Hey now, he earned those fair and square off the corpses he killed.

deleted by creator

They did take them, and then were passed when their test was checked because the answers are specifically ambiguous, made to be able to fail or pass anyone at the discretion of the testing authority.

“It bilds karacter!”

It’s wild how relatable it still is nearly 30 years later.

Hell, if philosophy is the driving factor for a good villain

…I didn’t say it was? That’s just Vaas’ whole schtick - poorly understood philosophical quips that everyone eats up for some reason. Again, if all you need is a bad guy constantly needling you, then I suppose I see why you like Vaas. I just don’t think that’s enough to make him “museum worthy”.

If we wanna get into what I think makes a top tier video game villain, I’d say the critical characteristics would be menace, intelligence, and capability. In short, they need to be an obvious threat that know what they’re doing and are a challenge to best, both mentally and physically. To be honest, I can’t think of all that many villains in video games that I would consider that good. GLaDOS fits for sure. I think the Kingslayer in The Witcher 2 is also quite good. Fumbled ending aside, Mass Effect had a good run of baddies as well - Saren, The Illusive Man/The Collectors, The Reapers. There might be more, but that’s all I can think of atm.

I mean, if that’s all you want in a villain, I guess, yeah - Vaas was constantly pestering the player. His dialogue and mannerisms were just awful though. Philosophy 101 freshman tweets level awful. I feel like putting him on the same level as GLaDOS should be criminal.

Vaas is such a mid-tier villain for a seriously mid/problematic game.

Conditioning.

Seems like a good place to remind everybody in the US to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Well, they are already the home of Big Brother, so this is fitting.

You read the article title, knew the topic, (assumedly) know the show, and still dug further. That’s on you, mate. Also, it’s much more reddit-y to doom scroll the politics community to “relax”.

Evidence directly from the suspect(s) is basically a confession. Gender has nothing to do with it.

How does “We wouldn’t need [evidence] if society just trusted women” fit your argument?

My first reaction was disgust too, but then I remembered fried pickles are delicious, so I’d be willing to give this a try.

“Not ‘normal’ = gay”. That’s all they consider.

Nrogara, no?

Radiolab has an interesting episode about people having to deal with being considered “Null”: https://radiolab.org/podcast/null

Yeah. That’s a side effect of trauma.

Ozzy, played by Weird Al, played by Daniel Radcliffe.