Lurker > Paratroopa1

Indianapolis Colts
Cincinnati Bengals
Dallas Cowboys
Houston Texans
New Orleans Saints
New York Giants
Carolina Panthers
Buffalo Bills
Baltimore Ravens
Los Angeles Chargers
Kansas City Chiefs
Arizona Cardinals
Los Angeles Rams
Pittsburgh Steelers

masterplum posted...

A moderate Republican

lol

I can't figure out which poll answer means yes or no

Dancedreamer posted...

Honestly, I can't even be friends with right-wing people anymore. Not because of how they vote, but because of how they act and the things they say. I can barely stand being in a room with them anymore.

How they vote is a symptom of the type of people they are - it would be impossible for me to ever really be friends with someone whose personality has them voting for republicans in this climate

don't 'all lives matter' me next time

No I'm not letting americans off the hook here, they're worse

newsflash: americans are generally horrible people

Paratroopa1 posted...

Alright, I've been stuck at level 3 for a while, but I finally got it this time, these two bets can't go wrong

Level 3

Buffalo (-13.5)
Seattle (-2.5)

Bonus: Miami

see, jinxes aren't real, I was correct about both bets

Nah, I do agree that Simpsons has been a problem for nuclear energy. The way they depict it is just cartoonishly evil, and instead of it all being on Mr. Burns they make the very idea of nuclear energy look bad, with huge smokestacks and nuclear waste just being dumped into rivers, which really isn't what nuclear energy looks like at all. It's a known thing that nuclear energy advocates have been hurt by the Simpsons since the 90's.

Seginustemple posted...

Simpsons is totally enlightened centrist and a staple of anti-nuclear propaganda. In terms of impacting climate change it's arguably worse than South Park.

The nuclear energy thing is really bad but kind of the only thing whereas South Park has a whole smorgasbord of dumb takes

Mewtwo59 posted...

I think 2-3 and G1-2 > 6-5 deserves a what.

I don't think as many people played AA6 and that's probably skewing the vote heavily

me telling pj to fuck off is nothing compared to how frustrated I was in 2016

Anyone willing to make a video on this topic is braver than I am

GuessMyUserName posted...

Glad to see it appreciated! If you enjoyed that one she's put out a second yesterday tackling a few more things she didn't yet cover

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDxv9yMNZow

I'm glad you're really doing the legwork on summarizing this that I don't have the patience to do right now. It's gotten to the point on the Chappelle thing where even watching this video made by someone who's on my side just feels like more emotional energy than I want to put into it, and I feel like there's really no reason to force myself to do it, feel like I've earned a pass

You earned going onto my ignore list forever, I don't have business with you anymore.

pjbasis posted...

I felt Golden south Park was like this too. But I'm sure my experiences and feelings matter a lot less than yours. You sound so confident and all.

Yeah, fuck off.

pjbasis posted...

Nearly all comedy was like this lets be real.

Actually, I think The Simpsons, South Park's closest contemporary, is DECIDEDLY ANYTHING BUT THIS, at least during its golden years. The Simpsons has always had cynical takes but they're always couched in a deep level of optimism, empathy, and respect for others, which is the magic ingredient that I think South Park is sorely lacking. I don't think The Simpsons is even remotely 'enlightened centrist.'

pjbasis posted...

I don't think south Park created detached centrists single handidly lmao.

I also never said it didn't contribute. But label me as something easy to understand for you.

reinforced, not created

Paratroopa1 posted...

You are literally insightfully demonstrating the harm that I believe South Park caused right in the middle of this discussion

Sorry, I think this post was poorly clarified - I mean to say that you are correct with regards to swordz's stance being a mistaken one, and the way in which you are pointing out the mistake is demonstrating the way in which South Park has messed people up in the way that you think didn't happen

pjbasis posted...

Swords would you not have had an opinion on slavery? I don't think its possible to not care about politics, you just think it means something distant categorically.

You are literally insightfully demonstrating the harm that I believe South Park caused right in the middle of this discussion

pjbasis posted...

Taking a nuanced approach that does not arrive at a hasty conclusion is not the same thing at all.

If you can't tell the difference that's on you. And based on the rest of your post you have something personal involved here too.

Your approach is not nuanced, it's vapid, and South Park has taught you its message very well if the difference is lost on you.

GuessMyUserName posted...

this is literally the ideology of south park that's being argued here

Yeah I was going to say this exact stance is literally the thing that South Park has reinforced that I think is bad, sooooo, yeah

pjbasis posted...

Poisoned the minds of our generation is quite strong!

It can be both though. South Park was enlightened in some aspects while being horribly ignorant in others. Like people!

