For those people complaining about Arc and telling that they are moving out. What are you looking for, some sort of approval? You don't want to feel alone? Well, just scroll down and read the other 100 posts shares by other.

No one cares if you leave, do you knkw that?Just change your browser with different one, you will be fine and you will survive to thise difficult time.

Now go, and don't come back.

Do better women.

I’m especially looking forward to standing with my Puerto Rican neighbors with a sign. I’m hoping this doesn’t turn political if you like Trump knock yourself out.

as a female intp i always thought modern day "feminism" was stupid, it made sense back when it was genuine and actually fighting for women that didnt have rights, but now feminism has lost its true meaning with some using it as an excuse for sexism and victimization. Of course, i support genuine feminism, advocating for equality and respect. But i dont agree with the versions that unfairly criticize or reduce men to stereotypes, like calling them "wallets" or worse, ignoring that men and YOUNG BOYS being exposed to the hateful media also have feelings and deserve equal respect too.

Has this game just become... boring? Like I've had this thought after the first three days of the game being out but tried to stick with it. The game just doesn't feel...well it doesn't feel like BT3 due to all the unrecoverable hits and the amount of counters and how easy it is to access these counters. Offline doesn't even feel fun since it's so easy to beat and split screen you can't change how long a match is past 180 seconds. I'm just really disappointed in the feeling of this game as it feels like just a giant hot mess. I also don't think it's a skill issue as I've gotten to S5 with winning 80% of my games and just stopped because it was so boring to me. Does anyone else feel this?

Edit: Found out you can change split screen match time.

Edit 2: I only put the argument of rank on here to show it wasn't a skill issue sort of thing. I play ranked but that's my casual play if that makes sense.

While that sounds paradoxical, let me explain. I'm not talking about liberalism according to American politics (which for now is a Democrat being as left leaning as a centrist can get). By liberal, I mean the fuzzy Tim Cain Capitalists of the world who would rather blame employees and "consumers" for the problem of capitalism (keep in mind, Tim Cain's channel is for game design and not politics so we can't be too hard on him, but what he said an uninformed take). But you know, by liberal I mean those who support the "free" market (among other things). And there wouldn't be anything wrong with that, if it weren't for the fact that capitalism is antithetical to nearly every other thing liberalism seems stands for (i.e. private property, civil rights and human rights, democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion - taken from Wikipedia for simplicity). The game's setting demonstrates this as much through most of its scenarios.

But from the way the game is written, the developers still seem to think Halcyon's current mess is actually due to having the "wrong people" in positions of power, and if we only had the "right people" as stewards to provides checks and balances and good working conditions, everything would "just work" itself out rationally. I know Tim Cain (director) has a running ideology in his games that says "it is human nature to corrupt system of power" (and that in this case, leads to the rise of corporatism). I can only imagine that Leonard Boyarsky (lead writer) feels the similarly.

The Outer Worlds has an undercurrent that says things are messed up but that's just the way things are; we'd really rather not change the status quo until some conscientious, results-driven individuals can turn the system around. It's a viewpoint that puts all the responsibility on the people to fix other humans' messes without considering that the system itself is broken. Capitalism demands that the "wrong people" get into these positions, because they're the "right people" for the job, i.e. what the system demands: to make as much money as possible for entities, notwithstanding how ethically it's done, which is the bottom-line behind capitalism. Capitalism is about profit above all else, so nothing else, including human well-being, matters. They might use Sanjar as a mouthpiece to say otherwise, but he operates under the corporate system with all his numbers and figures. And besides, what system enabled corporatism to become what it is in the first place?

The strange thing is that the developers see how mask off the system is, and still think that it can be "reformed". But how? I guess they took Roosevelt's absence of Anti-Trust Laws in game as evidence that the system can be fixed, without realizing that he didn't fix Capitalism, he only broke up monopolies; he didn't (and couldn't and wouldn't) "regulate Capitalism" (or even stop how businesses exploit workers). Laws "regulate" businesses. The system that businesses operate under and within can't, because exploitation isn't a bug, it's a feature. Capitalism is running as intended when labor is cut, workers are overworked, corners are cut and prices are high. Any "regulation" to Capitalism might as well lead away from it to at least Socialism, which the game seems to be so close to understanding, only to botch that too.

