flametitan

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Possessed said:

That chicken wings are best with buffalo sauce, spicy as you can get? I like everything to be as spicy as possible though I put red pepper in almost everything I cook if it’s just for me.

Not spicy buffalo wings are the worst. Might as well douse them in ketchup.

I always feel kind of bad in discussions of spicy food, because my mom hates even the littlest bit of spice. As a result, I rarely got to have anything spicy, and so I have a weak tolerance to it, even though I enjoy the taste of a good spicy meal.

I was at a Canada Day celebration today, and had a tiny victory. At the concession for the event, when the cook was giving me my order, his wording was, “Here you go young man-- er, lady.” The main thing that makes it a win for me was the fact it was unprovoked, and we had no prior contact before or since, so he appeared to correct himself of his own volition.

It’s the little things that can make a day.

CatBus said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Which Darwinian theories aren’t Satanic? Is he saying that the ones that allow for evolution from species to species are satanic but the ones that only micro-evolution, like the beaks of finches, are not satanic? Is that what he’s getting at?

Yes, actually, that’s exactly it.

Whatever you do, don’t let them find out about herring gulls or Satan will lay claim to the rest of Darwin.

Pfft, the Herring gull is just a red herring towards the actual plans of Satan.

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Five seconds spent staring at someone is an eternity if they know you’re looking. I don’t know what else to say.

Everyone gets that, but I don’t like making a rule out of it. Especially since the worst it can do is make someone a bit uncomfortable. What about autistic people and people with social disorders? It can be hard for them to know what makes people uncomfortable. Aren’t we supposed to be accommodating? Maybe I’m just bitter, because I actually was harassed once, and guess what? No one cared. So fuck all these people and their arbitrary rules that won’t help anything.

I can’t speak for other autistic people, but for me at least the issue is making eye contact, rather than about keeping it for too long. It’s harder to read body language, but not impossible. Even then, I do what I can to be conscious about how my actions may be perceived. My disability is not an excuse to be socially inept.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Off the top of my head, here’s a list of things my parents have told me is satanic over the years (some of which they eventually reneged on).
-Pokémon
-Harry Potter
-D&D
-All non-conservative-protestant-evangelical-Christian religions
-Darwin’s theories, but only some of them
-“emogoth” music
-any music with bad words
-“the world”
-Monster energy drink
-most R-rated movies
-Gays (whoops)
-Anime (because the eyes are dark and creepy-lookin’)
-Foreign policy that isn’t neocon zionism
-“Imperfect” Jews (aka every Jew other than Jews for Jesus)

Let’s see… There are 14 listed options here. Now, assuming that if having, liking, or believing all listed items makes you 100% Satanist, then each item makes you 7.14% Satanist. We can make a dumb facebook quiz out of this. “How Satanic are you?”

I qualify for 50% of this list, therefore I am half Satanic. 😉

Mavimao said:

Yeah, Jedi looks gorgeous! With a little luck it might be out this year!

I’ll push into the cautiously optimistic PoV: Maybe not the final cut, but perhaps a beta release, like what 4k77 was in since January, will be out this year.

moviefreakedmind said:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/04/incel-movement-literary-classics-behind-misogyny

I don’t like how some segments of the left are trying to analyze these “incels” (involuntary celebates: AKA, people incapable of attracting a sexual partner that then blame everyone but themselves) as though there’s a rational element informing their ideology, if you can even call it an ideology. The article I linked to is basically blaming, in part, the plots of literature that involve sex or frustration related to a male character’s attempts to pursue a woman for these incel assholes. I don’t like blaming fine art for the actions of stupid people.

It’s a mixture of them being assholes, and a bit of entitlement. Literature is probably not where I’d go if I wanted to blame our culture, though. The sheer amount of films where the man Save the Day and Gets the Girl is usually what I see blamed for male entitlement, not books.

I also have an equally simple solution for these guys, even though they’ll never actually do this. Maybe if these incels would stop posting on creepy internet forums about how mean women are unwilling to fuck them, they might have a better shot at a sexual relationship. It isn’t that hard.

yes, they need to do this too. And maybe not advocate for the legal right to rape, something I’ve seen on some incel boards.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

He wasn’t banned for Trump, he was banned for nonstop manufacturing drama with other users in spite of months worth of warning to stop. SpacedRanger (or something) was banned for posting pictures of bloody abortions, not for being against abortion. Plus, he came back after his temp ban and insulted all the mods.

All of this.

Yup.

Besides, I’m apparently a closet conservative who sleeps in nothing but his MAGA hat.

Well thanks for that image.

But I don’t remember anyone accusing you of being a Trump supporter.

I think I’ve seen people say he perhaps paints the left with a bit too broad a brush, but that definitely isn’t the same as calling someone a MAGA supporter.

