FullAuto

I love it when someone who knows absolutely nothing about my country or its situation opens his mouth. The good news for us is, we're keeping all the female Polish immigrants. * Edited by moderation * The good news for Poland is, we're sending all the male Polish immigrants back immediately. Brexit. Justice for the Poles. They're going to get exactly what they deserve. http://www.huffingto...6no9sq7e4l07ldi They should never have been let into the country in the first place. Worse than Muslims.

http://ustatkowanygracz.pl/making-of-this-war-of-mine-the-boardgame/ - This War of Mine comes to Cardboard Land.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/323060/ - 34% off Tharsis for 24 hours.

Not sure what I'm doing wrong when it comes to linking YT stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNHlaQaTzpA

Like Nuclear Throne, but better! http://youtu.be/ymqKkwqqkGM

Zombie, it's okay, I'm friends with SV on Steam and he's got a hundred hours in on the Sims 3. Worst case of pot/kettle/black I've ever seen.

They don't, though. There are denominations of Muslims just like any other religion. Expecting them to help out purely on the basis of co-religionism is a mistake; it's like saying all Christians are basically the same and should always help each other out. It just doesn't happen. http://lecourrierdumaghrebetdelorient.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/carte-1-octobre-D.jpg Such as? Such as? Do tell.

It's statements like this that convince me of the solidity of your relationship, man. If you left this stuff out I'd worry. Rick and Morty offers some of the greatest comedy and surprisingly sincere feelings television has to offer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szzVlQ653as

If we can focus on one country and get a clearer idea of what we're talking about, it makes it easier, rather than talking in general terms and allowing vagueness to creep in. Syria is probably the top contender, with a civilian population already hugely discontent thanks to Assad's rather vicious regime which has been running for decades now. So plenty of people wanted to leave anyway, then the Arab Spring was repressed, and then the Syrian civil war, and with large swathes of Syria being rock-bottom in population density, it means a great deal of the fighting is over, in and around population centres, which gives added impetus for populations to move. Added to this, you have the outright viciousness of sectarian conflict, with all sides quite prepared to kill civilians (depending upon who you believe), so it means if your area is captured, and you've been supporting the wrong side, you're more likely than average to get killed, combatant or not. This has led to more than 4 million refugees. Repatriation is unlikely given the above conditions, and even if things settled down, I don't think anyone would want to return to the loving arms of the Assad regime. The majority of them are in limbo in Turkey, a country which really has no interest in absorbing them. Erdogan has no interest other than using the crisis as a stick to beat the EU with. The EU as a whole is okay with internal immigration (apart from certain political parties, like one in the UK), but isn't so keen on it coming in from outside, and I think fears have been whipped up by certain organisations, and as a result there has been resistance to accepting immigrants, not because it can't be done, but because it makes it easy for others to score political points. From what I've read, about 1 million refugees/migrants reached Europe, and the EU just isn't prepared, in terms of logistics or mentality, to accept so many. It's not that it can't be done, Europe is big enough to cope with it easily, it's that they're a dirty consequence showing up on our doorstep which we'd rather not acknowledge, and the lack of unity in the EU makes it all the worse. We're still suffering and vulnerable economically, and each country also has its little foibles when it comes to refugees (e.g. certain countries in Eastern Europe are allergic to Muslims, or so they say), some have recent memories of horrific violence and are keen to keep a homogeneous population, etc. Recent terrorist attacks feed xenophobic attitudes (it doesn't matter if the terrorists are refugees or not, they only need to be vaguely alike in one way in order to be smeared with the same brush). I can safely say the Tories will do as little as they can get away with, despite the fact we continue to meddle in Syria and elsewhere. If the worst comes to the worst, the Tories will reposition and manipulate the issue to be part of a "the EU doesn't tell the UK what to do while we're in charge!" narrative.

Despite an incredibly stupid online precis ("Hundreds of years in the future, things are different than what we are used to" - no shit, really?), The Expanse is off to a promising start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lqz_oEWZEU

