Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

DeepFriedJif

Member
  • Content Count

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


1 Follower

About DeepFriedJif

  • Title
    Junior Member

Contact Methods

  • Steam
    killedbyarock
  • Origin
    RebuiltFromRuin

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Occupation
    Student

System

  • CPU
    6700k
  • Motherboard
    ASUS z170 DELUX
  • RAM
    Crucial DDR4 2133 16GB
  • GPU
    ASUS STRIX 1070
  • Case
    Caselabs Magnum TH10
  • Storage
    Samsung 850 EVO/OCZ Agility 3 256GB / WD Green 2TB
  • PSU
    Silencer Mk II
  • Display(s)
    ASUS PB278Q
  • Cooling
    Cooler Master H212 EVO w/ 2 Noctua NF-P12s
  • Keyboard
    Corsair K95
  • Mouse
    Razer Naga 2014
  • Sound
    Sennheiser HD 558 / Sennheiser IE80
  • Operating System
    Win10 64bit
  1. DeepFriedJif

    Packages

    Check what is included (Will be listed below description). They come with various levels of extras such as earlier access, hanger decals, in game currency, additional vehicles, and more. Sometimes physical items as well such as models of ships. Other than that as long as it is a game package, as in it is not the ship only, the bonuses are reasonably similar, but become better and more numerous the more expensive the package (Call me Obvious, Captain Obvious). Edit: It is the Also Contains Section. For me, in chrome, it is located Directly under the photo of the ship. If this is not what you meant then I must submit a clarification request.
  2. My initial reaction is that this move would not improve the climate of discussion. I feel at best it would do nothing and at worse make it even more difficult. Obviously I do not know for sure, that is just my intuition.
  3. I'm afraid I am not clear on exactly what you mean? Do you mean allowing media personalities to speak hatefully about one another and other public figures? Because they already do that. In fact that feels like it is basically all they do. So I must misunderstand you.
  4. A few points here: I do not see that kind of back and forth as an argument, it is not my place to tell you that you are wrong if you do. I get very little or no pleasure from that kind of back and forth, again if you do more power to you. I agree that someone not well versed on a subject can say valuable things from time to time, but that I do not often find them the ones also commenting as I did in my hypothetical response. Finally, regardless if you in particular would block me, do you agree you would understand if someone did block a person that did post those kind of comments? If not under what circumstances do you find it appropriate to block someone? Must there be sustained personal attacks or threats? (Let's assume we agreed on the definition of "sustained personal attacks" and "threats")
  5. So at a higher "idealized" level I agree. It is imperative that one hears dissenting opinions and has their views challenged. On that we could hardly agree more. Where I believe we part is I do believe it is totally admissible to block whoever you please because you do not wish to engage with them. The subtlety here is not that you are blocking them because they offer dissenting opinions, but because they are not attempting to persuade you to change positions based on facts, or attempting to add perspective, but they are a toxic individual set on ridiculing your views and opinions because they are not the views or opinions they have or believe are correct. I believe we can both agree that if I had responded to this by saying: "User LAwLz if fucking stupid and their opinion is stupid and they deserves suffering because of it. Only some kind of idiot who doesn't understand the world would think the way they do!!11!! - BLOCKED" Is very different and afterwards if you decided to block me and avoid engaging with me, it is not because you are plugging your ears to avoid having your views challenged, you are blocking me because in that moment I would be a toxic individual set on malice and the spread of intolerance.
  6. I agree. But as I said I am not here to discuss that necessarily. Twitter as a business I know very little about, so little I am too uninformed to form a meaningful opinion. But whether I believe the President Elect's Twitter account is a useful source of information with regards to their politics, another matter.
  7. I can't help but feel I have gotten a bit off topic, just to ask again, agree with me on the particulars of the President Elect's deserve of the ban or not, are the social media accounts a viable place to get reliable, meaningful information? Because my whole point is IF they to ban him, not a shred of meaningful information about his politics or his administration would disappear.
  8. Like I said in the edit, anyone labeled a threat to national security can be held indefinitely without charge. All he would need to do was convince people that flag burners are potential threats to national security. He could not take their citizenship literally, but functionally. Edit: Of course maybe I am wrong. I do not spend time reading the exact laws regarding holding potential threats to national security, but I am reasonably sure that is how it is, at least post 9/11.
  9. Prior to the election I would have agreed wholeheartedly. Now, I am much less certain of anything anymore. Difficult, sure, impossible, probably; especially in four, possibly eight years. But absolutely impossible, well, unfortunately, no. Edit: In addition I am not sure he would need an amendment, executive orders are powerful, especially if he can convince people that anyone who burns a flag is high enough risk to warrant them being classified as threats to national security. Then they could be held indefinitely without charges.
