Flimsy_Demand7237

I loved the motorcycle chases where the motorcycle would fly off randomly to the side if you hit an obstacle, and the charm in the awful awful voice acting that sounded like someone putting on a dumb voice in a bathroom stall. And then spamming that epic kick on every enemy, the broke headshots, the canned animations...and the theme song that's legit a banger. I really liked playing through the game but I would say it's a terrible game.

I felt a similar vibe doing Forspoken but unfortunately the game gave away on the linear main story to become more of an open world borefest. That was the one thing I really liked about Ride to Hell, that I wish for in more games...a game that sticks to doing a campaign as a linear set of levels that tell a clear story, instead of the checklist on a map gameplay of open world gaming today.

Ride to Hell: Retribution. I played that to finish, and although pretty much every part of the game was bad, or some overused videogame trope, or poorly voice acted, there's a charm about a brawler that isn't filled to the brim with all the modern videogame trappings and the bugs and poor gameplay make you laugh. And that theme riff that starts up every fight got stuck in my head.

Wouldn't this entire discussion be negated if the parents actually took an interest in raising their child and asked them about what books they are reading rather than expecting librarians to police children's reading habits? Librarians categorise books according to genres and categories, and obviously the 'kid's corner' or what the equivalent name is in the library will be the children's section with the books aimed at children. Librarians provide the books, but they can't be expected to know your specific child's reading habits or whether a book is good for them or not. This really comes down to parents both being too controlling and also too uninvolved in their child's lives. They want librarians to police their reading habits, but then also bemoan the fact they don't know what their little Timmy will read because they can't be bothered to ask.

Most of my knowledge comes from Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography of Hitler. He's one of the foremost English-language academic historians studying Nazi Germany. He gives an excellent overview of the conditions in Germany, the political machinations throughout as well as an in-depth study of Hitler both as a person and his moves as dictator. I was interested in the subject mostly because I find Hollywood and more standard school education doesn't really go into detail as to how the Nazis ran the Axis side of the war or what life was like in Nazi Germany, and Hitler's characterisation is mostly a "big bad villain guy" with nothing beyond that. Kershaw's biography filled in those blanks for me.

Sort of. He had a dramatic way of speaking that drew you in. People would be enrapt in the rage and passion with which he spoke, and eventually he got enough airtime that people started to believe the crazy he was talking. The main thing with Hitler is you have to realise Germany was in turmoil for nearly a decade prior to his election. Multiple elections happened over the space of a couple years because no leader could get the country out of the economic rut it was in as a hangover from WWI and then the reparations demanded by other countries impacted by Germany in WWI. Some governments by the end were lasting maybe 6 months tops, failing at the post then being turfed out because the country was at a standstill. With the Great Depression being felt as well probably hardest in Germany, many were out on the street, unemployed, or straight up pissed at how the country was being run. And in this climate of uncertainty, crisis, and mismanagement Hitler was given the vacuum to rise off of his 'inspiring' political speeches that were more channeling people's rage than anything else. He was a leader who seemed to speak for everyone's anger. And in his speeches he gave people clear targets to direct their hatred where other political leaders were more reserved -- Hitler would go "you are in this mess because The Jews took all your money" or "economically this country is in the dumpster because of the Treaty of Versailles (the reparations to countries). I will rip up that treaty first thing I do." and a sizeable portion of the nation figured "well this guy is actually on the same page as us, pissed off with the political system, and he's giving us the reasons where other leaders aren't" and his normally fringe party gained prominence through the big parties failing hard.

He really was a product of a very specific portion of turmoil in Germany's history. If the country were functioning normally at a government level, someone like Hitler would never have gotten even close to power. And then he was elected on the proviso of the conservative government in a coalition with the Nazi party, needing both to form government as the elections were a hung parliament. They figured Hitler could be the populist puppet the conservative leaders could control and use while they got things working again. Of course, that never happened and Hitler as soon as he got power started eliminating any sense of power sharing within a year or two.

Thing was Hitler didn't even write Mein Kampf. Each chapter is comprised of rants he gave while in his prison cell to his deputy Rudolf Hess who was also incarcerated. Hess would sit with a typewriter and note down while Hitler walked around giving his usual unhinged rants. It then took around twelve drafts to be able to get the book from incomprehensible gibberish to something readable.