I'm really quite enjoying Dying Light. https://www.facebook...797013730003168 It's not the graphic zombie killing, although I think that's one of the initial draws to get people playing. Later on you can craft, buy, or find weapons that make killing zombies nothing more than a single easy strike. It's for some of the best parkour in gaming since Mirror's Edge. Now, Techland's Dead Island was kind of a prototype, having free-roaming zombie-killing gameplay, and being mostly famous for its great trailer. Dying Light is a lot better, largely because the meat of the game isn't the slaying of the undead. They're there in large numbers, but really the zombies are another obstacle, along with the walls, fences, houses, cars and other terrain for you to free run over and around. Movement feels smooth and impossibly athletic, and with a few levels of upgrading, a featureless wall is no more an impediment than one covered in handholds. So it becomes about navigation and retaining momentum, planning the most efficient route on the fly, across a post-zombie apocalypse city under quarantine. Regular supply drops offer a good reason for runs, and although a lot of the game is fetch quests, they really don't matter so much as long as the movement itself is enjoyable. Added to this is a gorgeous mournful electronica soundtrack (this and Just Cause 3 are the only game soundtracks I have wanted to own in recent memory), plenty of dismemberment and gore if you want to get your hands dirty with ridiculous weapons, meaty sound effects, an extensive map to explore, and a decent sense of humour baked into the game's world, along with a kind-of successful attempt at the bleakness of such a petty Hell. Oh, and the real monsters come out at night. Mostly. It's technically a bit shonky, but I find that charming in a game, and I dearly love being chased by zombies. From Super Metroid onwards, very few games have succeeded in making me feel truly alone. Dying Light is one of them. Oh, and it has an expansion coming out! https://youtu.be/BQwLi21ZHK0

https://vimeo.com/150635087

The Exiled: Siege. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPUhJAaV3ZA

It doesn't matter which is the better judge, because we're stuck with just one of those here. None of us can say whether we are redeemed or damned by our actions. While this forum may be rather two-dimensional, it's what we have to work with. I take people at their word. Someone may be treated very fairly, and yet still feel that they are being treated unfairly. For instance, someone can commit a crime, be arrested, tried, found guily, and put in prison. Throughout this process, they complain how unfair it all is. In this particular instance, it isn't unfair. The person's feelings about the issue, and the reality of the issue, are thoroughly divorced from each other. Sometimes, with time or hindsight or help from others, the person comes to understand what happened was actually fair, and it was their own subjective view that made them think what happened to them was unfair, even when it was the consequences of something they did. 'Feel' in this instance I would describe as a reaction, thoughts and feelings that arise in a person resulting from something else, not conscious decisions or thoughts made afterwards. I'd say so. Like any word, it doesn't describe the totality of the person, just an aspect of their personality. It's not about if they are a good or bad person, it's more often about their ignorance and ascribing negative values to what is often an enormous group of people, either based on hearsay, or bad experiences with a tiny number of that same group. I do see what you're saying. You believe I'm maligning someone unfairly, and in turn it's what they are doing to a group. I would point out that I have plenty of reason for my belief, and it's not from hearsay or because I've been raised to believe all Polish people are bigots, but because of the person's words. Whether someone is more even-handed IRL may be more likely, I know many feel the emboldening effect of internet anonymity, but also at the same time I feel that resistance to such views should be even stronger precisely because people feel it is acceptable to say such things in certain venues. I doubt anyone goes away from their keyboard and becomes a saint, I know certainly don't, and certainly the words and actions I see, online and off, concerning the migrant crisis, has me convinced not many others become saints either. I think things are bad enough without dishonesty gumming up the works.

How am I to judge someone on what they do, if that information is unknown to me? I cannot. I must make my decisions based upon the information I have. I cannot make decisions based on information I do not have. This is a discussion on the internet. Not a log of one's daily actions. In an ideal world, perhaps. Certainly in the real world, I cannot simply say to people "You are treating me unfairly." and that alone will make them alter their behaviour. The real world doesn't work like that. If I am actually being treated unfairly, there may or may not be means of redress. If I merely feel I am being treated unfairly, my only likely means of redress will be to add it to my Tough Shit list and soldier on. The world is a harsh place. People will say things to you and about you that you will not like. You cannot stop them saying it; the only thing you can control is how you act afterwards. The false equivalence given to the viewpoints. You seem to think what silencer is saying is equally as factual as what anyone else says, when, sadly, this is not the case. Do you really want me to go through everything he has said and pick out every piece of bullshit? I'm not sure either of us will live that long. Just to begin with: the video silencer posted to begin this lovely discussion is from 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castel_Volturno_massacre). Using my degree in time travel, I can tell you that this footage predates the 'migrant crisis' (2015). So it's nothing to do with the migrant crisis. It is, at best, an unwitting lie, put forward to advance a certain viewpoint. If the 'other side' isn't lying or wrong (or both), then they're going about it in a strange way, involving nothing but digressions, evasions, whataboutery, and every tactic under the sun apart from engaging honestly in the subject at hand. I do not respect such views. I tolerate them. Tolerance and respect are two different things.