  10. See but I don't believe it is up to me. My consent is irrelevant in an ideals sense. I do believe that if someone were to acquire them and that was their modus operandi then yes, I would accept that. I would do what I had the power to do, delete my Twitter account and encourage others to do the same, but ultimately I do think the decisions rest with them, consequences and all.
  11. I totally agree this does not violate ToS, but that is not why I quoted that tweet, I quoted it as evidence he has said things that warrant adversity, that the people against him are not warrantless in their criticisms and opposition.
  12. I would argue Twitter has every right to censor whoever they please, it is their platform. Is just censoring whoever for whatever a good idea? A good business move? Of course not. But they own the platform, they can do as they please. I would also go so far as to say there is a line between outlandish and toxic, has the President Elect crossed that line? Not for me to say, but if Twitter has decided he has, then I am of the opinion it is their right to take the actions they deem appropriate.
  13. For NO reason? Just to make sure I understand, are you suggesting he has never said or done anything to warrant adversity? What about any of the following tweet (I am lazy, but so much to not provide an example): Agree or not that burning a flag is freedom of expression, loss of citizenship or a year in jail both seem extreme to me.
  14. Greetings all, especially Luke, I have just listened to the portion of The Wan Show discussing the possible ban of the President Elect from twitter. I am sorry if this post seems hastily written and/or poorly thought out. I am posting it now because I am genuinely curious, and a bit riled up, but if I wait for a cooler head I will also be waiting for apathy to set in. After listening to the discussion I cannot but feel stanch disagreement with Luke on his position regarding not banning the President Elect because of his position. I want to clarify that I believe I understand that Luke is not saying all politicians should have blanket exemptions for statements made on social platforms, and that if someone, even the President Elect, were being toxic on his own forum he would act differently and ban them. But the position Luke takes where the twitter or facebook, or any social media, account belonging to or operated by a person in power is a place to get meaningful information regarding the current political administration I cannot help but feel wholly opposed to. I want to begin by admitting I have want I believe most would consider a rather cynical view on politics, perhaps people in general, and especially social media's role in politics. I believe I could make an entirely different thread just about some of those positions but that is not what this thread is about. So to begin, Luke, I completely disagree that the President Elects twitter is even somewhere you should look to get information regarding him and his political doings. I am of the position that if someone, anyone, is in a position of power and influence then you need to be incredibly weary of the things they say, period. I believe that you simply cannot trust anything they say, they have far too much incentive to lie, mislead, or otherwise attempt to misinform or misrepresent their own positions, actions, or those of their conspirators in order to maintain their outward appearance and their credibility. I am not claiming this view is some kind of a revelation in politics, in fact quite the opposite, I take it to be one of the most fundamental attributes of politics, and even social behavior in general. To put it differently I believe that the President Elect's twitter at best is a place they post 100% true and well meaning but only positive information regarding themselves and their administration, and at worst are fabricated pieces ment intentionally to misinform and to maintain face. I believe it is not true that if twitter or facebook where to ban the President Elect, and not just the current one as of the time of this post, or any major influencer, any meaningful information would be lost. I believe there are plenty of sources that one can use to attain information regarding the current political administration and that due to the amount of misinformation in the media one is all but obligated to use as many sources as they can to construct their viewpoints and "Internal Model of the World". I am of the opinion that the worst thing that could come out of banning these figures from the social forums is the loss of the ability to say, "This person has said this on twitter, I now need to go find every piece of information I can in order to vett this and find all the reasons why what they said is a gross misrepresentation of the truth". If you are lucky what they said is not a gross misrepresentation of the truth, but I am sure we all have a feeling of which is the exception and which is the rule. In conclusion I am of the opinion that all the users on the twitter platform, President Elect or otherwise, should be subject to the same rules as any other users of the platform. Further I believe the argument that banning them will cause anyone to be ill informed or less informed that otherwise rests on the assumption anything someone with influence says on the platform is trustworthy or is even capable of meaningfully informing. tl;dr: The President Elect's social media accounts are garbage places to try and stay informed about their politics.
  15. I have 2x GTX 780 so I am not itching to upgrade in terms or horses but I have a buddy who would appreciate the early birthday gift.
×