I laughed because you're doing the exact same thing South Park does where it discredits points of view by equivocating and taking a central stance

I do not have the energy to write my "why South Park's ideology of toxic cynicism about everyone and everything was not good for our culture" bit but all I can say is that South Park was a complicated, often hilarious show that nevertheless reinforced a lot of really not-great beliefs in a lot of people, some of whom are close friends, and it doesn't matter if the show was good sometimes, the poison was still poison

I never said South Park was always terrible. SP would never have been a problem if it wasn't one of the funniest comedies of our generation. But it also has some really terrible politics, and yes it always has, I was just way too young at the time to grasp that.

Backing up KP here, I think South Park poisoned the minds of our generation with really garbage politics

I remember having this debate in like 2004

no common lineage with D&D; not an rpg

don't 'but zelda 2' me do you even know who I am

Snake5555555555 posted...

I would personally say it is. Horror is as much a thematic quality as it is a genre. Castlevania is Gothic horror not only because of its aesthetic, but how it broaches the subjects of death, curses, isolation, and madness as a broad stroke, which rather than concretely trying to scare the player, it's something that lingers in the background as a constant anxiety and the reason that drives your quest. I also argue that having power does not necessarily take away horror. The games' appropriate levels of challenge consistently challenge that power making death teeter constantly on the verge against an onslaught of unholy enemies, along with often labyrinthine, eldritch locations again emphasizing a sense of isolation and feeling lost. It's not something that may "scare" you per se, but I'd argue most Gothic horror isn't really, being more purely focused on the self and emotions and that's what Castlevania gets at the most with its horror, in my view.

damn, this was a good post

yes it has draculas in it

Alright, I've been stuck at level 3 for a while, but I finally got it this time, these two bets can't go wrong

Level 3

Buffalo (-13.5)
Seattle (-2.5)

Bonus: Miami

Final Fantasy 5 is my favorite FF, one of my favorite games of all time, and the only one out of this group that I even like at all!

Was never really able to get into FF4. FF3 is sort of cute but it's just inferior to FF5 in every way. FF2 is uh... not good, except for the novelty of it being one of the earliest jrpgs with a very jrpg-like story. FF1 is only good if you already like it, I think.

Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Buffalo Bills
Chicago Bears
Cleveland Browns
Philadelphia Eagles
Tennessee Titans
Cincinnati Bengals
Los Angeles Rams
Los Angeles Chargers
Seattle Seahawks
Washington Football Team
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Minnesota Vikings
Kansas City Chiefs

I feel like very few people would rate Scyther as less than a 7/10

To clarify my previous statement, the sprites look fine, but I just cannot get over how much of an eyesore the UI is - it looks like something I would have coded in my entry level visual basic class

god this looks so fucking awful

what in god's name

banananor posted...

so i guess you could say the important thing is that you want to be treated a certain way by other people, which i think is how most people look at it (?)

if i could get people to treat me the way i wanted to be treated, i absolutely would go for it. it just makes sense

Yeah that is a decent way of looking at it, there are other angles to it but this is probably the most important one for most people

"Gender is a crazy mishmash of social implications, some that make sense, some that don't" is the only answer I can even think of. If you've never been gender-questioning then there's like hundreds of things that probably don't occur to you on the first analysis of the subject

to put it another way I'm still in the 30-day-trial of gender and I haven't signed up for a full subscription

Mr Lasastryke posted...

what are your pronouns, para?

'it's deeply complicated' but to skip the hours-long explanation, she/her is preferable, he/him is also acceptable and doesn't need to be corrected, may change my mind in the future

Xiahou Shake posted...

Appreciate it! As I said I'm basically totally clueless about the direction of the discourse has taken since I last engaged with it in any capacity, so the context is very helpful.

To add to that question - I think the answer most transgender people would give you about whether or not gender is "purely performative for political reasons" is "oh my god, I have absolutely no idea where to even begin thinking about that." It's certainly mine! That's not a criticism of the question, it's just a really hard one.

Xiahou Shake posted...

Legit question - how do trans people feel about the notion that gender of any type is purely performative for political purposes and otherwise meaningless outside of the social norms that are thrust upon us? That was the hip thinking in the gender philosophy circles when I was going through college but all of this dialogue on today's scale came years later so I don't know how more recent thinking fits into that kind of framework, if at all.

So not to get at you specifically here, but a thing I sometimes notice about people asking questions about trans things is that they're totally unaware that they're about to walk face-first into something that's the source of decades of frought discourse within the trans community with no easy answer. To your question, basically no one person has the same answer here - some people believe that gender is mostly a performance, some people don't, and they tend to get mad at each other.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

I believe it's the difference in "father" vs "fathered".

You're making a statement referencing gender vs sex, respectively.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd say it's just really, really for the better to avoid the word "father" OR "fathered" when speaking about a trans woman, even if it requires you to phrase what you're saying in a different, awkward way that avoids it. Again, I know it's kind of a pain in the ass to take the long way around here in order to protect sensibilities that seem really minor on the face of it, but it actually means more than you might think. Again, not every transgender person will feel this way, but most do. Even the word 'sired' is better, imo, even if it makes us sound like horses.

