Lurker > s0nicfan

It's just not the same without the vibrating cheater dildos. They took the drama out of the game. </S>

mario2000 posted...

You do not do Galadriel.

Galadriel does you.

In place of a bottom you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Dawn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love her and despair!

Now it's time for... Dip the stick!

TMOG posted...

s0nicfan isn't a transphobe, they just don't want trans people competing in sports. How could you possibly read their posts and think their arguments aren't being made in good faith, especially when they say "no female will ever be able to break these records", because their mask accidentally slipped off and they just admitted via Freudian slip that they still view trans women as being men?

If we're talking about trans women in women's sports, then I really don't have a choice except to use female to differentiate because I have no problems saying trans women are women. The issue is the physiological difference between males and females, which was the entire basis for creating women's sports in the first place. Somebody's gender expression doesn't automatically grant them access to sex segregated resources, and denying somebody access to those spaces does not mean you're denying their humanity or failing to recognize their gender expression. Sex and gender are different. So we need to differentiate when we're talking about sex versus when we're talking about gender if we're going to use a word like woman which is being applied to both simultaneously.

If I had said cis women instead, would anything about what you said change in your mind? Of course not. Because even though people say over and over again that sex and gender are different, people refuse to acknowledge that sex and gender are different when it comes to sports.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Then stop bringing up numbers as if you're making some kind of point. I understand that you don't care how many there are, but youve repeatedly brought up quantity as if it's some sort of point in favor of your argument. Then, when it turns out you haven't even done a superficial level of research into the issue you just turn around and get angrier. Oh, that person is a transphobe. Oh, that person doesn't care about women's sports. Oh,... The list of disingenuous excuses you throw out there in order to avoid actually talking about the issue is endless, because you don't actually care what the details are. You don't give a shit if no female will ever be able to break these records in some of these events. You have your opinion, and it's set in stone, and no amount of evidence is going to change your mind.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


https://www.outsports.com/trans/2022/3/1/22948400/transgender-trans-athlete-championship-national-world-title

Off the top of my head I could name several, and some digging has found at least 13 trans women who have earned national or international victories. No out trans woman has won an Olympic medal in the womens category (Canadian soccer player Quinn is nonbinary).

Still, many more than two trans women have won national or international competitions, with others doing very well, including state and regional titles.

Here are 20 trans women who have won national or international competitions all competing within the rules in the womens category.

But I'm sure you'll just keep moving the goal post and calling me transphobic. It's just hypothetical. Oh it's just one. So what if it's just 20. And that's being generous and ignoring the fact that 20 nationally competitive m2f trans athletes is an astonishingly high number for a population that is a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No, I'm pointing out that this situation everyone keeps calling hypothetical, where a trans athlete steps in and completely dominates across the board, stops being a hypothetical when it's literally in the article.

The thing is, I understand how badly you don't want these situations to exist because your argument against separating male and female sports has consistently been that if there was a problem we would be seeing it. So now we're seeing it, and you just want to redefine the definition of problem.

Gwynevere posted...

Basically. I guess they were getting tired of waiting for that hypothesized case of a trans woman coming in and fucking up the sanctity and fairness of women's sports or whatever so they just...fucked it up themselves?

Idk, trying to work through the logic of transphobes might as well be deciphering an alien language

Just say you didn't read the article:

He then casually bench-pressed nearly 370 pounds beating the current Alberta womens record by almost 100 pounds.

That record 275 pounds was held by trans athlete Anne Andres, who was seen watching Silverberg while volunteering at the event.

Andres also holds the Alberta womens record for the deadlift, at 544 pounds giving her the local record for the total of all three lifts, lifting a combined 1,245 pounds.

The trans lifter won eight of nine competitions entered in the womens category over the last four years, ICONS said.

This guy, who trains female powerlifters, just broke an eight competition winning streak by a trans athlete who holds nearly all of the powerlifting records, including the one he broke, in that region for that weight class.

Now, if you want to make the case that a trans athlete holding all of the records and winning every competition they enter until a man stepped in and broke one of them isn't a "case of a trans woman coming in and fucking up the sanctity and fairness of women's sports" then you go right ahead, but in general I would recommend waiting to write your outrage post until after you actually read the story first.

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

Isn't this a one time fee you pay at closing? Correct me if I'm wrong but this isn't something you pay monthly.

From the article:

Under the rule, homebuyers with a credit score of 680 or higher will reportedly have to pay about $40 per month more than people with worse credit when taking out a home loan of $400,000, according to NewsNation, which cited a report from The Washington Times.

The new moderation rules have basically forced anyone who can't control themselves into an endless stream of making alts. That's good in general, but the problem with that is now they have no reason to even pretend to be on good behavior. They know that GameFAQs doesn't prevent people from creating alts, so they might as well go full inflammatory every time they post because once they've lost their main there's basically no cost towards being that way.

Funkydog posted...

Right wing bigots being the problem themselves they say exists when it doesn't exist yet again.

