Daily News Thread 3/8

Checking the gamergate thread, they are actually between "Ha ha, Trump made the SJWs defend videogames" and "I hope he bans videogames to own the libs"
They also unironically believe the 4d chess meme.

link it please

...

Some posts from the thread.
>>>Holla Forums14447107
>>>Holla Forums14447019
>>>Holla Forums14446130
>>>Holla Forums14449196
>>>Holla Forums14446941

Good they should drop out the SocDem faggotry and get back into guerrilla mode.

This is the definition of cuckholdry.

REEEEEEEEEEEEE

...

Over on half-chan Holla Forums, they're also defending Trump. Go figure.

107 House Republicans send letter to Trump asking him not to do his tariff plan

cnbc.com/2018/03/07/107-house-republicans-express-opposition-to-broad-tariffs-call-on-trump-to-only-target-bad-actors.html

It really doesn't look good for the GOP when the only time they stand up to Trump is when he's threatening porky's pocket book.

SJW's won't be able to corrupt vidya if there's no vidya to corrupt! 4D CHESS DAMMIT!

IT'S
ABOUT
ETHICS
IN
GAMES
JOURNALISM

IF THERE'S NO VIDEO GAMES
THERE'S NO PROBLEM
I CAN GET BACK TO WASTING MY LIFE O-

hey wait a second…Did I just support…? N

ah, must be my imagination, I hate when my brain tries to warn me with shame and disgust for everything I ever am, was, and will ever be.

...

t. Holla Forums

It's not their fault they can't fit in at school want to kill their parents.

P.S. As an amateur game developer I'm not sure exactly how this 'violent video game' thing works. Is historical fiction ok? Knights and swords? What about Mario? Is it preaching violence against harmless wildlife? Pokemon, poaching and cockfighting? Is it only taboo if it's realistically a weapon an impressionable teenager could get their hands on? Does that mean a M1 Abrams or Warthog game where you spray civvies with DU rounds are Kosher because their's no way a kid could do that at their highschool?

How does it work Trump???

The next Insurgency or COD needs bonus points for killing the Insurgents families to fit into the moral guidelines set forth by our President.

rollingstone.com/glixel/features/inside-trumps-meeting-with-video-game-industry-w517632
They started by showing some violent video games and [Trump] was pointing out how violent those scenes were. I think for many of us there, there was a shocked silence," Melissa Henson, a spokesperson for the Parents Television Council, said during a press call following the meeting. "Those from the video game industry were quick to defend [the video games] saying they were meant for a mature audience and that they weren't intended for kids to see."

Henson nor others in attendance could name the games those clips came from.

Henson, who says that her group believes that violent video games and other media are one of three core causes for violence in America, said that the meeting ended with no real outcome, but that those in attendance didn't really expect one. There was a clear sense, also, that this was not the only time Trump might be meeting to discuss the topic.

Burgerland antifa take note.

Rightists are now the anti-videogame group. It has come full circle.

...

Vidya is about to get scapegoated like no tomorrow.

lmao has anyone informed the orange fucktard that these games are literally approved by the pentagon/cia/military-industrial complex because they paint AmeriKKKa in a good light?

Things were so much more sensible when we had Dubya.

So Trump and Kim Jong Un have agreed to meet up by May. Why is Kim willing to stop nuclear tests?

youtube.com/watch?v=i33mKIcwfx8

It might just be unnecessary for them to do so.
Besides a few months of testing isn't going to be worth it, if you can buy your own freedom and maybe even the US getting kicked the fuck out Korea as a longshot bonus.

What's the actual chance that video games are going to get ban hammered or tampered with, for real?

...

...

I doubt Trump will pull US troops out of Korea for anything but maybe I'm just pessimistic. Either way, if Kim at least feigns stopping testing and development for some time and gets some sanctions off of his back it'll be a success in my mind.

It was an issue in the Clinton years and I don't recall them doing much of anything about it. And Clinton was pretty well liked then. What makes you think Trump won't just forget about this issue?

...

No, they're complaining about circumcision, as always. They're all so fixated on penises, the faggots.

Stop being gullible retards and instantly freaking out over US media reports.

Kim smells a chance to beg for aid.

I was asking if was possible for the US to actually do anything about video games.
As for NK, I still think there is some good to come out of the situation.

Does that mean games are going to become Leftist?

Nah. Video games are prolefeed through and through. He's only seeking to prohibit violent ones.