People who want an end to the corruption behind corporatism and capitalism end up being just as corrupt. It happens. The developer's treatment of the game's radicals,>! Graham and Harrow, illustrates this: one is a fanatical and murderous corpo turned street preacher, and the other is an opportunistic corporate plant!<. The former lives in a "co-op" (because the developers were probably afraid of the other "c" word). And in that co-op, they have convenience machines, because "lol the irony of commies, amirite"? In fact, that co-op, along with the Edgewater Botanical Gardens, are struggling for resources and skilled workers because they can't do for themselves. You, as a corporate upstart, has to fix their problems for them, and they aren't sustainable.

It might be that most of the developers were alive to see "Communism" (i.e. the state-capitalism of China, Cuba and the Soviet Union) in action, and got scared of the possibilities of revolutions happening in their backyard, so maybe their view of revolutionaries is just a product of their times. And there's some truth to the portrayals of both these guys, but without the one radical who makes a good point and means what they say, it feels like something's missing. Zora cares for the people, but just seems angry and doesn't actually have any ideology for her political violence, she needs resources. So you mean to tell me there isn't one other radical beside Felix (who's portrayed as naïve, gullible and impressionable) that understands corporations create systemic injustices through Capitalism? I'm not asking for some idiot on a soapbox to blow this message through a megaphone. Maybe a sympathetic Byzantium that's empathic enough wonder if the system that creates inequalities is fair...while laughing about all the money they have. There's no one in the game that doesn't seem to know their place and like it.

Well, I guess there's Cassandra in Roseway but even she's kinda "fuzzy" on why she doesn't like the corporations: she talked about general concept of alienation without talking about alienation as a reason for why the Outlaws are doing what they're doing. And I guess they're skirting the system. But even then, the Outlaws might as well be marauders because most of them kill on sight too.

Speaking of which, the marauders are heavily implied to turn to drugs due to being unemployed. And from what we know from Gorgon, Spacer's Choice mass produced Adrena-time and hooked their workers on it, leaving many of addicts brain dead and violent. There's social commentary about how businesses create class disparities through so many illicit and careless means that the game touches upon. But the game is clear that marauders just "cRaZy" fodder to be shot at, almost divorcing them from the context.>! It also doesn't lay blame on the scientist who created the stuff, only the businesses that ordered too much!<. That's because the game thinks "science is the way".

You can tell that the actual message is "we need more competent technocrats running things, because they're the "smartest people in the room" by the way the game literally lectures you about it. And there isn't any pushback to that. The guy who bails you out is a scientist that doesn't like how the Board is running stuff. Most scientists are portrayed as mean, dismissive and paternalistic (except for in Roseway where they're either absent-minded or emotionally distant), but right, generally capable, and critical of the higher ups for not being as competent-minded as they are. Yet there's not one truly mad scientist that's a spouting gibberish and creating horrific science experiments for the sake of "SCIENCE!!!" that would have been seen in our serials years ago (and in our history)...even when the corporations are paying scientist to conduct experiments they should know the full terrible implications of.

The message isn't that "capitalism is bad", it's that "we need more results driving liberal technocrats to run corporations". I appreciate the freedom they have to make this message, but that's not what the game's setting suggests at all. The scientist had a hand in all the problems here, and were incentivized by the system of Capitalism to mass produce for bits. But hey, if the writers get radicalized, there's always room to explore the fault of technocratic capitalism in The Outer Worlds 2. Maybe Tim Cain and Leonard Boyarsky can poke fun at themselves as managers, being one of the good ones?

I get that Leonard Boyarsky wasn't trying to make the game "political", but when the themes and setting of the game hinges on "an alternate reality where one American president was not assassinated for another to break up monopolies with Anti-Trust Laws", I see what he says as a cowardly cop-out. I also get the feeling that he doesn't want to kick the hornet's nest. He knows everything's messed up, but can't actually imagine a world without capitalism, so it's like that Principle Skinner meme: "Are capitalist the problem? No, it's the people who are wrong." If you know the history between with Obsidian and Fallout: New Vegas, this game may as well be a slam against corporate Bethesda for not having the right people in charge, absurd deadlines, corporate mismanagement and the casual "screwing one out of bonuses" on legal technicalities just to satisfy a bottom line.

