  RIGHT DOWN TO I AM MAKING THE SAME EXACT FACE WHILE READING THIS BOOK.
Save
someoneintheshadow456: nautica-the-savant: marbledmartin: thegrumpymathematician: nunyabizni: sarcasmsuitsme: skypig357: iswearimnotnaked: hi hello CATS!!!! CANNOT!!!! BE VEGAN!!!!! i cannot believe i have to fucking say this. dogs are omnivore and IF YOUR VET APPROVES your pooch MAY be able to go on an APPROVED(!!!!!) commercial vegan dog food like the brand “v-dog” which has all the essential vitamins, protein, etc. (the oldest record winning dogs have been vegan) cats are CARNIVORE and cannot fucking live on a vegan diet. a vet would laugh in your face and probably find some way to have your pet taken away from you because you’re obviously not fit to have an animal if you think you can feed a cat a diet based on your own ethics i’m vegan but this is so fucking harmful. it’s about minimizing your harm, not putting your animals on risky diets in an attempt to be perfect. DON’T FUCKING DO THIS TO YOUR PETS Idiot people If you see someone you know doing this, report them for animal cruelty and neglect. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This posts, and many of the notes on it, are bothering me. Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed colleagues from outside the confines of the gender binary; gather ‘round. Let’s throw some science in this joint. 1. Humans. Humans are not cats. Humans are not dogs. One would think this obvious, but people have a tendency to attempt such interspecies comparisons when discussing diet. Humans are order omnivora; we have essentially evolved in a manner that attempts to give us as much dietary flexibility as possible. We do, however, require a substance called B12 (or cobalamin), which is extremely important for brain and nervous system functions, as well as the synthesis of DNA and the construction of red blood cells. We cannot produce this vitamin ourselves–no animal, plant, or fungus can. The enzymes used in cobalamin production are essentially unique to bacteria and archaea–some species of which hang out in the digestive tracks of other animals. We get cobalamin in a roundabout way from fish, shellfish, meat, eggs, milk, and dairy products. While there is no naturally-occurring, vegan source of the vitamin that has been demonstrated effective in a human study of statistically significant sample size, effective synthetic forms do exist and can be used as a substitute.  Cyanocobalamin is one of the most common and is frequently found in fortified foods and vitamins. In short: Humans are omnivores. Humans have evolved for dietary flexibility, including viable vegetarianism. Humans did not evolve for veganism (be extremely suspicious of people who tell you that we did, as they are lying), but due to modern technologies, veganism is also a viable diet that humans can thrive on, should they so choose. 2. Cats. Cats are order carnivora. Cats require (amongst other things) an amino acid called taurine. We’re not quite sure how, exactly, but we know that it’s extremely important to feline heart wall tissue, retinal tissue, and brain tissue amongst other things. Cats cannot manufacture their own taurine, and must get it from other sources–primarily shellfish, fish and meat. Taurine breaks down when heated, so feeding your cat a home-cooked diet rich in this foods is also not necessarily a good idea (talk to a vet). Secondary (read: SUPPLEMENTARY. NOT A SOLE SOURCE OF TAURINE.) sources of taurine for cats include dairy, eggs, and seaweed- or yeast-based taurine supplements. In nature, cats don’t really need to worry about getting enough taurine, because (as you may have noticed), taurine sources are indeed the things that cats tend to catch and eat. However, a cat that lives in a human household is dependent on humans for food, and sometimes humans are utter fucktrucks. In short: Cats are obligate carnivores. Their primary source of nutrition is meat. They must eat meat, preferably as close to raw as possible. They have digestive tracks designed for digesting meat. There are vegan/vegetarian cat kibbles on the market. Do not buy them. Your cat is neither vegan nor vegetarian, and if you adjust their diet as if they were, you are a terrible person who is harming and possibly killing your pet. You suck. End of discussion. 3. Dogs. Dogs are slightly more nuanced here. They are facultative carnivores–meaning that they optimally should eat meat, but can survive on other things if resources are scare. Dogs also need the amino acid taurine, but can technically manufacture it themselves if the proper building blocks are in their diets. They also need vitamin D–D3 is preferable, but D2 can be used to some degree. Dogs are somewhere between us (the true omnivore) and the cat (the true carnivore). A vegan or vegetarian diet will keep a dog alive, certainly, but is unlikely to allow your pet to thrive as it lacks the recommended nutrients. You should probably be feeding your dog meat. The exception here–some dogs are allergic to conventional dog foods, or find symptoms of certain diseases alleviated by vegetarianism. In this case, a veterinarian (not you, layperson, I mean an actual trained veterinarian) may determine that the benefits of putting your dog on a vegetarian/vegan diet outweigh those of feeding your dog meat. This is relatively rare, but does occasionally happen. And no, actually, the oldest dog is not vegan–Bramble is the only dog on this list that I found had some indication of veganism. The oldest dog on record is an Australian Kelpie named Maggie, who was not vegan. It is more likely that Bramble lived that long despite the veganism, not because of it. In short: If a vet thinks that your dog may be allergic to dog food/require a special diet and recommends you try feeding it a vegetarian/vegan diet, listen to your vet. Otherwise? Dogs are carnivora. They do need vegetables and other sources of nutrients, but their optimal fuel, as it were, is meat. Your dog needs meat to be happy. Fucking feed your dog.  