Circumcision without medical justification should be banned, though.

...

Life is Strange is objectively proletarian and worthy of critical support.

Careful user, one of them thinks uncircumcised people are more at-risk for being gay, and that circumcision is good.

That's kinda understandable, uncircumcised dicks are sexier, after all.

You may be a Holla Forumsyp user.

I just like dicks is all, not capitalism!

The legal age thing still pisses me off to no end.
It's obvious that Rubio is doing more to protect himself from angry students who are looking into his donors than he is to protect the public from mass shootings. Even fucking school shootings, if you look at those cases - VA Tech, Elliott Rodger, they'd still have been able to do it after an age raise to 21. And Adam Lanza was literally 4 months away from being 21 when he shot up that elementary school.

And for that matter, Orlando, the (now) second worst mass shooting in American history. Isn't Orlando in Florida? Am I mistaken or is that not the same fucking state?

This is about doing as little as possible to offend the NRA while disarming a demographic that statistically dislikes you. With the nice side effect of fencing off even more of the job market to young adults under 21. Which - let's recall - was only a standardized legal age because it was at one point determined in early Christian-era chivalry law to be the age at which a man could be physically ready to simultaneously lift a sword and wear heavy armor. I shit you not, 21 is the drinking age and now the FL gun age because it was the age at which man was ready to kill other men.

Florida's entire power grid is attached to fucking potatoes.

Now feller I know black people didn't have any but the term you're looking for is a knighthood. If a man was 21 and had not already fought in battle he was kind of a shit squire.

A squire was literally a knight's assistant. The formal purpose they served was this, in the same way that war drummers' jobs were not generally to suddenly stop drumming during a march and attack the enemy. A squire serving in battle (and carrying parts of the knights' equipment) is not the same as a squire wearing heavy armor and performing the exact same roles as a knight. If it were, there would be nobody to tend of the knights' shit.

The term I used was "early Christian-era chivalry law."

See pic related. The Anglo tradition of 21 was inherited from British chivalry practices in relation to physical strength. IE, it's irrelevant to pretty much everything it's applied to now (and, yeah, would be irrelevant even if there were modern knights, since kids tended to eat less in the middle ages and thus develop muscle mass slower).

Squires are more like apprentices as they still have to do the exact same job as the knight when called upon. He doesn't get relegated to the camp but instead has to carry the knight's banner or to be his personal guard. The only difference between the two jobs, apart from rank, was that a squire trained and wasn't subject to a lord.

Yes I know that's the term you used but it's a useless term. One, "early Christian-era" would be around 50AD to 500AD so about 600 years out. Two, the use of the usage of the word Christian is kind of redundant much in the same way as French Champagne. And lastly because it wasn't law but instead an informal code. Oh and it's chivalric if you're using like that. In all honesty I was making a joke because you put it in such a weird way

That's retarded, a male's physical prime is 17 up. An 18 year old can wear heavy armour just as well as a 21 year old.
Nope, that one is a law, voting rights and all that.
Oh you're just being retarded then? The poor ate less, the rich ate more and much richer food too. How could a society in which gout is a very common problem be underfed?

A caddie might play golf, but it doesn't mean that carrying the bags is the same thing as putting the rest of the time.

Chivalry was the medieval code for knighthood, so I just wasn't sure why you were correcting me unless you thought I was talking about holding the door for girls or something. Not a useless term - it describes exactly what I was talking about.

The only thing off about it was 'early.' On further inspection, the earliest part of the period I was talking about was 13th-14th century. That said, I wasn't talking about the early Christian era, but rather the early Christian-era chivalry law - the distinction was intended to be "Christian-era" chivalry as opposed to some pre-Christian system it could be confused with. However, the earliest portion of chivalry itself was 12th century, so the practices I was talking about were not necessarily "early."

Documents from the time actually outlined the code. It's primarily a matter of historical record.

Yes. A male today, or even 100 years ago, who was of 17 or 16 or so could probably physically prepare to be a knight at that age - because of the gradual elimination of consistent food scarcity in the first world. A male in the 1200s would be unlikely to have such a diet. We live in a time, now, where obesity has greater links with poverty than wealth.

Did you even read the rest of the pic?

The modern legal system didn't just appear overnight, and the peasantry had a much lower age of majority than what was offered by the equivalent in chivalry. 21 was decidedly the outlier in society, applying to the military class (almost entirely, with exceptions being exceptions) and not the peasantry. Its eventual adoption as the age of majority for everyone came directly from the influence of chivalry.