RicOlie_2 said:
his statement that “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you”

Dumb question from a non-christian: I realize that most Christians do not literally eat his flesh and blood (as I do not believe Jesus was trying to condone cannibalism, especially not of himself), and that really it refers to a sacred wine and I think bread (If I recall, though I might not have the specifics right.) However, why were those two food items chosen? Is there a Bible passage where he explains them to be allegories for his flesh and blood? If not, why those items (Though I maybe get the wine, as it might also be an extension of the whole, “turning water into wine,” thing.)

https://wtop.com/dc/2018/06/dc-restaurant-expels-transgender-woman-who-used-womens-restroom/

Unfortunate, but I’m glad: A) she stood her ground, and B) the company directly condemned the actions of the facility’s staff.

One time I ordered fish and chips with a side of salad (and I think I even specified a large Salad) expecting that the salad would be a proper side that took up a healthy portion of the plate.

You know those small containers delivery places put the dip in? The salad came in one of those. I can’t say I was amused. That said, I was probably under 16 at the time and didn’t know how to properly address the issue.

I think it’s probably a good thing that was the only really bad experience I can remember.

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

LukeWarmTaunTaun said:

4. How does Obi-Wan not remember R2?

He doesn’t say he doesn’t remember. Also, the prequels were not in mind when they made the original.

He said: “I don’t seem to remember ever owning a droid”

?

Owning a droid; which is true, from a certain point of view. At no point in the PT does he ever own R2-D2. Even with the PT being kinda dumb with the selective continuity, Obi-Wan’s statement makes sense to some extent still.

Creox said:

LukeWarmTaunTaun said:

I found it half laughable half disgusting but it wasn’t painfully out of place like Leias return from space death scene

When I saw that scene my first thought was that she was force pulling herself to the ship. Why any SW fan would think it was something else is beyond me.

I don’t have a problem with the scene conceptually, but something about it just feels, “Over the top,” if you will. Like I understand why they made it look like a tribute to Carrie Fisher before, “Surprise!” she’s still alive, but it doesn’t sit well in my stomach, as irrational as it may be.

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t condone adult violence against children at all.

I figured you didn’t condone it. Apologies if it came off like I did. 😃

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

Possessed said:

I agree with a less extreme mfm. Efforts would be much better spent teaching kids how to defend themselves against bullies than preventing bullying, because that ain’t gonna happen so you might as well teach people to not be a victim. Would it be great if we could stop bullying? Obvi. But we can’t.

Another (albeit complimentary rather than exclusive) answer is to hold the bully accountable for their actions as well, though how effective this is in elementary/grade school is debatable. It’s more of a way to deal with adults, or at least the examples I can think of are.

It isn’t effective with kids. A lot of bullies get suspended or sent to detention if they’re caught by a competent administrator, but if they don’t have attentive parents to actually help them understand why it’s wrong then the punishment alone likely won’t mean anything. Most bullies that I remember were constantly in and out of the principal’s office and it didn’t change their thuggery one bit.

Yeah, That’s the part I was concerned about. For the most part, the consequences that school does have tend to be pretty… mild, and I swear a lot of kids I knew would rather be suspended. Obviously, I don’t condone adults using violence to punish kids for acting out, but surely there’s a way to bring on proper consequences.

Possessed said:

I agree with a less extreme mfm. Efforts would be much better spent teaching kids how to defend themselves against bullies than preventing bullying, because that ain’t gonna happen so you might as well teach people to not be a victim. Would it be great if we could stop bullying? Obvi. But we can’t.

Another (albeit complimentary rather than exclusive) answer is to hold the bully accountable for their actions as well, though how effective this is in elementary/grade school is debatable. It’s more of a way to deal with adults, or at least the examples I can think of are.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

The only person explaining the context of the use here is the person who used it (and is potentially trying to save face). We don’t necessarily have the full picture.

Agree we don’t have the full picture. But the memo we have is from the CEO who fired him, not the person who used the word. And contrary to flametitan’s reading, the use is described as “descriptive” during a meeting on “sensitive” words, for which he was told inappropriate after the fact. Then he used the word again with colleagues when discussing his original use.

It’s obvious to me he wasn’t calling anyone that word.

We don’t have a transcript, nor do we know how he used the word in that meeting. The memo said he made, “descriptive use of the word,” in a separate paragraph from that detailing the initial event, which doesn’t read as “using the word as an example.” Likewise, the fact that people said “Hey, the way you used it was pretty badly handled,” as stated in the memo, even further implies it wasn’t just used as an example.

Also, considering the second incident was with black employees specifically, not just “colleagues,” I can see how the second incident implied some… lack of awareness, even if it wasn’t directed at them, per se.

It’s impossible to really fall one way or the other on this without further context, but I’m on the side of giving Netflix the benefit of the doubt on the decision.

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.

If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.

Well, then at you’ve got your pride. You could also attack the bully while he isn’t looking if he’s too strong to take on head to head.

At least in my case, the disparity between myself and my peers in size is enough that even getting the upper hand in a surprise attack would just lead to me being overpowered. Mind, considering the groups I identify with, I’m lucky enough to have only had jeering in elementary school with it dying off for the most part in High school. I dunno if I’d even be here to type this if I had people who were willing to physically harm me…

You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.