Are you sure about that? Do you know that we currently have more than £6 trillion in national debt accruing? Even the lower figure often given, to avoid people shitting themselves in panic, is around £1.6 trillion, which is more than 80% of our GDP. What's Poland's? You know absolutely zero about the Tory government. This statement is a joke. ...yes? That person wrote what they believed, or they're lying. So if I give them the benefit of the doubt, I assume they are telling the truth about what they believe. If those statements reveal prejudice, well, what am I to do? So, not if they are actually being treated unfairly, merely if they feel they are being treated unfairly? So, someone has the same right to affront if my words are fair or not? Really? Because I have to say, I feel this is quite sad. If I'm actually being unfair, someone can tell me, and I will re-appraise what I have said. But if I'm being fair, and yet I am still told I should re-evaluate what I have said... There is a strange false equivalence at work here. It reminds me a lot of climate change discussions, where scientists put forth their views, and then climate change deniers put forth theirs, and the desire to appear even-handed works against the scientific side, because equal weight is given to scientific fact and utter bullshit alike. You can have your say, whatever it may be, but if your statement contains outright lies or inaccuracies, aren't they supposed to be pointed out? And can you really get upset, especially when you have put them forward knowing them to be false? Likewise, pandering to their exaggerations and agreeing with their prejudices leads to nothing good, either.

Lovely spoilery trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLW-qQLMQs

I mentioned this earlier. If someone is bigoted, and someone calls them a bigot, is it an insult? Is it a label? Isn't it just an accurate description? Do I really have the right to be affronted if someone accurately described my behaviour, but they use a word I don't like? I think the current Tory government are evil personified, BTW, but if I happened to go completely insane and start agreeing with them, and someone said that doing so was bigoted, I would have to agree with them. I wouldn't like it but I would have to admit that it was true. It might be difficult for me to admit, but if I believed Muslims were out to destroy us all or black people were evil, and someone called me on that moronic belief, I'm not so devoid of self-awareness that I would be able to deny my racism. I know certain belief systems ("You, as a member of the glorious white race...") make such thoughts very difficult, but it is possible for any individual to grow beyond those systems. They have to want to, though. Would anyone care to guess who has become the biggest immigrant group in my town in recent years? Who has their own shops, speak their own language, don't integrate, have their own customs and religion? Three guesses, first two don't count. Meanwhile: These are all problems, or are perceived as problems, in the UK, too.

Babylon 5 to return?

I'd just like to point out that Poland hasn't been flooded with refugees. Seems like a fair summation. The cross-purposes involved have really messed everything up. Russia "totally going to destroy IS honest oh no wait we're just here to support Assad actually" was a good joke that many seem to have believed. The Kurds have made some good headway versus IS, and seem to be a good option as a force to back, except no-one really wants to do so because they're the local whipping boy and a as a regional minority, are targeted wherever they go. They could be a great stabilising influence if not for the prejudice they face in every other country. Turkey are leveraging the situation as far as it will go, and Europe as a whole has ruined a great opportunity for solidarity (not that it's exactly a great time to be pushing that agenda when it was independent action by a few countries that exacerbated the situation) by panicking over a number of refugees that Europe, as a whole, could absorb without blinking. This definitely wasn't part of silencer's argument. I understand and go some way to mitigating my own cognitive and political biases; however, that said, I refuse to sacrifice fact for political expediency. I won't, for instance, post something that is a blatant lie, and when confronted with it, double down with more blatant lies. Empathy is great, but it needs both parties to share enough common ground for it to be practical. If someone does not share enough of my partial vision of reality, or vice versa, we are effectively living in different worlds. I understand what silencer is saying, and even why he is saying it, I just do not agree with any of it. We are all products of our respective societies; we do not have to remain that way. That is our choice.

Then perhaps one of you apart from silencer can tell me what it is I don't understand?

Four pages of the best worst box art the board game world has to offer here.

And what does he do? Let's count them, for fun. Because let's be honest, we're not going to have reasonable discourse because silencer has nothing to draw on except prejudice. Our so-called allies - 1 How fast did Europe fall - 2 sneak attack - 3 independence - 4 stopped bolsheviks - 5 don't teach that in UK - 6 At this point he brings up Enigma. Please note how he is unable to stick to one point, generally because he loses miserably on every single point he brings up. So he is forced to digress onto other subjects. At this point, how many digressions has he brought up, has anyone been keeping count? If not I'll tot up next post. treated soldiers - 7 UK vs Germany - 8 beg US for help - 9 Poles sold as slaves - 10 Communists still ruling - 11 Polish migrants contributing, Muslims not - 12 12 excuses in three paragraphs is a pretty strong excuse game, I think you'll agree. That's four excuses per paragraph, and out of 25 sentences, an excuse almost every other sentence. The really hilarious thing is that I admire the Hell out of Poland and the Poles, especially for their fierce resistance in WWII against impossible odds. I had family members who fought alongside Polish units in WWII, and expressed nothing but respect for them. I know the history of WWII very well indeed, and the more I read the more I come to respect Poland. Here's what silencer missed (my bold): Despite the fact that I explicitly stated that there are good answers to the mock questions I posed, and that they're there to illustrate a double standard, he just careers on, shedding excuses. I don't despise immigrants. Unlike you.