Lurker > joe40001

https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/

Pepys Monster posted...

Good job, man. I'd like to do that someday, but I'm nervous.

I recommend you go watch one. You very likely might have the experience of:
"Well, I can't do great, but I can do better than that."

I did fine but the venue was too small, so even the local people who are apparently paid comedians elsewhere only got a smattering of laughs.

I can and should do better. I'm currently looking for a better venue.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

The burden of proof is on you. You have not presented any evidence that your "universal law" is in any way true, yet you are sitting here presenting it as a fact.

Well, for example romance movies/stories are meant to represent something of reality or aspirational reality. And I don't think there exists a single romance movie where the male lead is obese.

If such a thing is possible then it should exist somewhere in media (not as a punchline).

At the very least this points to the idea that "An audience is not going to believe a movie where the subject of romantic desire/love is very obese."

And if the audience can't suspend their disbelief for that (but can suspend their disbelief for far more bizarre things) I think it points to the rule.

I mean we had "The Shape of Water" where audiences bought the idea of somebody having romantic desire/love with a fish-monster, but they can't accept the idea of somebody feeling romantic desire/love for a very obese person.

That feels like strong evidence that it is culturally accepted as a universal rule.

hockeybub89 posted...

As another autistic person, you definitely need to recognize that your rules are illogical and harmful. It may not feel good to accept your "truth" is wrong, but living in your own reality isn't helping anything.

I do not see how they are illogical or false. Nobody has demonstrated evidence that they are illogical or false.

Something being harmful/unpleasant to accept as truth is not evidence of it's falseness. (Refer to the earlier example of innocent child with slow painful disease)

I am open to hearing arguments that an obese person truly can be romantically loved/desired. But nobody has presented such an argument, they have presented the argument that they can be married or dated. Which I conceded from the beginning as their are a-romantic reasons to marry or date somebody.

hockeybub89 posted...

You'd think a genius like TC could figure out anything

The human condition is complicated and nobody understands it fully, I'm making an effort to better understand it.

High intelligence is not omniscience, often it is demonstrated in the method and effort my which somebody seeks to understand that which they don't understand.

Which in the case of me can relate to certain social dynamics, as those do often not make sense to me.

FelineCyborg posted...

People dont have kids with people they dont love...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/4/5/AACZqoAADJCV.jpg

Punished_Blinx posted...

No. It isn't.

I know you're autistic but human thoughts and feelings aren't bound by established rules. We don't work that way. Everyone is an exception to the norm in some way.

Everything is bound by some rules even if the rules aren't clear to us.

I don't claim to KNOW the rules of reality. But insofar as I know anything, I know that there are things to know, and thus I know there are rules.

The human condition can be colorful and full of a diversity of experience. But there are rules, rules that we might not know, rules that aren't clear to us, but there are rules.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Your fat people can't be loved cannot exist as a law of the universe because there are countless examples that prove it isn't true.

Are there though? Are there any examples of somebody truly romantically desiring/loving somebody very obese?

Post #44 is the main one people should read if trying to understand what I'm saying.

Guide posted...

There are fat fetishists. Japan has a whole niche of fujos specific to Sumo.

A fetish isn't love. People have a shit fetish. It makes sense to me that somebody could involve something they find gross into a kink (such as shit or very obese people). This topic is about romantic desire/love.

Punished_Blinx posted...

You seriously think that nobody has ever fallen in love with an obese person? The fuck dude?

You can feel familial love for an obese person. You can care about an obese person. But:

Basically if you are over a certain level of obesity, people can in theory have transactional relationships, they can exploit your for money, they can even in theory use you as a rebound (only as a prop), but you CANNOT under any circumstances be actually romantically desired.

More explicitly, "They can never just want to cuddle you and be in your arms because they really like you and truly want to spend time with you. It's just impossible to happen at all if your are a certain level of obese."

FelineCyborg posted...

What is it to you that perceives obese people that way, that makes them so much lesser then everybody else they by virtue shouldnt even have the confidence, desire, or need to feel loved?

Those are different questions:
They absolutely can have the need and desire to feel loved. (God knows I do)

But the rule says they can't reasonably have the expectation of the possibility.

