someone got lucky enough

join the club G it's a tragedy

@@ponczos_2293 well I'll at least try to make a video of the event for funsies

@@leonoliveira8652 thas a real shame m8. Well at least the event will make for a good video.

@@notshardforwork5502 I'm not even saying it's bad, the whole (or at least, the half I got to watch, ADD isn't working with me today) is pretty well written. I REALLY just wasn't expecting it. Thought it was just more gameplay and people being weird about how everyone is thicc af xD

@@heardofrvb at least you can watch the vod or the edited version of it coming soon.

@@Mastpar my condolences good viewer 😔 Woulda loved to have you there

we're expecting this event to go on for like an hour or an hour and a half, the big gift battle royal "Tournament" event will happen last.

@@notshardforwork5502 awesome, can't wait to join ^w^

you don't have to but if you wanna get fast feedback and quick instructions on how stuff works then it's best to do so just so you can join the live stage.

@@VinsBloodshotEye yes stats need to be set to 1 due to feedback from people not wanting to make a build for rock throw, and yes no blocking or parrying, we tested it and found that would make the fights last longer. I understand that it may need a bit of elaboration in hindsight, this is my first time doing something like this. But I'll be sure to answer questions and elaborate more on details once the event starts.

@@Koijestic skrabindle scridoll, I explode your crotch and ball

@@thelegendaryhusquin9906 I LOVE SELLING MY EYE FOR RENT

@@puppychao8219 the best bork

@@randomblockhead7746 they gassed me up and then lit a match to make the whole thing blow up in my face.

@@_friendly I sold an eye to gamble more

@@williamswonderland3636 It's just shocking to see the hanky panky aspect come from pokemon of all things. Idk, in a series about animals fighting each other, I expected more of the violent side of folktales more. I'm just baffled that theres people out there telling others to not be shocked at the shocking story. At least some people have a sense of humor while also understanding the story.

@@notshardforwork5502 yeah I get that but there's a reason why it's concept material that's not actually in the games or shows or what ever. It's like a creative exercise kinda like how the concept art for epic Mikey was as twisted as possible so they knew what was the most extreme they could do verses the comparatively tame stuff they put in

@@williamswonderland3636 I actually made that point in the video itself about how it's more of a frame of reference in the same vein as concept or model art

@@notshardforwork5502 exactly. I'm agreeing with you

It be called Webfishing. I say what it is at the very end of the video :) go get it, it's $5

I makie better stuff than this and plan to make more that's even better than this. Stick around I got some sonic stuff, webfishing stuff, and cult of the lamb stuff bein planned out

@@HazaelAlonso they ain't deleted, they're all located in the playlists tab under Seasons 1 & 2

@@notshardforwork5502 Oh I see them now, thanks Columbo!

funny how you think it JUST begun

Funny story is that his sona was originally a Sonic oc

The streets have been missing out on the past 5 streams

Glad ya had fun at the very least :D

Y'know I actually agree with that, maybe it was my bad wording or script writing but yeah in a way authority was based around violence since even the medieval ages. But over time when we started settling down in places like america, we tended to solve our disputes diplomatically with other foreign powers. Like how we advocated for independence from England, only to be met with force and violence where we then had to retaliate as such. Violence is a factor in authority sure, but I believe it plays one side of the same coin in our foundations and modern day authority. I also did state that violence is also rarely used in modern authority say for instances where violence is instigated by someone else with violent intent or with intent to flee. Though for the most part I'd say we're on the same page but I thank you for any much needed corrections regardless. 👍

@@notshardforwork5502 I would say that authority is very nuanced. Even in medieval Europe it was very complicated, most people lived relatively normal lives in times of peace and authority of nobles and kings was in a way more of a cultural aspect, the nobles had Knights but they were not being constantly used against the common people, the peasants would normally accept noble authority unless they became very oppressive. After and during the enlightenment people started believing in consent of the governed and that authority stemmed from the people. But this was only partially true, the upper class held most of the political power in representative democracies (through media control, corruption, the large funds needed to become a politician, lobbying, and the fact that the state needed support of the upper class to function) and the authority of law began being upheld by a violent police force (often to protect property rights of the upper class). In the modern day the police are less violent and corrupt and governments are less obviously controlled by the upper class but the foundations of these systems are still relatively similar to the past. The state is still a body with a monopoly on legitimate violence within a certain area.

