Lurker > marthsheretoo

I dunno if you noticed but we're kind of in the middle of a pandemic right now.

Bananana posted...

a lot of texans who complain about cities dont seem to understand that their issues with cities tend to come from the control that concentrations of big companies in places like la and nyc have over policy. yes those texan citizens will certainly have better lives with more rich and corporate interests flooding their state

get fucked libs!

You're making the mistake of ascribing logic to conservative ideals.

Here's what conservatives hate about cities: liberals live there. If liberals lived in the suburbs, conservatives would hate the suburbs. If they lived in the country, conservatives would hate the country.

Hatred of liberals is their one consistent value.

The right wishes they were this flexible.

The cherry on top of the masterpiece that is BotW is how it inspires nerd rage on the internet. Keep those essays flowing, guys.

Is lethal weapon 5 a Christmas movie?

Rodd Shaft.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

This is just...huh. This is an extremely unhealthy outlook on...honestly, just fucking everything.

Welcome to Pepy threads >_>

You gotta go on a long road trip with a wacky friend and a love interest to the tribe's homelands and complete the trials to claim your rightful title.

I just mentioned it during a scheduled checkup and that was all he needed. Hopefully your insurance covers checkups.

Good news is, a doctor should be able to clear it right up.

I don't think this thread is actually a melty but it gives off melty energy.

Sure loved playing catch with my soda as a kid.

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

PuppetPalClem posted...

You scroll down from a post to try and see what other users think of the actual post, but 9 times out of 10, the top comment is just some unoriginal meme response and the next fifty responses are even lazier, less inspired versions of that.

Then you try scrolling past all that to get to a real response and its that long ass wave that goes in and out rather than putting the replies in order. Then you have to basically hold your finger on that response line and scroll all the way back up to find the comment the person is responding to in the first place.

Who interacts this way with anything? No other forum uses this layout.

There's a button to collapse comment chains. It's a lifesaver.

Has your understanding of depression graduated beyond "I wouldn't have depression if I had a hot girlfriend" yet? If not, you have no room to say this.

Where does Ghostbusting fit in?

deupd_u posted...

Imagine literally thinking this. How embarassing. Are you embarassed? I'm embarassed for you.

Imagine seeing someone post that "nothing shouts freedom like a car" and claiming anyone who dislikes them must be totalitarian and not coming to the conclusion that they are phenomenally stupid.

And then spelling the word "embarrassing" wrong 3x in a row.

Better plan: just play platinum.

Even better plan: play a good game.

lilORANG posted...

Dumbledore was barely in the recent movie. Obviously they're going to cover that stuff in subsequent films where he takes a leading role

If you're referring to the family connection:

The fact that they hung their big movie-ending hook on a character that was barely in the franchise up to that point is part of what makes the writing bad in the first place.

If you're referring to the other thing:
If they go into it in future movies, fine. But can you explain the point of the mcguffin blood vial in a manner that doesn't make it actively detrimental to the story they were telling?

lilORANG posted...

How do you even know the Dumbledore thing is a shitty plot point when it's most certainly a misdirect and hasn't played out?

Because they're treating the family name of Credence as something I should care about and a driver of drama, as if it's something worth following the thread of across multiple movies. If they weren't banking on it bringing people in, they wouldn't have made it the ending sting.

And I just don't think a surname, even one attached to magical potential, is interesting. I certainly don't think the writers have the skill to do anything novel with it after what they've demonstrated. We're back in goddamned soap opera territory again. So this signaling that time and importance will be devoted to it turns me off the franchise entirely.

Oh, another thing I forgot is how they removed the potential tension and depth of Dumbledore struggling with his past feelings for Grindelwald versus the knowledge that he must act to stop the atrocities he's committing in favor of "ok, now that I have this vial of blood I can do things, yay." Really shot any semblance of an interesting story in the foot there.

lilORANG posted...

Meh. Nagini isn't a retcon as far as I know.

lilORANG posted...

And the extra Dumbledore is hardly lore breaking...at least not yet.

The problem is not whether they fit the lore/are retcons... the problem is that they're shitty plot points and I'm not interested in watching a series that thought they were worthwhile ideas to explore.