A very poor person can absolutely have the need/desire for wealth, but as a rule of reality a million dollars will not appear in front of them.

Are you actually asking us why fat people deserve love?

It depends what you mean by "deserve".

Example, feeling true athletic accomplishment likely feels amazing. I have empathy for basically everybody and so I don't think a certain type of person "deserves" that feeling and some other type does not.

However, some people, no matter their effort will never experience athletic success. And it is unreasonable/impossible for them to expect otherwise.

Dear god theres shallow and then theres just inhumane.

I'm not stating the rule to be cruel. I think most of me wishes it wasn't true.

Let me give a final example that should hopefully clear it up:

Picture an innocent child. Pure-hearted, the whole deal.

Let's say this kid has a slow painful chronic disease. Does the kid "deserve" to wake up tomorrow in terrible pain? No. But is it a rule of reality that they will wake up tomorrow in that pain? Yes.

There is no way to be that child and reasonably expect the disease will be gone tomorrow. That's not how reality works.

I'm not making a value judgement about the fairness of it. (It clearly isn't fair).

It's like this with obesity and the ability to be romantically loved. Not fair, but a rule of reality.

Guide posted...

I agree, but I'm not convinced this is trolling, and so I won't make the accusation. It could be an awful misunderstanding.

I can try to state things very explicitly for people. Though some might have trouble relating.

This has come up in my therapy, and has helped me see the ways in which I see things differently that might be the root of my chronic depression.

I have "rules". Others might call them "beliefs" but to me they 100% are rules (there is an important difference). I experience these rules as unequivocally true. Think of it like you think of gravity. You never doubt it will function exactly as you trust it to function. It is a rule of existence not just something you "believe in".

This sense of needing to see things in terms of firm rules, I do think relates to my autism.

Some of these rules can make me miserable. One rule is something like "you can't have a certain kind of adventurous fun if you are out of college", but I never had fun in college, and I really really really really really long for that kind of fun.

I also have the rule that is "sufficiently obese people (typically men) cannot be romantically desired."

Basically if you are over a certain level of obesity, people can in theory have transactional relationships, they can exploit your for money, they can even in theory use you as a rebound (only as a prop), but you CANNOT under any circumstances be actually romantically desired.

More explicitly, "They can never just want to cuddle you and be in your arms because they really like you and truly want to spend time with you. It's just impossible to happen at all if your are a certain level of obese."

(It's worth noting that feeling of being affectionately wanted is something I'd really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really want)

I'm smart enough to notice 2 things about this rule (and many of these rules):

1. Most of these rules have rigid implications for me and my potential happiness, but also have nebulousness at the boundaries (boundaries which never apply too me. For example, I can't tell you what the exact BMI cutoff is for 'impossible to romantically desire' but I can say it's a window I'm (potentially non-coincidentally) definitely above)
2. Some people don't act as if this rule is true (this legitimately confuses me)

I made this topic because of reason 2. I don't understand how anybody can act as if this rule isn't true. And I want to understand how people can act as if it's not true. If somebody believes it's not true I want to understand that too. It's not that I want an excuse to stop believing the rule. Because again, I don't think it's a question of belief but a law of reality. But it does really confuse me. And some part of me (whose motives are unclear to me) wants to understand how anybody can act as if the rule isn't true.

PS: Important caveat so people don't think I'm an asshole: While I experience these rules as true, I don't think I get to IMPOSE them on others. Firstly, because as laws of the universe such an imposition doesn't really make sense. But also because it's needless. If Louie Anderson's experienced his wife as truly romantically desiring him, it's not my place to tell him it's not real, even if my understanding of the rules of reality say it can't be real.

Ceralyna posted...

There are people who are way more overweight than him and still find love.

Find marriages, find people who might love them like an ugly dog, but do you really think they find people who romantically desire/love them?

You can marry somebody without ever feeling butterflies or romantic attraction to them. Just as a matter of convenience.

It's not impossible to find love if your personality is halfway decent, and as a matter of fact I've seen people who are way fatter and on top of that have a worse personality than him and even they got married and have children (it was that show or something with the two overweight sisters, they're famous for YouTube scandals).