@@Lonelyperson666 damn you're right, I guess my point about the foundation of authority could be a bit misconstrued but nonetheless it doesn't mean that violence should be the absolute, even in today's age. Maybe that's how I shoulda worded it. I guess that aspect of history musta slipped my mind, thanks for actually bringing something interesting and worthwhile to the table.

@@notshardforwork5502 your welcome, i think it is important to understand history in order to understand present systems as these present systems are a continuation of the past systems as they respond to ever changing conditions. Also i would like to make a correction on this point ", we tended to solve our disputes diplomatically with other foreign powers. Like how we advocated for independence from England, only to be met with force and violence where we then had to retaliate as such." Solving disputes diplomatically has been the norm since the beginning of states, as war is costly (though it can be very beneficial upon victory). The US wasn't really any more diplomatic than any other nation at the time, we often brutally oppressed foreign nations that were weaker than the US like the many native American nations we brutally conquered and while we often made diplomatic treaties we often broke them for are own gain.

@@Lonelyperson666 @Dontcare_life well you got me on that one again, I guess I was just looking at the diplomatic events that occured and that led up to the whole dispute to pull as an example. I tried to the best of my knowledge though, seeing this type of stuff only helps me understand my own stance better. Ya live and ya learn, if only someone else learned better.

That's interesting and all that they know a lot of the in depth details on the NOVEL version of it. But the fact is that they do not understand the difference between the film and the novel. To call the novel extensive lore of the movie is redundant considering how different the two medias are. It's like saying the first appearance to Miles Morales in the Spiderman comics is the same as his first appearance in the Spiderverse movies. They try to pass the film off as a one for one between the film and novel but they don't understand the major differences between the two and therefore make the discussion about the novel more than the film. Frankly, considering how much Verhoeven hasn't read should speak about how different the two medias are from one another. Not to mention it's still kind of a baseless claim that the man knows nothing of the topics he's discussing considering he probably still had a team of writers and directors to help with the process. For it's time, critics didn't even agree with the humans of the film. So it definitely had something to say for it's time even despite the negativity towards it, and we still see those arguments being made today in favor of the film. Though it seems that there are still detractors of the message of the film that I feel like stems mostly from how the movie was adapted from the book. At this point it's like the guys don't even like the movie since they sing the book's praises so much more than the film while also referencing it more. Also I don't know about you but is that's where Verhoeven stood during the wars then I think he probably has every right to interpret how either side of a war could be seen as devastating and "bad" from both ends. One side was a fascist dictatorship that wanted to be the world's biggest power. The other side never had consideration for those caught in the crossfire or those horrified by it since all they wanted was the destruction of the enemy. I mean c'mon is he supposed to thank the allies for bombing his neighborhood and nearly kill him? It just so happens that one side was the lesser evil at hand.

​@@notshardforwork5502 The movie had to change things from the novel, being an adaptation, but it's a faithful one. Changing the iconic super armor mech suits to mass of infantry does undermine the individualistic theme and changing the bugs landing on Earth for the meteor attack creates a plothole that people try to fill with headcanon despite Verhoeven insisting in that it was caused by the bugs. But it fails as a satire and can still be seen as part of the same universe of the novel, so it's not wrong to fill other holes with lore from the book. There's a major difference in tone but it falls completely flat because there's no such difference in the facts. Verhoeven tried and fail to read the novel, and had Edward Neumeier adapt it instead. I have watched reviews that argue that Neumeier liked the novel and theorize that he tried to make the script as unironically based on the book as posible, which shows in much of Heinlein's philosophy seeping through. I always considered that there are four types of people after they watch Starship Troopers: those that only see it as a fun action movie, which is okay; those that think it endorses bad things, like the critics of its release, which is dumb; those that think themselves very, very clever because they have "discovered" that it is satire and look down on the first two kinds; and those that see it as a failed satire and mock the third kind because they only argument is "I was told by the director or some youtuber that it is satire and you are dumb for not seeing it!". Verhoeven being bombed at age five doesn't qualify him as anything but as a victim of emotional and psychological trauma. Heinlein serving as an inteligence officer the Navy during the war qualifies him as an expert in what Verhoeven failed to satirize.

