Quote from: Verbatim on May 19, 2020, 05:36:03 PM

Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on May 19, 2020, 05:16:13 PM

Not necessarily valueless. You would be more healthy.

for what greater purpose

what good is health if i have to be miserable every day to obtain it anyway

The mind is a part of the body just like everything else, so it follows that your health affects it just like everything else. "Working out" is a vague concept, anyway, and I'd say most of the happiness that comes from it is closer to satisfaction from making progress on a goal. Exhausted and satisfied can be a good mixture, I think.

well, my one and only goal is a cynical one—it's to prove that, once i achieve an acceptable level of fitness, that i will not see any tangible benefits (that i care about) whatsoever, because it was never something that i valued in the first place, and that i should've been left alone to do the things that i actually enjoy doing in life rather than cozened to waste however many years of my life in the gym by shitty friends who think they know what's best for me when they don't know shit

my partner is convinced that my life will change forever, and because he's so fucking smug and sure of himself about it, i'm basically trying to prove him wrong—because the only alternative is to look like a lazy fuck with a sour grapes mentality, and have nobody ever take me seriously based on that alone

since i'm basically working out as a middle finger to those people, as a result, i can't say i've ever felt this mixture—there's no satisfaction, just exhaustion. the satisfaction will only come when i finally get to say "fuck you, i was right, it wasn't worth it" at the end of the road, whenever that comes around

it's very frustrating that i have to engage in these activities to be healthy in the first place, because it's just another reminder of how obnoxious it is to be a human on this planet, having to play by its rules

there's little difference to me between a man who dies at 60, never having taken care of himself, and a man who dies at 80, because he spent 20 of those years taking care of himself—frankly, the former individual just went through less trouble and tedium in his life, which is far more envious to me

when the years added to your life through exercise are just being spent doing more exercising, you really have to question whether what you're doing isn't just a senseless waste of time—in that sense, i can't even feel relieved when it's over

if you could achieve a state of fitness and stay there without ever having to maintain it, i would feel a bit differently, but it's still chasing some meaningless goal at the end of the day—if you don't enjoy living that much in the first place, you're certainly not going to enjoy living more as a reward for torturing yourself. i mean, come on.

honestly though, i'm glad that you've found some meaning in exercise for yourself—i'm not trying to take that from you, or anything; i'm just saying that, whatever it is, it's utterly incomprehensible to me

This is a compelling argument. I wasn't really thinking of you when I wrote that, but maybe the people I was thinking of are the same way, but aren't as willing to let their opinions be challenged?

For example, I've noticed my opinionated cousin tends to hate any movie review channels that are also opinionated, so he just say they suck and won't watch them.

Do you feel the same way if the debate is in regards to another person?

maybe a little, but not as much, just because i find it a lot more difficult to defend people (especially controversial figures)

everyone under the sun, no matter how much i personally like them, has done something stupid that i disagree with a lot—and all i can really say in defense is that nobody's perfect, which isn't going to stop anyone from hating their least favorite people

like, i wouldn't oblige anyone to see the virtues of george washington (one of my favorite presidents) if they simply can't get past the fact that he owned slaves—to some people, it doesn't matter that he freed them; the fact that he owned them at all in the first place makes him an irredeemable monster

and honestly, that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, and one that i can't and won't argue with

if you dig deep enough into someone's life, you'll always find dirt—and personally, if i were to base my opinions on people exclusively around the worst things they've ever done, there's pretty much nobody that i wouldn't hate, and believe it or not, i just don't really have the energy for that

let me put it to you that way: there's not too many vegan socialist atheist feminist anti-natalists in the world, and i'm just not insane enough to hold everybody to that standard, so i kinda have to adjust

art is a lot easier to defend and have evaluative discussions about, imo, because it's all in how you interpret it—all i ask is that people interpret it charitably, and i try my best to do the same

Another question then, mostly semantic delving: how does one know that they know enough? I can't imagine many people would criticize things if they were to only do so with certainty of their knowledge (found through authentic scrutiny, of course). Should you commit to having your finger on the pulse of a community, or is having a wiki-entry's worth of knowledge of a subject enough?

yeah, that's tricky

it may be impossible to pinpoint exactly when you've given your due diligence, but as long as you acknowledge this limitation by incorporating phrases like "in my experience" into your vernacular, and as long as you continue to make an effort to understand everything that you don't understand yet, that's probably in the realm of fairness

basically, closed-mindedness is cancer—when dealing with people matters, the idea that you might be wrong about everything you think you know should lie constantly in the back of your mind, and that it's okay to be wrong about things, because life is a series of constant course-corrections anyway

The issue is less that one knows that somebody criticizes of their group (or a trait of it), but rather why the criticism is being leveled.

