Post your searing hot takes

Alright lemme write out a couple of spicy takes some of which pertain to the subpar bowl
  • American Football is just as dumb, if not dumber, than any other kind of competitive activity.
  • The Super Bowl is just a football game with overly long ads that are rarely any good and a concert that tends to be shit.
  • Janet Jackson did not deserve to essentially have her career destroyed because of her super bowl half time performance where Justshit Timbershit caused a wardrobe malfunction.
  • The lack of any bowl related shit in the super bowl is fucking stupid. Where's the bowl NFL? WHERE ARE YOU HIDING THE BOWL?!
  • Mega Gardevoir's design kinda sucks.
  • Bea is probably one of the most bland gym leaders in the entire series, and I do not get what people see in her.
  • Yung Dramps is actually kinda cool.
  • The technical issues faced in SwSh are part of a larger issue on how employees within the gaming industry tend not to be treated the best especially during crunch time, and these games could have been better if they had more time to work on it.
  • Potential Gen IV remakes are probably going to be better from a technical stand point than the SwSh, if they do come out on switch.
  • Cigarette Smoke is one of the worst smells in the world, period. I might be biased though because smoking fucking killed my grandfather.
 
Last edited:

San Tomas

had a Calm Mind
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Alright lemme write out a couple of spicy takes some of which pertain to the subpar bowl
  • American Football is just as dumb, if not dumber, than any other kind of competitive activity.
  • The Super Bowl is just a football game with overly long ads that are rarely any good and a concert that tends to be shit.
  • Janet Jackson did not deserve to essentially have her career destroyed because of her super bowl half time performance where Justshit Timbershit caused a wardrobe malfunction.
  • The lack of any bowl related shit in the super bowl is fucking stupid. Where's the bowl NFL? WHERE ARE YOU HIDING THE BOWL?!
  • Mega Gardevoir's design kinda sucks.
  • Bea is probably one of the most bland gym leaders in the entire series, and I do not get what people see in her.
  • Yung Dramps is actually kinda cool.
  • The technical issues faced in SwSh are part of a larger issue on how employees within the gaming industry tend not to be treated the best especially during crunch time, and these games could have been better if they had more time to work on it.
  • Potential Gen IV remakes are probably going to be better from a technical stand point than the SwSh, if they do come out on switch.
  • Cigarette Smoke is one of the worst smells in the world, period. I might be biased though because smoking fucking killed my grandfather.
Most of these takes are pretty ice cold, dawg
 

Yung Dramps

awesome gaming
Smash Bros will never produce a universally hyped first party rep aside from maybe Geno or Waluigi ever again. They've already exhausted pretty much all the long-time requests such as Ridley and K.Rool and more importantly insane third party picks like Sephiroth, Steve and Banjo have just set the bar way too high to the point that every actual Nintendo character addition is doomed to feel mid by comparison
 

May

Need a cuppa...
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
I don't know if this is a hot or cold take, but in my experience, it's been a volcanic one for some ungodly reason. It's happened to me a few times in various places, not gonna name anyone or anything, but it's a thing I've wanted to write somewhere for a while in hopes I'm not actually going insane. No, this is not related to anything on Smogon, it's been surprisingly kind in this regard and I wouldn't be here otherwise. Definitely seen it, but nowhere near as much to the point I see it as a non-issue.

For some mindbogglingly stupid reason, people constantly use "vocal minority" - or in a broader sense, "bad eggs" or "small amount of bad people" - as a handwave against community criticism. At a glance, it makes sense: reprehensible individuals should never represent a community. However, on a deeper level, this gesture ends up enabling these problematic people instead. Time and time again, I've seen nazis, pedophiles, and even zoophiles (eugh) end up getting enabled because of this kind of behaviour. The issue comes up, it gets discussed, someone says this is a sign of a deeper community issue, another person does the handwave, the guy with a legitimate concern gets dogpiled, and the issue is then forgotten about. It's eerily common and I'd even argue dangerous.

Bringing attention to these issues should not be met with "this is a minority", when the vocal minority is what your community is housing. It's a matter of scale: those who participate in discussion are vocal, yes? In that case, the community that we are participating in is designed for the vocal minority. Every single one of us is a part of that minority. Silence is abstention, and while this isn't to say they should speak as everyone has their reasons for not doing so, it does technically enable community drawbacks such as propagation of bigotry. So, with these factors in mind, this minority of problematic people suddenly becomes much larger and stronger, yeah? Of course it does. We are a minority, and the bad eggs are a minority of our minority. The scale is much steeper than you think.

