People can always change and the one thing the internet never seems able to do is forgive. To the point where they’ll wish death on people before they’ll allow them to grow

Democrats once again focused on taking the high road after losing one of the most consequential elections in history. I mean I like AOC but calling for people not to be hostile or divisive towards voters who believe in dragging immigrants from their homes, putting them in camps, and then deporting them to their potential deaths is just not it.

You can call for unity all you want to but you won’t ever hear those same words from the mouths of republicans.

Who wrote this? Like just this paragraph:

This shutdown doesn’t just affect Ryujinx

Nintendo is rumored to be looking at other emulators like Yuzu, eyeing them with the same scrutiny.

How does anyone covering this exact story not know about Yuzu? Did I travel back in time?

I actually didn’t know this but I did play through that recently and I actually have really good things about how that game looks even to this day. I know they did some touching up and I’m assuming updated textures for the enhanced version but it aged a lot better than many other games from that era did

What’s really crazy is to compare Bethesda with CDPR. I’ve been replaying the Witcher 3 and it just struck me how I won’t have to wait 15+ years for the next entry. And to look at how much more efficient they’ve been in the past.

For a timeline, Witcher 2 released in May 2011 and then the Witcher 3 released in May 2015. Took 3.5 years to develop. Cyberpunk released December 2020, only 4.5 years after W3 had its last major DLC. Then in 2023 they released a very large update for Cyberpunk, about 2/3rds the runtime of the main game. And then in 2025 we’ll probably get the next Witcher game. They have like 3 games in active development now.

So what’s the difference with Bethesda? Well Skyrim sold 30 million units and Witcher 2 sold about 8 million. Less than a third the income. Yet if you compare CDPRs staff to Bethesdas at time of their next games, CDPR had doubled Bethesda’s work force. And guess what happened? Witcher 3 sold 40 million while fallout 4 sold 25 million. Thats despite Witcher 3 costing an estimated $81 million while Fallout 4 sits closer to 1.5x that at $125 million.

Then you talk about engines and it gets even worse. CDPR arguably started with a worse engine and I shouldn’t need to explain how much they’ve destroyed BS in that regard as well. Witcher 2 looks worse than Skyrim by a lot imo. But by the time their next game rolled around, it was an industry leader in graphics. And cyberpunk 2077 is like the next Crysis now while starfield is… oh boy. And guess what? After all that work on their engine, they abandoned it. Why? Because their resources are better spent making games and systems in an engine someone else updates for them. Bethesda meanwhile not only can’t juggle the ball of updating an engine and game dev, but they’re not even smart enough to swap engines.

Bethesda has all the signs of a dying studio and Microsoft is the sucker for buying them. And it’s a waste of talent more than anything. Talented people exist at Bethesda whose resources and career development would be far better off being applied on UE4.

Not if they keep on their BS. Let’s look at Fallout 4. The engine is absolutely the weakest part of the game. Can’t even keep 60fps in the city on any settings or on consoles. Frame times are all over the place. And the game isn’t even that pretty, it’s very ugly and textures are real bad. The story was pretty awful and boring, the writing in every way was forgettable.

So that’s why ES6 is screwed. It’s been downhill since Skyrim and even releasing a better looking Skyrim in 2028 on the PS6 isn’t going to cut it. It’ll be the most expensive budget title out there.

The point of what I said isn’t that Project 2025 is actually a joke, it’s that Walsh is making a joke about it being officially implemented (which we have no actual confirmation of) so that he can show the left as irrational when they fall for the obvious bait to report on what he said.

Do they plan to implement a lot of the project? Probably. Is it serious and scary? Yes. But that’s exactly why he knew people would overreact and he could manipulate them. It’s a smart move by Walsh unfortunately because it just makes the left seem paranoid about the project when it is in fact a real danger.

I’ll expound a bit. Of course there are a portion but that portion of better off conservatives is relatively small. And affluence often doesn’t result in wanting more kids.

I think most people would agree that the average wage of a dem voter is significantly higher than that of a conservative voter even when adjusting for COL. A lot of their voters lack degrees and lack the financial situation to have a bunch of kids.

Also keep in mind that this stuff is kind of exponential right. If 10% of women don’t have kids, they’re probably on average not having about 2 kids. So you either need 10% of other women to have 2 kids or 20% of women to have 1 extra child. That’s a big ask for your average American of any political skew. If 10% of women participate, that means 1 in 4 people need to have an extra child. And the larger that portion of participating women becomes, the exponentially greater pressure it puts on other women who want to absorb that impact.

