themblan's blog

Have u ever noticed how physical gamers always feel the need to say that physical games are superior to digital games? They don't just stop at saying that their personal, subjective preference is for physical games; no. They must take that extra step, make a judgment, and proclaim that physical games are better, implying that they are objectively so. Isn't that asinine? Shouldn't they just stop at expressing their opinions? Why must they take that asinine next step and try to imply that their opinions are facts? I must surmise that one of these reasons is that they are stupider, and thus, more prone to irrational affirmations. They are like racists or sexists. There is no race or sex that is better than another; they are just different, but the same. Racists and sexists, on the other hand, hold an obstinate belief, that a race or sex is objectively inferior or superior to another. Yes; people who say that physical games are better are operating from the same level of int

I am done buying new games and consoles. I have been far too disappointed since the launch of the Nintendo Switch. Granted, I haven't been only disappointed, but I have been disappointed with the overwhelming majority of the games I have purchased, not to mention the Nintendo Switch itself. Recently, I decided to cut as many costs as possible - no more buying useless junk. I do not feel happy anymore after I buy a new game. I play the game, get disappointed, and then never play the game again. It doesn't matter if the game is universally praised or not; I seem to not like it. Maybe there's something wrong with me, or maybe people don't know how to make games anymore. I decided that enough is enough. If I don't spend money, I can't be disappointed. I am perfectly happy with playing the games I already have, not to mention the thousands I have access to via emulation, CD-backups, and flash-cartridges.

Original article: GOP lawmaker pulls out loaded gun in constituent meeting "Republican Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina pulled out a loaded handgun during a meeting with constituents on Friday to make the point that guns are not always dangerous." Sure, that is logically true. An unloaded gun is not dangerous, but a loaded gun is always dangerous, which is precisely what he brought to the meeting. He managed to contradict himself immediately. If he wanted to make a point that guns were not dangerous, he should have brought an unloaded gun. What is his point? What is he trying to accomplish? Is he trying to make people unafraid of guns? Is that really a smart thing to do? Do we really want adults, teens, and children to be so unafraid of loaded guns that we are playing with them like they are basketballs? It is true that guns are just inanimate objects and should not be feared in and of themselves, but the reality is that guns are usually owned by people, a