The most comically ironic part of this handwave is that by using it, the issue gets worse, and these bad eggs end up propagating in the community. You know what that means: eventually, these people do, in fact, end up representing the community. This is how "toxic" communities form: the bad eggs are enabled, and soon enough, all of them are rotten. What people fail to understand is that impressions and perceptions matter so, so much. Just calling these minorities "bad eggs" without addressing them is the equivalent of hearing about a nuclear explosion and continuing to read the latest issue of The Daily Mail because you're a few miles away. If your community has a nazi problem, you deal with the nazi problem. If your community has a sex pest issue, you deal with the sex pest issue.

Now that you have this in mind, let's talk about why these people do represent the community. Think of the availability heuristic. This is often cited as a counterargument when screeching about "vocal minority" like a dying banshee because you can't handle a debate. The issue is, well, this is reality. It's the way the human mind works, No True Scotsman is going to happen and it will propagate wrong ideas. Negative experiences are much stronger psychological reinforcement. Ergo, as you allow the negativity to propagate, these people - who know they can get away with it due to the handwaving culture - will continue to do shitty things. Thus, more people will end up seeing the community as a negative place, and as a result of that, No True Scotsman will be out in force as media of all types - news, social, whatever - starts saying "hey this place sucks". And, well, yeah. That happens. The reputation will drop, no matter how wrong it is, and it's unfeasible to magically change everyone's mind...you have to prevent it from happening in the first place by fostering a community of positivity. Of course, it's unfeasible to say everything can be prevented, that goes without saying. There are people who are completely silent that suddenly commit arson. It just...happens. It's about minimizing this antisocial behaviour so that the chance of a scandal occurring drops.

So, what do you do with this in mind?

Well, don't use the handwave. Simple as, really. Discuss community issues without making excuses.
 
Last edited:

Yung Dramps

awesome gaming
I don't know if this is a hot or cold take, but in my experience, it's been a volcanic one for some ungodly reason. It's happened to me a few times in various places, not gonna name anyone or anything, but it's a thing I've wanted to write somewhere for a while in hopes I'm not actually going insane. No, this is not related to anything on Smogon, it's been surprisingly kind in this regard and I wouldn't be here otherwise. Definitely seen it, but nowhere near as much to the point I see it as a non-issue.

For some mindbogglingly stupid reason, people constantly use "vocal minority" - or in a broader sense, "bad eggs" or "small amount of bad people" - as a handwave against community criticism. At a glance, it makes sense: reprehensible individuals should never represent a community. However, on a deeper level, this gesture ends up enabling these problematic people instead. Time and time again, I've seen nazis, pedophiles, and even zoophiles (eugh) end up getting enabled because of this kind of behaviour. The issue comes up, it gets discussed, someone says this is a sign of a deeper community issue, another person does the handwave, the guy with a legitimate concern gets dogpiled, and the issue is then forgotten about. It's eerily common and I'd even argue dangerous.

Bringing attention to these issues should not be met with "this is a minority", when the vocal minority is what your community is housing. It's a matter of scale: those who participate in discussion are vocal, yes? In that case, the community that we are participating in is designed for the vocal minority. Every single one of us is a part of that minority. Silence is abstention, and while this isn't to say they should speak as everyone has their reasons for not doing so, it does technically enable community drawbacks such as propagation of bigotry. So, with these factors in mind, this minority of problematic people suddenly becomes much larger and stronger, yeah? Of course it does. We are a minority, and the bad eggs are a minority of our minority. The scale is much steeper than you think.

The most comically ironic part of this handwave is that by using it, the issue gets worse, and these bad eggs end up propagating in the community. You know what that means: eventually, these people do, in fact, end up representing the community. This is how "toxic" communities form: the bad eggs are enabled, and soon enough, all of them are rotten. What people fail to understand is that impressions and perceptions matter so, so much. Just calling these minorities "bad eggs" without addressing them is the equivalent of hearing about a nuclear explosion and continuing to read the latest issue of The Daily Mail because you're a few miles away. If your community has a nazi problem, you deal with the nazi problem. If your community has a sex pest issue, you deal with the sex pest issue.

