Fail Quotes

[AnCap Dave]

Normally I'm not the kind of guy to say something like this but...

>post yourself looking sexy
>tell people not to make comments about how sexy you look

That's just ridiculous.

[tnu]

I know I keep reposting this b ut the comments of this video but the video is not only insanely idiotic but the comments are laughably stupid. and they keep getting worse. here's one of the latest examples.

It's amazing how many people commenting here clearly know absolutely nothing about modern economics, nor the state of the current wealth distribution.  Anyone who thinks that people who produce nothing of value for humanity (people who make money off of speculation [essentially by driving up prices...actually hurting the majority], people who make money off of usury, people who retain money by avoiding paying their share of the taxes that pay for the roads and services that they benefit from) deserve extreme wealth more than people who provide vital services for humanity (teachers, farmers, sewage workers, water treatment personnel, etc.) has a serious mental problem.  Stop drinking the Fox News Kool-Aid.

Theft is, at its roots, the taking of something which doesn't belong to you.  McDonalds makes huge profits partially by paying their employees so little that full-time employees qualify for benefits.  They essentially have shifted the burden of paying their work force partially onto the tax payer.  Monsanto makes its money partially by suing farmers whose fields have, through no fault of their own, become contaminated with Monsanto's patented seeds.  In a sane society, these actions would not be allowed.  McDonalds, relying on its labor force for its business would pay them enough that their employees could rely on their employers for meeting their basic needs.  Even slave owners supplied their work force with places to live and food to eat.  McDonalds gives less to its employees than slave owners gave to their slaves.

Here's some interesting facts.  When a loan is issued, the bank essentially creates that money from nothing.  The money comes into existence at the point the loan is issued.  This means that the money doesn't really exist.  Money is supposed to be a stand in for actual valuable resources.  So, when a bank loans you money, they are really giving you access to real resources that the bank itself possesses.  In this case, the bank doesn't possess any resources except that of the public perception of the bank's stability...its image.  It costs the bank nothing to issue you a loan.  It merely appears on a balance sheet.  No actual work is done to produce this money.  If, however, you cannot pay this loan back, they will take the objects that you have spent actual labor in acquiring, such as a house.  They give you imaginary money and take real assets back.  The bank always wins.

There is a common conception that the poor have just as much opportunity to be rich as the rich do.  Every study done on the matter, however, shows that it is much more difficult to rise out of poverty than this conception would imply.  The jobs available in low-income areas often have little opportunity for advancement.  They are dead-end jobs.  Also, because competition for limited work is often quite fierce in low-income areas, employers can often get away with paying less money than a living wage (which in a compassionate world would be unthinkable), forcing people to take on multiple jobs in order to make ends meet.  This, of course, increases the competition for jobs.  In the end, the more motivated and intelligent people in low-income areas may often have more than one job while many people can't find a single job.  This lack of gainful employment creates the need for alternate economies, and so gangs and drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes find a niche there. 

Most importantly, the stress of being poor increases ones susceptibility to illness, psychological disorders, substance abuse, and a host of other ills.  A sane species would realize that poverty hurts everyone and wouldn't think twice about taking money away from those who have more than they can ever spend to remove a social problem which causes crime and other symptoms which spill over into everyone's lives.  We, however, are not a sane species.  We are a species of people who are adept at ignoring facts and believing what is repeated rather than what the evidence supports.  We are amazing at rationalizing our beliefs in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, and exceptionally good at shutting down empathy so that we can use our iPhones and drink our lattes in peace while the mentally disabled stumble around us, homeless and hopeless.  In these last bits, I'm as guilty as anyone, because the actual depth of daily human suffering on this planet is so astounding in its intensity that it almost paralyzes me.  So, I shut down and distract myself with the internet, or video games, or some other activity designed to numb me to the pain and sorrow of billions of people trapped in war zones, kept in abusive relationships, incarcerated for victimless crimes, forced to work for almost nothing in companies they hate, being evicted from property that will end up sitting vacant simply because they don't have little slips of paper, watching their communities be torn down in order to build another place for people to buy things that they don't need, watching their children die of malnutrition or disease, getting forced into militias in war-torn nations, and worse.

So, if you think that the 99% is mad because they desperately want to live opulently while others starve, all that means is that you're so disconnected from basic mammalian empathy that you can't even imagine what it might look like in others.  Congratulations, you're a sociopath.

[dallen68]

I know I keep reposting this b ut the comments of this video but the video is not only insanely idiotic but the comments are laughably stupid. and they keep getting worse. here's one of the latest examples.

What? Where did that quote come from?

