• Unpopular opinions! V2: I Don't like half life edition.
    17,782 replies, posted
Candy corn is some of the best candy around.
Brink was a pretty good game.
All monarchies are ridiculous and anyone who supports them is a huge fool.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46341578]All monarchies are ridiculous and anyone who supports them is a huge fool.[/QUOTE] u fuckin wot m8
fuk the queen
[QUOTE=a dumb bear;46341667]fuk the queen[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/4C9wv1k.jpg[/img]
Capitalism is bad.
[QUOTE=RustledJimmys;46341551]Brink was a pretty good game.[/QUOTE] I had a blast during the free weekends. But I never really bought the game after that because I doubted that the community would last too much longer.
[QUOTE=RustledJimmys;46341551]Brink was a pretty good game.[/QUOTE] It was good, everyone was too busy whining about the movement system to notice.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46341578]All monarchies are ridiculous and anyone who supports them is a huge fool.[/QUOTE] I will fucking duel you in the name of the Queen.
[QUOTE=Widow Engie;46335676]I dislike chocolate milk. Now a chocolate milk[I]shake[/I] is delicious. I also find it worrying that regular ol' milk is referred to as white milk by Americans[/QUOTE] What is the difference between chocolate milk and chocolate milkshake? Isn't chocolate milk just premixed chocolate milkshake in a bottle?
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;46343382]What is the difference between chocolate milk and chocolate milkshake? Isn't chocolate milk just premixed chocolate milkshake in a bottle?[/QUOTE] Chocolate milk is literally just milk coloured and flavoured like chocolate, where as chocolate milkshake uses milk with chocolate icecream to give it it's colour and flavour.
Who genuinely misses the 90s? Not specifically their childhood, but the 90s themselves? Fuck the 90s, it was a shitty decade. Pretty much every decade was shitty for someone (lots of someones, really), and the 90s was no different.
agreed-- literally everything is better in the 2010s compared to the 90s lmao
[QUOTE=mikeyt493;46343964]agreed-- literally everything is better in the 2010s compared to the 90s lmao[/QUOTE] I think the 90s were important and good in a cultural context but there was a lot of shitty things about that decade that people block out with "muh 90s kid" nostalgia.
Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a temporary solution to a long-lasting problem.
[QUOTE=hippowombat;46344475]Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a temporary solution to a long-lasting problem.[/QUOTE] I certainly wouldn't complain making $15 an hour. With time and a half, that means I'd also be making $22.50/hr every Sunday at Walmart. I could afford to buy and build my PC before December at that rate.
[QUOTE=hippowombat;46344475]Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a temporary solution to a long-lasting problem.[/QUOTE] How?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46344808]How?[/QUOTE] To start off, it removes the incentive for people to work harder to earn a higher standard of living by acquiring skillsets for higher valued jobs that can be beneficial to others and stimulate our economy. Part of the problem is the difficulty to acquire higher education, so I believe that the amount of energy being exerted to raise the minimum wage could be put to use better on issues like education funding. In tandem with this, reforms in cost of living would be more beneficial to everyone overall, as the people who only try to get lower-skilled jobs would be able to attain an acceptable standard of living, while still being paid proportionately to their skillset, and without removing the incentives for others who put forth the effort to earn a higher standard of living. No one deserves to live in poverty, but we shouldn't just be catering to everyone when many people simply refuse to do anything but the bare minimum. In saying all this, I'm not attempting to de-value the importance of any job, regardless of what field it's in, whether it's in fast food or medicine. But if a doctor goes to school for 10 years only to be paid marginally higher than a fast food cashier who just graduated high school or even only has a G.E.D., what's the incentive for people to become doctors or lawyers or business owners or engineers? This type of scenario leads to those who work towards a higher skillset seeking employment/career opportunities outside of our country, otherwise known as a brain drain, which is very damaging to any economy. Raising the minimum wage is an attractive option, because it offers people an out without really having to do anything extra, but it's only a viable option due to deficits in other portions of our economy, like high costs of living and ridiculous college funding. If these other issues were addressed/reformed, it wouldn't be a question of people not being able to get an education due to circumstances outside of their control, and it would further reinforce the standard that you should work to earn the things you want and need, rather than having someone else do it for you. If everyone goes along expecting things to be handed to them, what's their incentive to actually get up and do more? Yes, the people making minimum wage should be able to acquire a decent standard of living as human beings, but not if it detracts from those who work a lot harder for years to make themselves more valuable. It's like stealing from those who work hard for something and giving it to those who do nothing while expecting the same something. Fair wage should be proportionate, not static. [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] IMO
Minimum wage used to keep pace with inflation, it hasn't for the past 20-30 years. Accounting for inflation, people on minimum wage are now making less than those on minimum wage in 1974.
