Lurker > Paratroopa1

Sveta

Bros
64
Smash

Song of Mourning: The Eternal Wind
An Empty Tome
Dancing Mad

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

If Kentucky wants to put this guy in senate long past his expiration date I have zero interest in stopping them

Sveta

Right, which is why they're advocating for another increase to the minimum wage.

YoBlazer posted...

I thought Dems had both chambers (and with good majorities) during Obama's first two years.

Yeah and that's when they passed a minimum wage increase.

Mario

Democrats have controlled congress for literally none of that timeframe

K'Sante, the Pride of Nazumah
Staff Roll
Un Deux Trois

Sveta

KCF0107 posted...

The funny thing is that The Prestige was between Batman Begins and Dark Knight

Oh yeah oops I thought it was just before Batman Begins for some reason

KingButz posted...

Thank you for listing the films in this order

I can basically imagine how this happened

"Okay, I'll cluster the three Batman films together at the top, those are probably the most popular anyway"

"Okay, now I'll list the films after Dark Knight Rises, in order, since that's where I'm in the list"

"Oops I forgot Inception, that happened in the middle of the Batman movies"

"Oh right, gotta go back to the start of the list and add the two films that happened before the Batman movies"

FFDragon posted...

Only best picture winner with multiple dildo fights.

Are you 100% sure? I mean, I'VE never seen The English Patient so I don't know

Smash

World Ender
Miss Conductor (Regret ver.)
You Can Have Mine

I understand the pragmatic argument and I believe that Labour would be worlds better than the Tories (as with everything, no matter how much Labour sucks ass) but you have to understand how deflating that single bit about 'biological women' is in how non-seriously they seem to take this issue

Yeah, the issue for me is that I don't know why I'm supposed to give Labour the benefit of the doubt when, even in their explanation that would otherwise affirm their support of trans rights, they're still paying lipservice to transphobic dogwhistles. And I'm just supposed to assume they don't mean anything by it? I mean sure, maybe they don't, but I don't know how I'm supposed to overlook this.

I feel like we might be talking past each other. The paragraph I have questions about is this:

"We need to recognise that sex and gender are different as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services."

What sort of spaces do they mean are appropriate for "biological women only"?

LightningStrikes posted...

Nobody does because none of these transphobes can even agree what a biological woman is other than not trans.

Right........... so what is Labour trying to say about 'biological womens' spaces being protected', and why was I not supposed to read it the way I did? What am I missing?

LightningStrikes posted...

No? Trans people can currently use changing rooms and so on as befits their gender and it is unlawful to exclude them unless you can prove a specific reason eg if the hypothetical fake trans people trying to get in to womens spaces actually existed. In other words current law already provides for exactly what TERFs (dont really like the term because it implies they are feminist) claim to be so worried about. Likewise Im not a lawyer but I think that would extend to cis people also. Nobody is especially worried about that part, the worry is that the Tories want to change the Equalities Act to exclude trans people entirely, and also to make it so they would lose discrimination protections based on their gender meaning for instance a trans woman who is paid less for being a woman would be unable to claim discrimination. Yet people will tell you the parties are the same!

Im pretty cross with the whole situation because on the one hand there has been a lot of misrepresentation of Labours stance, but also Labour arent helping by watering down their previous pledge on making gender recognition certificates based on self-id (the proposal is still much better than the current system though). Of course the transphobes arent going to be happy either. By trying to offend as few people as possible they have managed to offend everyone.

Then I don't understand what the bit about "biological womens' spaces" meant

LightningStrikes posted...

On the Labour thing - its wrong to highlight the single sex spaces thing as the Equality Act already provides for exemptions and Labour is simply saying they wont remove those which there is zero call for anyway. By contrast the Tories have been threatening to ban trans people outright. Similarly they are committing to making gender recognition simpler so its a bit of a dishonest framing. What Labour is offering is a significant improvement in trans rights over the current system At the same time Im not really sure what they expected - there is no use equivocating as it will never be enough for transphobes and any climb down only risks upsetting your own base.

Heres the full article, of course it spends most of it excoriating the Tories for being transphobic:

https://tinyurl.com/4mknv7uy

So what I'm hearing is "oh it's all very well and good for you to be transgender but no it would never be appropriate for you to use the locker room" which is not filling me with a lot of confidence

The trans man thing is not a gotcha. The operating principle here is in no way founded on some kind of actual fair logic where the presence of a trans man in the womens' restroom makes everyone see the error in their ways. The principle here is that people hate freaks like us and want to keep us out of society altogether. Everyone who doesn't conform to some precise notion of cisnormative gender, be they trans or cis, is fair game for harassment out of whatever space they aren't seen as fit for, and that can potentially be BOTH gendered restrooms. This can't be 'gotchaed' out of.

Alabaster Icelands 1
Portugal
Festival of Dionysus (Greece)

Yes

World

PeaceFrog posted...

I mean, it's not like the brand is as ubiquitous to social media verbiage as kleenex is to tissues, or anything like that.

Breaking news: Kleenex to rebrand as "Ex"

I wonder how many lines of dialog Himi has in the entire game. I'm willing to bet it's less than 20

Sveta

Aria Math
The Last Specter's Theme
Remnants of Celestial (Stage 3)

Mario

(DD) I've said this so many times but I agree. There's two ways they could have done it better - either have the Phantom kill off the real Bobby Fulbright at some point before the final case, so that we're emotionally invested in Fulbright's death, or just have the phantom BE Bobby Fulbright, not some sort of nameless, faceless entity, and that way we're emotionally invested in his betrayal. The way they did it has absolutely no emotional punch whatsoever and it's boring. He doesn't even feel like an evil bad guy and I don't feel betrayed, I'm just like, oh.