@@FrankSancisco We'll have to disagree on how faithful the movie is to the novel. The novel holds many things that the movie has chosen not to show for the sake of the narritive that goes far beyond the lack of power armour mechs, such as how Rico was phillipino, Dizzy was a man, Rico's father returned to serve in the military beside Rico. If I wanted to I could pull from the starship troopers anime OVA and say that Rico and Carmen weren't actually a couple in the story of Starship Troopers. But the hard fact is that the two things do have many a differences and should be treated as individual takes on the same story. I don't know about the faliure of satire argument here, considering the propaganda showed was pretty on the nose in the film. Children wrecklessly handling guns while marines smile and laugh, the mainstream media censoring the mutilation of a cow at the claws of aan arachnid and showing full on dead human carcasses in a massacre in the next scene, the use of children in their enrollment propaganda which symbolizes actual war propaganda aimed towards boths adults and kids. They're pretty over the top with it, even if you think it was poorly projected you can't deny that it was projected visually. Weather it was done well or not is subjective, but it can still be seen in the details such as the naval officer uniform, the class system between the citizens and civillians, the propoganda, the fact that the system they live under needs a war in order to actually function, and the difference of federal punishments between those who enlist vs those who don't (Like how the man in the bench trial was sentenced to death for murder, while rico was sentenced to lashings for criminal negligence rather than an actual federal punishment) Heinlein and his writing was a product of his time, the book was released in the 50's and sorta advocated for the militarized establishment of our society, like serving time in order to vote, and having veterans run the country and so on. I have no doubt the Verhoeven definitely misinterpreted alot from the book when it came to making the film but the fact of the matter is that the film was made with a new meaning in mind for the time, that takes some of the major themes from the book and kinda points and makes fun of it by pushing it in a more fascistic light in the hindsight of a late 80's to early 90's director. Even then I still don't see how we should consider Heinlein's perspective on how the government should be ran, other than an ideal that hasn't aged well with modern audiences who live in the current day. Of course he'd be biased to his own opinion after all he was in the military, but those who aren't would obviously have a different perspective on how things should actually go that benefit the core principals democracy was founded on. I think the fourth kind of person you think of falls more in line with THAT kinda person who was more like "Well actually the book was better". Also it's kinda funny how you make fun of people for being "told by the director or some youtuber that it is satire and you are dumb for not seeing it!" yet you "have watched reviews that argue that Neumeier liked the novel and theorize that he tried to make the script as unironically based on the book as posible". The fact that you say Heinlein is more valid in writing starship troopers than Verhoeven without appreciating them individually and seeing them more as a tied property kinda spells that out in BOLD text there. If that's the case then Stan Lee should have had more say than Sam Raimi or Joaquim Dos Santos in their adaptations of Spiderman.

​@@notshardforwork5502 It can still be faithful despite minor differences, for example merging two different teachers into one for the sake of simplicity is not that big of a change. The main points do not change: the bugs still attacked fist, the society is still a utopia with little poverty or crime, the Terran Federation is a democracy and the Mobile Infantry are heroes. The arachnids are still a metaphor for communism and the humans are clearly the good guys for anybody that is not part of those two disgusting, monstrous and genocidal groups. While the "newsreels" are meant to feel like propaganda they include stuff like live debate, military defeat and leader resignation that disprove that they are and that the society is censoring or manipulating the public with it. The director wanted to have his cake and eat it too with those. Stuff like giving guns to children or executing a murderer live are not deep thought elements, they are just two topics that the had recently watched in the TV news, as he has said in several interviews. "Censoring the mutilation of a cow" was done after a complain by PETA and to save on CGI. I'm not saying that is not well done but the opposite: everything is made to be satirical and Verhoeven is a master of his craft and nailed every detail in the technical aspect; yet he still fails when you analize the facts and not the vibes. Putting the uniform of the bad guys on good guys do not make them bad. The system does not need a war to function, there's no class diferences between citizens and civilians and they don't get harder sentences in the movie for the same crime. In the book the citizens do have it worse because they get harder sentences and more duties, as they are considered to have proved themselves to be more responsible. But some modern minds can not comprehended that power is a burden and only see it as something to be abused. Heinlein and his writing were a product of his time: the book was released in the middle of the Cold War while young men were being drafted to the Vietnam War, so proposing that military service should be strictly voluntary was quite the libertarian take. More so that only those that would fight the war should be able to vote about it, which would prevent many. The future he predicted of gangs of criminals running rampant, failure of western democracy and the rise of an asian communist hegemony seem to be coming to reality by the day. Of course that a novel advocating to the virtues of personal responsability "hasn't aged well with modern audiences". The fourth kind of person is truly those that have read the novel and liked it. The second or third kinds either haven't read it or dislike it, including the director. But the Lotus Eaters segment were also mocking those that had spent several weeks making wild takes in Twittter and KZbin such as "the novel was actually satire" or "the bugs represent mexicans and muslims and that's why you hate them", spreading fake Verhoeven quotes and getting their false flag headcanon disproved by a legit video interview. While you find kind of funny that I seem to fall into what I'm acussing other of, it's actually hilarious how much different the two cases are: I have watched and read over two hundred reviews, reactions, essays and twitter threads and discussions about this movie; I have heard every take there's to be had about it more than thrice. And nobody that reacts blind at it thinks that it is satire at first, they all have to be told it is to start believing that.