Now that you have this in mind, let's talk about why these people do represent the community. Think of the availability heuristic. This is often cited as a counterargument when screeching about "vocal minority" like a dying banshee because you can't handle a debate. The issue is, well, this is reality. It's the way the human mind works, No True Scotsman is going to happen and it will propagate wrong ideas. Negative experiences are much stronger psychological reinforcement. Ergo, as you allow the negativity to propagate, these people - who know they can get away with it due to the handwaving culture - will continue to do shitty things. Thus, more people will end up seeing the community as a negative place, and as a result of that, No True Scotsman will be out in force as media of all types - news, social, whatever - starts saying "hey this place sucks". And, well, yeah. That happens. The reputation will drop, no matter how wrong it is, and it's unfeasible to magically change everyone's mind...you have to prevent it from happening in the first place by fostering a community of positivity. Of course, it's unfeasible to say everything can be prevented, that goes without saying. There are people who are completely silent that suddenly commit arson. It just...happens. It's about minimizing this antisocial behaviour so that the chance of a scandal occurring drops.

So, what do you do with this in mind?

Well, don't use the handwave. Simple as, really. Discuss community issues without making excuses.
Oh my god, dude, fucking based as shit, thank you so much.

I actually have come up with my own saying for this: If your community has a clear image problem and all you can do to repel it is say "vocal minority" then that means either the vocal minority isnt as much of a minority as you'd like to believe or that the majority has failed to assert themselves.
 

May

Need a cuppa...
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
I actually have come up with my own saying for this: If your community has a clear image problem and all you can do to repel it is say "vocal minority" then that means either the vocal minority isnt as much of a minority as you'd like to believe or that the majority has failed to assert themselves.
I'd say both would be the case most of the time. If a minority becomes larger, then indeed, the majority has failed to assert themselves. In some cases, this is a good thing if the minority promotes positivity. In my scenario, however, the majority have failed to create a socially acceptable culture. This is the case in Smash, where only now the majority has noticed the problems they have allowed to fester and now they're having to enact one of the largest cleansing events in gaming history. That entire situation should never have had to happen, but that's what happens when you empower these people by dodging the issue. Even now, people disregard these horrific people as "bad eggs", plug their ears and sing their favourite Katy Perry song.
 
Last edited:
For some mindbogglingly stupid reason, people constantly use "vocal minority" - or in a broader sense, "bad eggs" or "small amount of bad people" - as a handwave against community criticism.
Time and time again, I've seen nazis, pedophiles, and even zoophiles (eugh) end up getting enabled because of this kind of behaviour.
(nitpick) I mean; people also use vocal minority for everyone screaming on both sides; this isn't a partisan issue.
Bringing attention to these issues should not be met with "this is a minority", when the vocal minority is what your community is housing. It's a matter of scale: those who participate in discussion are vocal, yes?
Still; the majority of people in the community do not condone the action
Generally the defense is used to state "I'm not bad though!" which is more fair individually (ie not trying to defend the community more than yourself)
ou have to prevent it from happening in the first place by fostering a community of positivity.
positivity is such a shit buzzword here
unless you are saying all "hate" should not be tolerated at all when its super subjective. and ironically, saying stuff is hate speech dissuades criticism and discussion.
then positivity isn't the end all be all solution; in fact it can enable stuff like p*dophelia (see: maps)
(also if it isn't that; the tolerance paradox; when you tolerate bigots... which creates your "vocal minority")

(also a nitpick) Also any communities not already based on the far right wing probably don't have "nazi" problems to begin with (at least; ones in public). Correct me if im wrong (on your "countless" turned nazi communities) but seemingly screeching nazi is just a way to insult and silence your opponent.
You could also apply to other hot words and not specifically "nazi", even if they are often problems

edit: also the *relentless* persecution of (whatever is deemed a problem) creates echo chambers and ends up making people more extreme
 
Last edited:
I don't know if this is a hot or cold take, but in my experience, it's been a volcanic one for some ungodly reason. It's happened to me a few times in various places, not gonna name anyone or anything, but it's a thing I've wanted to write somewhere for a while in hopes I'm not actually going insane. No, this is not related to anything on Smogon, it's been surprisingly kind in this regard and I wouldn't be here otherwise. Definitely seen it, but nowhere near as much to the point I see it as a non-issue.