[Ibrahim90]

just...fuck...

[yt]FtJ-OEnKwUU[/yt]

Now, Sargon isn't the guy who fails here. Not even the Pakistani community--the elders were demanding action. You know who fails? the fucking cunts who runs the government fail--and beyond that even. This is just evil.

[tnu]

What? Where did that quote come from?

From the comments of the video I linked.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

I'd rather tell him to go fuck himself.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

So you guys respected George Bush when the same could be said about him?

Didn't think so, rules for thee but not for me is the order of the day with the left as always.

[Travis Retriever]

So you guys respected George Bush when the same could be said about him?

Didn't think so, rules for thee but not for me is the order of the day with the left as always.

^QFT.

[Travis Retriever]

https://twitter.com/chipfoxx/status/571456040937480192

[Ibrahim90]

So you guys respected George Bush when the same could be said about him?

Didn't think so, rules for thee but not for me is the order of the day with the left as always.

Za Stalina!!

(wait, sorry, wrong government )

[AnCap Dave]

SJWs feel the need to ruin everything.

[MrBogosity]

SJWs feel the need to ruin everything.

There's a perfectly good reason why NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE (amazing how they ignore that aspect of it and just focus on the female) characters have realistic proportions: if you don't animate them just right, it doesn't look good.

Look at The Incredibles. The proportions are COMPLETELY unrealistic (albeit in a different way), and yet when you're watching it you completely buy that these are characters and nothing seems wrong to you. Compare that with the Final Fantasy movies: the proportions, everything is absolutely perfect! If you look at a single frame of one of the movies you'd swear it was a photograph. Yet AS SOON AS SOMEONE MOVES, it looks aritificial and ruins the illusion.

The more realistically they resemble us, the more we notice tiny little imperfections in how they move. Until the technology gets to the point where we can accurately simulate the movement of every little muscle and ligament (which we can't even do with modern motion-capture systems), they'll HAVE to be idealized or disproportionate in some way.

[evensgrey]

There's a perfectly good reason why NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE (amazing how they ignore that aspect of it and just focus on the female) characters have realistic proportions: if you don't animate them just right, it doesn't look good.

Look at The Incredibles. The proportions are COMPLETELY unrealistic (albeit in a different way), and yet when you're watching it you completely buy that these are characters and nothing seems wrong to you. Compare that with the Final Fantasy movies: the proportions, everything is absolutely perfect! If you look at a single frame of one of the movies you'd swear it was a photograph. Yet AS SOON AS SOMEONE MOVES, it looks aritificial and ruins the illusion.

The more realistically they resemble us, the more we notice tiny little imperfections in how they move. Until the technology gets to the point where we can accurately simulate the movement of every little muscle and ligament (which we can't even do with modern motion-capture systems), they'll HAVE to be idealized or disproportionate in some way.

Odd that you should put it that way.

The tools they use over at Dreamworks DO model the way the muscles, skeleton, etc. move as the characters move, and they build the restrictions and consequences directly into the motion rules.  That's why they get such good results even with minimally stylized characters like the humans in the Shrek series.

The guys that made Final Fantasy tried to use motion capture as a short cut.  It worked quite well for the basic motion, but because they used low-quality tools to go from that to final character animation (they used an off-the-shelf desktop animation program with a MoCap import feature), they didn't have character models with the ability to correctly mimic how the bodies would actually move.  The result is something that looks a bit like human bodies used as marionettes.  (And Dr. Ross ended up with a really weird walk.  She looks like she's walking in high heels, even through she wears sensible flat-soled boots.  They used the same actress for MoCap on her and Jane, and gave her a different movement for Ross by having her wear high heels.  A more sensible approach would have been to put ankle wights on her, which would have reflected Jane's heavier footwear.  As long as they didn't move exactly the same way, nobody would have noticed.  I noticed something was wrong with Ross's walk when she was in the ruins just before the Depp Eyes show up, which is a bad thing to have in the movie's opening.)

[MrBogosity]

The tools they use over at Dreamworks DO model the way the muscles, skeleton, etc. move as the characters move, and they build the restrictions and consequences directly into the motion rules.  That's why they get such good results even with minimally stylized characters like the humans in the Shrek series.

Not anywhere close to full detail. And notice that you still have the problems in the Shrek movies of the humans "looking wrong" when they move. It's getting better, but we're still at the point where the best movies have to stylize the humans in some way.

[AdeptusHereticus]

Of course, they also could just accept the fact that some people find it enjoyable to play these characters the way they are designed and that it is not hurting anybody ... With or without a good quality animation.