The point isn’t to isolate men and create more incels, the point is for women to stop tolerating behavior that is not worthy of rewarding with intimacy or relationship. Women shouldn’t put up with awful men that don’t care about their rights just because they’re worried that they will become even worse men.

The point isn’t necessarily that women get what they want politically either; it’s a reaction to the majority of men displaying a lack of shared interest in their partners health and wellbeing. Not to mention that most men never have to deal with the results of these elections, now they will.

You don’t need to. I’ve run the numbers elsewhere but if we assume 100% of your dating pool are women and 50%-ish are liberal, even if only half of them participate it’s going to put pressure on men very quickly if they don’t want to be alone.

Now we know those women aren’t spread equally so this movement isn’t going to be consistently effective everywhere. But in places like Texas, it would mean most of the major cities harm Republican men seeking relationships/sex.

And taken one step further, this creates a child shortage if done for long enough. Even just 10% of women deciding not to have kids will have a big effect. People worry about conservatives just having more kids but realistically they work lower end jobs and don’t have money for that. Imagine raising 3-4 kids in this economy, not many will do that.

I mean the trick worked, everyone is here panicking despite Walsh having no weight in these things and no insider information.

The statement was designed to scare you so he can make fun of you, that was about it and it worked perfectly.

Not sure how you got that message at all. These aren’t powerful people. Bannon is washed up and Matt Walsh is just a commentator that says stupid things to annoy people constantly. They’re both mostly irrelevant and don’t deserve the alarm everyone here is sounding. It serves no purpose other than to drive hysteria for people already worried about the project, to anyone not yet worried they’re less likely to be worried and see you as unreasonable. So just ignore it.

This is such an overreaction honestly and I think it’s just giving a false start to the alarmism about Project 2025 which is exactly what these dumb extremists want. Allow me to explain.

Matt Walsh actually said this as a joke. Bannon is probably only half joking. Both had the intention of making articles like this happen so that when the backlash reaches conservative ears they can swat it away and say hey, it’s an obvious joke. Because it was.

The point is the same as what they’ve done with other phrases. They’ll point out the unjustified alarmism and use it to take the power out of the Project 2025 criticism. This is the problem with sensationalist media, they’ll raise alarms about everything well before people should listen. Then people ignore them.

Well that’s because California is pro-prison and also because the simple arguments for prison labor are well known and arguments against it aren’t.

Most people don’t think about it beyond “they committed a crime and it costs money to keep them in there, therefore they should be helping to pay for that”. That’s about as deep as it goes.

And that’s exactly what makes it not the “real you”. Read my edit but someone without inhibitions isn’t telling you who they are, they’re telling you who they choose not to be using inhibitions.

People that say this either don’t understand alcohol or haven’t been around it much.

Edit: I cannot believe that people need clarification of this is 2024. Alcohol modifies someone’s personality through its effects. If you’ve ever heard of a happy or angry drunk, that’s why. It can cause mood swings in people, increased aggression, and at the same time makes them act irrationally. That isn’t the “real person” underneath. The part of you that alcohol takes away is part of you.

And when you take away the ability to reason and make good decisions, you say all sorts of stupid things you don’t mean. That isn’t the real you. A drunk person will mostly just be telling you their impulsive subconscious thoughts that they aren’t in control of at all. That’s not a real person at that point.

Id pay special attention to Study 4 which seems to really hit my key points of criticism as a layman. Study 4 controlled for census region but I’d really like to see this controlled for rural vs urban populations at a finer scale. Without that adjustment I question the validity of other studies included.

That said study 4, if I’m reading it right, still found a correlation with happiness in conservatives but that correlation did not survive when religion was accounted for. Which tells you everything you need to know.

The conservatism isn’t the primary ideology, this is just a roundabout way of asking if religious people report being happier and having more meaning and of course they do. The religious aspect almost overrules the political angle entirely.

Didn’t that happen as he was resigning from the race already?

Your atheist ass is inviting people in you say?

I’d caution this sentiment. I don’t expect highly organized violence and I don’t think anyone else here should either. What you’re going to get is basically random acts of domestic terrorism. We’ve already see several ballot boxes set on fire and that’s the kind of thing this crowd will perform.

Well that and I really do think that polling places are in danger and so do a lot of cities. Again I doubt they’ll face organized attacks but look at the election in 2020. Several polling places were attacked and formed large crowds demanding the voting be stopped. It’s not unreasonable to think those crowds get violent this time around and maybe even attack lines of voters.

But the ultimate thing is that people should expect the absolute worst. The people in 2020 did not feel like an election had been stolen. Their extremist groups had no time to organize. Now they have that time. And now their beliefs are stronger than ever. Do not underestimate how awful the US will be from now till January.