The "disease of kings" was not common. Gout is actually more common now than it was then, which proves my point. The Knights clearly ranked above the peasantry, but if you think knights in 1200 were as likely to suffer from gout as Americans are today, then I think you're very confused.

Actually, scratch this - I can't validate this statement off-hand, but I'd love to be able to. Historical documentation exists, but I don't have any period documents on it to show you.

If they are playing golf with you and carrying your bags I believe people would just call you an asshole. But now the duties of a squire were to be the attendant to the knight: maintaining armour, feeding the horses, training, doing all the paperwork for tournaments, and of course fighting. Now if you were to take the job of a knight without a squire you'll find it's the same but more skilled.

It's use of redundant terms, false dating, and poor grammar is what makes it useless. The terms knighthood or chivalric code are both quicker and more precise.

As I said before referring to Christian chivalry is as redundant as French Champagne, English Lincolnshire cheese, and Irish Guinness. You can't separate the notion of Christianity to chivalry, the word you're looking for is etiquette.

Alright now this one you're just being obtuse about. We know for a fact that most English peasants were able to work out in the fields all day on a rather poor diet and still be able to draw, and aim a bow of 100-130+ lbs of strength. We know for a fact that a 14 year old, although with a very healthy diet, was able to be fully armoured in plate and to fight in a battle as the leader of the van. Now let's take a look at what a knight would have access to: deer, boar, chickens, cows, pigs, geese, rich creamy milk, fruits, wine, beer, vegetables, and all the food from the seas and rivers. Now if he were to have a son then he would be shipped off to his Lord's household meaning even better food. The reason why obesity is such a large problem today as compared back then is because of two reasons which are sugar and the fact that we've come to a point in history when famines don't really hit Europe anymore.

Yes there is more gout today because we don't starve as a whole much anymore. However we're looking at the nobility of the middle ages which, big shocker, I wish I could assure you had more gout per capita.

That was me just poking a bit of fun because you're using tradition wrongly.

They aren't doing them at the same time.
That's the point. Playing golf is not the primary purpose of a caddie - this doesn't mean that a caddie can never play golf. Both squires and caddies are primarily there to carry shit and help out.

There's nothing grammatically wrong with it.

"Etiquette" has nothing to do with rules applied specifically to a soldier-class. There were codes applied to war before chivalry, and I wanted to make it unambiguous that I was not referencing precursors.

Says nothing about age. Also, the English peasantry were largely farmers - the bit about the bow is striking, because in actuality they faced heavy restrictions on hunting from the monarchy.

Says zilch about averages, and doesn't at all negate the fact that the standard age for knights was 21. There are exceptional cases today, too.

Except that sugar and the reasons behind the latter thing (increased production, increased trade, more regional stability) have come not only with obesity but increased consumption and food availability in general. Scarcity today is primarily a product of the capitalist profit model, whereas then it was often caused by war and actual lack of food.

Bingo!

Except we're talking about the lower nobility in particular, and this entire bit about gout doesn't really make sense if you're trying to establish that squires' dietary habits were heavily conducive to muscle development. Even if knights developed gout at the rates of modern Americans (???), having high uric acid levels is not necessarily a sign of good nutrition.

You really ought to use better judgment when picking what you're going to try to be anal about. In fact, I'm not even sure what you're supposed to be arguing - I started on the premise that 21 is a bullshit legal standard inherited from chivalry (which, by most historical accounts, is true) and you appear to agree that it's bullshit except you're arguing about the medieval rationale behind the rules.