I'm not sayin very obese people can't get married, but there's a difference between getting married and being romantically desired.

Obese people can hire prostitutes, but that's a transaction. It's not because the prostitutes have any desire/lust for the fat guy.

You can have 'transaction marriages/relationships". But that's not the same as actually being wanted.

I feel like you're projecting tc, if you can't get a relationship it's not just because of your weight.

I don't have a relationship because I haven't tried to get a relationship, and I haven't tried to get a relationship because I know as a very obese person I have no business trying.

A very obese person can like their mind, and much of their personality, but they can't like their persona because their appearance and desirability are a component of that, and those things are unacceptable.

It's like if you had a plate of food, and on it is good steak, ok mashed potatoes, but then a poisonous dead plague rat.

Can you say the steak is good and the potatoes are ok? Yes.
Can you say it's a good plate of food? No.

So it is with very obese people.

30RegularUser posted...

That's not actually a rule joe. It's okay to like yourself.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/9/0/AACZqoAADJBe.jpg

FelineCyborg posted...

Bruh fat people can be confident and happy...wuts this all about

Depends on what you mean by confident and happy.

Confident in things they are competent at, but not in say desirability (because they as a rule aren't).

And happy in many things, but not in companionship that romantically desires/loves them.

Chubby people can, but Louie Anderson level obese people, no. That's basically a rule of reality.

I4NRulez posted...

Lol are you projecting? How the fuck do you say this about someone

I'm not saying there's something wrong with him specifically, but there is basically a rule than if a man is above a certain level of obesity, nobody can romantically want/desire him.

And so how are any male celebrities above that weight mentally healthy?

FelineCyborg posted...

How do you know he didnt feel loved? He seemed warm and happy.

That's what's confusing, he's too fat to be loved in that way. Maybe he was loved like a ugly dog or something. But that's not the same as like a mutual love/romance.

It says he got married twice on google. He got something back in the 80s at least. And im sure he had escorts.

Escorts don't romantically like/desire you. You are to an escort what garbage is to a garbageman, just part of the job.

EyeWontBeFooled posted...

Like a lot of comedians, he likely had mental issues.

There's a reason stand up comedy is referred to as 'cheap therapy.'

idk, he seemed alright. And even if he specifically wasn't, it's more that I've seen many very fat celebrities who seem fine enough. And that confuses me.

DespondentDeity posted...

I mean why dont you just get surgery to lose weight if youre so convinced that will solve all your problems?

Such things aren't trivial, also you really shouldn't do them when it is within your power to lose weight.

And it won't solve all my problems but it will solve a few important ones:

1. I will be allowed to like/accept myself
2. People will be able to like me/find me attractive
3. I will have much less of my horrible brain fog, less depression, more energy/mental clarity

Having those things change would help a lot.

No, fat and wrinkly/bad face.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Generally no, but I think almost everybody needs relationships to be happy.

Like, if you are that fat nobody is every going to be attracted to you, or feel romantic desire/love for you... so like how does somebody deal with that?

Louie is one of many fairly famous very overweight people who seemed mentally healthy enough, but how can a person be mentally healthy and also carry around the knowledge that they are in capable of being romantically desired/wanted/loved?

Asking for a friend.

BeantownHero posted...

yall need to let TC be a lost cause in peace

As somebody who has been worse than TC and is slowly turning that around it's frustrating to not be able to help them.

I get where TC is and I know I could help some. So it's annoying to not help.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Ostensibly was the wrong word I thought it meant something else... It actually means isn't the case, not probably the case.

If there is a Fast and Furious property, and Vin Diesel has that property too, and he is in MCU, MCU has that property too

Are you drunk? You aren't making much sense.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

what if i told you i don't understand how that works because ostensibly I know you think the funniest joke is from Fast and Furious, so it might show up around Groot

This is an interesting response.

I like the word "ostensibly" it is one of a few words I use often but few others use.

But I am confused by what you are going for here.

Can you be more direct about your question or response?

Pics or it didn't happen.