It's a little too late, since the movie's out already.

Besides, Ian's hammy acting is the one enjoyable part of the movie, dumb as it is.

Literally a baby-switching plot in the 21st century. That's soap opera territory.

Literally reconning Nagini to be a shapeshifted human.

Literally a scene where one person explains their backstory for 5 minutes immediately followed up by another character explaining their backstory for 5 minutes that renders the first explanation pointless.

Literally character assassination for drama and plans that are needlessly stupid for action.

Literally adding a new unmentioned family member to a famous family as a twist.

Literally adding a bunch of pointless characters who don't do anything.

Literally so careless with the lore that they create timeline issues for no real reason other than muh nostalgia.

Literally a shit-tier movie that ensured I would never watch the sequels.

Geese don't have hands. Jesus was nailed to the cross by his hands.

Jesus=not a goose confirmed.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


We'll see.

I remember when I was younger voting for an independent commission to draw our state's districts, knowing it would harm my party, because it was the right thing to do. The measure passed. Since then, Republicans have only gerrymandered harder.

So fuck em at this point. Take away their toys, make them sit in the corner, and fix the system without them. And if the system doesn't get fixed, I'll vote the ones who aren't fixing it out too.

What a depressingly stupid tweet to end a career.

ClaytonGuida posted...

So your position is that Republicans made an attack ad against the Republican Candidate

No, no, but you're right, I'm the joke here.

I've asked you to name a single Democrat involved with the ad. You haven't, so I'm forced to assume you can't.

Would you like me to start naming Republicans?

ClaytonGuida posted...

Correct. And that's how everyone viewed it - there are posters in here just trying to bullshit and justify.

It was a fearmongering ad and an attack/misinformation ad. He can't serve more than 2 terms. The ad was ridiculous.

So your position is that Republicans made an ad with misinformation, and that proves Democrats make ads with misinformation?

ClaytonGuida posted...

3) I say "Actually, Democrats do it a lot. Here's evidence"

Still waiting on the name of a single Democrat involved with making the ad.

Annette Schwartz

Was in awe of her throat.

ClaytonGuida posted...

the fearmongering commercials that were released during the 2020 campaign by the left.

Who on the left released that commercial? I want names.

Gawain791 posted...

This is a really odd deflection. Are you under the impression that vegans on average don't trend towards leftwing politics and caring about other humans?

Vegans on average? Sure.
Pepy not so much.

Pepys Monster posted...

Then perhaps things ought to change for the better.

They ought to. I'm investing in lab grown meat to change that industry for the better.

Pepys Monster posted...

Cows are impregnated, have their calves taken away from them and turned into veal, and then their milk stolen. How is that ethical?

Humans are paid pennies an hour, endure unsafe conditions, and are routinely abused to harvest your fruits and vegetables. I hope you apply the same ethical scrutiny to them.

I'm not really arguing at this point tbh. Just shooting the shit.

I think there's definitely a tendency to grab a long-term partner once you realize you're aging out of your 20s or see your friends doing it. These decisions are usually made in haste and people can find they were poorly matched.

But compatibility is a complex beast and those same relationships can flourish and grow into strong things under the right circumstances. I don't think relationships that start off like that are inferior to relationships where high school sweethearts realized they were perfect for each other or somesuch.

I think I have to believe that in most-not all-relationships, both parties have convinced themselves they're happy.

Error1355 posted...

...what?

I got careless with tracking what "it" is referring to, but I think the intended meaning is still clear enough.

Unless... are you referring to something else?

WingsOfGood posted...

I guess your contention is you believe true love is something you can only feel with one person because it seems to me you believe your wife is your true love.
Kinda weird contention. Anyways...

Eh, sorry if I offended. The term "true love" comes with a lot of cultural baggage and a connotation of singularity (after all, if you marry your true love, everyone else had to be untrue...right?) And if you decide someone is your true love, it's a lot easier to justify all sorts of things.

I freely acknowledge that it's possible we could have met other people and built lives with them and been just as happy. A different kind of happy, but happy all the same. That doesn't jibe with my definition of true love. If yours is different, great.

WingsOfGood posted...

So what do you believe? Were you in deep love with her when you married her or ?

