Lurker > Mackorov

DrizztLink posted...

I'll humor you.

Because of the historical connotations of the word use.

Same reason why you can call someone from Britain a Brit but it's bad to do to someone from Japan.

White for sure doesn't have the same history, and black is either outdated or reclaimed, depending on who you ask.

Just throwing this out, but could it also be due to how Africans at that time didn't have a proper identity of their own (due to western colonization) so could only take in whatever prejudiced term was given to them, whereas Asian countries like China and Japan were still mostly self-governed so took offence when they were called 'yellow'?

I also think the colours themselves may mean a subtle negativity. For example, black and white are not exactly seen as distinct colours whereas colours like red, blue, yellow are

DrizztLink posted...

I'll humor you.

Because of the historical connotations of the word use.

Same reason why you can call someone from Britain a Brit but it's bad to do to someone from Japan.

White for sure doesn't have the same history, and black is either outdated or reclaimed, depending on who you ask.

ok. Interesting. Interesting...

Zikten posted...

Because they aren't actually yellow

You aren't actually white either.

Also to note, Asians and Whites DO have different skin colours, especially noticeable out in the sun. Whites tend to form more pinkish skin and Asians well...they don't change much. Go put two persons of the different races right next to each other and you can see.

No, seriously WHY?

I googled but couldn't find any answers on this. I can only see how referring to the diff races by colour is a simplified and easier way to spell/pronounce in everyday life. Is it because saying the word 'Asian' is only two syllables whereas saying 'African American' is a troublesome four syllables and saying 'Caucasian' is a troublesome three syllables?

DrizztLink posted...

You're smarter than this.

I hope.

What? It's not like you're actually white or black in colour either no?

what's up with this racism irony

SSJ5_Goku posted...

Cuz I have a hot wife

pics thanks

I feel so torn in between the waiting for the 20th.

there used to be big trends everyone would get behind like LOTR, Star Wars, MCU, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead...etc.

but nowadays, it all just feels so...bland. Like what movie are we even looking forward to now? I can only think of Army of Dead and Spiderman perhaps. And these are just single movies. What happened to all the big franchises from before? I think MCU already reached its peak with Endgame and now all the minor streaming shows coming up wont even match to that.

Even in anime I dont see anything new and original besides Attack on Titan (which just ended btw)

CanuckCowboy posted...

I watched some pro climbers channel for a bit where he'd take on bodybuilders, strong men, and mma fighters and stuff in a climbing comp.

It was kinda cool. Even putting on 120lbs in weight vests and ankle weights to match the bodybuilders weight he stoll absolutely smoked him.

that's why climbing is truly the ultimate sport IMO. It works both your flexibility, strength, technique, endurance (if you're climbing high walls) and strategy in scoping out route betas.
Although one thing climbers lack at is a defined chest, since climbing hardly requires chest muscles

EnglishBullDoug posted...

Yeah, IDRGAF if you "think it's true" or if you've never hurt yourself before so obviously you will never hurt yourself. (Meanwhile TC is probably in his early 20's)

Placing all your body weight on the tendons supporting your rotator cuff and swinging from hold to hold with no support from your legs causes damage. Over time that WILL turn into an injury.

You don't have to believe me and since you don't campus away.

But there are way more intelligent ways to gradually train your shoulders (IE heavy club swinging, bulgarian bag swings) to gradually train the tendons supporting your shoulders and strengthen that rotational range of motion.

My main issue with it is that I'm at the climbing gym to practice climbing technique. That's what I use when I'm climbing seriously outside. It's a pointless exercise.

I disagree with that. Campus boards exist for a reason after all. Campusing trains your upper body strength and more importantly, being able to reach higher through explosive force. I'd say some routes, like roofs turning upside-down back to normal flat side-up can done more easily if you campus it

There's also two types of climbers, the very technical one who uses legs a lot and the power-driven one.

Tomo Narasaki is one example of a climber who just uses explosive strength to power his way through routes. It won him gold in competitions where this kinda routes benefit him. Adam Ondra meanwhile, got a score of literally 0 in the final round

Guide posted...