If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.

That being said, if they’re already in the process of harming you physically, then yeah. Fight back.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Warbler said:

Just one problem: it’s 2018.

If the anno Domini dating system was calibrated correctly and contained a year zero, it would be 2021.

To be fair, we technically no longer use anno Domini; We use the Common Era dating system (which is just anno Domini with the christian serial numbers filed off)

hairy_hen said:

Black people have tried hard to ‘reclaim’ the word by using it to describe themselves and each other. However, given how offensive they still find it if a white person ever says it, even if it’s only in passing and not intended as an insult, it seems clear to me that this has not actually worked. None of the hateful sting has actually been lessened or dulled for them, at least going by what I hear and observe on the subject. Not being black myself, I am well aware that I cannot truly understand what it feels like for them to hear someone say that; and I wouldn’t presume to tell them how they should or should not react when it happens. But given that there has been an unfortunate rise in instances of white people using the word, many of them apparently unaware of the extent of its offensive nature, I think it would probably be best if no one ever said it casually, even black people. With its enormous proliferation in music and other art forms, is it any wonder that white people get confused and start thinking it’s okay for them to say it too? This reclaiming seems to have unfortunately backfired and caused use of the word to become more widespread.

As someone who belongs to at least one community with reclaimed slurs, perhaps I can explain the edifice of the apparent conundrum. Note that these opinions represent my own, and I do not speak for any minority group as a whole, not even those I belong to.

The biggest problems arise from context. Even if the group reclaiming it does manage to find use for it in a neutral, or even complimentary tone, the word’s primary use outside of the community is pejorative. That said, one outside the community using the word isn’t necessarily using it for evil; I don’t automatically hate my cisgender friends if they refer to me by certain terms, as I can trust them to respect who I am and stand up for me. However, I automatically get suspicious of somebody who I don’t know or know little about using those same terms, as it either means they think they’re closer to me than we actually are, they’re ignorant about the term, or doing it to insult or otherwise bring harm to me. While the truth is usually one of the former two options, the latter is oftentimes safer to assume.

At the same time, on the other end of the spectrum, there are those from within the community who will still use a term in a pejorative way, whether out of self loathing, contempt for certain “lesser” parts of it, or as part of trying to appease certain ideologies they’ve decided to side with. On top of that, there are those who find discomfort in the word, regardless of who said it, or why. In short, whether or not a reclaimed slur is acceptable to use comes down to how well you can read the room.

As for mass media, like the music industry? This is where it gets a bit more messy, and where it becomes even more conjecture from me. On the one hand, yes, like you said, a lot of this music gets consumed by those outside of the community it comes from. Some of it is written by people outside of the community it comes from. However, a number of these songs (I can’t honestly say how much; I don’t really listen to pop media, and it probably also depends on the community in question) is presumably written by members of the community, for members of that community. This alone can change the context for those listening, though people outside the community might not immediately realize it. Of course, if the person listening to the song doesn’t realize this shift in context, it might make them think certain things are acceptable for them to do, even if it actually isn’t.

(And then there’s the question of how much does the media actually change our perception of things, with examples and counter examples flying every which way, and I won’t go into that.)

TL;DR: How much a word is “reclaimed,” and how offended the recipient is depends a lot on the context of who’s saying it, who’s listening, why is the term being used…

And as a reminder to my post that I feel got ignored: We lack the full context over what happened that led to this guy being fired. We only have the roughest silhouettes of the story.

There’s a major problem with this article, though I don’t blame it for not having information it might not have access to: We only have the memo about him using the word; we don’t have a transcript of the meeting to provide context.

It’s impossible for us, on the outside looking in, to make a judgement call when we lack the full story. Maybe he said it in an appropriate context and this is overreaction. Maybe he used it inappropriately during said meeting. What little we have of it seems to imply (to me, at least) that Mr. Friedland used it in reference to his black employees, or directed at them, but like I said just a moment ago, it’s hard to say. We have too little context.

EDIT: Beat me to it, Mr. Cobb.

TV’s Frink said:

flametitan said:

TV’s Frink said:

I thought axiom was that political site that posts articles about what Trump administration people were thinking when Trump did his latest shitty thing.

Isn’t that most of the media, though?

Axios is kind of known for those pieces.

Fair point.

TV’s Frink said:

I thought axiom was that political site that posts articles about what Trump administration people were thinking when Trump did his latest shitty thing.

Isn’t that most of the media, though?

https://www.themaven.net/transgenderuniverse/news/gop-transgender-gatekeeping-bill-introduced-in-ohio-6_MXf0QxmU62gcIL4PLumQ/

If you or someone you know lives in Ohio, please get them to call a representative. This bill recklessly (if not deliberately) endangers the lives of thousands of Trans Youth who live under the roofs of transphobic and bigoted parents. It makes it illegal to provide any sort of counselling without the parents’ consent, and will force teachers to report any indication that a child might be trans to their parents, whether or not it’s safe for the child.