Lurker > Wetterdew

TheOnionKnight posted...

You'd consider it unnatural for a baby to learn how to talk?

I feel like you're conflating "normal" with "natural."

Language isn't found in any non-human species, so it's not a natural occurrence in that sense.

If you mean "natural" as in normal then yes you could call speech natural by that usage.

Honestly if there's any word dichotomy to have a beef with, that is often weaponized against gay people, it has to be "normal" and "abnormal." Those words actually carry heavy baggage when used to describe traits and people.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

The words natural and unnatural aren't going anywhere any time soon. Because the distinction is useful to be able to make. and will continue to be useful. Sorry you don't like the stigma attached to the word "unnatural" but the word is always gonna exist.

Easier than saying "existing in or caused by nature, but not made or caused by humankind."

the same way that "cis people" is easier than saying "people who aren't transgender"

You could just have said "unnatural doesn't inherently mean bad" instead of opposing the word on principle which just describes a neutral concept

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

TheOnionKnight posted...

My point is that these people are operating with a false premise that ought to be demolished. Easier said than done, of course. People don't like to change their minds.

This reminds me of people who don't like that the word "cis" exists to describe people who aren't trans.

Recognizing that some things are manmade and other things aren't isn't inherently problematic, and even if it were, it wouldn't be relevant in this discussion. ("guys please stop pointing out what is or isn't a human trait/product"--???)

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

TheOnionKnight posted...

I won't keep yammering on, though. I think I made my point, and I don't want to drag down the thread!

your point seems to be that you don't like that the word "unnatural" exists or that people have a word to distinguish between things that exist with and without humankind. Sorry, but we do actually have a word for that. The dictionary isn't "wrong," because it isn't prescribing a usage for the word, it's just describing how people use the word. Except you I guess

When people call homosexuality unnatural, they are trying to imply it's a human perversion not found in other creatures. If you go "ackchyually everything exists in nature" then the homophobe would just groan and say "my point was that it's a human perversion not found in other animals" and you've done nothing to actually respond to them meaningfully

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

Dragonblade01 posted...

We are a part of nature. Anything we do is included in things that "occur naturally."

SMH

This topic is about people who think being gay is unnatural, as opposed to natural. And implying that unnatural things are inherently worse and that therefore being gay is worse.

If we are going to try to determine whether something is NATURAL or UNNATURAL then we need to know what the people mean by one or the other, according to how the words are defined. Coming in to say "ackchyually ALL THINGS exist in the material world" is irrelevant since that has no bearing on what these homophobes are getting at.

The distinction they draw between natural and unnatural (which is what they try to use to denigrate gay people) is that natural things are not caused or made by humans, and unnatural things are caused by / made by humans.

That's the difference between "natural" and "unnatural" as defined by their common usages. That's what we should examine.

And here you are coming in with "well ackchyually nature has a definition that means "the material world," and technically humans ARE a part of the material world, therefore they're all natural"

YES there is a usage of nature that means "the material world" but you are getting hung up on it. That definition is irrelevant here. Because you know as well as I do that when people say "gay isn't found in nature" they aren't talking about the same definition y'all are trying to pull out. They are using THIS definition of nature:

"the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations."

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

TheOnionKnight posted...

The dichotomy between "natural" and "unnatural" is a false one that humans created to separate themselves from nature. We're not better than or separate from nature. We're part of it, and the things we create are part of it too.

It's no more a false dichotomy than the dichotomy between even and odd numbers. We have a label for things that exist without humankind, and another word to describe things that exist because of humankind. The fact that this distinction exists doesn't imply anything about one being better than the other. and whether or not you like the distinction, it still exists. And regardless of your opinion on the implications of recognizing what's natural and what isn't, the words have meanings and this is how we use them.

natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind
unnatural: not existing in nature; artificial

If you were talking about the words "normal" and "abnormal" then it would be up to question--and sometimes "unnatural" is used synonymously with "abnormal." But that's not the usage I'm talking about.

Anyway, how do you distinguish between natural and unnatural? You tell me what you think the words mean. If you think "natural" means "exists in reality" then I would agree that wearing glasses and using computers falls under your working definition of the word. (but not the common usage)

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

TheOnionKnight posted...

Everything humans do is natural. Even building computers, wearing glasses, etc. Birds make nests. Ants make anthills. Humans make things too, just like other animals. The only difference is that human creations are usually more complex.

I appreciate the attempt to put all human things on the same level...but this just isn't true. The word "natural" means "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind." And the word unnatural means "not existing in nature; artificial." Wearing glasses, using condoms, using screens and computer apps, taking medicine/vaccinations, reading, writing, operating vehicles, etc. are absolutely not natural. And it's ok. Natural isn't synonymous with good.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

Marauder64 posted...