GrandConjuraton posted...

My mental health failings, my horrible upbringing, even where I live. There is nowhere for me to go, and so I am stuck in the suffering I am entrenched in.

That's not that unique.

I know what you are doing because I've done it too. It's working from the premise of something like "Only if I am literally the most hopeless person in existence am I allowed to feel self-compassion, because if I had any power or agency I'd have to blame myself for my lack of happiness."

And that's is a flawed belief that is hurting you.

You are allowed to both recognize all the ways the world has been cruel to you, all the ways in which things suck, all the ways in which things feel miserable, have total compassion for yourself, AND also know that you aren't uniquely the most doomed person who has ever lived.

That last part is a delusion that isn't serving you, and it isn't necessary to believe. I know it's hard to let go of, but you aren't so special that nobody has ever been as hopeless as you.

Doesn't mean it isn't very very very very hard. Trust me, I know, I've been there if not worse (still kinda am). But also you should know that you can separate your self-compassion from a narrative of hopelessness.

Everybody here who glibly suggests your life would get better if you just "tried" has no idea what depression is like. That's not how it works at all.

But, if you do want it to get better, you have to leave the door open in your mind that it could get better.

I'd be shocked if there are many if any other people on this forum who know depression as well as I do. So if you want help I can help.

But I think you know that it's not going to help to be pushed in 28 different directions by different people on this forum in this topic. If you want help a cluster of desperate voices pushing in incoherent directions isn't going to help.

So if this topic is just an exercise in self-compassion that's ok too, but again at least entertain the idea that your self-compassion can exist independent of your powerlessness. Because it would be statistically remarkable if you were the single most doomed person in all of human history. And if you aren't, and other people who have been where you have been have gotten better, that means there can be hope for you too.

Let me know if you want for things to get better. Because I can help. But only if you want.

GrandConjuraton posted...

The definitions don't support what you're saying. I looked.

What you're saying there is different from asking if i'm a "reliable narrator". An unreliable narrator would be someone who fabricates things and posits them as the truth, but perspective is an entirely different matter. What happened IS what happened, and no matter how you look at it, there isn't much hope to be seen. Even my therapists and psych don't have any ideas on what I could do.

It's less that i'm "special" and more that my circumstances are so uniquely bleak that I have been stranded in a pit from which there is no escape.

Uniquely bleak how?

C

It can release positive chemicals supposedly.

Also it can feed a "I'm a jacked manly man and that justifies my self-esteem, bro" vanity mindset some people have.

Also it can be good for health in some ways.

Life can be shitty and hopeless, and often if you don't fight tooth and nail against it only gets worse.

And even when you do fight it often still gets worse.

You did and do deserve sympathy, your fears and emotions are real.

But even so, some insanely miserable people have gotten better, and you aren't special enough to be doomed in a way they aren't. So do your best to try to make things better, and they stand a small chance of getting better.

I can offer some more advice/insight if it would help. But your feelings both then and now were valid, and people who say "it gets better" are usually full of shit, because almost nothing gets better without considerable effort to make it better.

No

And you didn't need to add the "at sea" part.

PMarth2002 posted...

How does everyone typically start? My first two guesses are pretty much always adieu and story to cover all the vowels.

RINKS
OCTAL
DUMPY
WEIGH

Then you only get to make 1 mistake but should have tons of info.

Or you can do:

SIREN
OCTAL
DUMPY

And get 2 mistakes with less info to work with.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Sometimes I put my own delusions into media discussion

But I HAVE to ask, even if I am mistaken, what's the fastest way to ascertain the most recent movie someone's been in?

Not sure how the question relates. But looking up them on imdb is probably the quickest. It will have a list of every movie they've been in and when.

So going to imdb and searching their name, or just googling "imdb [their name]"

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Ah, my mistake then

Thank you for saying that.

I'm sorry if I was short in my responses.

It reflects very well on you to just say "oh, I was confused, sorry". Seriously, you don't know how rare that ability is on the internet, so thank you.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Then stop calling the stuff in question maps <_<

Again you aren't paying attention.