Now, I did manage to find two veterinarians who disagree with every other study I dug up and the American Veterinary Medical Association. Their articles are here and here. They don’t really have sources, and are essentially wholly dependent on anecdotal evidence (“my dog is a vegetarian and hasn’t died!”), but for those of you data cherry-pickers reading this, there you go.  As a rule, dogs and cats need meat. If that makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, not theirs. If you try to implement a vegan or vegetarian diet for your pets because you implemented one for yourself, you shouldn’t have those pets. That is animal abuse. (By the way, those of you not feeding your cats and non-allergic dogs the food they need to survive and thrive? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not love your pets?) TL;DR If you do not want a pet that must be fed meat, you should under no circumstances acquire a cat or a dog. Thank you for your time. Rebloobing for the more detailed info on B12 and obligate carnivore vs true omnivores Always reblog. Dear Vegans, If you’re not willing to at least feed your dogs and cats commercial food, get a rabbit or a parrot. : Meg OVeganMegane Vegans who feed their pets meat: u guys have gotta see the bigger picture. We shouldn't support animal exploitation w/ our money That's it. 7/13/16, 10:50 PM aer @thelilmermade @VeganMegane yes um so how would I feed my cat? 7/13/16, 11:02 PM lI VIEW TWEET ACTIVITY Meg @VeganMegane @thelilmermade is your cat male or 7m female? :) check out this website for more info: vegancats.com/ veganfaq.php Meg @VeganMegane @thelilmermade I know you want to best for your companion, and I won't deny that there are risks, but you can minimise those risks! 5m someoneintheshadow456: nautica-the-savant: marbledmartin: thegrumpymathematician: nunyabizni: sarcasmsuitsme: skypig357: iswearimnotnaked: hi hello CATS!!!! CANNOT!!!! BE VEGAN!!!!! i cannot believe i have to fucking say this. dogs are omnivore and IF YOUR VET APPROVES your pooch MAY be able to go on an APPROVED(!!!!!) commercial vegan dog food like the brand “v-dog” which has all the essential vitamins, protein, etc. (the oldest record winning dogs have been vegan) cats are CARNIVORE and cannot fucking live on a vegan diet. a vet would laugh in your face and probably find some way to have your pet taken away from you because you’re obviously not fit to have an animal if you think you can feed a cat a diet based on your own ethics i’m vegan but this is so fucking harmful. it’s about minimizing your harm, not putting your animals on risky diets in an attempt to be perfect. DON’T FUCKING DO THIS TO YOUR PETS Idiot people If you see someone you know doing this, report them for animal cruelty and neglect. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This posts, and many of the notes on it, are bothering me. Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed colleagues from outside the confines of the gender binary; gather ‘round. Let’s throw some science in this joint. 1. Humans. Humans are not cats. Humans are not dogs. One would think this obvious, but people have a tendency to attempt such interspecies comparisons when discussing diet. Humans are order omnivora; we have essentially evolved in a manner that attempts to give us as much dietary flexibility as possible. We do, however, require a substance called B12 (or cobalamin), which is extremely important for brain and nervous system functions, as well as the synthesis of DNA and the construction of red blood cells. We cannot produce this vitamin ourselves–no animal, plant, or fungus can. The enzymes used in cobalamin production are essentially unique to bacteria and archaea–some species of which hang out in the digestive tracks of other animals. We get cobalamin in a roundabout way from fish, shellfish, meat, eggs, milk, and dairy products. While there is no naturally-occurring, vegan source of the vitamin that has been demonstrated effective in a human study of statistically significant sample size, effective synthetic forms do exist and can be used as a substitute.  Cyanocobalamin is one of the most common and is frequently found in fortified foods and vitamins. In short: Humans are omnivores. Humans have evolved for dietary flexibility, including viable vegetarianism. Humans did not evolve for veganism (be extremely suspicious of people who tell you that we did, as they are lying), but due to modern technologies, veganism is also a viable diet that humans can thrive on, should they so choose. 2. Cats. Cats are order carnivora. Cats require (amongst other things) an amino acid called taurine. We’re not quite sure how, exactly, but we know that it’s extremely important to feline heart wall tissue, retinal tissue, and brain tissue amongst other things. Cats cannot manufacture their own taurine, and must get it from other sources–primarily shellfish, fish and meat. Taurine breaks down when heated, so feeding your cat a home-cooked diet rich in this foods is also not necessarily a good idea (talk to a vet). Secondary (read: SUPPLEMENTARY. NOT A SOLE SOURCE OF TAURINE.) sources of taurine for cats include dairy, eggs, and seaweed- or yeast-based taurine supplements. In nature, cats don’t really need to worry about getting enough taurine, because (as you may have noticed), taurine sources are indeed the things that cats tend to catch and eat. However, a cat that lives in a human household is dependent on humans for food, and sometimes humans are utter fucktrucks. In short: Cats are obligate carnivores. Their primary source of nutrition is meat. They must eat meat, preferably as close to raw as possible. They have digestive tracks designed for digesting meat. There are vegan/vegetarian cat kibbles on the market. Do not buy them. Your cat is neither vegan nor vegetarian, and if you adjust their diet as if they were, you are a terrible person who is harming and possibly killing your pet. You suck. End of discussion. 