For some mindbogglingly stupid reason, people constantly use "vocal minority" - or in a broader sense, "bad eggs" or "small amount of bad people" - as a handwave against community criticism. At a glance, it makes sense: reprehensible individuals should never represent a community. However, on a deeper level, this gesture ends up enabling these problematic people instead. Time and time again, I've seen nazis, pedophiles, and even zoophiles (eugh) end up getting enabled because of this kind of behaviour. The issue comes up, it gets discussed, someone says this is a sign of a deeper community issue, another person does the handwave, the guy with a legitimate concern gets dogpiled, and the issue is then forgotten about. It's eerily common and I'd even argue dangerous.

Bringing attention to these issues should not be met with "this is a minority", when the vocal minority is what your community is housing. It's a matter of scale: those who participate in discussion are vocal, yes? In that case, the community that we are participating in is designed for the vocal minority. Every single one of us is a part of that minority. Silence is abstention, and while this isn't to say they should speak as everyone has their reasons for not doing so, it does technically enable community drawbacks such as propagation of bigotry. So, with these factors in mind, this minority of problematic people suddenly becomes much larger and stronger, yeah? Of course it does. We are a minority, and the bad eggs are a minority of our minority. The scale is much steeper than you think.

The most comically ironic part of this handwave is that by using it, the issue gets worse, and these bad eggs end up propagating in the community. You know what that means: eventually, these people do, in fact, end up representing the community. This is how "toxic" communities form: the bad eggs are enabled, and soon enough, all of them are rotten. What people fail to understand is that impressions and perceptions matter so, so much. Just calling these minorities "bad eggs" without addressing them is the equivalent of hearing about a nuclear explosion and continuing to read the latest issue of The Daily Mail because you're a few miles away. If your community has a nazi problem, you deal with the nazi problem. If your community has a sex pest issue, you deal with the sex pest issue.

Now that you have this in mind, let's talk about why these people do represent the community. Think of the availability heuristic. This is often cited as a counterargument when screeching about "vocal minority" like a dying banshee because you can't handle a debate. The issue is, well, this is reality. It's the way the human mind works, No True Scotsman is going to happen and it will propagate wrong ideas. Negative experiences are much stronger psychological reinforcement. Ergo, as you allow the negativity to propagate, these people - who know they can get away with it due to the handwaving culture - will continue to do shitty things. Thus, more people will end up seeing the community as a negative place, and as a result of that, No True Scotsman will be out in force as media of all types - news, social, whatever - starts saying "hey this place sucks". And, well, yeah. That happens. The reputation will drop, no matter how wrong it is, and it's unfeasible to magically change everyone's mind...you have to prevent it from happening in the first place by fostering a community of positivity. Of course, it's unfeasible to say everything can be prevented, that goes without saying. There are people who are completely silent that suddenly commit arson. It just...happens. It's about minimizing this antisocial behaviour so that the chance of a scandal occurring drops.

So, what do you do with this in mind?

Well, don't use the handwave. Simple as, really. Discuss community issues without making excuses.
sounds like a public service announcement
really good point though. it's super annoying when people just wave off criticism like that
 

May

Need a cuppa...
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
I mean; people also use vocal minority for everyone screaming on both sides; this isn't a partisan issue.
What side is there, in this case? Are you referring to the bad eggs I'm on about, or the majority that should (ideally) be admonishing them? Are you talking about political sides? If so, I think you're missing the point. This is not a political issue, but a sociological one. This feels like a very weak cop-out.

Still; the majority of people in the community do not condone the action
Generally the defense is used to state "I'm not bad though!" which is more fair individually (ie not trying to defend the community more than yourself)
That's literally the problem. In your example, the person is taking community criticism as an attack and deflects it to the person bringing up an extremely legitimate concern with the community. Thus, as is tradition with these idiotic situations, the person with the issue gets the blame, instead of the shitty people who are now empowered knowing that people like this will be there to defend them. I'd know, I was one of them once. In this case, the majority of people end up unintentionally condoning the action, they fail to assert themselves, and ergo, fail to work on solving the issues in their community that lead to the problem. Again, you are missing my point.

positivity is such a shit buzzword here
unless you are saying all "hate" should not be tolerated at all when its super subjective. and ironically, saying stuff is hate speech dissuades criticism and discussion.
then positivity isn't the end all be all solution; in fact it can enable stuff like p*dophelia (see: maps)
(also if it isn't that; the tolerance paradox; when you tolerate bigots... which creates your "vocal minority")
Oh man, where do I begin here LMFAO holy shit dude

Positivity is used as a general term for what a community should strive for. There isn't any depth to it, because there doesn't need to be. A positive community is a minimum bar you should be setting for any community at all, it's literally on the ground at this point. What, do you want to burrow underground to avoid it? From your hometown to an entire country, a positive community is the minimum qualification to be regarded as "good". A buzzword isn't a bad thing if it's being used as a general catch-all. Never did I even imply that we should tolerate hate either; in fact, my entire post is about denouncing it and removing problematic individuals. Never have I said anything about subjectivity, I am saying to get these genuine assholes out, which many communities have failed to do due to willful ignorance.