I proposed once I was certain that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her. I'd already loved her for a while, but I'd loved other women and marriage needs more than love to work. I knew I had what it would take with her.

Important edit: It's vital to never make this decision before the 2.5 year mark. There are biological reasons for this, but I don't feel like getting into em right now.

We discussed our future in broad strokes leading up to this, so the proposal was more of a formality. I would not recommend proposing if you aren't sure what the answer will be lol

WingsOfGood posted...

Does your wife believe the same as you? She found someone convenient that worked and built love or whatever?

I never said anything about finding someone convenient. You made that up. But yeah, she believes we've built our love. Whatever infatuation you've felt in the past is only the beginning of what love can be, and it grows year by year. We nurtured our infatuation and built something fucking amazing out of it. I hope you get to experience something like it someday.

WingsOfGood posted...

You seem oddly defensive about this topic.....

I'm proud of the love I have with my wife. Ascribing it to "true love" would only devalue it in my eyes. It's a toxic belief that does more harm than good.

FYI, being selective about what you reply to isn't slick. It's telling.

WingsOfGood posted...

Oh shit his arguments actually make sense and mine don't hold up to scrutiny.

Dude, you have demonstrated a child's view of relationships ITT. I know you think you're making perfect sense, and that is why it's important for you to get some perspective. Since you avoided the question about your longest relationship, I'm guessing you don't have much experience there.
WingsOfGood posted...

If you had actually taken your own advice you would find most people do not admit that they are in said relationships. Many people even months before they divorce want others to believe they met the one. Sure, sometimes a divorce coming is quite obvious, but often it is more of a rumination and admitting it out loud would force the action they are not sure they really going to go through with.

It's actually pretty easy to tell when a divorce is coming if you look/listen for the signs. They won't say/admit it of course, but I've predicted divorces from fucking Facebook comments before. How did I develop this skill? By "following my own advice" and talking to a variety of people about their relationships.

WingsOfGood posted...

But since you asked, I am mid 30s. How old are you? You seem a bit naive.

You're in your mid-30s and you believe in true love? And you call me naive?

Early thirties here. And happily married.

WingsOfGood posted...

This is a bad metric. Just staying together doesn't infact mean it is a good thing. Some do it because they are afraid to leave even though they are truly unhappy.

I feel like if that's the case, you might be able to tell when you, I don't know, talk to one of them about their experience.

Or hold interviews beforehand to weed out unhappy couples or something. I don't know, but please talk to someone with actual relationship experience.

I'm gonna ask. How old are you, and how long has your longest relationship lasted?

WingsOfGood posted...

Why do you say this?

If you had a true love and lined every compatible adult (right age range, gender, etc.) on the planet up, then got on a conveyer belt and had to determine whether they were your true love from .5 seconds of eye contact, it would take over a decade on average to find them. You really think people are out there finding theirs with odds like that?

Once you're done pondering that, explain the mechanism by which people are born with a true love, and why some people are able to find theirs and some don't.

Moving on, try talking to people who have been in relationships for 30+ years about love. I imagine you'll get a variety of answers, and not many of them will line up with the "true love" hypothesis. A lot of people in fact take the position that love is a choice, and/or that love is something you build day by day. People who believe in true love are often thinking about infatuation, which has little to no impact on relationships operating on a scale of decades.

No individual part of it holds up to scrutiny. But hey, at least it exists in movies!

The concept of a true love is asinine.

Mistere Man posted...

He trained a lot more than the movie shows. It supposedly took the falcon a long time to get to cloud city. Luke was with Yoda several months I hear.

Even so... Vader was a devastating combatant who had trained since the age of nine and honed his skill in multiple wars, across several decades, against some of the strongest warriors in the galaxy.

Suit or no, a few months of remedial training realistically shouldn't have let Luke touch him unless Luke was a straight up savant god. Which I think is why the old EU let him be a savant god, and threw in some references to Vader's suit limiting him severely.

In New Canon, they've made it pretty clear that Vader only became a badder bitch after the suit went on, and also that Luke wasn't an omega force warrior, so the issue is larger than it was before, but it was always a "squint and try to ignore it" kind of deal.