u/Benjamin5431

I remember the hype around halo 3 in 2006-2007 was insane, absolutely every trailer for it was phenomenal, graphics looked great, looked like it was going to be a huge epic finale.
However, the actual game was kinda….boring tbh. There are definitely some hype moments, Johnson’s death, the two scarab fight, the warthog run at the end. But everything else was pretty tame. It wasn’t bad, just wasn’t really what the trailers promised. I was expecting one last big battle between the covenant and the humans, all we really got was that tank mission on the Ark, which was cool, but I was expecting a bit more. I was also expecting a boss battle with the gravemind and flood.
The storyline was also kinda just okay. It was literally just “a portal on earth goes to the Ark, you go to the Ark and blow it up” that was literally the entirety of the story. I wanted to learn more about the forerunners, more about the Halo’s and the origin of the flood, etc. don’t get me wrong, the Ark was cool, but idk. I felt like everything that happened in Halo 3 could have been condensed into like 2 or 3 missions tacked on to the end of Halo 2.

So, a little background first, my mom is a Qanon, MAGA, Alex Jones rightwing conspiracy theorist. Believes basically every rightwing conspiracy theory that exists.
She is entirely convinced that she knows more than everybody else and it’s because she has researched so much.
We were discussing Covid/Pandemic related conspiracies, and she brought up the drug they first approved to fight Covid in 2020 before the vaccines were made, an anti-viral drug called Remdesivir. Her claim is that the hospital was killing people by giving them remdesivir because of its side effects, mainly the fact that it can be hard on the kidneys, She said that in its trials it showed a 53% mortality rate, that it killed nearly 50% of the people it was given to, and had to be dropped from the study because it was so bad.

Here’s the problem with that, in the trial it was being used on Ebola patients as an Ebola treatment. Yeah, Ebola, an infection that usually kills 90% of people. When given Remdesivir, that number dropped to around 50%, however, other medications proved even better, with one dropping it to 49% and monoclonal antibody treatment dropping it to 29%. So because other treatments were more effective at stopping Ebola, they stopped using it. Her interpretation of this is that REMDESIVIR was KILLING 50% of people it was given to, in reality, EBOLA was killing people, the remdesivir was actually PREVENTING death. She acts as if it kills half the people it is given to, ignoring the fact that this was in the context of treating Ebola infected people, and it wasn’t the drug that was doing the killing.
This is a prime example of how conspiracy theorists take real data, and twist it to mean things that it doesn’t mean at all.

Another example from her, on vaccines, she claimed that her body can’t handle toxins, therefore she can’t handle the ingredients in vaccines. I’m like “did a doctor tell you that your body can’t handle toxins?”
She says yes, said that she has a mutation in this particular gene that causes her to be bad at filtering toxins. So I look up this gene, and it’s common for people to have a variant of it that makes them less efficient at breaking down a particular amino acid, which causes that amino acid to build up in the bloodstream. Keep in mind, this amino acid is natural and created by the body, it’s just supposed to be used as a building block to perform other functions after being broken down chemically, so if the gene that codes for the enzyme that breaks it down has a mutation, it breaks it down less efficiently, which causes a high level of these amino acids to hang around, because they should be getting broken down.
Anyways, this has nothing to do with filtering toxins. This amino acid in question also isn’t in vaccines, and has nothing to do with them. It’s just a building block that the body is supposed to be using, but can’t use fast enough. It’s not even a “toxin” nor is it related to getting rid of toxins in any way.
So she took something that was true (her genetic variant of this gene) and completely misunderstood what it means, then connected the dots (by a huge stretch) to the body’s ability to filter vaccine ingredients.

Holy shit dude I’m so exhausted of all the constant hate from halo fans. Don’t get me wrong, as a franchise Halo has really gone downhill is some ways (but has also greatly improved in other ways) and the remake definitely has some legitimate flaws and nitpicks that I want fixed, but I enjoyed the hell out of it nonetheless. Halo fans acting like it’s literally the worst game ever made is just so weird to me. Feels like every post from someone who actually likes the remake gets downvotes to oblivion in the main Halo sub. Like god forbid people actually like Halo.
Or if you simply think that the remake isn’t the worst thing in existence then they will say you’re just shilling for rich companies and accepting slop. I agree that we should hold these games to high standards, especially when very simple things are messed up, but at the same time there is also a lot about the remake to appreciate, and at the end of the day it’s FUN.

Yeah, I get it, it’s not perfect, but its been years since I’ve played Halo, especially the first game, so going back and playing through it but with better graphics and QoL changes made it an awesome experience. As soon as I beat it I immediately wanted to start playing Halo 2 anniversary, which I did.

I was hoping this would be a resurgence of the halo series, but I see a lot of people didn’t enjoy the remake as much as I did. To each their own, there are valid criticisms for sure, but overall I had a blast playing through it and am currently having a blast in halo 2 anniversary. I hope halo 2 and halo 3 gets a remake as well tbh.