[QUOTE=hippowombat;46345096]To start off, it removes the incentive for people to work harder to earn a higher standard of living by acquiring skillsets for higher valued jobs that can be beneficial to others and stimulate our economy. Part of the problem is the difficulty to acquire higher education, so I believe that the amount of energy being exerted to raise the minimum wage could be put to use better on issues like education funding. In tandem with this, reforms in cost of living would be more beneficial to everyone overall, as the people who only try to get lower-skilled jobs would be able to attain an acceptable standard of living, while still being paid proportionately to their skillset, and without removing the incentives for others who put forth the effort to earn a higher standard of living. No one deserves to live in poverty, but we shouldn't just be catering to everyone when many people simply refuse to do anything but the bare minimum. In saying all this, I'm not attempting to de-value the importance of any job, regardless of what field it's in, whether it's in fast food or medicine. But if a doctor goes to school for 10 years only to be paid marginally higher than a fast food cashier who just graduated high school or even only has a G.E.D., what's the incentive for people to become doctors or lawyers or business owners or engineers? This type of scenario leads to those who work towards a higher skillset seeking employment/career opportunities outside of our country, otherwise known as a brain drain, which is very damaging to any economy. Raising the minimum wage is an attractive option, because it offers people an out without really having to do anything extra, but it's only a viable option due to deficits in other portions of our economy, like high costs of living and ridiculous college funding. If these other issues were addressed/reformed, it wouldn't be a question of people not being able to get an education due to circumstances outside of their control, and it would further reinforce the standard that you should work to earn the things you want and need, rather than having someone else do it for you. If everyone goes along expecting things to be handed to them, what's their incentive to actually get up and do more? Yes, the people making minimum wage should be able to acquire a decent standard of living as human beings, but not if it detracts from those who work a lot harder for years to make themselves more valuable. It's like stealing from those who work hard for something and giving it to those who do nothing while expecting the same something. Fair wage should be proportionate, not static. [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] IMO[/QUOTE] every argument you have is a strawman. even in the soviet union doctors were paid significantly more than low-skill jobs. even if they were paid the same some people just prefer educated jobs naturally. but seriously, i don't think anybody is actually suggesting that everybody be paid the same, only that raising minimum wage would be good for the economy. its all about lowering income inequality, not about making everybody the exact same. as others have said, minimum wage has not kept up with the increase in production, and has barely kept up with inflation. the masses aren't truly seeing the benefits from increased mechanized labor.
Even the bad Snoop Dogg albums are good.