Reminder that Chloe did nothing wrong

A squire is there to learn how to be a knight, everything a squire does so does a knight.
Yes it was grammatically wrong because you're using chivalry instead of chivalric when speaking about it as a code. Chivalry is the verb, chivalric is the adjective.
Alright let me just explain the history of the phrase. Chivalry comes from the french chevalerie which refers to a soldier on horse. There was ZERO chivalry before Christianity, and the term "Etiquette" can be used to describe "rules applied specifically to a soldier-class". Etiquette is the study and performance of cultural mores and social codes associated with different cultural and class divide. Now if you were talking about the codes of war then we would be talking about the rules of war.
Your source says that peasant men were considered of age at 15.
But not on hunting Frenchmen. In fact it is still against the law for any man over the age of ten, of the peasantry, to train atleast once a week with the Longbow with the local priest. Of course as with most old laws the UK ignores it.
I was stating that a 14 year old could be in full plate, wield a weapon, and to command a large section of the English military in one of the greatest battles in English history. Whilst you've said muscle growth was slower and most people would have to be atleast 18-21 to wear full "heavy armour" and use a weapon. Even with a good diet I doubt 4-7 years difference is a bit much. Now you want to work with averages well there aren't any we've got a small picture of the life of a knight.
I'm glad we've sorted this tough question out.
Well there are 255 million more people alive in the USA than 1200's Europe.
The lower nobility still had hunting rights and mineral rights being able to sustain their whole household. The fact that the standard meal had much more meat than the standard today, which mixes with meat and seafood both being rather high in uric acid. Also the age of the squire really does diminish the amount of effect of undernourishment, plus them having a protein rich diet.
I'm picking out faults in your English as I've got to speak this God forsaken language so you have to do so too. You've used the term tradition when you meant law. Also the age of 21 is for voting rights, to own land you must be a knight, to vote you must own land, ergo 21 is the average age of those knighted so 21 shall be the voting age. Not redundant, just archaic.

She did everything wrong.

If by "knight" you mean squire, then yes.

Chivalry is a noun. There's nothing inherently wrong with what I said - in fact, it takes us right back to the topic I was initially talking about: gun laws.

I just explained why I specified Christian chivalry. Yes, I know there was no chivalry prior. No, etiquette would not have been suitable. I was trying to avoid any ambiguity.

Yes, peasants. But knights were not.
I've already been over this. 21 as age of majority came from the age at which squires were deemed generally capable of wearing armor while carrying a sword, and thusly became knights. Initially, the English peasantry had a lower age of passage into adulthood than the knights did - for peasants, it was 15 or when they had been deemed capable of their trade. But, as the first passage I posted states, by the 1600s the influence of chivalry led to 21 becoming the commonly recognized age of majority in England.

You realize that not every peasant during the entire span of the middle ages was involved with the Peasants' Revolt, right?

But we've got a clear picture of what the standard age for acceptance into knighthood was - 21. And the stated reason for this by sources on the matter is that it was deemed the time by which they would have had the physical strength necessary. So, I generally think that's more reliable for ascertaining what the practices and conditions were than looking at one 14-year-old or what 16-year-olds today can do.

The knights had meat-centered diets, but I'm not really sure that there's much to say how much they were actually consuming or had available in comparison to averages now. Again, my idea of how strong they were by when is based on what's been written about the age of knighthood.

Except I didn't - I wasn't referencing just an existing law (most of the laws which specifically specified 21 as an age of majority were stricken down around the time Nixon lowered the voting age) but the tendency to set 21 as a default age raise (ie the current proposed gun legislation, the new voluntarily-placed store policies for gun sales, the raise of the US federal drinking age in the '80s, various proposed marijuana legalizations, etc.) - 21 is recalled constantly as though it had some actual modern meaning when it is actually just a relic of rules for men with swords. It's thus a tradition, carried on without regards for whether it works or where it came from.

I haven't used the word "redundant" at all in this conversation.

I died.

A knight without a squire does everything a squire has to do, a squire was just granted land to support his household when knighted.
Yeah I fucked up on that, but it's either code of chivalry or the chiralric code. I forgot what the linguistical term for it is.
Ah sorry, just a over simplification.
I'm talking about peasants coming of age because Longbowmen weren't nobility but the peasants. So my stats on draw strength were meant to show even the most malnourished peasant was expected to be able to use a longbow of some length.
I'm willing to say the average is between 18-21 but the maximum age being 21. Sort of as a two way street, the knight wanting a free servant he only needed to feed, and the squire getting his knighthood at some proper age.
What the squire eats is a lesser version of the knight's. If something is going short he go without but in the end he would eat an alright bit less than a knight.
I forgot I was talking to an American for a bit, for an Englishman the proper term would be law since it's been around since Parliament has been. But for a Yank it would be a tradition left over after you threw all that tea away. My fault for being pedantic
For some reason I replaced redundant for bullshit. I meant to say bullshit.

It's a goldmine image.

Chloe is best girl. I wrecked that shitty town and killed everyone to save her.

canada mexico exemptions
behind the scene

Attached: 123.jpg (1000x750, 181.82K)