First off let me preface this by saying I do not believe in the supernatural, I generally do not believe in psychic ability or anything like that. I’m agnostic in basically all regards. But what just happened just now seems unexplainable.

I was napping with my kids (was trying to get them to nap, and fell asleep myself) and I was dreaming that my daughter had a lime green iPad, she does not have a green iPad, only a pink one, and has never had a green one. Not much happened in the dream other than she just had this iPad and was using it. Then I woke up to her trying to leave the room and was calling for the dog to come upstairs, I told her to come back in the room and she climbs to the bed and says: “daddy what happened to my iPad that was like this but it was green” (while pointing to the pink cover) she explained that it was like that but the cover was green instead of pink.

She said this literally 30 seconds after I had that strange dream where she had a green iPad, and she has never had a green iPad. Why would she ask me this?

Keep in mind I never said anything about it, and to my knowledge she was not talking to me about it while I was sleeping. When I woke up from the dream my first thought was “why did I dream she had a green iPad? That’s strange” and that is when she asked me.

This was just so weird to me, it’s like she knew the thought I was having.

These two things are what I’ve noticed most about the younger side of GenZ and all of Gen Alpha, is that they can’t pay attention to anything for very long and get bored extremely easily. They want instant gratification on everything and have zero patience.
This translates over into following instructions and performing tasks as well, they will lose focus halfway through the task and not complete it, without anything or anyone interrupting them.

Secondly, they need everything spelled out for them in extremely specific terms with absolutely no room for interpretation. If they have an issue that needs solved, even if it’s extremely simple to figure out themselves by just thinking it out, they will not be able to figure it out on their own. They need constant redirecting and hand-holding through even the most basic tasks or instructions.

Anecdotal story: This one time my 11yp stepson spilled some Gatorade, a huge bottle of the red kind, and didn’t clean it up or tell anyone. I walk into the kitchen and see a big puddle of it and the overturned empty bottle on the floor. I knew the Gatorade was his because we bought it for him that day, so I ask if he was the one who spilled it, he says yes. So I ask why did he not clean it up? He says that he didn’t know how to. Clearly, we have taught him how to clean a spill, we have several mops, paper towels, and hand towels that were literally 3 feet away from where the spill occurred in the kitchen. Okay, fine, you momentarily forgot how cleaning a spill works, or you were just lazy, but if you couldn’t clean it WHY would you not tell someone about the spill so we could clean it? His answer was basically he didn’t know and was going to tell us eventually but he got distracted.

This type of stuff isn’t just unique to him, I’ve experienced it with several kids his age, and have talked to teachers and grandparents of other kids who all see the same thing.

What I’m referring to is the idea that in the past, the ideology of democrats was largely conservative/rightwing and was more similar to modern day republican ideology, whereas in the past the ideology of Republicans was more liberal, more progressive and was more similar to modern day Democrat ideology.

However, I have seen a lot of conservatives say that this is a “myth” and that it isn’t true.

If you think it is a myth, why?
If you do not think it is a myth, why do you think so many other conservatives do?

For context, I’m a millennial, I think a lot of stereotypes about Gen Z are generally true, but this one, the “Gen Z stare” that I see in headlines and as topics on online forums, I’ve simply never experienced this. I mean, I’ve definitely seen Gen Z people at work who seem like they don’t like their jobs and are acting like they don’t want to be there, but I’ve seen people from literally every group do this. I think that has more to do with the fact that low wage service jobs suck, and the fact that young people in general, whether it was GenX when they were young, or millennials, or Gen Z, all feel like they could be doing something fun or more rewarding rather than be stuck at a shitty job.

Anyways, idk, I’ve never seen a Gen Z person do the zombie stare, only ever seen them (and many other generations of people) act like they don’t want to be at their job. Thats it. I also rarely see resditors talking about experiencing it. I think this shit is made up.

Over and over again I’ve tried to explain to creationists that evolution does NOT propose that animals “change from one kind to another kind” in the sense that they stop being part of the group they were in before in order to evolve into the next one.
They will say things like “when will dogs become something other than dogs?” Or “fruit flies have been around for millions of years but they are still fruit flies, when will they become something else?” And “show me a dog evolve into a cat” and “dogs only ever produce dogs” and so forth.
When I explain to them that even within the theory of evolution, a dog would never evolve to be a non-dog, instead it would evolve into other forms of dogs. No matter how different it looks from its ancestor, the descendants of a dog will always be a dog, even if it evolved into some hairless, limbless, elongated snake-like thing, it’s STILL going to be a type of dog. They ALWAYS: will be. However, dogs did not used to exist. Dogs themselves are a variety of domesticated gray wolf. Gray wolves are a type of wolf, wolves are a type of canid, canids are a type of canine, canines are a type of caniforme, etc. at no point do the descendants of any of these groups leave their group. Therefore, a dog is still a caniforme, and never stopped being one.

