hey jakalighting i was inspired by u so i made my own fps guide by quoting u here is my fps guide it is quoted but it is mine thank u for reading

wtf LOL

cool stuff

since you care about hockey, i wouldn't if i were you.

i'm pretty lax about studying for finals.

i try to reconstruct most of my courses' materials from well-established sets of atomic facts to minimize the amount i have to memorize. during this process, i'll identify the most abstract concepts from each course and construct a memory palace (or, more trivially but less effectively, use mnemonics) to memorize sequential processes (i.e. mathematical algorithms, historical timelines, interactions between objects, etc.) that haven't already been ingrained &/or cannot be trivially decomposed (usually because they're pedagogically local in scope).

video games can be played at any age. on the other hand, your chances to play hockey seriously will most certainly decline substantially as you grow older & have more real-life commitments to manage. and since it's an actual physical sport, you may completely miss out if you don't commit while you're still (relatively) young.

if you care about hockey, then just focus on your real-life well-being & prioritize hockey as your main hobby. being distracted by two competitive hobbies simultaneously is just going to divide up your attention unnecessarily & inhibit your potential.

if you never planned on taking hockey seriously, then you need to realistically consider whether your attitude aligns with the expectations of your hockey team & your prospective tf2 team.

most importantly, don't stress yourself out just to make an "iffy schedule" work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98RpPFw6Os0

i sexually identify as a tsundere shark
http://i.imgbox.com/gtLnHBL0.jpg

a bit off-topic, but when ratz instagib had somewhat of a stable population, the best player i knew on that game pounded hard on ~50 fov

and then you have people playing with rawinput 0 on tf2 that are natural slayers

THIS WORLD ISN'T LOGICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i think conflating issues regarding implicit identity with those of racism is not only dangerous, but entirely fallacious.

activism against racism and sexism (namely feminism) deal with biases and discrimination against factors of identity that cannot be readily hidden when engaging in discourse. in other words, these forms of activism are concerned about why discourse over non-identity topics are inhibited due to external factors that are readily visible to every participant. this overview is meant to be obvious; these forms of activism need to be rigorously defined so that we can tackle the propriety of activism of preferred pronouns.

unlike skin color & gender, implicit identity, such as "preferred pronouns" and "sexuality", needs to be explicitly introduced into discourse for participants to be aware of it. as long as the laws classifying the acts of discrimination are very narrow and clear (i.e. explicitly harassing someone for identifying, or for assuming they identify, as gay, straight, or feeling empowered by being referred to in a neutral manner), then what goodboy said on the first page is fine.

yet, professional academics and psychologists are still observably arguing over the propriety of the recently instituted discrimination laws, and it's most certainly not because they're bigoted nor because they're trying to dehumanize people (why the fuck would you pursue a PHD if you didn't care about society???). the laws in contention clearly weren't well-vetted nor rigorously peer-reviewed by psychologists; these laws were arguably enacted as a knee-jerk response to a poorly detailed problem. thus, the factors that constitute discrimination against implicit identity must be reevaluated as neutrally & unemotionally as possible.

vagueness in discrimination laws allow those with malicious intentions to derail conversations and/or to force participants to beat around the bush by establishing their implicit identities before being productive (just look at how fucking long the initial speakers took in OP's video before any actual arguments were made). thus, professional academics like Dr. Peterson aren't trying to disrespect those who have unique personality and identity traits (who doesn't???). instead, they're trying to argue that everyone's rights can be secured by keeping identity-related topics separated from non-identity topics.

in conclusion, fuck your & everyone else's implicit identity. we're all going to die. stop caring so much about your stupid individual existence. i don't care if you like dicks; major in math so i can give an iota of a fuck about you. FUCK.

i doubt the sentiments of a bunch of underperforming college undergraduates living in an ideological bubble who will either drop out or barely get their associates/bachelors will have widespread consequences, but i understand your frustration. i definitely get annoyed when i see my peers suckered into these sort of debates instead of being productive.

the main issue i have with legally enforced preferred pronouns is the possibility that you can be brought to court for discrimination because you withdrew from discourse with someone who cares more about establishing their identity than the original topics brought to the table which had nothing to do with identity in the first place (i.e. any topics that don't revolve around themselves). i think dr. peterson brings up this threat of runaway ideological totalitarianism when he first speaks in OP's video.

thankfully, i don't have to deal with these kinds of retards on a regular basis because my life doesn't revolve around social psychology & liberal arts. i give no fucks about anyone's identity unless it impedes the flow of our discussion (in which case i'll most definitely be an asshole).

petty fortress 2

you'll be OK buddy

are you guys seriously not understanding the point of the exaggerated shadows? realistically, most of these emotions are way too complex to be represented physically from just the eyes alone; framing, angling, & post-process image manipulation are sometimes the only way to get the point across. these portrayals also rely on the skin around the eyes & eyebrows; (how you're meant to perceive the actor's) gender and age are also important factors to consider when weighing how a character is probably feeling. for instance, elderly, heavily wrinkled actors can more readily portray emotions like grief, kindness, and being despondent than their younger counterparts from their eyes alone with the right camera work.

these results should not be used as a standard to determine how real people feel. approach this test as how hollywood would portray these emotions and you should get most, if not all, of them right.

if you don't understand that, it's probably just a learning disability & not autism. i'm pretty sure movie and literary savants would easily ace this test.