YOU NEVER SHOULDA COME HERE AND NOW YOU'RE GONNA PAY!

NOW YOU WILL BE WURM FOOD

PAPALI PAPALI SUKI

A NUUUUUU
CHIKI BRIKI
I V DAMKE

SEE YOU IN HELL

Swatters! Get your Swatters here!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

THIS IS The ultim…
THIS IS THE ULtimate…
THIS IS The ultim…
THIS IS The ultim..
THIS IS The ultim…
THIS IS THE ULTimate po…
THIS IS The ultim…
THIS IS THE ULTimate power…
THIS IS The ultim…
THIS IS The ultim..
Impossible… I am the ultimate li-
GAME OVER SHADOW!

Looks like somebody doesn't understand the futility of justification.
>Critical rationalism CR was first sketched in Popper (1945), Chapter 24, xii, where it was contrasted not only with Plato's mystical rationalism but also with comprehensive or uncritical rationalism UR, the traditional doctrine that we should believe or adopt only those propositions or policies that are justified by means of argument and experience. Popper argued that UR is an untenable position: `a rationalist attitude must first be adopted if any argument or experience is to be [rationally] effective, and it cannot therefore be based upon argument or experience'. UR tells us not to accept UR. If rationalism, in its traditional form, incorporates also the converse to UR, `All justified propositions must be accepted' (as suggested by C∂≥ntora 2004, p. 50), then the proposition `UR is unacceptable' may have to be accepted. But it is one of the merits of Popper's formulation of UR that although the acceptance of a proposition may be permitted, and even recommended, it is not demanded. (Properly understood, a conditional like `if A is accepted then [its logical consequence] C has to be accepted' is not a conditional demand but an absolute prohibition.) This desirable feature of UR is inherited by CR. We cannot rationally demand reason, Popper admitted; no argument has force against a person who has renounced reason. Nor should we demand acceptance. But if we adopt the rationalist attitude, we may be able to exclude some instances of unreason. Too much weight has been placed on the unfortunate term, `an irrational faith in reason', that Popper used here for a frame of mind that, in the same sentence, he described as tentative. No faith, no commitment, is involved in the adoption of the way of reason; it is a free act, open to criticism, and to cancellation, at any time. According to CR, the initial adoption of a proposition or policy (CR included) is neither dictated by reason nor contrary to it; what is contrary to reason is only the retention of a proposition or policy that does not withstand serious criticism. Only a lingering attachment to the rational hegemony of justification explains Popper's use here of the term `irrational' (Bartley 1962). The important question is not Why should we be rational?, which calls for justification of the rational attitude, but What is objectionable (counter-productive, imprudent) about adopting a rational attitude? The first question appears unanswerable if acceptance is subservient to justification (as it is in UR). The second question may be answered (perhaps only with the answer `nothing') if rationality depends on criticism (as it does in CR). As we shall see in x4 below, reason may legitimately be used to attack the use of reason, and rationalists ought not assume complacently that it will not be successful (though they may hope that it will not be). A continued failure to find fault with critical rationalism does nothing to secure it. Where CR has a decided advantage over UR is in the irrefragable distinction between a circular or question-begging argument (a petitio principii), in which what is concluded is first assumed, and a critical argument (a reductio ad absurdum), in which what is concluded contradicts what is assumed. An argument advanced to justify, conclusively or inconclusively, the truth, or the acceptability, of a proposition is almost inevitably circular (Miller 1994, Chapter 3, x3); in any case, it must fail to achieve its purpose. A critical argument, in contrast, can succeed even if it assumes what it seeks to refute.
The intellectually honest interlocutor would ask for an encompassing definition of "cucked" then falsify the proposition that Borderlands always demonstrated such a quality, instead of repeating a meme inappropriately.

...

Well hey he answered the question.

YOU'RE NOT GONNA TO KILL ME PSYCHO BOI

ALRIGHT BOYS TAKE 'EM OUT!