The responses I get after explaining this is mind-numbingly dumb.
It’s always stuff like “oh, so you think macroevolution doesn’t happen then? Well then how did everything evolve from a common ancestor?”
And “so where did dogs come from then if they never change?”
And “then you admit that evolution isn’t possible!”
I will also get a lot of insults from them where they say I’m not making any sense and that I’m talking in circles and contradicting myself. But the thing is, I’m not. They just think I am because they do not understand what is being said. It’s like another language to them, literally, because they do not comprehend what is being said, so they accuse it of being word salad.

It’s comments like that every single time I explain monophyly. They literally can not grasp cladogenesis. They can not grasp that the descendants of a poodle will always be a poodle, but poodles came from non-poodle wolves, and wolves came from non-wolf canines, and so forth. This is too much for them to comprehend. They think it means I’m claiming that speciation doesn’t happen, when clearly that is not what is being said.
They are under the impression that animals evolve like “this animal was a dog, then it evolved and is no longer a dog, it’s now a cat”
They don’t understand that descent means clades are formed as subsets of the clade they descended from.

This is such a simple and easy concept to understand. It’s literally just categories and sub-categories within them. They think it’s one category becoming another category in the sense that it stops being the category that it was before in order to transform into the new one.

I’ve tried dumbing it down by using analogies to explain this, but they never understand analogies. I’ve tried using hypotheticals to demonstrate it, but they refuse to engage in hypotheticals and say things like “a hypothetical is imaginary it didn’t really happen” I’ve tried using examples of it in cases where they agree with it, like all dogs coming from wolves and all wolves coming from canines, but as soon as I go further they say the same concept no longer applies, without justifying why it wouldn’t still apply.

This type of mental block is astounding to me. It really is such a basic, fundamental concept, but they just can’t understand it.
It’s also a perfect example of the dunning-kruger effect. I say something beyond their comprehension, and due to their own lack of understanding, they think I’m the dumb one.

On GutsickGibbon’s most recent lecture with Will Duffy, during Will’s “recap” section at the beginning of the video, he tried to argue why he doesn’t think birds are dinosaurs. Here is his argument, verbatim, copied and pasted from his PowerPoint slide:

“If it's true that birds have beaks, wings, and usually fly, and dinosaurs do not have beaks, wings, and don't fly, then it seems dinosaurs are not birds.
Either I'm wrong that birds have beaks, wings, and fly OR birds are not dinosaurs.”

Pay special attention to “then it seems dinosaurs are not birds”
No one is arguing that dinosaurs are birds. We are arguing the inverse of this, that birds are dinosaurs. No one thinks a Stegosaurus or a T.Rex is a bird. Instead, we think those are both dinosaurs, and that the animals we call birds, are also dinosaurs.
If he really wanted to argue that birds aren’t dinosaurs, instead of listing characteristics of birds, he should list characteristics that define all dinosaurs, and see if birds have them or not.
If he had done that, he would see that the unique characteristics that are shared between stegosaurs and T.Rex’s are also shared by birds as well.

So all he did was argue that not all dinosaurs are birds, he didn’t argue that birds aren’t dinosaurs.
I could easily say “stegosaurs have large plates on their back, and a spike tail, since other dinosaurs don’t have that, stegosaurs aren’t dinosaurs”
But of course, stegosaurs are a subset of dinosaur, so they are dinosaurs, they are just dinosaurs with those unique features that make them a specific type of dinosaur. The exact same thing is true for birds. Birds are just dinosaurs that have a beak, have wings, and usually fly.
Putting a beak on a dinosaur doesn’t somehow cause it to not be a dinosaur, it’s just a dinosaur that has a beak. Having a dinosaur use its arms as wings does not cause it to stop being a dinosaur, it’s just a dinosaur that uses its arms as wings. None of these things are relevant to whether an animal is a dinosaur or not, the same way having large plates on their back or a spiked tail is not relevant to whether an animal is a dinosaur or not.

Hey guys, I’m one of the main shitposters that we had a few weeks ago during the “the game is already out” phase we had.
I wanted to lighten the mood and help make the sub more entertaining while we waited for some information. Even though the wait sucked, it felt like an announcement or trailer or SOMETHING was just around the corner. Just wanted to have fun with it until then.

But now, I don’t even feel like joking. I’m just depressed. Before it was just like “damn it’s kinda ridiculous how long this is taking, but I guess Bethesda is cooking up something awesome so I will give them time”
But now I feel like “damn, maybe the game is never actually coming out” or if it does, it will be some sort of forced compromise due to staff and budget constraints and won’t realize the full potential of the original vision for the game. I’m not sure which of these is worse, no TESVI or a very mediocre one that doesn’t have the same impact as Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim had when they released.

Hypothetically, imagine T3, Salvation, Genysis, Dark Fate didn’t exist.

If you were the writer, what would you have done instead?

Personally, I’d have it so that in the future Skynet sends back a terminator to ensure that Skynet is created and that judgement day happens, and that this s what caused Judgement day all along. In this movie John Conner is in his early 20s, the story is about him and his mom and a small band of “believers” trying to stop it, and failing. The fact that it ends up coming true causes several people to start believing in John Conner, and this is how he starts to become a leader. The movie ends with judgement day happening.