This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - 🍁 Aria 🔮
61
« on: May 19, 2020, 10:51:28 PM »
I couldn't find the physics demo, so this is the UE5 engine demo.
Yeah it looks amazing, but good luck utilizing all that while also having a game in there and not running your metal at hotter-than-sun temps.
I'll wait for the tech demo before I cum.
My original point is highlighted at the UE5 front page
We’ve just released a first look at Unreal Engine 5. One of our goals in this next generation is to achieve photorealism on par with movie CG and real life, and put it within practical reach of development teams of all sizes through highly productive tools and content libraries.
They are leading with visuals but my wish is for a shift from this photorealism race to a race of game simulation realism. Can you have your cake and eat it too? Not with current hardware, something has to give and I doubt it will be the visuals. You'll get your gorgeous but empty Anthems and your dazzling Battlefield 1s that look better but play just like their predecessor from the time of X360.
The games that chase photorealism are well aware of how strenuous it is, and that's why resource management and design play key roles in development. Naughty Dog is pretty good at it, in fact. Tech demos are intended to show off how far the limitations are, what room there is to work with in the engine/on the hardware. Some games will aim for photorealism, but plenty of others aren't. They can take advantage of a large overhead too. I would like to see more information too, I'll agree with you there. There's so much PR speak in the video that I would rather see some hands on with it to better gauge how big of a leap this is.
62
« on: May 19, 2020, 10:42:27 PM »
To believe in a ideal is to be willing to betray it. Interesting concept. Could you expand a bit? Whether it's okay or not depends on how you presented it and your intentions. You can criticise without knowing full material behind topic but you have to let whoever you criticise know what gaps in knowledge you have, whether you do it or not showcases whether your intentions are good for who are you criticising or not and whether you want to learn. Even if you don't know full extent of problem you are criticising it still might be good for who you criticise as showcased in example above. I'm uncertain of the general application of debate outside of a neutral setting with monitors. Cults and conspiracy theorists infect people through rigorous (and insidiously deceptive) debate. Argument can be dangerous, and if you're not on your toes you can end up helping spread disinformation. Never. From what I read there have been a lot of people blindly following ideas and it caused a lot of deaths. Never become slave to ideolodgy, always look for opportunity for reshaping it into something better, because good is the enemy of better, and the world changes every day. Keep critical thinking on, don't trust anything, even don't trust yourself and ideas that you took for your own that in fact might own you.
We are molded by our environments; it's silly to think that we couldn't pick up some nasty understandings along the way. Exposing one's self to criticism is the most honest way to develop; it will sting sometimes, and there will be plenty of cringing down the road, but ultimately it makes one a better person.
63
« on: May 19, 2020, 10:30:44 PM »
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
I'd honestly say groupthink, and the protected egos that fuel it. The Hitman thing is the one good example I can think of, and that happened waaaay after people hated her. Her saying she's not a gamer is a good piece of evidence to support that Othering was at play. If she's not a gamer, then there's no way she knows what she's talking about! Pay no mind that the bulk of criticisms were about portrayal of women, and you wouldn't think it's core to video games but I suppose some think differently. People have a hard time separating themselves from their interests, especially if they are the backdrop to their childhood. An insult on your idol is an insult to yourself, and that's the danger of blindly following anything.
64
« on: May 19, 2020, 10:17:46 PM »
I would argue that those who support policy that actively hurts them are generally completely unaware of that fact, and that while it's exactly the fault of ego, it's also the fault of the manipulative media they consume preying on their ego. Groupthink is very powerful, I've watched my own mother go from full blown doomsday prepper for COVID-19 (she bought me a whole box of 20 of those N95 masks and 2 nicer ones with the gasket in the front back when people weren't taking any of this seriously yet) to now thinking it's all fake and going to protest rallies. Why? It's the media she's consuming. It's been really weird to watch happen.
The evil in it is that the people misleading are the ones who profit. This is why I mentioned censuring in the prompt questions. It is important that a freedom of speech be maintained (outside the realm of hate speech/inciting violence), but lies travel faster than truths and certain groups certainly benefit from that fact. Censuring the insanity the conspiracy theorists/profiteers and magnifying the voices of doctors is the best thing we can do (other than listening to those doctors).