@@FrankSancisco The fact that you STILL advocate for the legitimacy about how the novel and film are intertwined like a piece of thread just goes to show how far gone this argument is. The main points do change with the many different context changes between the book and movies. The film is not like a starwars extended universe novel, sorry to say but it's a hard truth that people with this kind of mindset need to understand. If the themes between the two were consistent then there wouldn't be a divide in mindset between the two audiences that consume one product over the other. I don't understand why you guys think that "audiences have to read the novel" in order to get a fucking movie, why don't you go a watch the anime OVA instead then, or maybe even the shitty sequels that came out? Both the book and the movie would have an underlying theme that would accurately adapt the themes if they were tied together, but the fact is that the movie stands on it's own from the novel. People don't read the novel because they think it's "written by a man who is totally fascistic" they just don't read it because they choose not to, because they have the movie, the narritive people try to spin for audiences not reading a novel is based on a narritive used to pit people against a certain "liberal" mindset like it's ammo for their dumbass culture war that they so desperately wanna push. Sure there's outliers of people that actually think that but we can agree that people like that are fucking stupid all the same. If the cow censoring was a result of PETA then that is a complete faulsity considering that there is a scene where children KILL LIVING ROACHES! I can come to these conclusions even without even watching someone else talking about it, it's not so hard to just watch the film and see these things. The whole "Oh the federation is bad because they wear fancy clothing" thing that you guys point out is literally visual story telling that has failed to capture your eyes and thought process. A MILITARIZED world always needs something to fight against in order to function, that's how people earn their rights in it, that's how leaders were chosen during the film. The film has different things to say than the fucking book dude and no ammount of tying ends together like game theory will ever change that. The whole "Power is a burden thing" has been preached to us for years, I doubt a B-list movie or book is an end all be all for that philosiphy. To disregard how modern audiences "on't understand the burden of power" is ludicrous, hell we've gone beyond and looked at the two sides of the same coin and questioned how some with power abuse it as well. Not all people with power know how to use it for the greater good. And we have seen the abuse of power over time in our democratic states here as well, police brutality, the limitations that are slowly being put on our internet access (hell internet access is worse in china and we all see and know we do not wanna live there), the control of information in order to filter out information that our powers don't want to show, enemy countries attack our allied ones, we can see these fucking things as they are a part of our modern times, we want to get rid of them as the things we want to fight against do pose a threat, but the issue is, is that we have to fight to reach out to our government in order to take action against these threats, yet they, our governement, hold back and don't want to. You guys want us to see and agree with the views of heinlein but the guy has some flawed views that just don't age well, he may have had some interesting perspectives but not everything the man has made can really be applied to today's world, we've far surpassed what he once lived in and people that agree with his mindset are people who wish to live in the past with a dying mindset. People can enjoy this movie for nothing but the bug killing action and that's awesome, more power to them. Personally I think fun should be had when consuming media like this, it is what led us to the creation of other amazing properties like Warhammer or Helldivers, something both Arch and Lotus eaters get COMPLETELY wrong about as well. You've consumed far more opinion pieces than me it seems but it looks like the ones you agree with had their minds eaten by the bugs who believe in a society that; Let's people accused of heinous crimes go with lashings rather than proper punishment, the bombings of civilizations in order to win a war was a good thing, a forceful use of authority in our civilization is needed, and that disregard a belief like a lower class citizen. All this shit being advocated for by a man who knows nothing about what actual freedom is, Arch and Locus Eaters are pretty cringe and so are their takes. They have created problems and conflicts that only they could get mad at and make other people mad at while not knowing what it is they actually fight against. But hey, I believe in actual liberty, you can stand with a man who defends a shooter all you want, I obviously can't sway your opinions at this point so go on and try to make the world better by ostracizing those who aren't on the same page as you.

disagreed, not my best editing but then again improvement in that field is on the horizon.

so true