right, of course—and you can't really get to that point until you've had the conversation, and it has to be an honest and cooperative conversation about real shit, like policy, and while i think i've seen more unicorns than i've seen this kind of political discussion on the internet, that's what i think you need to have

once you've had it, something interesting happens—the seeds of camaraderie are sown, as it becomes increasingly apparent that you and your political opponents (or whatever—i'm playing off my republican example, but this pretty much applies to everything else, too) are ultimately not fighting over ideals, but the methods to achieve those ideals—because ultimately, very few of us are unique; we all kinda want the same things for ourselves and each other at the end of the day, and we just have different ideas on how to attain that

so naturally, depending on your own proclivities, these conversations will have a greater likelihood of a.) softening whatever positions you may hold, making you more agreeable to your opposition, or b.) just the opposite; hardening or sharpening your argumentative skills by forcing you to compete with ideas you may never have considered before, allowing you to become a little bit more persuasive in the future

this is mainly why we criticize each other, i think, and this is why we must accept criticism—it's like a way of building intellectual ladders for each other, and even though we might despise our opponents at the end of the debate (especially if we handle ourselves poorly), i feel like there's still a subtle underlying camaraderie to it in the sense that we're both just trying to get each other to understand life better

again, assuming everyone involved is a good faith actor who checks their ego at the door, which is asking a lot

For the record, I'm not just speaking about destructive criticism, but also constructive criticism. Anita Sarkeesian is a rather apt example of the subject. A person creates a series of criticisms of the video game industry through a feminist lens. I don't really have to describe the response this provoked, as it is quite ubiquitously known here. Despite most of her videos being on subjects along the lines of "the damsel in distress archetype is way too common" and "bikini armor shouldn't be a standard", she is (or at least was) viscerally despised by the gaming community at large. There's no instance of her attempting to destroy the industry; hell, Ubisoft advertised a few years ago that she was brought in to consult on their depictions (the one interesting thing they've done in years). Her criticisms are clearly leveled at bringing attention to issues she sees in the medium. A majority of the vitriol seems to have existed largely because she has relatively simple gripes with the thing people have attached themselves to.

those videos are seriously so fucking innocuous, it's actually insane that there was ever any controversy—clearly, on the topic of making an effort to understand each other's points of view, i have some work to do on that, because to this day, it's tough for me to work out what was so wrong with anita's videos that they sparked up such vitriol

i think she said that she wasn't really a gamer once, and she might've framed a hitman mission in a dishonest way—flaws that you might find in any average youtube video essay that nobody would really flip their shit over if somebody like matthew matosis pointed it out

and i guess most of the people getting angry at the time were young gamers, and young people don't appreciate being implicated as sexists, or the idea that there's something wrong with them for having a sexuality post-sexual revolution, but these were never actually points of contention anyway—as far as i can tell, they're just projections, kneejerk reactions

Removed.

Spoiler

Although I'm not too worried about it considering how early it happens into the show and I feel only drives my point home more.

yeah, gotta keep flee's attention span in mind though

Verbatim, I'd like to thank you personally for helping us with security. It gives me one certainty: if Class is willing to hijack identities in order to get what she wants, we have 100% zero interest in forgiving the ban. This was the final straw. So long as the light of power shines on my hands In the server, she will never be let in again, and every alt she sends will exist there on borrowed time.

glad to be of service, hopefully this won't affect your movie nights or whatever

get circumcised

This is interesting. It's something I've noticed, but not something I've thought much about. As someone that can get heavily invested in entertainment, I don't think I've ever considered myself part of a "group" (subconsciously or otherwise) because of it. If someone told me my favorite movie was complete shit, I couldn't care less. I'm not sure if I've always been like this or not. In contrast, I have someone close to me that consumes entertainment far more heavily than myself (sports, novels, tv shows, all of it), and he can barely handle criticism of the those things he likes, but tends to be very critical towards the things he doesn't (even at someone else's expense). The complete end of this spectrum would probably be those accounts that patrol social media for criticism of their favorite celebrity, which I just found bizarre until reading this thread.

I honestly have no idea how to answer those questions you asked. It just strikes me as a very vapid form of tribalism that I tend to try to ignore.

i'm incredibly defensive of the things i enjoy, but i don't think it's necessarily because i can't accept that people have different tastes or whatever—and i don't think it comes from a place of tribalism either; i just like arguing, and i like challenging people, because it gives us the opportunity to defend our interests

i just tend to have very rigid and clearcut standards that are relatively easy to understand—if you knew exactly what i consider "good" when it comes to film, you would be able to watch any movie i haven't seen and know for a FACT whether i'd enjoy it or not, without even asking me

i've always prided myself in my ability to put all of my opinions into words, which i've come to understand is something that half the population struggles with, because they don't necessarily think in words—they think in emotions, pictures, or ideas—whereas, if i can't put something into words, then it means i don't really understand it

therefore, if i think something is good, and i have a 10,000 word essay in my head that goes over all the little reasons why it's good, the idea that somebody could disagree with me makes me recoil a bit

that's what prompts me to engage with people—i don't necessarily want to change your mind; i just want to understand

that's why i've historically gotten frustrated with people about stupid shit like this over the years, because if i'm capable of holding 10,000 words of well-substantiated opinions in my head about one of my favorite things, but all you've ever had to say about your favorite anime is "i just like boobs, man," it makes it difficult for me to relate with you on any level, and i like relating with people

or rather, i HATE not being able to relate with people

How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?