3. Dogs. Dogs are slightly more nuanced here. They are facultative carnivores–meaning that they optimally should eat meat, but can survive on other things if resources are scare. Dogs also need the amino acid taurine, but can technically manufacture it themselves if the proper building blocks are in their diets. They also need vitamin D–D3 is preferable, but D2 can be used to some degree. Dogs are somewhere between us (the true omnivore) and the cat (the true carnivore). A vegan or vegetarian diet will keep a dog alive, certainly, but is unlikely to allow your pet to thrive as it lacks the recommended nutrients. You should probably be feeding your dog meat. The exception here–some dogs are allergic to conventional dog foods, or find symptoms of certain diseases alleviated by vegetarianism. In this case, a veterinarian (not you, layperson, I mean an actual trained veterinarian) may determine that the benefits of putting your dog on a vegetarian/vegan diet outweigh those of feeding your dog meat. This is relatively rare, but does occasionally happen. And no, actually, the oldest dog is not vegan–Bramble is the only dog on this list that I found had some indication of veganism. The oldest dog on record is an Australian Kelpie named Maggie, who was not vegan. It is more likely that Bramble lived that long despite the veganism, not because of it. In short: If a vet thinks that your dog may be allergic to dog food/require a special diet and recommends you try feeding it a vegetarian/vegan diet, listen to your vet. Otherwise? Dogs are carnivora. They do need vegetables and other sources of nutrients, but their optimal fuel, as it were, is meat. Your dog needs meat to be happy. Fucking feed your dog.  Now, I did manage to find two veterinarians who disagree with every other study I dug up and the American Veterinary Medical Association. Their articles are here and here. They don’t really have sources, and are essentially wholly dependent on anecdotal evidence (“my dog is a vegetarian and hasn’t died!”), but for those of you data cherry-pickers reading this, there you go.  As a rule, dogs and cats need meat. If that makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, not theirs. If you try to implement a vegan or vegetarian diet for your pets because you implemented one for yourself, you shouldn’t have those pets. That is animal abuse. (By the way, those of you not feeding your cats and non-allergic dogs the food they need to survive and thrive? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not love your pets?) TL;DR If you do not want a pet that must be fed meat, you should under no circumstances acquire a cat or a dog. Thank you for your time. Rebloobing for the more detailed info on B12 and obligate carnivore vs true omnivores Always reblog. Dear Vegans, If you’re not willing to at least feed your dogs and cats commercial food, get a rabbit or a parrot.
Save
fangirltothefullest: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for. The only reason people are against this is because when people are financially stable there is less crime (therefore less prison industrial complex free labour) there are less medical problems (IE less hospital visits meaning less money for the medical and pharmaceutical companies) and the point I am making is that a full guaranteed income to all means that those wealthy people at the top get less money and so they try and fool you into thinking it’s bad so you help encourage them lining their pockets. : he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever. Step one: give every adult $33,600 a year, no strings attached. There is no step two. Photo: Flickr/twicepix fangirltothefullest: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for. The only reason people are against this is because when people are financially stable there is less crime (therefore less prison industrial complex free labour) there are less medical problems (IE less hospital visits meaning less money for the medical and pharmaceutical companies) and the point I am making is that a full guaranteed income to all means that those wealthy people at the top get less money and so they try and fool you into thinking it’s bad so you help encourage them lining their pockets.
Save
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Save
tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for. : he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever. Step one: give every adult $33,600 a year, no strings attached. There is no step two. Photo: Flickr/twicepix tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.
Save
lazorsandparadox: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for. With debt levels spiraling out of control as they are, america might have to do this in the near future, in order to prevent economic collapse from people just not having money to spend. The only problem i forsee with this is that, in order to get the money to distribute, taxes on rich people would have to increase by a lot, and if taxes raise too high, they just fucking move to another country to avoid paying them. If there was a way to prevent this, or if the whole world implemented a standard like this at the same time thereby removing the incentive to flee tax hikes, then this would absolutely work out great : he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever. Step one: give every adult $33,600 a year, no strings attached. There is no step two. Photo: Flickr/twicepix lazorsandparadox: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for. With debt levels spiraling out of control as they are, america might have to do this in the near future, in order to prevent economic collapse from people just not having money to spend. The only problem i forsee with this is that, in order to get the money to distribute, taxes on rich people would have to increase by a lot, and if taxes raise too high, they just fucking move to another country to avoid paying them. If there was a way to prevent this, or if the whole world implemented a standard like this at the same time thereby removing the incentive to flee tax hikes, then this would absolutely work out great
Save