May I also ask if you have even read Karl Popper's work? Or have you just seen that comic people willingly misinterpret? I don't see how this is relevant here, but if you've only seen the comic it makes more sense in my eyes. Allow me to quote this great man who has unfortunately been twisted into some lineskating fascist defender, for those who have been manipulated by it;
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
To defend tolerance, you must not tolerate the intolerant, and you must attempt to debate and deradicalise them. If they do not rise to the challenge, fail to change, and continue posing a risk to the community, they can get bent. This is normality and nobody should dispute this. Is it hypocritical? Indeed, that is where the paradox lies. Thus, I have - and this is the point of the paradox - proudly said fuck tolerance if it means preventing people from oppressing others just for existing. As is normal human behaviour, everyone has a limit to their tolerance. I don't see how getting people who engage in hateful behaviour off your site is dissuading discussion. If anything, I believe it's something that should be encouraged, as it promotes safety. People enter gaming communities as an escape, they should be feeling safe. All of this is in line with Popper's work and just fine, no? So why are you bringing it up?

(also a nitpick) Also any communities not already based on the far right wing probably don't have "nazi" problems to begin with (at least; ones in public). Correct me if im wrong (on your "countless" turned nazi communities) but seemingly screeching nazi is just a way to insult and silence your opponent.
You could also apply to other hot words and not specifically "nazi", even if they are often problems
Not sure why this is being picked at when all I said is "if there's a nazi problem, deal with the nazi problem". Like...yeah? You can get cliques of nazis in any community, but obviously, it is rarer as communities show themselves to be further left-wing. What you're saying here is just moot, really.

And regarding "countless" turned nazi communities, I take it you're referring to this, because not once did I even use the word "countless".
Time and time again, I've seen nazis, pedophiles, and even zoophiles (eugh) end up getting enabled because of this kind of behaviour.
Please at least quote me correctly if you're going to say something so stupid. All I have said is that people have been enabled, and this is absolutely right.

And no, screeching nazi is not an insult. If you think "nazi" is an insult, rather than a name for someone with a genocidal ideology, then I'm sorry, but you need to get thicker skin. Nobody screams nazi in 2021 anyway, that's so 2014 :blobstop:

edit: also the *relentless* persecution of (whatever is deemed a problem) creates echo chambers and ends up making people more extreme
This is a massive jump in logic and is a very rare occurrence. I encourage you to actually show an example of this. Tell me this: why go down that route? What is there to gain? I trust you would respond with "to convert people to become more extreme", in which...why would people allow an entire community to go down that route? This feels like a textbook slippery slope fallacy to me. Like, sure, I can think of one or two communities that went the whole nine yards, but it's extremely rare, and in that case, only proves my point.

EDIT: You edited your post since, edited mine accordingly.
 
Last edited:
What side is there, in this case? Are you referring to the bad eggs I'm on about, or the majority that should (ideally) be admonishing them? Are you talking about political sides? If so, I think you're missing the point. This is not a political issue, but a sociological one. This feels like a very weak cop-out.
(nitpick)
edited it in after
yeah its pretty weak
That's literally the problem.
i think i'm just trying to justify why people are using it
ig if they still use it as a community defense anyway it doesnt matter

May I also ask if you have even read Karl Popper's work? Or have you just seen that comic people willingly misinterpret?
pff imagining me seeing either of those works, please
tbh i brought it up for why private communities can turn to shit