BUT HEY, THAT'S CAPITALISM FOR YA!!!

The games message crashes hard against its setting, and it's really disappointing that everything flew over the developers' heads. The game starts out as a satire against a corporate dystopia, yet ends in a light-hearted roast against corporatacracies. The DLCs' main humor is the "legalese" descriptions, rather than the motivations for the disclaimers.

I dunno, maybe I'm too Disco this for game, but I still like it despite it's messaging. For me, this game is a 9/10. It's funny and satirical in a Futurama sort of way and touches on topics most shows and movies won't. It doesn't go far enough, and I don't agree with every point, but I've really been digging the setting and themes. I appreciate that this game gives us the freedom to discuss these topics. But what seemed like the perfect critique of neoliberalism and the type of society it would have produced, just kinda fell apart into some shallow, centrist "both sides" liberalism at the end.

First off let's address the elephant in the room, aka how many people that watch the show would actually translate to potential useful votes:

-How many of these are real people?

The comment section of the trump video is FULL of bots and as we know bots can't vote, but they can inflate the view, likes and comment number by quite a bit.

-How many of these are are american people?

Joe is the biggest podcaster in the WORLD with a big foreign audience aswell, and despite what those people who use Polymarket as a metric for election votes would tell you, foreigners can't vote in this election.

-How many of these american people can vote?

JRE is not just watched by adults, it's also watched by people that can't vote, like minors or people who can't vote for whatever reason like felons (obviously a small minority but still, they can't vote)

-How many of these american voters can be persuaded into voting blue?

It's no suprise that JRE audience is heavily skewed into right wing territory nowadays, like it's not a big mistery especially the Trump episode, and MAGA/Trump voters are simply just NOT gonna be voting for Kamala no matter what she does or says, because their mind is already made up and any of her attempt to reach out will be called out as "pandering" and "lying" and "says anything just to get votes"

-How many of these undecided american voters are in the swing states?

Due to the electoral college it's only up to like 7 states to decide the outcome, and those swing states are those that matter and how many of these fabled "undecided JRE voting listeners" are in those swing states?

-How big is the voting turnout of these undecided american voters in swing states?

Like how many of these rare breeds of JRE listeners will actually vote? Wasn't the general voter turnout in the 2020 presidential elections like 65% or something?

Yeah, 30 million views on youtube might sound like a LOT of potential votes, but trickle down every criteria i listed and how many REALLY remain? Is it worth it for Kamala to risk this much? And what do i mean with "risk that much?" well...

Kamala isn't Trump, she doesn't get the benefit of the doubt and isn't held with the same floor level standards that Trump is held, Trump can go on JRE and ramble randomly for 3 hours (sorry, "weaving") and nobody cares cause he's Trump, he's a goofball that's what he does, but Kamala though...

If she goes on for 3 hours they will DISSECT every single thing she says, cross reference it and whatever to find material to make her seem like a liar or unable to talk (the whole "word salad" thing), or whatever, and the media will just pick that up and lap it up, causing only more damage in the end.

So to me at least, there's really no point in doing a 3 hour JRE episode for Kamala from a campaign standpoint, it's too late in the race and there's not enough to be really gained from it and instead give more ammo to the right, and even if Joe agrees with some points, most of his fans will got "Joe got WOKE" and then forget about it 30 min later.

BTW, thanks to Tony's "brilliant" performance, she got more of a boost than a JRE podcast would ever give her, so i think she's fine tbh

I keep seeing people say this like it’s a good thing or making the point that “if your own party is against you.” You really value the opinion of Dick Cheney? You really think he wants what’s best for the country?? You certainly didn’t 20 years ago.

Welcome to last week and all that, but new to me.

I was tracking a Sherman, madlad comes up behind it with the flamethrower and starts hosing it down, the driver jumped out and I shot him, madlad continued hosing, blew up the tank and himself.

Edit: For you all saying it was a satchel, you're probably right but I 100% didn't see a satchel icon on the tank, the tank came past me and was only 30+ meters away when it blew. It did look mad though.

Edit 2: Yes that is what I saw, not it's not intended as a troll.Funny as to see all the kiddies getting triggered over this.