65
« on: May 19, 2020, 03:55:19 PM »
How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups? Listening to what those excluded by a group have to say about it could be useful when analyzing the group in question, while keeping in mind the perhaps overly negative perspective this individual may have towards it. i.e. Why they are excluded, and what conclusions you'd draw from it. Obviously the reasons will very widely depending on the situation, and may be very well justified.
I'm not intrinsically speaking of othered people who are excluded from the group (in the sense that one may no longer be friends with another) but really any "us vs them", "out-group vs in-group" situation. I wouldn't particularly say Democrats and Republicans exclude each other, but I would contend that modern politics are built on the foundation of Othering. Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?
I don't believe it should have much bearing. Obviously identity is a very personal thing, it's how you see yourself in the world. But that can easily change and none of us really fit into the boxes we are assigned to or assign ourselves to. There's also always going to be the more obvious outliers of people who you'd never expect to be in a certain group, possibly providing a much more unique perspective. Or perhaps not, it could always just be an Uncle Tom. But even then, analyzing how they ended up there would provide some interesting insight.
I do find the mention of Uncle Tom interesting to the subject, and actually quite relevant to the subject. The impoverished who support tax cuts (which will negatively affect infrastructure they rely on) do so because they have convinced themselves (or were convinced) that they belong to the group that will benefit, and that criticism leveled at the group is an attack on themselves. Really, an Uncle Tom is the ultimate example of one who shuns criticism to protect their ego.
66
« on: May 19, 2020, 03:43:41 PM »
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.
Criticism (broadly) is rhetoric that tests our personal realities and therefore comes into direct conflict with the ego. Tribalism, then, would be the application of this over a group of people with the shared trait being confronted. One cannot take on a group and expect a response weaker than that of the group (composed of many individuals); the only real way to prevent the issue is to promote mindfulness in our interactions. If one is aware of why they feel "attacked" by criticism, they can make the choice to confront their negativity bias and meaningfully interact with that criticism.
67
« on: May 19, 2020, 03:35:50 PM »
I'm not exactly sure what this is getting at (in relation to the topic, at least).
68
« on: May 19, 2020, 03:33:34 PM »
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
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? 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
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. ——- 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.
69
« on: May 19, 2020, 02:48:41 PM »
Just to make sure I'm understanding this (because I'm a brainlet), this is about whether or not criticism of any type of group you're in is valid? Or if you should self-reflect on the collectives you're a part of?
Mostly I'm asking about individual responses to criticisms of a group they belong to, and the ability of an individual to practice active listening in response to criticism.
70
« on: May 19, 2020, 11:52:57 AM »
Note: I know that, for the most part, participation on this site is fueled by boredom and attention-seeking behavior, but I would like to still have a relatively serious convo here and would rather disregard the usual in-joking and shitposting we've become accustomed to.
71
« on: May 19, 2020, 11:44:30 AM »
Prompt: A popular subject of criticism is Criticism itself; very often (more predominantly on social media), persons have a tendency to react negatively to any criticism of their community or object of affection (celebrities, fictional literature, television, etc). This seems to be especially true when the one providing criticism is not within the group, even if their criticisms are not framed offensively (Hornsey, M. J., Trembath, M., & Gunthorpe, S. (2004). “You can criticize because you care”: identity attachment, constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect). A "negativity bias", or being forced to counteract our own physiology when our (the group's) actions are called into question. As K. Wright framed this in her Psychology Today article in 2011, "Our reactions are based on deeply seeded “fight or flight” survival instincts. When we are critiqued we risk exclusion and with a pack mentality, this would equal death." Baumeister explains this in his 2001 publication ("Bad is Stronger than Good") as the brain retaining a changed pattern of neuronal connection between cells in response to a fear-inducing conditioned stimulus, even after the stimulus is no longer present.