What I've learned from people really into climbing is that everyone who doesn't campus really hates everyone who campuses.

It's amusing how your comment is right below this very example

EnglishBullDoug posted...

It's impressive but campusing is kind of stupid. It's one of the worst things you can do to your shoulders, and climbing aptitude revolves around your ability to find/improvise good foot placements.

Campusing is pretty much just a gym climbing thing. Sure, there are boulderers that know good limestone routes to campus as novelty, but when you're climbing at your limit and you aren't 100% familiar with the route outside of reading guidebooks and intel in Mountain Project, there's pretty much never a circumstance you're going to commit to upper body and take your feet out of the equation.

If it didn't outright damage your shoulders I'd say live and let live, but I just roll my eyes when I see people do it most of the time.

I've literally never had shoulder problems before from campusing or doing pullups or dips or anything so I never understood why people criticize it. Maybe I just have strong shoulders idk

pinky0926 posted...

It seems a bit like the difference between people who compound lift vs people who do ego curls.

Campusing seems like an ego drive, inefficient way to climb. I don't know anything about the sport though, maybe it's a good conditioning exercise.

I find it more of bringing in an additional challenge to the sport. Also yeah I think haters just hate 'cos they're the ones unable to campus (either low upper body strength or just too technique-driven). Once you get to higher grades, a lot climbing routes require mini campuses here and there anyway

https://youtu.be/5rqbvdO2KT0?t=497

this is what you call a 'campus', where you climb without using your legs. This guy just did it climbing up a 20-30 meter wall. What a legend

poll

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErlMJSL2bCw

which surprisingly, actually consists of most of the trailer contents. It makes me curious to know what's going on the rest of the movie.

This is what I call good marketing

wish I could watch it already

my penis has the foreskin permenantly stuck behind as though I'm circumcised but I'm not. It kinda sucks

Veggeta X posted...

Superman is a highly deep character if you actually take the time to read and watch his stuff. The problem is casuals don't do that, they go on with general information of what they hear and compare him to Batman.

Superman's greatest strength has always been his sense of morality and how he got there through his upbringing with the Kent's.

I've read the comics Superman too, including what is apparently the greatest one All-Star superman by Morrison. Those were just boring AF.
The best Superman stories are those that explore his darker side or theoretical scenarios like Red Son

Star_FAQs posted...

Well yeah, Supes has never been a particularly compelling character

Yeah well, he did become one in MoS.

Also the action is badass. This is the sort of s*** I can only expect from a few fictional works portraying overpowered characters, the other being Dragonball

Superman Returns portrayed the superhero the most accurately but was also a box office bomb.

Why?

Because that superman is BORING! No one wants to watch this flying dude do absolutely nothing suspenseful and the final act is him literally just lifting up a giant island.

It's funny the hypocrisy I see on the hate levelled on Snyder's take of Superman. Snyder actually tried something different by exploring a darker and more realistic Superman, which btw, happens in the comics too. Otherwise, why not just make another flop called Superman Returns 2.0?

you ask on this thing called the internet, which is what you're doing now

Mona Lisa

Murphiroth posted...

So they're only allowed to fight back...after they've been killed?

Stay mad, homie, you make no sense.

you know how you can knock out enemies without killing them? ever heard of it??

Please go watch the past Captain America movies and see how Rogers does it

GiftedACIII posted...

A lot of is explained as the henchmen fearing the villain and can't leave which makes sparing the villain who's the cause of everything even more stupid.

Yeah. And have you guys ever seen those movie scenes where the big boss villian brings in his henchman who betrayed him or decided to spare someone and start torturing the poor henchman?

Yet somehow we're made to sympathies more with this bad bad villian instead. Incredulous isn't it. It's like movies are just as easily able to twist and warp the audience's sense of morality.

pegusus123456 posted...

Yeah, this complaint doesn't hold up for this show. Sam dosen't kill any of the Flag Smashers because he's sympathetic to their cause. They kill a bunch of people in Madripoor, but those were all murderous assassins trying to kill them. In the first episode, Sam's in a military operation fighting enemies of the state.