Suna Gin
Blue Whitecaps
Ragna Breakers

I think this was the wrong movie to establish Kang in. If he had already been established in some other movie than maybe his inclusion in this one could have been like a fun little twist? I dunno. It just feels like this movie would have been better off if it really stuck to Scott and Cassie in a weird alien world and trying to escape it.

One of the implications of the movie that I thought would be more interesting was that it seemed like this Kang was interested in STOPPING the other Kangs and was trying to convince Scott that he would be necessary to do so, and even if it was for his own selfish reasons that felt like it could have been a cool setup to something - but he's dead now, so

Quantamania really feels like it wrote itself into a corner. They do a good job - or at least, MAJORS does a good job of selling Kang as menacing, but then they had to have a happy ending to this film where the good guys win and it sort of comes off strange. It probably would have worked better to have this be a film where the heroes narrowly escape Kang, not defeat him - this is kind of what Ant-Man should be about anyway.

I watched Quantumania recently and... what a weird movie. I don't really *hate* it, but it feels like three different movies with different premises combined into one and they don't really gel together. The plot of Scott and his daughter bonding doesn't really gel with the plot of going to a strange alien world and meeting alien creatures which doesn't really get with the whole Kang thing. The movie is weirdly dour for an Ant-Man movie and all of the human characters feel persistently out of place in the entire thing, especially Hope and Hank who mostly just stand around looking confused and perplexed the entire time and have almost nothing to do in the film. The weird alien world is sometimes cool, but the movie doesn't really do much with it. Kang chewing the scenery is sometimes cool, but there's a little too much of it for an Ant-Man movie. Scott and Cassie are sometimes funny and sweet together, but the movie doesn't really facilitate this well. It's an odd mess. It's doing a lot of things right but it doesn't feel like a cohesive product.

Sveta

SHINE_GET_64 posted...

Maybe I'm the weirdo who likes being called sir

I have a higher opinion of someone who calls me that and come off thinking that they're at least respectful

To be clear, the problem for me is that I would prefer 'ma'am'

Kenri posted...

i love this game but damn i wish i could forget its alt-right brain damage story

wait, what?

(looks up the plot)

oh no

oh JESUS FUCK no what the fuck

Beware the Umbrella Left There Forever
The Sunleth Waterscape
Epicentre

Pokmon

red13n posted...

Oh no I totally get that it isn't your belief.

But moon landing was basically used as a prototype on how to indoctrinate society on things with way more harmful implications. So it is always a sore spot to my brain. Like maybe it doesn't play to your imagination, but that is going to be different for everyone. It was basically a modern blueprint on how to feed people shitty ideas.

Oh yeah, I mean, it sucks ass how conspiracy theories for the last few decades were like just this quirky, silly little thing that people sometimes believed that have now gone completely out of control and have people denying basic principles of reality and facing paranoid delusions about the people around them. It kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth too when people still treat this stuff as 'quirky.'

red13n posted...

Going to hard disagree with this mindset. We simply have so many records and as mostly pointless as it was, it was a huge moment in history. We did something cool, because we could. It took a lot of fucking science and shit.

It is something you should basically be taught "Yeah we did this, it was a big moment in history" and to suddenly turn to "well but i conspiracy" is fucking loony.

It is not as harmful but it is in the same mindset as holocaust denial and other fundamentally bad shit like that. You would just change it to "yeah it is easier to believe humanity wouldn't do something like that".

I mean aside from the fact that I went on to repudiate the exact thing I said, I do get what you're saying in the sense that a lot of holocaust skepticism seems to stem from peoples' refusal to believe that the killing of millions of people could ever happen, but I find it sadly all too believable and it does not play with my imagination like the physical difficulty of landing people on the moon does.

I think it's not that hard to put myself in the mindset of someone who thinks the moon landing was faked, at least - I wasn't alive while it was going on and it has this feeling of being too good to be true as a result, and unlike many consipracy theories which involve completely irrational actions or motives or an impossibly complicated plan on the part of the perpetrators, the motive for faking the moon landing actually makes sense and staging a fake moon landing would be easier to do than actually landing on the moon. It's one of the rare conspiracy theories where the conspiracy theory does seem more likely than what actually happened, because the fact that we landed on the moon is truly amazing and does feel like it demands extraordinary evidence to believe.

But it's pretty clear that the moon landing did really happen, because it actually IS impossible for the US to have upheld the conspiracy for this long. If nobody really ever went to the moon, there's absolutely no way that everyone would have maintained their silence on it this whole time. You can't keep this many people in on a grand conspiracy for this long - it's not possible. There would be actual cracks in the story, there would be people who had come out and said something by now, even at risk of having their lives ruined. But like Jakyl said, not even the Soviets discredited the moon landing (although I can't help but wonder if things would be different now), and there's just a preponderance of evidence that suggests that we had the means to go to the moon and that we pulled it off - we have rockets, we have astronauts, we DID all the work that would make it necessary to put people on the moon and those parts CAN be easily proven.

After all that, it really makes no sense to believe that we staged the moon landing and somehow kept it a secret for decades.

I like how "maybe" just sort of implies a relatively sane opinion of "I dunno, I guess there's a chance, it doesn't really matter" whereas "probably" implies that you think they discovered aliens on the moon

Sveta

I much prefer it when people call me buddy vs being called "sir"

Ragna Breakers
Beat the Diamonds
Subterranean Sunrise