Group identity, when approached with criticism, can then provide the battleground for issues that is fueled by modernity through an incredibly interconnected society provided by social media and increased communication. When the group is criticized, a member thus might as well see this as a criticism of themselves and exposes the ego. Now in a fight-or-flight scenario, an individual has two choices: they can reflect on their character, practicing mindfulness and considering the possibility that their actions or understanding of a subject are worthy of criticism; or they can become defensive, questioning the validity of the criticism.
How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups? When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material? When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic? Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?
72
« on: May 13, 2020, 09:59:45 PM »
Also this bit triggers me
When hardware has to compensate for unoptimized games
I think that if it can render that without frame drop, and with that much detail without a 2d map, we are about to see an insane quality boost visually. Imagine the ceiling when they DO use bitmaps in the process.
73
« on: May 10, 2020, 01:51:13 PM »
I gave her a call earlier. It's hard to plan anything since I live a few hundred miles away from her.
74
« on: May 08, 2020, 03:49:40 PM »
Dropping the concept of reclaimed language before its power has been eliminated is like sending people back to work in the middle of a pandemic. It doesn't eliminate the problem, it gives it strength. We accept that there is a history and stigma associated with language and help in the destruction of it by not supporting it.
So what is the end-goal of this? I haven't read the forbidden knowledge yet.
Not the conclusion of the paper of course, but isn't effortlessly removing a racist element from society simple and easy enough? I definitely think I'm putting way more effort in writing any of this than what I should for how strongly I feel. There isn't a reason to feel strongly enough to say a word, especially one that a large number of people don't want me to say. I don't understand why people feel strongly enough about it to ask the question.
75
« on: May 08, 2020, 02:38:15 PM »
Then stop using it. It's unnecessary.
This is really the crux of the debate. I have never used the word in real life nor do I intend to. I think everybody in this thread has the good sense to be reasonable in their everyday life. It's the principle of the matter where black people can say it and non black people can't. And when I say can't, I mean there are social consequences for using it. I understand where it comes from but should we should examine whether it is worth continuing if we want to get to a point where we see no differences between races.
Either everyone say it or no one say it if we want to get past it
The crux of the debate is understanding reclaimed language.
I understand it. I'm just asking if it's helpful to continue it and where we go from here
Dropping the concept of reclaimed language before its power has been eliminated is like sending people back to work in the middle of a pandemic. It doesn't eliminate the problem, it gives it strength. We accept that there is a history and stigma associated with language and help in the destruction of it by not supporting it.
76
« on: May 08, 2020, 02:36:01 PM »
So I was curious as to whether or not you (or originally Mordo) would say that a person doing that is a racist.
American culture skews racist (more predominantly in some places than others), and that affects our judgement of whether something is racist or not. What we can do is correct that behavior once it's been pointed out, so that's whether I would qualify a person racist or not.
77
« on: May 08, 2020, 02:25:41 PM »
Then stop using it. It's unnecessary.
This is really the crux of the debate. I have never used the word in real life nor do I intend to. I think everybody in this thread has the good sense to be reasonable in their everyday life. It's the principle of the matter where black people can say it and non black people can't. And when I say can't, I mean there are social consequences for using it. I understand where it comes from but should we should examine whether it is worth continuing if we want to get to a point where we see no differences between races.
Either everyone say it or no one say it if we want to get past it
The crux of the debate is understanding reclaimed language.
78
« on: May 08, 2020, 01:34:30 PM »
How is a word inherently racist?
Slurs are derogatory by definition, and the use of them (outside of the field of reclaimed speech) cannot be justified outside of specific situations. The oppressing group using pejoratives reinforces the social stigmatization of the oppressed group and the status quo. "Words are just words" ignores the hundreds of years of abuse, dehumanization, and racism associated with that word. A black man was killed for jogging through a neighborhood fifteen minutes from his house, and nobody knew for two months because the system did its damnedest to cover it up. You can't make steps toward limiting societal imbalance while actively participating in a culture of stigmatization.
I'm not asking what justification there is for using a word, though. What I'm getting at is how words literally have no meaning at all until we as humans give meaning to them, thus that meaning is not absolute. You have, for example, the word "negro," which can be seen as derogatory in English, but in Spanish it simply means the color black. Because of this, not every use of the word has a derogatory meaning or even a negative one.