Sam's not a hypocrite in this show.

RIGHT. So it's totally ok to kill these mercenaries trying to kill you but hasn't actually killed you and who knows, probably has never murdered anyone before but it's totally not OK to kill the Flag Smashers that have indeed murdered and pillaged so many places all over.

InfinityMonster posted...

Why did John Wick let Kevin Nash go, but nobody else?

Because he's Kevin Nash duh

pinky0926 posted...

It bothers me too, especially if the superhero pulls his punches when it comes to the big bad.

Like dude you mowed your way through so many "down on his luck gang banger #2574559", but now that you're faced with the genocidal commander and chief you grow an ideology? Get the fuck out of here

Yeah, I faced the same problem playing Tomb Raider. Lara Croft was literally murdering people all the way like one motha' killing machine Punisher 2.0 then suddenly a cutscene comes up and she has to kill this baddie and she gets all emotional like it's her first time committing murder. Like jeez....wtf?

Murphiroth posted...

Dude I'm specifically talking about the show, where he no longer has the pistols.

You must have missed the episode where they had a firefight at Madripoor

Murphiroth posted...

Provide examples.

I'm pretty sure Sam never wields a gun the entire show. And they don't kill any of the Flagsmashers, that's just a fact. They go H2H every encounter with them.

Dude, Sam has been dual wielding pistols since Winter Soldier. He literally blew up an entire helicopter full of people, threw enemies off in mid-air into obvious death and shot plenty of others. Even in Winter Soldier movie, he was shooting the enemies.

You're like the very definition of wearing rose-tinted glasses

nemu posted...

The biggest issue is the motivation of henchman to just toss themselves into death without a second thought. It's one thing when they're literal cult members like Hydra or people fighting for a cause they deem worth dying for, but some dudes probably making 150k to fart around some evil villain aren't going to be too inclined to just let themselves be fodderized.

First of all, a lot of henchmen don't even get enough effin' screentime for us to know them. Like I mentioned in the topic title, who knows why they're even working as henchmen for? They could be doing it under durress, under influence, maybe mind-controlled, maybe just some random dude trying to make a dime.

Also you intentionally ignore the comparison to the main villian, which is the main point of this topic.

Murphiroth posted...

Sharon might very well be a super soldier now. And Sharon took the shot to more the side like Steve did. And gun shots don't all act the exact same.

I feel like you're looking for shit to nitpick.

And the henchman thing is a big whatever. Pretty sure the only henchies who die in the show are Batroc's guys at the start, and they're in open combat with Sam and the US Military. Sam and Bucky don't kill any of the Flagsmashers.

Yeah, let's totally forget about every single time Bucky or Falcon picked up a gun and pulled the trigger.

Also somehow it's okay for Sharon to kill people left and right

refmon posted...

If the henchmen didnt join the the main villain they would have just joined another anyway

So somehow the henchmen with a lesser evil doings and intentions somehow gets no proper justice proceedings like the big bad villian does?

Oh wow I swear this board has one of the biggest biased Marvel love boner if I've ever seen one. FATWS must be like a 11/10 in your book

Murphiroth posted...

It's almost like the original super soldier formula has never been properly replicated every version since Erskine's has been worse. This is talked about in the show.

And Steve takes one bullet from Bucky in the side in Winter Soldier. Not sure where you got dozens. Karli took a straight gut shot.

Gotta wonder if you know what plot holes are.

Dude, Sharon is not a supersoldier and she just survived too. From the same gut shot.

Also answer my original topic

Also on a related note ignoring all the other stupid plot holes in FATWS... (spoilers on ending), one big thing that also bugged me...

How in the world is Morgenthau killed so easily in 1-2 bullets? Meanwhile we saw Steve Rogers took probably about a dozen bullet shots from Bucky in the Winter Soldier movie. Then fell 100 metres or smth into the deep blue water, almost drowns, and somehow still survives intact.

I see this almost all the time (in fact, what the hell... all the time) in movies and TV shows, esp. big action or superhero movies.