You should probably read the article, since the guy who did this took the record from a trans athlete who was on an eight competition undefeated winning streak and holds the regional record for the women's deadlift.

HudGard posted...

My kids play these mobile tablet games and its honestly one of the most frustrating experiences. Constant back-to-back ads, auto-opening browsers and app stores, dozens of pointless things to upgrade/buy, completely artificial difficulty and infinite power creep.

Go spend two or three dollars on a game that doesn't come with all that bullshit. There's plenty of stuff on the app store that isn't designed to funnel your children into some sort of dopamine drip money well. Those games just tend not to be free.

I thought the entire purpose of having a good credit score was that you didn't have to pay as much on loans because you demonstrated that you're reliable. Is this just some kind of market manipulation bullshit to try and "fix" the housing market by locking out people who can actually afford homes?

DKBananaSlamma posted...

$40 * 12 months * 30 years = $14,400 more I gotta pay

What the fuck

With compound interest I'm sure you're paying a lot more than that.

Part of the problem is that the value proposition for mobile games is completely broken from the consumer side. People would rather jump through those flaming hoops, watch ads, buy currency, and be unable to play for hours at a time if it means they don't have to pay $2 up front, once, to own it.

ZevLoveDOOM posted...

i got into the third movie of the Rebuild series and this is where it started to loose me.

heck i dont even wanna imagine what the last one is like when i get there... lol

If nothing else, the last one offers real closure on the franchise.

Seems fake.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Ok?

Was just posting a korea meme since people were talking about us and China being responsible for different halves.

Doe posted...

Enlighten me on how what I wrote contradicted what you said?

Sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

"The Death of the Author" (French: La mort de l'auteur) is a 1967 essay by the Frenchliterary critic and theoristRoland Barthes (19151980). Barthes's essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of relying on the intentions and biography of an author to definitively explain the "ultimate meaning" of a text. Instead, the essay emphasizes the primacy of each individual reader's interpretation of the work over any "definitive" meaning intended by the author, a process in which subtle or unnoticed characteristics may be drawn out for new insight.

Now, let's see if you're arguing that the ultimate meaning is completely divorced from the actual stated intent of the author:
Doe posted...

Well to start with, we don't ask the author what their work was supposed to mean, we conclude the resultant meaning of the work from the textual evidence. George Lucas is kinda infamous for his extravagant claims about meaning.

Doe posted...

When an audience sits down in a theater, what the author intended means nothing, all that matters is what the audience actually learns from what the scenes actually show.

Doe posted...

It's not that you should ignore what the author says for the sake of excluding the author from conversations. It's that you should not use the author's intent as evidence, and you should not use the author as an appeal to authority.

Yep, that's literally "death of the author." This has been my TED talk.

EDIT: and as a reminder, this whole thing started because someone called Star Wars a morality tale, you disagreed, and then they said that the author has flat out stated that it was a morality tale. So if you're going to continue to argue that no, the author is wrong in the literal intent of his works, then we don't have to entertain your opinion on what you feel it may be because the author told us. Your perspective is only up for consideration if the author is dead (thus we can't confirm), or if you explicitly prescribe to the Death of the Author form of literary criticism. Which is one means of reading a work, but not axiomatic.

Doe posted...

That's not what's being asked. What's being asked is what do we, as a viewer, learn from a scene. When an audience sits down in a theater, what the author intended means nothing, all that matters is what the audience actually learns from what the scenes actually show.

"What are the themes conveyed by A New Hope" and "What themes did George Lucas intend to convey in A New Hope" are wholly different questions, and the first one is what actually matters to what the film told audiences.

And thus we're back to my first post:
s0nicfan posted...

Death of the author isn't an axiom. Some people may choose to ignore the author flat out saying what the meaning of their work is, but that doesn't mean that it's an incorrect interpretation. It means that you're just choosing to explicitly ignore the stated meaning from the creator because you want to have a different interpretation of your own.

Doe posted...

It's not that you should ignore what the author says for the sake of excluding the author from conversations. It's that you should not use the author's intent as evidence, and you should not use the author as an appeal to authority. If the author compellingly lays out textual evidence to argue how a scene works or what message is being delivered, then that's as valid as any great argument. Use of textual evidence and reason is what makes someone authoritative.

You could probably get quite the explanation of the themes and messages of The Room from director Tommy Wiseau, but neither his perception of the finished product, nor what he alleges were his goals during production, has any effect on what The Room actually tells audiences.

If you ask the author what he meant by a scene, and he tells you, there's no "conversation" to have. Calling it appeal to authority is like calling a proof for 1+1=2 an appeal to authority. He's not some expert of Star Wars... he literally wrote it. There's no situation where you can tell an author to his face that his explicit clarification of what a scene meant is wrong because you interpreted it a different way.