[QUOTE=Fire Feure;46345642]Even the bad Snoop Dogg albums are good.[/QUOTE] please listen to this again [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da_Game_Is_to_Be_Sold,_Not_to_Be_Told[/url] then you'll remember how wrong you are
[QUOTE=Fire Feure;46345642]Even the bad Snoop Dogg albums are good.[/QUOTE] It's pretty bold to claim any musician's discography is completely without flaw, they always have their ups and downs
"tolerance of an Irishman" i personally am offended
cod:blops 2 is underrated
Is it just me, or is the Walking Dead kind of shit? I started watching where I left off (midway through season 3) and I am remember why I stopped. There is so much wrong with this show. First of all, the zombies themselves. You know how in the first season the zombies were actually threatening? They felt like a force of nature. People would get bitten and killed left and right. Season 2 fucked that up supremely. This is always the problem with zombie flicks; because of Natural Selection, the only characters left are naturally the ones who kick a lot of zombie ass, but this has the effect of making the zombies completely non-threatening (unless the screen writer needs them to be, then suddenly they become 10 times faster, smarter, and more numerous for no apparent reason other than "we wrote ourselves into a corner") because the characters can easily deal with them. And on the topic of the zombies, it feels like the production quality has dropped sharply from season 1. The cinematography in particular has become way more basic, and it seems like there is a huge reliance on some really cheap looking CGI for the zombie kills. It is all just very unsatisfying and feels cheap. Speaking of the writing, [I]goddamn is the writing bad.[/I] Some scenes feel like they were written by a middle schooler (like the one where [sp]Andrea convinces the people of Woodbury to stick together with a "we-can-do-it-together" bullshit Thomas the Tank Engine speech[/sp]). All the characters are written to be whiny assholes by season 3 just to create conflict, even when they have nothing to whine about. Glen used to be cool, but him and Maggie both just become whiny as hell. Fuck, [I]everybody[/I] does, just to create more drama. And because of that the drama has no weight. It is all vapid, stupid, Big Brother shit instead of some serious HBO shit. A lot of characters are also mishandled. The Governor started out cool [sp]since he was a fucking psychopath with a room of severed heads underneath his seemingly friendly guise[/sp] but like the other characters, he just becomes a total, bitter, uncompromising asshole for no goddamn reason. He [sp]quickly looses the psychopath angle and just becomes a generic "bad guy" by the end of the season, and his goofy henchmen like Martinez are literally just evil assholes for no reason.[/sp] It feels like the characters get [I]less[/I] depth as the series continues, not more. And the reason for that is the biggest reason why this show is pretty sucky; padding. AMC has put an [I]ungodly[/I] amount of padding into every episode. They stretch out every plot thread, every little point of drama, and every scene to the breaking point to get as many episodes per season as they can afford, almost entirely for that sweet, sweet ad revenue. There are so many scenes that could be removed from the show entirely and you wouldn't even notice. Just tons and tons of throwaway scenes and throwaway episodes that exist to pad out the run time. It pisses me off. I have heard some people argue that the Walking Dead is just popcorn entertainment, that it won't be as good as big budget shit farted out by HBO, but why not? Why does the writing have to be piss poor just because "the show is about killing zombies"? Why do the production values have to be cheaper when AMC absolutely [I]rakes[/I] in the money from this show? (Season 4 has an average of [I]13 million viewers.[/I] That is the size of a small country.) In the realm of television, we can have our cake and eat it. We can balance shows with good action, writing, and storytelling. Season 1 showed that. It was only 6 episodes, so they had more time to focus on individual quality and it felt like it had actual heart and soul put into it, where as the most recent seasons just feel like schlock churned out for cash. Still, I am struggling through it because I feel obligated. After all, [I]everybody[/I] is watching this damn show, so I guess there has to be something, right? Maybe I am just spoiled by my HBO subscription, but I find the Walking Dead and most cable shows to be borderline schlock.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;46346749]Dude, you need to keep watching. Season 2 and 3 seem to get a lot of shit from some people. Season 4 is pretty much the "OK, we fucked up REALLY BAD, we're gonna try to fix it" season, and it totally worked. Season 5 is 3 episodes in and they've all been amazing so far. [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] Mazzara was a shit showrunner, trust me. The next two seasons are much, much better. [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] I'm not saying The Walking Dead is the best show on TV or anything, but as popular as it is, I think it gets too much negativity.[/QUOTE] Thank god, that is what I was hoping for. Basically the only reason I stuck around was in hopes that season 4-5 would be better. Let's hope you're right.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46346892]Thank god, that is what I was hoping for. Basically the only reason I stuck around was in hopes that season 4-5 would be better. Let's hope you're right.[/QUOTE] Season 4 is not much better, and I can't really say anything about 5 because I gave up at the end of 4. Personally I'm sick to death of enduring 6-7 useless episodes of trash character development, followed by 1 decent pay off episode. If you didn't like season 3, you will most likely hate the next.
The Governor episodes are probably the best episodes of the series.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.