He gave hypotheticals with very clear and pretty easy answers. The fact that he posed those as stumbling blocks means he shouldn’t be deliberating on anything more significant than what he should have for lunch.

It’s easy to say anything to a survey that comes to you. It’s about the reality of how many would actually go out and miss some work to vote for the guy.

See, I pictured out he blew out his poop chute

Yea, that’s him. Seems like a top lad

I mean, I assume the actual angle is “yes, this accurate from what I’ve seen (on the other side of the law)”. I assume.

I’ve also never watched one. The only type of these I watch is the British guy from their Royal Armoury who comments on video game guns. On Gamespot(?)'s Youtube, I think

OP is why we can’t have nice things. Because people will ignore things that should be obvious. So we’re left with everything softball pitched to the lowest common denominator

This is not targeted at you nor OP.

The answer for both you and OP is tied to your last sentence

so we can all enjoy fried chicken and watermelon on Juneteenth.

Why fried chicken and watermelon and why on Juneteenth? Do you eat fried chicken and watermelon as part of your normal rotation? (Hopefully, ‘yes’ because both are delicious and everyone should be afforded the opportunity to indulge)

The issue is that very evidently in both OP’s case and the one you linked that someone was given the prompts “food for celebration” and “celebration of African Americans”, generated “African American party foods”, and churned out a menu reinforcing racist stereotypes. The inquiry is “hey, where is your head at?”

Oh no, my life has become that much poorer

You’re gonna be judged as the minority that most offends them.

What do you mean “same combat”, like Amalur made some novel innovation? They’re both just 3D, third-person action combat; it’s a mechanic. This is like knocking Fallout New Vegas because it still had you shooting guns, and we already shot guns in Fallout 3.

The game looks disappointing for plenty of legitimate reasons, so let’s stick to those.

I mean, humans are terrible. But you’re completely neglecting how bitter centuries of open oppression can make a group. Some people thinking “Goddam, white people been doing this shit forever but the one time a caught it’s national news? 'Bout time we got away with something.” Getting away with major crimes becomes a metric for success when you’ve got little else to look forward to.

I figured it was an attempt to get votes in before he’s declared ineligible. So when he’s ousted, he’ll say “I got all these votes, count em! I should win but they’re cheating and saying I can’t run! FRAUD!”

That’s certainly one way to blow someone’s back out

But…that’s not specifically about video games?

E3 cultivated an “insider” appeal that not many large cons tried to match. You could look forward to game reveals that you’d mark on your calendars.

PAX has a more indie feel and Gamescom feels much more like an actual trade show.

Yeah, “urban” is an American dog whistle for “black and/or Hispanic”, e.g. “the young man who rang our doorbell was so urban. i don’t feel very safe.”

Because most people don’t get into real estate to do public good. Most people get into real estate, become landlords, to make money off people’s need for land and housing. It’d be like trying to whitewash criminality because vigilante heroes exist. Yeah, vigilantes might exist and are technically criminals, but that’s not really the core conception of “a criminal”.

As a straight man, the wording in the meme is very literal. I’m not a fan but I’ll allow it.

350,000 young men wasted for a balding bastard’s pride.

Shit. Thought he was actually dead

We’re all on the internet, you can look up the actual definition for “strawman” like I just did.

To paraphrase: strawmanning an argument is not so concretely about “putting words in anyone’s mouth”.

It is the process of debating a newly-created stance/position/idea that is easily disproven and visibly flawed when this new position may or may not be related to anything in the pre-existing debate. You don’t have to be ‘responding to anyone’; in fact, it fits more if you are not arguing something that anyone in the debate has referenced before.