Tom Bombadil posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

its not impossible that Chapelles friend would have referred to herself as the father of her children. that specific word choice may not have been intentionally misgendering

I'll walk that point back a bit, then! Still find it hard to give him much benefit of the doubt, coupled with the wrong pronoun and the audience laughter and the everything else.

In my opinion, even if it's really the case that Chappelle's friend doesn't prefer retrospective pronouns for herself, it's still best practice to use them in front of an audience of millions who don't know that because that is the most frequent practice when speaking of trans people. This is up for debate, but I think it's the safest course of action. Bear in mind, I basically know nothing about her besides the snippets from this special I've heard, but I think that's kind of the case for most people, too - it's probably best for us not to make any really bold assumptions about her wishes. The problem is, the way Dave Chappelle speaks about her, I'm not especially convinced that he knew her really well, either, and he doesn't seem to particularly care too much about the particular landmines one has to think about when talking about a dead trans person. It's callous at best - even if his friend wouldn't have cared about this, it doesn't even matter due to how touchy a subject this is for everyone it impacts.

In most cases, when you are speaking about a transgender person retrospectively, you still use pronouns, gendered words, etc that are appropriate for their current status - in other words, it's generally considered somewhat rude at best to use the word "father" to refer to a trans woman even if she identified as a man when her child was born. Not all trans people prefer this - I do not personally adhere to retroactive language in this way for myself (and only for myself) - but most do, and it is most respectful to keep this in mind. Cases do come up where talking about a person's gender-related history is basically unavoidable, and in those cases, it's best to just get to the point as quickly and respectfully as possible and then return to using their current gender as the linguistic baseline. Your hypothetical about having two fathers where one transitions to female later in life is possibly one of those situations, but keep in mind that, at least based on the way you're speaking, you personally didn't actually have this experience, and that if you lived through it you might have a different opinion. Be wary of hypotheticals like this - it might seem easy to hypothesize a situation that doesn't actually apply to your current life, but if you did actually magically wake up in a different body one day, you might be very surprised at how that makes you feel! It's easy to say you'd go about life as normal, but it's another thing to actually be in that situation.

Understandably, all of this creates a bit of a tangled linguistic web to navigate, and under the best circumstances - maybe not a thread where feelings are already charged, bear in mind what you're wandering into here - if you're respectful, people will generally let you off the hook for not getting it right (but also keep in mind that you're not a famous comedian performing for an audience of millions, so the stakes are lower for you to not navigate respect correctly). The most I can ask is to please just try to be patient with the whole idea. Remember, part of the reason language about trasngender people is so frustrating is because the idea of even letting transgender people into the conversation is about ten years old, at most - for the rest of the history of the english language (and, probably, of most languages), we really haven't had the opportunity to introduce other words and ways of speaking into the lexicon that might have avoided this issue. We're sort of stuck with a very black and white way of speaking about gender and finding ways around that is a frustrating process for everyone involved, including us (trust me, the linguistic walking-around-eggshells is a pain in the ass for us too), but learning linguistic rules has always been part of treating people with respect!

If you're afraid of asking questions, please bear in mind, again, that we have to deal with misunderstanding like, basically all the time, and explaining this stuff to every single person, especially in a charged environment, gets really tiring. People are probably happier to answer questions than you might think, but keep a few things in mind; 1) It's difficult to switch tones from being frustrated and angry to almost ingratiatingly pleasant when trying to explain gender stuff, so you're bound to get some curt and impolite answers, 2) Such questions can get really personal really quickly and most of us are barely comfortable with ourselves at all as it is, so they might be hard question to interrogate on a moment's notice, and 3) You have to go into it actually wanting to learn - if the reply is going to be "That's cool, but I don't get it or it's too inconvenient to me so I'm not going to actually do this," well, we figure out the people in our lives who are like this pretty quickly and it's like talking to a brick wall, so please don't be a brick wall.

kevwaffles posted...

So it's just "us vs them" no matter what he had to say after that, huh?

That's depressing.

It is depressing, yeah.

banananor posted...

i found parts of his most recent special to be painful, but i think the blind anger about it is unreasonable

Trans peoples' anger usually is thought by cis people to be blind and unreasonable, for some reason!

Best: Life on the Fast Lane
Worst: There's No Disgrace Like Home

I haven't watched the special, but given that I already didn't like Dave Chappelle before any of this, and given that I've got a pretty good idea of what he said, I think that you're only going to find my opinion of this getting worse, not better

Despite having basically enjoyed every film in the MCU up to this point I can't imagine this one not being stupid, would love to be proven wrong

8/10

I like it, I find it more fun than other over-serious contemporaries