Positivity is used as a general term for what a community should strive for. There isn't any depth to it, because there doesn't need to be. A positive community is a minimum bar you should be setting for any community at all, it's literally on the ground at this point. What, do you want to burrow underground to avoid it? From your hometown to an entire country, a positive community is the minimum qualification to be regarded as "good". A buzzword isn't a bad thing if it's being used as a general catch-all. Never did I even imply that we should tolerate hate either; in fact, my entire post is about denouncing it and removing problematic individuals. Never have I said anything about subjectivity, I am saying to get these genuine assholes out, which many communities have failed to do due to willful ignorance.
I don't see how getting people who engage in hateful behaviour off your site is dissuading discussion.
ugh if i cant say positivity isn't a defacto requirement to making a "good" community (its not) there's no point arguing.
(a community of people pissing around isnt exactly the most positive but until you want to police everything...)
Anyways, positivity and hate still are very arbitrary terms; which is why there's an issue with them being buzzwords. A catchall can easily be abused. You HAVE to talk about subjectivity if you're using catchalls. with stuff like nazis and pedos, its black and white; but with other subjects, its not.

What I'm trying to argue is that we should be tolerating "hate" [when its super subjective. and ironically, saying stuff is hate speech dissuades criticism and discussion.]
I'll expand my point about p*dophila further. Under the guise of positivity, they can claim oppression, they are a sexual orientation, harassed, hated, and are actually "virtuous" Blanket, blind positivity covers up major point - that being a p*do harm other people by default (vs lgbt+ which don't). Of course you can say "that's the difference; debate/derad them and kick them off if you have to"; but this is just an example of how positivity can be unhinged. Each case/topic is different, some clouded more than others.

To defend tolerance, you must not tolerate the intolerant, and you must attempt to debate and deradicalise them. If they do not rise to the challenge, fail to change, and continue posing a risk to the community, they can get bent.
The problem is that I don't see the attempts of either with how people c e n s o r and ban. If you want to make something a safe space, sure. But then you gotta remove them forcefully (as a moderator; to keep stuff "safe"), and therefore aren't deradicalizing them.

As is normal human behaviour, everyone has a limit to their tolerance. I don't see how getting people who engage in hateful behaviour off your site is dissuading discussion. If anything, I believe it's something that should be encouraged, as it promotes safety. People enter gaming communities as an escape, they should be feeling safe.
See above on "hateful behavior"
I don't really see how removing hateful behavior really makes anyone more safe??? I could say people "need to get [a] thicker skin" towards hate. If anything you are infantalize people; saying they cant decide what they can take, and should be shielded from [blah blah].
Well if you enter the politics side of a gaming community then you should be expecting politics?? Plus "safe spaces" often are just echo chambers; altrighties have safe spaces towards their beliefs and you could always go down the slippery slope towards being extreme left.
Plus the crusade against "hate" most certainly applies outside of Smogon. Being a gaming community has nothing to do with your generalist arguements.

And no, screeching nazi is not an insult. If you think "nazi" is an insult, rather than a name for someone with a genocidal ideology, then I'm sorry, but you need to get thicker skin. Nobody screams nazi in 2021 anyway, that's so 2014
oh please
"fascist" most definitely is used in 2021 and certainly does not refer to a dead 1930's political ideology. its totalitarianism at best; but that term doesn't invoke as much sympathy, does it? and no, i'm pretty sure even genuine nazis of today dont believe in facist politics (instead believing in antisemitism, eugenics, et all)
 
Last edited:
Smash Bros will never produce a universally hyped first party rep aside from maybe Geno or Waluigi ever again. They've already exhausted pretty much all the long-time requests such as Ridley and K.Rool and more importantly insane third party picks like Sephiroth, Steve and Banjo have just set the bar way too high to the point that every actual Nintendo character addition is doomed to feel mid by comparison
I don't agree with this take (I guess that kinda makes it hot but I may as well explain why). On one hand, "universally hyped" is a huge bar that most of those don't meet. Geno has worn or is wearing out his relevance welcome for many by now, Waluigi and Steve are universally interesting but some of that is jankiness and silliness that isn't what I'd call "hype" (think if Sans or Jonesy), Banjo's only universally hype if you don't count Japan, and Seph benefitted from an unusually good reveal and an unusually long time since the last hype DLC.

On the other hand, if you zoom out from "universal" to something that includes Geno, Banjo, and the like, I think it's definitely possible (if less likely than the past) to have an applicable first-party rep:

Some cool BOTW 2 thing, like Calamity version of Ganondorf
Random Gen 9 Pokemon everyone adores
New Captain Falcon or Mother thing for either of those franchises to revive (but man the second one is unlikely)

I definitely agree, though, that it's harder for a big hype first party rep to happen now than in Smash 4 or even Ult launch days.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 1)

Top