well, it would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, right

if we're just talking about fandoms and stuff, then it's probably not that serious—if i'm criticizing an anime show, for example, and a fan of that show gets upset, i have no compunctions about listening to whatever they have to say in defense, because after all, i do want to understand why they like this show

at that point, it comes down to the strength of their arguments or whatever they need to do to persuade me

if they don't really provide me with anything substantive, and they just want to insult me or claim that i'm too stupid to understand the show, or that i have bad taste or whatever, then i can safely disregard their opinion and not take them seriously at all

the more often this happens, the more it'll affect my personal perception of this show's fanbase, but there's a responsibility on my part to not necessarily allow these anecdotal experiences to completely color my perception of the fanbase, until it becomes persistently apparent that the fanbase itself is steeped in these issues (e.g. it's generally accepted that competitive smash players tend to have poor hygiene; this is corroborated by the smash community itself, so there's no real reason to doubt its veracity, as embarrassing of a stereotype as it may be)

so yeah, i think it really just comes down to the individual—if you wanna learn about a group, engaging with individual members of that group by politely asking questions about stuff (while taking care to avoid passive-aggression, jumping to conclusions, etc) is a good start; this way, you're far more likely to receive the most level-headed response possible, and those kinds of responses are the ones you want to take into consideration the most

this is assuming that giving the subject of the fandom a shot and becoming a part of that group yourself is off the table, of course—if you're trying to understand a fandom, it's probably a good (or at least fair) idea to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume good faith if you lack any good reasons to dismiss them entirely

When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material?

when you know enough about the material to make moral value judgments about it, i think

if i never heard of GTA before (or video games in general), and i asked someone why they enjoyed it, and they said, "because it's really fun to just go around and shoot people," until i learn more about how video games work, i might find myself at odds with this person

so if i ask, "really? you don't think it's wrong to kill people?" they might say, "no silly, it's just a game, it's not real"

and i'll say "oh, okay, i understand now"—i still don't enjoy the idea of wantonly killing people in a video game, because that's just not my idea of fun, but i can see why someone else might enjoy it, and i don't have any moral compunctions about them enjoying it, because it's been established that it's not real anyway

now, if there was a video game that involved unsimulated wanton murder (so you're actually killing people, however that would work), that's pretty much the only thing i need to know about the game in order for me to be opposed to its existence, and i'll gladly censure anyone who enjoys a game like that

maybe there's a less heavy-handed example i could've used, but that's what my brain immediately went to

When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?

depends on your goals, i guess

i think all criticism is okay, regardless of whether it's pedantic, but before you criticize anything, it's wise to know a few things first: what is the appeal of the thing you're criticizing? why do people enjoy this in the first place? if you can't figure out, it's important to at least try your best to ask questions about that, because otherwise, you'll run the risk of sounding ignorant or out-of-touch

the storyline of street fighter is not shakespeare, and you can certainly criticize it if you want to—but it's important to understand that most street fighter players don't give a fuck about the story; it's not what makes the games entertaining for them at all, so your criticism, however valid, will be considered pedantic by the community at-large

if story matters to you, it's up to you to make that clear before doling out any critiques about a game's plot

Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?

i think if you're going to associate or identify yourself with some kind of group or label, it's a good idea to be self-aware, or at least make a concerted effort to understand the traits connoted by your affiliations

if you're comfortable calling yourself a republican, for example, you're gonna have to understand that there's millions of people out there who will consider you retarded, scum, etc—and you can either take that in stride, never mention it publicly, or take on a different label that means the same thing, but doesn't bring up as much ire

or, secret fourth option, try to avoid labels entirely—this will get you labeled a centrist in political circles, and you'll be hated for it, but for fandoms, if you don't want people to make sweeping assumptions about you, it's probably good if you avoid calling yourself a weeb or a furry or a brony or whatever

since pretty much any form of self-expression involving your identity gives the internet carte blanche to malign you, it's best to know when to back off of certain labels, certain fandoms, certain affiliates, or certain forms of expression if you care about being seen in a negative light as a result of associating with any of those things

Quote from: Ian on May 19, 2020, 12:52:16 PM

I believe the topic of this thread can be surmised without the need of the OP. With that being said, nothing is preventing anyone from whatever Discord server that is from clicking on the link Class posted to Sep7 and going into this very thread and seeing that Class is impersonating Verb.

That would be great!

it's almost like that was my intention all along

Quote from: Verbatim on May 19, 2020, 12:34:13 PM

whoooooooooops

thought i was sending a PM, sorry

Quick, edit the post into blank image

oh but it's too late now, i wouldn't want to invoke the streisand effect

No.

go right ahead

no problemo

Also I'm still watching evangilon I've just been busy

if you were only planning to post about it when you've finished it, i was thinking it might be more fun to actively discuss each episode as you go along, since it's a show that lends itself to in-depth discussion (especially later on)

if you'd rather not do it that way, that's fine, i just think that would be a good way to create more positive activity

tf did casper do

you can be really stupid, or constantly mopey, or have toxic right wing politics, but having all three is pushing it over the line

fuck casper

pegless