I personally dont agree with homosexuality. To each their own.

I would appreciate the fact that you at least don't try to pretend you're fair to gay people, except being brazen and open about a bad and hurtful opinion doesn't actually make it any less bad and hurtful

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

darkphoenix181 posted...

What do humans do that is unnatural?

Wear glasses

Get back surgery

Give and receive vaccinations

Engineer our food or even curate evolution to make dogs and cats that fit our needs and wants

Use screens and computers

Read and write

Wear condoms

Go to the gym/exercise

Drink milk from other animals

Wear clothes, shoes

Be vegan even though we are omnivorous

Get cosmetic surgery

Practice religion

Take medicine, cigarettes, drugs

Speak languages (animals communicate but don't have what we consider language)

Get married

Practice abstinence or be celibate

----

Being unnatural isn't proof that something is bad. And homosexuality is more natural than any of these things anyway.

Anybody harping on homosexuality being bad/unnatural or anything other than on equal footing with heterosexuality is just being a moron.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

I guess there are a lot of implications this kind of market would introduce, but I like the idea because it can move us away from inhumane conditions for animals.

I also wonder if one day we can grow beef or pork without the heavy environmental toll it costs to raise them as live animals.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

S8, I'm happy with it and will stay with it for a while since new phones all look like garbage to me atm.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

People who say "no homo"

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

Questionmarktarius posted...

You can't end discrimination by mandating it.

That's a nice one-liner but it doesn't really have anything to do with the question you were responding to, "what makes "forced diversity" different from regular diversity?"

Diversity in media actually DOES help normalize underrepresented groups. That much we know. Nobody said anything about it "ending discrimination" except you, but it does help.

Is your media worse because it has a gay person/black person/woman in it? Would changing that character to be straight white and male fix the problems with the character? The real problem: POORLY WRITTEN characters. Not minority characters.

Now, diverse is NOT synonymous with poorly written. HOWEVER whenever a movie with minority/gay/female characters IS poorly written, people rush to blame it on the movie's diversity for some reason. Meanwhile when a movie starring all white guys gets bad reviews, people recognize it's not because the characters were all white, but because they were poorly written.

movie starring all straight white men is bad --> people say "this movie is bad"

movie starring minority/gay/female characters is bad --> people say "diversity has ruined this movie"

Double standard

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

WHAT MAKES "forced diversity" different from regular diversity?

This video is a good response to one of the morons who whines about forced diversity. (The cringe wolf avatar belongs to the person whining about forced diversity, not the person who made this video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMNWRqa-vGc

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

JebronLames posted...

why was h.s. better, for you?

Bc my middle schools were full of awful children but my high school had a good culture of kids and teachers and basically nobody was mean.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

I'm not seeing any articles about this when I google and you didn't provide a source link?

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

Middle school no, high school yes

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

S8 and I don't plan on getting a new one any time soon because I don't like any of the new phones. They're too fucking big and they have notches and holes in the screens and they have other problems too.

Hopefully in 3 years they have the phone I'm waiting for.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

If it's safe, then yes. Do I need a hotspot or is it magically connected?

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

Irony posted...

Considering they are all suppose to be 3rd party no

Nobody said that they'd all be third party

Except fans I guess

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

He's just trying to absorb some of her youth so he can last long enough for another presidency in case he doesn't win this one.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

Oldin posted...

They make it work on wii u.

Which is irrelevant because Wii Us have the right hardware to easily play most DS games, and Switches don't.

I guess they could allow you to use joy con motion controls with a pointer on the screen to simulate a touch screen. But that seems very clunky and there are still problems like how Switches don't have microphones.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

You can't really just dump a DS game on Switch. Most DS games use the touch screen. And the only way you could do that on switch is by playing undocked. And if you're playing undocked, the tall DS screens would be fitted into the horizontal switch screen and you'd have a ton fo black space on either side. And if you turn the Switch screen to show the DS screens vertically, then you can't attach the joy cons to the sides of the system. And if you can't attach the joy cons, then you'd have to hold the screen, the separate joy cons, AND still have a free hand to operate the touch screen.

So it wouldn't work.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

It's not rarer, it just shows up under different circumstances. Usually it means you found it in the wild instead of hatching it.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

(hoping to kill the main character)

"After I kill you I can take the reward for myself! I'm sending a bunch of drones to shoot you in your trailer, so NYAH"

Main character: *simply removes his VR headset and steps outside of the trailer, dodging all the missiles and proceeding to thwart the villain*

wow...the stakes are so high, I was on the edge of my seat on whether he would leave his house or sit in there waiting for the drones to shoot it.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

Because JRPGs are written by the worst writers. They embrace the worst bits of anime writing and can't even get that right. The writing is usually an afterthought because they think everything else will carry the game. And they're made for children.

