@AnotherSiteAnotherName's banner p

AnotherSiteAnotherName


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:50:11 UTC

				

User ID: 319

AnotherSiteAnotherName


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:50:11 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 319

I didn't ask about number. I asked about quality. Sure, Lord of the Rings has a great board game. Some of the video games are even pretty decent. But I'm talking about percentage of hits here. Lord of the Rings, for all of its numbers and popularity, is comparatively underwhelming when you compare the average quality of what it gets in comparison to Dune. Sure, War of the Ring is considered a classic, but what about Lord of the Rings that came before it? Or the Lord of the Rings TCG? Etcetera.

Here's a question for you that is less war and more straight culture. What makes a piece of media truly inspiring? What qualities does something need to possess so that things based on it will be great? I don't mean this in the sense of expertly turning your IP into a multimedia franchise through judicious licensing or whatever. I want to know what happens in the case of something like Dune where licensing doesn't seemed to be handled well at all. Yet it still not only managed to spawn a great movie. It also inspired a legendary board game, hugely influential video game, etc.

What makes Dune such fertile ground compared to, say, Lord of the Rings?

That doesn't follow either. Gender roles aren't "mannerisms." That just goes back to the 10% aesthetic differences, but if the only difference was how you put one leg over the other, gender roles would hardly even be worth mentioning.

Your posts make me wonder if you even think that gender roles are anything besides the aesthetic portion. That would certainly explain why you think they are entirely relative and arbitrary.

Yeah, presuming that men would have sex with as many women as possible if possible seems to come from a place of inexperience. I enjoy flirting and am good at it, but texting back and forth with five women at once literally takes all your time. It will consume your entire evening, and you won't have as nearly an in-depth conversation as you could have had one on one. I suspect that only the most dedicated womanizer could keep that pace up long-term.

You say 11% and 12% with the implication that therefore it could be 100%. That doesn't really follow.

There are many things that can vary somewhat from environment, but remain mostly biological. Height would be an obvious example. People can vary in height by 10% based on nutrition while they were growing, but that doesn't mean that it can vary 100% or that it is arbitrary. If you want to argue that gender roles are in a different category, then you need a better argument than that.

I am, no kidding, the 57th great-great granddaughter of the first king of Norway, and it would be a shame to end the royal line.

Bro, you can't go this mask off in trolling. Come on, bro.

I don't see how you can say that masculinity is significantly different in Japan or Korea than the West. Societies where men were still considered leaders, fighters, and those who valued the same masculine attributes/virtues as their counterparts in the West (loyalty, strength/competence, aggression, pursuit of women, stoicism, etc.)

There isn't perfect overlap, (e.g. the aesthetics vary significantly), but I don't see how someone can look at something with 90% similarity and say that it is arbitrary because of that 10%.

If these things were actually arbitrary, you should see massive, significant differences from culture to culture. Women in lots of places should be the sexual/romantic aggressors. Men in lots of places should be considered more sensitive. You shouldn't have to go to the other side of the world, find gender norms that are similar in most ways, and say that because they aren't identical, it must all just be arbitrary.

Hmm, yes, I can't figure out why people aren't more willing to divulge their secret recipes to you.

When men say they like a thin waist, they mean relative to the hips and bust. Women trying to fit into a size 0 dress is something that they do for other women. Not for men. (This is not meant to imply that no men prefer women with a tiny build).

And the absolute best hottest sex I've had, the best lovers I've had, have pretty strongly correlated with the societally hottest women I've been with.

"Fit, confident people I'm attracted to really turn me on and make the sex good" is not really an insight, unless you've been spending far too much time on the internet.

I just looked this up because I find this hard to believe. The mountain-dwelling, hairy, clannish, greedy dwarves check off more Scottish stereotypes than Jewish ones.

I found this link: https://www.timesofisrael.com/are-tolkiens-dwarves-an-allegory-for-the-jews/ saying that Tolkien didn't intend the Jewish-Dwarf analogue

Your link agrees with me. They even recommend a book called Gold Diggers and Sugar Daddies: The Red Pill Guide to Hypergamy by Player Mastermind.

You are describing a fairly anodyne observation, that women are more social status conscious and care more about that in their partners, and using Urban Dictionary's almost unrecognizable definition and describing them as whores, which conflates hypergamy with being sexually loose for money.

