It's 10% of users using Steam Input, not all steam users.
Valve mentioned that daily controller use has jumped to 15% from around 5% since 2018, and that around 42% of these sessions use Steam Input.
KoboldCoterie
joined 1 year ago
Not trying to dredge this all up again or restart this conversation, but I thought you might like to know... I went and watched some of the videos and read some of the accounts you've referenced (none of which I'd seen previously), and I can safely say that you've at least in part changed my view on this insofar as it applies to his intentions that day. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it.
I am 100% confident that American policy on Israel will also shift thanks to progressive voices. And it will not require a progressive majority.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't believe this will happen while Biden is president. Not to say I'm not going to vote for him - I'm not that stupid, but he's made it pretty clear that he will stand with Israel more or less no matter what they do.
I do worry that he's upsetting a lot of people to the point that they won't vote for him, though, and that's scary to me. He comes across as very weak when he capitulates to Israel this hard. He's repeatedly said, "This is the line, don't cross it!", then when they do, he moves the line. If he loses to Trump in November, I'll have a hard time not blaming Israel and his policies in dealing with them for that loss.
I don’t think you really have a lot of choices to be honest.
Therein lies the problem. We don't have a lot of choices. Voting for new, progressive candidates feels great and it's nice to pat ourselves on the back and think we're making a difference, but the fact of the matter is that voting for a candidate who has no realistic path to winning is only even a realistic option when the candidate with the 'D' next to their name is all but guaranteed to win. And yeah, I'd really love to be able to make a statement by splitting the leftist vote between the democratic candidate and a progressive one; I'd really love to tell the democrats to get fucked and vote for a progressive third-party for every seat, but right now is far from the time for that, especially in states where those races are actually close. The last thing we need is to pack the House and Senate with republicans who win something like 40/30/30 because we couldn't unify behind someone who actually had a chance of winning.
Not to mention, we only get to vote in 1 state's elections, and often times there aren't even any progressive down-ballot candidates on the ballot to vote for.
It won’t stop as long as American voters care much more about gas prices than about human rights. American politicians are willing to sponsor genocide to have some control on oil prices in order to win elections.
Who should we vote for to stop what's going on? Please, enlighten me.
Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it's different from the service provider's point of view, but from the end user's point of view, they're paying for pirated content either way.
Not true–Wisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
Maybe I'm mis-remembering the details of the case, as this isn't really something I've paid much attention to in the past, I don't know, 3 years, but I'm fairly certain the person who obtained the gun for him was charged and convicted with some crime; is it a crime to give a gun to a minor but not for the minor to possess one? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Is it that it's illegal in Illinois to possess one, but not in Wisconsin? My understanding was that the gun charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed basically on a technicality using language that was written to apply to hunting rifles and was being applied to a rifle clearly not intended for that purpose. Maybe that's the short-barreled clause? I'm not sure of the specifics.
Seems pretty obvious that is the reason–he’s even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, “for my protection”.
And if one isn’t starting out trying to find fault and looks at his actions objectively in hindsight, one could easily argue that the decision to deliberately put himself at potential risk in order to undo some of the damage and maybe prevent some damage, and help people, is selflessly altruistic.
I don't know what the local culture is like in Wisconsin, so some of my view might stem from trying to view it through the lens of my local community, but I know I, for one, am immediately on edge when I see someone walking around open-carrying a firearm in a public place. It doesn't happen frequently, so maybe that's part of it, but if I attended a protest or demonstration, particularly one that the police are antagonistic to, anyone - no matter what they're doing - who is carrying a gun like that is, in my mind, making the situation worse just by their presence. If they're a protester themselves, they're just inviting police violence and if they're not a protester, my perception would be that they're doing it with the intent to intimidate. Maybe that's an incorrect perception and I am willing to accept that, but I can't imagine that there weren't plenty of people there who share that perception.
What it really comes down to (again, in my mind) is that his decision to go there, into the middle of what was already basically a powder keg, carrying an AR-15 was, at the very least, incredibly poor judgement. Even if 90% of protesters saw him as helpful, all it'd take is one who didn't to cause a problem.
There were people at these protests (speaking nationwide, I can't speak to the one in Kenosha specifically) who were there just to cause trouble - looting, vandalizing, trying to paint the peaceful protesters in a poor light.
Not really a long way at all (20 miles),
Maybe 'a long way' was poor wording but the point I was trying to get at is that he doesn't live there; it's not like this was happening in his town.
Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Black’s offer to help protect their business, and one of them denied even knowing who Kyle was, and then text exchange between them, with Kyle offering to help out, surfaced, and the other owner literally had his picture taken with Kyle and the rest of his group, in front of the dealership. Kyle was obviously not randomly taking the liberty upon himself to spend time defending that place, nor was he unwanted there.
I was only aware of the first part of this - that they denied knowing or wanting him there, so if the rest of this is true, I will concede this point.
Still, this is beside the point–it doesn’t matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views.
It's relevant (to me) because he holds views (and did before the protest, as far as I recall) that put him at odds with a lot of the protesters there. I'm not calling him a white supremacist (nor am I calling him not a white supremacist, I really don't know what his views are on that topic, nor do I really care), and I'm certainly not calling him a serial killer. I think it's pretty clear from the trial that he isn't legally guilty. However, I do think he's morally guilty because he put himself in a situation where, in my view, a reasonable person should have been able to foresee that something like this might happen. Then, afterwards, rather than condemning the glorification of it, he just went along with it, hook, line and sinker.
Honestly, if it hadn't been for that last bit, I'd probably hold a different view, and...