Then they get translated into English.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

That never happens to me but I know the feeling of a good crack elsewhere. Like my elbows or ankles. Or back

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

They are embarrassing their country

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

God's Own Country

edit: I forgot, I'm not straight

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

Lost_All_Senses posted...

What makes a film a lgbt film? They just gotta be a lead or something?

delving into lgbt themes.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

He's right; that said, I still prefer watching movies in English so I don't have to read subtitles while watching them

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

SSJKirby posted...

who?

ralphthemoviemaker

You have google at your disposal

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

What a waste of packaging and it's not worth it IMO.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

Go Frozen 2!!

And I don't care if TLK grossed more even if it was technically all animated.

---

rip to all the animals killed in wildfires.

I'm not a star wars fan but why does this need to be explained?

Presumably they invented jetpack gear and were trained on how to use it.

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

I feel so blessed to have a January birthday so I can invite all my friends to enjoy January's cinematic bounty for my parties

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

Texas barbecue

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

Jambalaya

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

Inkling, Ridley, Isabelle, Hero, Lucas, Toon Link

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

Do you know how many you watched at theaters vs in private?

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

That's sad.

My old landlord is the only person I can think of. He would crash in our living room for weeks at a time unannounced.

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

Yeah they should marry gay people. There's no reason to discriminate against us.

Just do it you cowards

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

GTA Chinatown wars

The moron developers apparently didn't code the game to store backup saves. I happened to turn my DS off right when it randomly started autosaving, and when I booted it up again my whole file was corrupted and unplayable.

I never touched the game again. What a stupid mistake of the developers to make.

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

If they're going to stop using decimals then they should adjust so that they use more of the scale instead of just the top half.

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

Guide posted...

What.

I'm trying to make a list of games that allude to climate change. Do you know any other than Pokemon and Splatoon?

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

Games I can think of:

Splatoon
Pokemon

In particular, any games from before the mid-2010s? From 2009 to the mid-2010s, people stopped talking about climate change.

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

I'm not a star wars fan but I did enjoy TLJ. I was hoping this movie would be good but I didn't like it much.

It just opens up just casually talking about Palpatine as if he hadn't died, as if we're supposed to know that he was revived and how he came back, and he just goes "I was every bad guy, that was all me [even though I have no reason to be alive now and I'm not gonna bother explaining how I'm alive again]"

So many characters have nothing to do. Finn was wasted and so was Poe, they obviously had chemistry and should have been gay for each other. The new characters added in this movie don't really do or add much. I don't get how Holdo was able to gather so many helpers so quickly when in the last movie they struggled so much more. The first half of the movie is just searching for an item which they stumbled upon by bizarre luck falling into the right sand pit. And which was ultimately inconsequential because in the end Rey just uses Ren's wayfinder to get to Palpatine. Finn has a bizarrely useless moment where he almost confesses his love and it just goes nowhere. The story echoes the original trilogy too much except it's less satisfying seeing Ren choose to be good compared to seeing Vader choose to be good. And I would have preferred if Ren had lived instead of Rey, since what we got feels too similar to what happened between Vader and Luke and I would have preferred them to explore how a redeemed Ren would move forward as a good guy. Instead of Rey who was always good.

The movie also just feels crammed full of stuff happening, but lacking in compelling emotional drive. The most compelling parts of these movies IMO have been Ren and Rey's relationship and development, and I wanted more about that. This is the finale of the big trilogy and it started me off groaning with "why is palpatine here" and finished with a kind of by-the-books final confrontation.

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

None of the KH final fantasy characters and story. No more "hearts" "darkness" "light" bullshit. Also the game tells a complete story, doesn't pick up from a previous game or leave loose ends for sequels. Instead of getting a crappy Square Enix writer to cobble together a video game-tier story, get some writers and character artists right from Disney to work on the game.

Turn-based JRPG gameplay similar to Dragon Quest 11 and would be developed by the Dragon Quest team, who has proven they can reliably make good games. You get eight disney characters in your party over the course of the game. Elsa, Moana, Lilo/Stitch, Wall-e, Snow White, Ralph or Vanellope, etc. IDK, just pick a bunch that could be fighters and get along as a team.

Story lines shouldn't just be "the events of the movie, except you're standing in the background watching it happen and then you make friends with the protagonist"

I'd leave it to the developers to decide what the world should be like--exploring Disney worlds, or integrating Disney characters into a unique new world, IDK.

---

That's what I'd want. A SSB clone could also work I guess, but I'd be more into a JRPG.

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

It's a great movie but it underperformed commercially so IDK if it's very iconic.

What does it mean to be iconic "to me" as opposed to iconic in general? It's definitely very memorable.

---

Touch fuzzy get dizzy.