I described what they were, and then later described their origin in culture, and how their origin renders them not important as prescriptive.

There are "maps" but they don't matter. Which is what I said before you argued with me.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

That is entirely not true, the rule is it should happen after a certain narreme triggers it. You call them maps yourself so there is clearly a point at which you know you are going to end up at the destination.

Assuming one desires the thing in question at all, there is definitely a recipie and trigger with conditions. But it's not super simple and I can't explain it on the spot.

You aren't making sense.

Things happen when they happen, there aren't rules that force them to happen at some time or insist they should happen at some time.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I gave several rules and guidelines and you seem to have ignored them?

You seem confused.

There are no rules when a person SHOULD experience life events. There are conventions in media about what such "rites of passage" COULD be and at what ages they COULD happen. But there is no "should" to it, thus there are no rules.

He's responsible for his own actions.

That said, I get the impression he grew up as a kid not getting certain kinds of love from his parents (did he even know his dad?) and as such as an adult it makes sense that he might be emotionally dependent in a way that an abusive person can take advantage of.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/1/3/AACZqoAADHRV.png

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/1/4/AACZqoAADHRW.png

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/1/5/AACZqoAADHRX.png

Haven't posted my updates in a while:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/0/8/AACZqoAADHRQ.png

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/0/9/AACZqoAADHRR.png

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/1/0/AACZqoAADHRS.png

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/1/1/AACZqoAADHRT.png

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/1/2/AACZqoAADHRU.png

...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I assume that's meant as a dig, but my development has been "slow" in some ways and "fast" in others. But really there is no such thing as fast and slow because as I discussed earlier, there are no actual rules.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The point of "coming of age" stories is ultimately about how different life events affect the development of people differently. If everyone went through the same shit everyone else did then everyone would be the same.

Maybe you find the rules vague but they're vague on purpose. Let me ask you this instead, what is an "action" movie?

This is an imperfect answer, but: A movie whose central conflict comes from tangible conflict in the physical world of the movie. If the movie's plot centers on actions/events in the physical world, it is an action movie, if instead the movie centers on thoughts/feelings as the central conflict, it is more likely a drama.

Action movies contain "action scenes" which are scenes intended to evoke the filling of "thrill" in the audience, the risks in an action movie are based around physical harm.

I've never really thought about it, but it's interesting that you've put me on the spot, most movie genres can be classified by the emotions they are mostly designed to evoke:

Action: Thrill/Satisfaction
Drama: Sentimental or Virtuous Joy or Sadness
Thriller: Unease/Deductive Interest
Horror 1: Dread/Fear
Horror 2: Startled/Shock/Revulsion
Romance: Wisfulness/"Butterflys-in-stomach"
Comedy: Amusement

And then obviously things like sci-fi/fantasy and certain other labels describe the context of the movie.

bigblu89 posted...

So you just want them to make the same 4 movies over and over?

I was trying to understand the list of life events as well as their corresponding ages. But now that I know that these rules are meaningless it doesn't matter as much.

There are no times certain rite of passage "should" happen, if they happen at all.

Keep this alive until I can post the meme vid I made

David1988 posted...

Interestingly enough, part of coming of age narratives is also understanding that you dont have to feel that way just because your experiences dont fit into cultural normative tropes

I hear you, but they often re-enforce the tropes while paying lip service to people not having to conform to the tropes.

Like I saw a movie called "The To-Do List" starring Aubrey Plaza, and it was all about how she was a high school senior who *gasp* hasn't done anything sexual yet.

And spoilers ever though she has all kinds of sexual interactions through out the film, she doesn't have full intercourse in the climax of the film because she decides it's more important to wait until she feels ready... only to have her have sex very very early in college. American Pie IIRC did the same thing, same with that Blockers movie IIRC. It's always something like "it's ok if you don't fit in!" and then it's the story of somebody who fits in just fine but just 1% slower than everybody else in the universe of the movie but still well far ahead of much of the general population.

I do find movies like that obnoxious, they literally use slight deviations from these faux-rules as the premise for the entire conflict of the movie, pay lip service to self-acceptance, and then almost always fulfill the rule anyway.