That doesn't mean a scene can't be poorly written or poorly executed. People can absolutely read different things out of a scene when they don't have direct access to the source, but "interpretation" ends the moment you're given the actual ground truth. He doesn't need to build a case for why a scene means what he says it means. He literally wrote it. Your interpretation becomes incorrect the moment the author tells you its wrong.

SHRIKE posted...

I thought you were talking about my post .

Yeah that guy isnt worth responding to.

No, sorry if you thought that was directed at you, lol.

SHRIKE posted...

Im not a vegan and I drink milk and I can still appreciate the fact that cows are responsible for a not insignificant amount of greenhouse gasses.

Being able to see both the pros and cons of a situation isnt some weird troll action. Its being an rational adult.

Creating a strawman on the other hand...

So just so we're on the same page, you consider this response to my post to be somebody recognizing the pros and cons and not being a troll:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042
Still much better than cow milk for the environment. There's other options for protein and fat content as well. Meanwhile, you're out here posting dairy propaganda with milky diarrhea.

Is that what you call a rational adult giving a reasonable argument about the cons of something while also recognizing the pros?

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Where did all these milk haters come from all of a sudden? Full cream milk is the only milk worth drinking. I tried rice and almond milk and they taste like shit

It's just vegans taking a new approach to trying to shame people out of eating what they want. It's why the response to the importance of protein content and fat in milk was to throw up a chart about the environmental impact of cows. Don't have a counter argument? Just start a different one and keep doing it until people give up. Then pretend like you've won.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

and the us is responsible for South Korea to some extent, or is that not true?

global issue, Taiwan as a war would immediately be a global issue

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/6/7/AABJX0AAEaRH.jpg

Doe posted...

Well to start with, we don't ask the author what their work was supposed to mean, we conclude the resultant meaning of the work from the textual evidence. George Lucas is kinda infamous for his extravagant claims about meaning.

Death of the author isn't an axiom. Some people may choose to ignore the author flat out saying what the meaning of their work is, but that doesn't mean that it's an incorrect interpretation. It means that you're just choosing to explicitly ignore the stated meaning from the creator because you want to have a different interpretation of your own.

Sounds like big almond is really getting into everyone's head. Not only are almonds one of the worst water consumers, being a significant contributor to California's water problems, but almond milk has almost no protein when compared to regular milk. You also can substitute almond milk for regular milk in any sort of baking because the lack of fat is a problem with binding the ingredients together.

Almond milk isn't a substitute for regular milk. At best, it's a substitute for people who drink water but don't like the taste.

Noumas posted...

Holy crap first Jennifer Aniston then Matthew perry what is with these late boomers recently they've never had controversy before

Honestly? They're mostly just normal ass people that were in a TV show decades ago and have probably largely avoided social media entirely. Then Friends is suddenly the center of controversy because people are looking for old shows to shit on and all these actors that don't really maintain a social media presence stumble out into the world to make a comment without having any idea what they're getting into.

One of the many reasons why it was a smart move by Disney to make the EU non-canon is because according to the expanded universe the empire was so controlling an evil specifically because there was an even bigger threat coming that only they knew about and only a large highly destructive military would be capable of fighting them. So they had no choice but to go full authoritarian and build these giant super weapons to protect the entire galaxy.

It's about what they created. I don't think it's a controversial take in modern day to point out that the founding fathers had some really terrible habits, so it's not like you're revealing some sort of great secret to history by pointing it out.

The actual question is to what extent we should reject their ideas on the basis that other parts of their lives were less than savory. And by that standard, is there any person in history that wouldn't be rejected?

FFXIV, but picking an MMO that's been around for a decade might be cheating a little bit.

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Games are already pretty realistic looking and full on reality would be boring.

The one glaring caveat being interactable realism. Static environments are now looking pretty realistic without being pre-rendered like back in the resident evil one days, but for the mass vast majority of it you can even scratch it let alone do any damage beyond somebody pasting a 2d burn texture on top of it.

What I'm still waiting to see is the level of realism in modern gaming but tied to an engine like with the Red Faction games where everything is truly destructible.

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I'm not understanding the context. He implied Keanu is still alive...and that's bad?

The way I read the sentence from the article, he was basically saying "it's a shame that talented actors are dead while talentless ones are alive", so yeah that's basically what he said.

Anytime China complains about taiwan, whoever they're complaining about should respond with this exact line from China's official stance on Ukraine:

The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. All parties should jointly uphold the basic norms governing international relations and defend international fairness and justice. Equal and uniform application of international law should be promoted, while double standards must be rejected.

It's ahistorical, but as long as everone acknowledges that the Netflix documentary is a vanity project on the tier of Ancient Aliens then I guess we're all good.

Deafening silence on the 51% attack vulnurability. I can only assume most people either aren't aware or are but pretending not to notice because it's a fundamental flaw in the underlying technology that nobody wants to talk about.

I doubt anybody's going to be pissed off by this because she's a new character without any previously established relationships. This isn't an Iceman situation where some writer decided he was randomly gay after decades of him hitting on women where we literally see his thought bubbles.