I don't think many of the people you are describing would primarily think of women as whores. They would describe them as gold diggers. Or maybe they would describe them as whores. But not because of hypergamy. They are very distinct traits, even if they are both leveraging sex appeal for personal benefit.

It’s often paired with claims that females—not women—are the real hypergamists. Thus it becomes “sorry fellas, so long as society is willing to tolerate women acting like whores, your married/responsible/trad ass can’t expect fair treatment.”

Maybe we should look up a word before we write an analysis. Your search bar is right there. Type hypergamy into it.

he's not a comedic actor.

Clearly you have not seen Spy. He can deliver deadpan humor very well.

I'm describing not following the rules as not following the rules. Men introducing exceptions to divinely ordained rules and then following those rules is very much breaking the rules.

Just because a rule is easy to follow doesn't make it null.

That would be fine if you were still actually following it. But the entire point of eruv is making it so you don't have to follow onerous rules anymore because they are hard.

If you think that the division between public and private is entirely nonsense and a misinterpretation of the law, that's fine. Totally legitimate.

If you think that the traditional view is correct in its interpretation of shabbat, that's fine. Entirely consistent and expected.

But what isn't legitimate is coming up with an interpretation of the law, deciding that is sacrosanct and correct, and then, later on when that process turns out to be onerous, deciding that God really views some string wrapped around a space of, really, any size, as a way to entirely neutralize that interpretation of the law. Divinely ordained deontology that you introduce weird little hacks into is pure nonsense. Are you supposed to take things out into public or not? And if it's really about the spirit of the law, not the letter (not really something I have ever heard from a Talmudic scholar, but let's say for the sake of argument), then the line isn't necessary at all.

I'd also point out that plenty of religions do this sort of thing.

And if you'd said that you prefer your religion's weird nonsense over other religion's nonsense, that would be one thing. Requiring Hail Marys as penitence is entirely nonsensical, sure. But you acted like your religion is different. It's not. You're just used to it.

Saying that the rules are divine commands and then trying to hack them so that they are effectively rendered null is not believing in the rules.

Hanging a line around an area is purely a hack for convenience, not a principled distinction. Hanging a line around an entire city is a hack of a hack for convenience.

If the law is a divine mandate, you should actually follow it! Creating your own loopholes and then acting like observing the Sabbath is still somehow sacrosanct is pure intellectual nonsense

Really? The guy coming from the religion that believes in Eruv wants to criticize intellectual nonsense?

Infinity can be divided into multiple sets, so the Trinity makes perfect sense. Hanging a line around a city to try and trick God is literal nonsense. Does God believe in the rules you have for the Sabbath or not?

that pretty clearly evinces some homosexual desire

Is that what it evinces in you, Dr. Freud? Just curious if your N=1 or 0 here.

Are you suggesting that people are prone to bias in favor of their pre-existing beliefs? ;)

I'm surprised that you didn't expect people to watch replays in the most tryhard game in the world. People doing that sort of thing wasn't even an open secret. It was just open.

Isn't someone sharply and dramatically learning about their deficiencies and delusions a critical part of the hero's journey? That's not to say that a story cycle actually defines a hero. Maybe Zelensky isn't a hero. Maybe we should use a more functional definition of a hero, and he is a hero because that is the role he is acting in for his people. Maybe not. No matter what, I don't think someone's earlier mistakes counts as a disqualification from being a hero.

one instead has to marginalize its importance.

A statement about Twitter's quality of discourse is very different than a statement about the importance of its discourse.

I suppose you do prove your own point, in a way, by demonstrating that stupid takes based on poor reading comprehension can be found here, not just Twitter. And I, in turn, will do my part by demonstrating that dunking on dumb posts can happen here, just like Twitter.

Go us. 👍

these criticisms will absolutely never be levelled at neighbourhoods made up of black people or Hispanics

To be fair, these people never actually live in majority-minority places. I almost never see these people in places like the Bronx that are absolutely dominated by minorities. They just know places like Brooklyn or whatever. I might be damning them through faint praise here. I don't know.

Also, to be fair to these minorities, I actually have lived in the Bronx as a white person, and minorities are generally pretty nice to me. It's other minorities that they are biased against.

I am 100% Twitter at the moment, so I'm doing great. I just wish I'd bought more calls. Then again, I thought I had at least a couple more weeks to buy them.