All the left did was call him a white supremacist serial killer (as you can see, this continues to this day), even after all the facts came out. It’s no surprise he became amicable with the only people who weren’t doing that.
Maybe you're right, and he's a product of the circumstances, but he didn't, and doesn't (based on his behavior after the fact) seem particularly remorseful for what happened there. He's going along with (at the very least) the glorification of his actions, and I cannot see him as anything but in the wrong as a result.
I will say that you make some compelling points and maybe my initial stance was too severe - that is to say, maybe he wasn't literally looking for trouble, but he certainly wasn't taking what I see as some very basic steps to avoid trouble.
All I’m talking about is what I know about, and that’s the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)–as far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a ‘random’ civilian can have 100% of the facts anyone else does.
The basic facts of the case were pretty widely misrepresented, by news outlets, never mind keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit; I don't think it's surprising at all that everyone's perception of the details differ so greatly. The ACLU made a statement basically condemning him post-verdict, for one, and that was pretty widely reported on.
First off, I want to be clear that I'm not the one down-voting you; I haven't voted (up or down) anywhere in this thread, but it always makes me self-conscious when I'm having a disagreement with someone and the posts I'm replying to consistently have 1 downvote at the time I'm replying.
- Rittenhouse was already breaking the law by having a firearm; he was 17 at the time and not legally old enough to possess one.
- He claims he went to the protest "to protect businesses" if I recall, which seems reasonable on the surface, except that:
- He was a staunch supporter of the 'blue lives matter' movement, a rally-attending Trump supporter, and otherwise very openly far-right leaning, and...
- He was attending a protest populated primarily by far left-leaning individuals.
- I'm not aware of him attending any other protests, since or prior, under this premise; if he was the good Samaritan he tries to make himself out to be, why did he choose this, and only this, protest to "protect businesses" at? Where was he during any non-politically-polarized national tragedy where his services could have been used?
- Why did he feel the need to bring a gun in the first place?
- You could argue that it's "just in case" - which may make sense, except that he drove an awfully long way to a very specific protest with a very specific population that had already become very heated. If he felt he needed a gun "just in case", a reasonable conclusion could be that he expected things to go south, and chose to go anyway.
- He (to my knowledge) didn't have any personal affiliation with any of the businesses there.
- This is like me going down to the local Walmart with a gun to protect it against people protesting big box stores.
- Since the incident, he's used the fact that he went to a leftist protest and shot people and was acquitted to become a bit of a far-right celebrity, and he's really milked that celebrity status:
- His likeness has been used to sell memorabilia, including guns.
- He's been a guest of honor (or equivalent, I'm not sure what the term is) at GOP rallies.
- He's got at least some kind of association with the Proud Boys (though I'm not sure what the nature of that association is.)
- If he was truly an innocent good Samaritan who was caught up in something unfortunate and regretted what happened, wouldn't he be speaking out against any of this, rather than letting them hold him in high regard because of it?
- He's basically earned celebrity status because he shot people. And I realize it's not his fault that people are doing that, but he's playing right into it. Profiting off of it, even. That is not something a remorseful person does.
The result of all of this, in my eyes, is that he went to an awful lot of trouble to put himself in a situation where I feel a reasonable person would have believed they would end up in an altercation, and he made sure he had a rifle with him at the time. I will accept that he could have used it sooner than he did, but I, as someone who actively does not want to have to shoot someone, wouldn't bring a gun to a Trump rally while publicizing that I was there to keep the peace and enforce local noise ordinances. That'd just be asking to get attacked. To be put in a situation where I'd need to use that gun.
Of course, if I was going to go to that rally, and I was hoping I'd have to shoot someone, I'd make damn sure I made it look like I had only the best possible intentions.
Man, you're missing the whole point. I said it in pretty plain text before but I'll say it again: I don't believe he deserved to get attacked, and I believe he was defending himself. Clearly the person who attacked him were not justified in doing so. In the analogy you're quoting, clearly the person attempting to rape the woman in question would not be justified in doing so, and she'd be justified in shooting him.
What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping she'd get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone. I firmly believe Rittenhouse did the exact same.
Do you also defend Westborough Baptist Church? Remember them? Group who would protest at soldier's funerals, shout some really inflammatory shit with the intent of baiting the funeral-goers to attack them, then act like innocent victims and sue their attackers? Legally, they were in the right, too, but that doesn't make them any less deplorable for doing it.
Your argument is literally identical, logically, to “she was asking for it by being dressed so provocatively”.
It's literally identical, logically, to "She dressed provocatively, but was carrying a revolver, and walked into a bad part of town waiting for someone to come onto her so she could shoot them." In which case I'd be making the same argument.
Look, I want to be clear: I'm not saying he deserved to get attacked. But I also don't believe for a second that he traveled that far, to a protest where any logical person could have guessed they'd be seen as an aggressor, and walked around for as long as he did, and wasn't hoping he'd draw some aggression so he could "defend himself". It's unfortunate that it happened, and I do believe he was defending himself, but I also fully believe that it went down exactly like he was hoping it would.
The fact that he's been riding out his celebrity status among the far right since then, I feel, supports that theory.
He can be "not guilty" and still be a piece of shit.
It's not bear season, and a hunter doesn't have a hunting license. He takes his gun and drives out to bear country, and starts walking around bear dens waiting for a mother bear to attack him, then he shoots her and claims self defense.
Was he justified, or did he intentionally set up a scenario where the bear was likely to feel threatened and attack him, so he'd have an excuse to shoot her?
I strongly suspect that "modernize" implies "microtransactions"...