I was just watching Falcon and Winter Soldier and this just really, really...bothered me. And i'm not a fan of the show anyway. Way too stupidly cheesy compared to the Russo masterpieces.

The big bad villian is the one destroying everything and killing people here and there, and when it comes to the ultimate showdown, the protagonist hero tries his best to save the villian or talk the person down.

Meanwhile all the henchmen of the villian are simply killed off like nothing. Hey, I know they're nameless expendable fodder but be realistic here, each of them is a f***ing human being too, no? Imagine each henchman probably having a family back home or perhaps he/she got forced to work for the villian or has second thoughts about converting to the good side. But NOPE, no chance for any of that. They're just killed off in 0.1 second screentime.

Meanwhile the big villian gets 10 minutes of slow motion death and the protoganist even mourns the villian!

Fam_Fam posted...

there was just a story about a missing 12 year-old girl who was found alive...

with her 22 year-old boyfriend.

she said he's her boyfriend, and he's gonna go away for a long time

Fam_Fam posted...

there was just a story about a missing 12 year-old girl who was found alive...

with her 22 year-old boyfriend.

she said he's her boyfriend, and he's gonna go away for a long time

I'm not in defense of this actually. I'm more of defense of crimes where the age gap is really really really ridiculously narrow. Something like a 15-year old girl with a 16 year old guy.

i'd argue the court should at least take into consideration the age gap involved, not chuck every case under the same black-and-white brackets

And like geez, who in the world would go around asking for one night stands then before sex, ask for the person's ID card or something. Maybe the prson looks like she's 30-years old but she just suffers from a rare skin condition and is actually 14 years old?

Also look up the case of Traci Lords. She lied to get into the porn industry at the age of 14. The only reason she got away along with all the men she had sex with was because the government was the one that got fooled and issued her a license
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traci_Lords

Bananana posted...

tc, i dont think your point is entirely invalid, but minors who lie about their age to have sex should also be partially responsible is a much different title than minors should be responsible for underage sex

Yeah, I should have been clearer.

This, this in bold is what I'm referring to

Mackorov posted...

hello, if they're in an actual relationship??

Imagine you dated a girl for months, become a couple, later have sex, then she reveals to you she's a minor.

Whoopies! Off to jail you go. She visits you in jail every week and tells you how sorry she is and she should'nt have lied but she cant do anything about freeing you now.

There are countless damn cases of this happening all the time. There's NO victim even suffering from this 'crime'. The only victim is you, who just got sentenced to jail because you got fooled by an age gap

I hope this puts into clearer perspective why the law has such a loophole.

I think the only reason this law has never been amended to allow room to consider whether the perpetuator KNOWS of the age is because we can't read minds. Therefore, out of convenience, countries simply enforce the law in a black-and-white manner. No grey area is allowed, despite there so clearly being a grey area that can exist

WingsOfGood posted...

Please explain more

hello, if they're in an actual relationship??

Imagine you dated a girl for months, become a couple, later have sex, then she reveals to you she's a minor.

Whoopies! Off to jail you go. She visits you in jail every week and tells you how sorry she is and she should'nt have lied but she cant do anything about freeing you now.

There are countless damn cases of this happening all the time. There's NO victim even suffering from this 'crime'. The only victim is you, who just got sentenced to jail because you got fooled by an age gap

AldousIsDead posted...

An adult party has the sole responsibility to not fuck minors. End of story.

I have a feeling people only get disgusted about this because it's commonly associated with pedophilia. But THAT'S NOT what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about cases where the ages between the perpetuator and victim is VERY close. Say, for example the age of consent is 16 years old.

The girl is 15 years. The guy is 17 years old. The guy had no idea the girl is 15 years old. The girl produces fake ID and manages to convince the guy she's actually 16 years old. Guy gets jail. Girl feels regret and guilt but can't do anything. She isn't even suffering any form of emotional or mental trauma whatsoever apart from said guilt.

Who's at fault here? Ultimately, who are we...even doing justice to???

Or maybe you can't relate to this until it happens to a close friend of yours.

