Dr. Gonzo

Gonna just ignore the CL run that season?

5 season wonder

The first one? I remember being so confused by the game because it was t really like anything I had ever played before. But I thought it was brilliant. The second one is absolutely massive in scale compared to the original though. The latest one was still good imo, but sort of like a shit version of #2

Yeah like I said, they’re not for everyone. I think the story in them is honestly kind of secondary to the endgame farming runs in them - I think it’s a very love it/hate it type of game. I think a lot of Blizzard games are like that tbh. Where people either love the genre/gameplay and others can’t get into them at all. I say this as a massive Starcraft/Diablo fan… but I could never get into Overwatch or WoW

They’re not for everyone… but my aunt got me a copy of Diablo in 1999 or something and I got thoroughly addicted to the series. Diablo 2 is probably the game I played the most as a kid. I’m excited for the remaster but I’m also worried that I’ll spend way too much time playing it.

Did any of you like the Diablo games? Is anyone interested in the Diablo 2 remaster?

One of my favourite games ever from my childhood! That’s an excellent present!

Truth

I've always thought the idea was weird. He broke through into the team as a right back that looked very good for his age. Then he became a world class right back. Why mold him into something else if he's world class as a right back? I honestly think a lot of people just want to see him "be the next Stevie" - since they both came through into the team as right backs... but Gerrard was a midfielder that just made his first few appearances as a right back - and I also think he was one of the most well rounded players of his generation, playing in teams that were good - but often times not great, so his well-roundedness was used by managers to paper over cracks. Trent's came through as a right back when he is a right back, not a midfielder, and he's playing in a Liverpool team that is probably one of the strongest in the last few decades where there's quality all over the pitch and he's a world class fullback that performs really really well at fullback for us. But also I do think Klopp's more of a tactician and Southgate's more of a "no tactics, vibes only" kind of manager.

Fuck me, is that fucking real? "Guaranteed to deaden that sweet tooth."

I like the idea of going on a cruise but I've never been on one

Imo I think it's more something that can be trained than anything innate. I just think some people aren't motivated to be smart enough to think critically. I certainly don't think they're "dumb" in the sense that they can't know better. I think you're right that they've got certain character traits that hold them back from wanting to question things that they're inclined to believe in for whatever reason. But I think that's sort of a failing of society that we're in an age where so much of the world's information is at our fingertips... but also so is all of the world's misinformation - and so many people don't bother to look into what's what. I dunno how much of that you can blame on the individuals or whether it's all our collective burden that people are like this...

If we’re not blaming people for lacking critical thinking skills, then that’s a part of the problem tbh.

I'm not sure that's true tbh. But as someone from the UK who's pretty left leaning, I think US politics was definitely pretty jarring for me. There's some left-wing members of the Democratic party, but by in large most democratic politicians in the US are more close to the Tories than they are to Labour. So the US right-wing is incredibly right wing to people like us. And think about it, we'd consider George Bush 2 pretty right wing - wouldn't we? His party, however, has moved significantly more to the right since he was in office and now many republicans think people like Bush are RINOs (Republican in name only) because of how "moderate" his positions are. There's been an interesting political culture war in the US, but it's also kind of dangerous because the US is a super power and having too many people make decisions about things based on feelings vs facts can lead to pretty shit things happening. Not just in the US, but all around the world (cos of the whole "being a superpower" thing). But again, I don't think it's uniquely isolated to the US. We're seeing a lot of topics that have been used to radicalise groups of people in the US pop up in the UK, Canada, and really all around the Anglosphere... and probably other countries in Europe/around the world.

I've been wanting to read We, The Drowned for a while now. I should probably buy a copy of it.

It’s probably a mix of some casual racism our tabloids love so much + trying to whip up people placing bets.

Just when we think Keita might get a good run of games… military coup might keep him out

A very underrated player imo. I thought he was brilliant

I miss having a gas stove...

Don't show any Italians this sentence.

The fuck is that giant wooden spork in that kitchen utensils jar?

The aim wasn't initially to get rid of the Taliban though. It was to drive Al Qaeda (and other international terror groups) out of Afghanistan and to get Osama Bin Laden. The US was only concerned with the Taliban because of their close relationship with Al Qaeda during the Bin Laden era of that terror group - mostly because while the Taliban are a bunch of religious fundamentalist fuckheads who terrorise people in Afghanistan... they've never really been concerned with international terror. And while they did not get Bin Laden in Afghanistan... they cripple Al Qaeda and succeeded in removing the Taliban from power to the point where the Taliban offered a surrender to the Afghan government/US. This surrender was rejected by the Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld bears most of the culpability there I think (source: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/news/rumsfeld-rejects-planto-allow-mullah-omar-to-live-in-dignity-taliban.html) I think had they accepted the surrender and had a slow transition period where Afghanistan's government could work to have a self-sustainable budget (when the US & NATO pulled out this year, Afghanistan's government budget was over 80% reliant on foreign government aid)... they could have had a MUCH shorter war as they kept up the hunt for Bin Laden. But why I would say the US did lose the war is... they moved the goalposts of what the mission was in Afghanistan. They went from having a clear objective (making Afghanistan no longer safe for Al Qaeda & killing/capturing Bin Laden) to a much more broad mission of "building Afghanistan into a modern liberal democracy." But in doing so, the US supported some really dodgy characters - corrupt dickheads, warlords who'd use US air support to call in strikes on personal rivals, drug traffickers and sex-slave traffickers, etc... And as I mentioned before, the Afghan government was propped up by the West... but it was completely unable to stand on it's own two feet. And when you see things like the size of the Afghan army being artificially inflated so generals could ask for more aid money... and then taking that money and not paying the existing troops, you can see why soldiers wouldn't want to fight for that government. Go 9 months without pay and tell me you're willing to put your life on the line for people who don't pay you... you wouldn't have any inclination to fight. It's better to focus on what survives next. Because the US went into a war with a clear objective, and then changed the objective to something more broad and more vague... without working on creating a government that could stand on it's own two feet without the US there to support it... I'd say there's a really good argument they lost their war with the Taliban. Because the Taliban are back in power in Afghanistan & the US spent 20 years, shitloads of money, and sent young men to their deaths... with nothing really to show for it... yes... there's a really good argument this is a war they've lost.

What a cute little kitty

I mean ultimately, I think the Iranian government probably most values any sort of stability in the region. And from their perspective, a US puppet government of a country filled with US soldiers on two of their borders probably didn't feel all that stable. Especially because the more recent US invasion led to the spread of ISIS, who scare the shit out of most Shias because... well look what they did with Shias in Iraq and Syria. So having relations with the Taliban can improve some regional stability - which is a good thing from their perspective. It doesn't help though that a bulk of Iran's foreign policy is devoted to their proxy wars with Saudi Arabia and Israel, though - which doesn't help regional stability. But they do want to be seen as constantly challenging US hegemony and the best way to do that in the Middle East is to remain confrontational with those two countries. Although they're trying to improve relations with the Saudis nowadays.