The whole gist of age of consent law is that it universally treats and groups everyone by their age and age only, completely ignoring maturity, self-awareness, consent of both parties or not, malicious intention by the perpetuator or not and vice versa, a potential malicious intention by the victim or not.

TwoDoorPC posted...

i only opened this topic to post a big fat YIKES

Argue with me then.
Bring it on.

I don't mean minors as in like toddlers or elementary school children. No, I mean those that are borderline near the age of consent but choose to engage in sex with an adult anyway.

I've heard so many stories of people getting jail because they unknowingly did it with a minor, and it's ruined their entire lives forever just because of that one dumb mistake they made. And this kinda grinds my gears a little.

Now the popular argument is yes, the adult should still have the onus of verifying the age of the minor but assuming this is a universal reason as to why the adult should be held 100% responsible is quite dumb IMO.

For instance, what if the adult meets the minor in a night club or a bar where entry is restricted by age already? Maybe the minor got in by sneaking or using a fake ID, but at this point it seems pretty intuitive for the adult to assume the other person is an adult too (esp. if the minor looks like an adult..).

Or another more malicious example but thankfully rare, is that this law puts the minor in a position of being able to ABUSE the system and purposely land innocent adults in jail. Imagine if the adult did everything he could to verify the minor's age but still got deceived. Maybe the minor used a fake ID, a fake birth cert, used a fake photo, lied about his/her entire life history. How else do you check then? It's impossible, unless you go down to a police station or government agency and that's as ludicrous as it gets.

Imagine the adult going there and be like,
"HI, I'm about to have sex with this fellow girl I met at a bar today. Can I check with you guys what's a true age because I'm still skeptical about everything she told me?"

SrRd_RacinG posted...

I would say overtime it's gotten a little less about the cars and more about action.

so it's just a generic action movie with overrated actors now. got it.

What happened to Dom this time? Somebody betrayed him? Organisation against him? He got framed? His baby girl got kidnapped? He stumbled upon a golden car that everyone is after?

edit: just watched the trailer. Oh why didnt I think of that. Another of Dom's long lost relative/friend/acquantance/girlfriend/uncle

how the f do they keep making new films on such an over-milked franchise that's only ever about cars?

Alteres posted...

I think the main point is you really dont see Superman or hulk get visibly injured very often.

At worst they tend to get beaten around and look tired, so a lot of people dont really think of them healing.

yeah, so I told TC if you want to look at it that way, then Deadpool is the only answer. Because his is the only one with a solo movie centering around his healing factor

Trickfinger posted...

Okay.

just go to the marvel or dc wiki or wikipedia or comicvine or whatever... there's no classification for 'main power' and what else, 'secondary power'?

There's only powers

Trickfinger posted...

You clearly aren't paying attention to the nuances of particular words.

Healing isn't one of Superman's main powers period. Every power he has can't be a "main power" regen does not permit Superman to be Superman. Wolverine? Deadpool? Fuck, even Majin Boo? Yeah. Supes no.

there's no 'main power'. Your idea of 'main power' is simply how you perceive that character to be. In this case, I could argue Wolverine's 'main power' is his retractable claws, not his healing factor. Deadpool's 'main power' is cracking stupid jokes while being an exceptional swordsman and marksman, not his healing factor. I could also say Hulk's main power is his healing factor then.

Deadpool is probably who comes to mind when healing factor is mentioned these days, but if you take a look at the marvel and DC universe, a s*** ton of superheroes all have healing factors too, some even more greater than Deadpool's. But if that's how you want to put it, then I can only tell you Deadpool is your only answer. That's because most people simply don't know the other superheroes as well

Trickfinger posted...

MAIN POWER.

Oh, so it's an ancillary ability that only comes into play once in a trilogy of movies and only under certain circumstances.

He's used telescopic vision too it's not one of his main powers. Not sure why we're even citing movies but whatever.

dude... I said Superman in general, not the movie Superman only. Superman does have accelerated healing. You just dont see it often because well, how often does he ever get injured apart from kryptonite?