That isn't to say that because of this, people should just be able to go around saying slurs willy nilly and everyone else should just get over it. I'm only saying that there are plenty of instances where saying a racial slur isn't actually being racist. It's not the act of saying the word itself that is racist so much as it is the context behind it.
Language is a field created to impart information. Words are nothing but meaning. If you choose to use a slur rather than a non-stigmatized descriptor for a group, you're either declaring your intent really well or you're an idiot. I also don't believe the example you gave concerning another language is relevant. Language imparts meaning, with the context being first and foremost what language you're speaking. Affecting AAVE would immediately throw up red flags for casual racism, why wouldn't using a word that is specifically a slur?
79
« on: May 08, 2020, 01:31:38 PM »
Alright let me break it down for you since you have the processing power of an ant
Racism is bad.
Racism means barriers between races.
The word nigger sets up barriers between races. Through an oppressing group and an oppressed group. The use of the word nigger perpetuates barriers between races. The use by an oppressing group stigmatizes the oppressed group. Barriers between races means racism.
The use of the word nigger perpetuates racism. When used by an oppressing group. There are a limited number of strategies to avoid being stigmatized: 1) Leave the group (not possible for Poc) 2) "Closeting" (not possible for Poc) 3) Dis-identifying from the stigma's description (avoiding education is bad, so no) So they all suck, right? Reappropriation isn't and end goal, it's a group-wide mechanism by which the affected group can attempt to transform the meaning through positive use from the in-group. Language changes over time and not instantly. It's a negotiation, a struggle. Socially sanctioning the use from an out-group in the meantime is the way that the in-group wins the linguistic war and rids itself of stigma. Out-group using the slur doesn't remove barriers, it supports the one that's there in the battlefield of language. Nobody should use the word nigger honestly.
Then stop using it. It's unnecessary.
80
« on: May 08, 2020, 01:05:34 PM »
How is a word inherently racist?
Slurs are derogatory by definition, and the use of them (outside of the field of reclaimed speech) cannot be justified outside of specific situations. The oppressing group using pejoratives reinforces the social stigmatization of the oppressed group and the status quo. "Words are just words" ignores the hundreds of years of abuse, dehumanization, and racism associated with that word. A black man was killed for jogging through a neighborhood fifteen minutes from his house, and nobody knew for two months because the system did its damnedest to cover it up. You can't make steps toward limiting societal imbalance while actively participating in a culture of stigmatization. I just don't understand how, for instance, I would be racist for using the word while having this discussion.
That the subject can be discussed without using the word means it isn't necessary to.
81
« on: May 08, 2020, 11:17:31 AM »
Galinsky, Adam D, Kurt Hugenberg, Carla Groom, and Galen V Bodenhausen. “The Reappropriation Of Stigmatizing Labels: Implications For Social Identity.” Research on Managing Groups and Teams Identity Issues in Groups, n.d., 221–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1534-0856(02)05009-0.
Abstract:
We present a model of reappropriation, the phenomenon whereby a stigmatized group revalues an externally imposed negative label by self-consciously referring to itself in terms of that label. The model specifies the causes and consequences of reappropriation as well as the essential conditions necessary for reappropriation to be effective. To place the concept of reappropriation in proper context, we begin by discussing the roots of stigma and the mediating role played by social categorization and social identity in the realization of stigma’s deleterious effects. We also discuss the strategies available to both individuals and groups by which stigmatized individuals can enhance their devalued social identities. We provide a discussion of two historical cases of reappropriation and some preliminary empirical evidence concerning the consequences of self-labeling and attempting to reappropriate a stigmatizing label. Finally we discuss the implications of the model for groups and teams,both within and outside of organizations. It won't let us read this.
It's paywalled, just pull up the doi on scihub
82
« on: May 07, 2020, 10:22:15 PM »
are these ranked within the ranks
Nah, despite how highly I ranked some of the upper-middle pack I don't have a whole lot of fondness for them. I'd really have to search my feelings/do a lot of replays to do that.
83
« on: May 07, 2020, 09:31:52 PM »
84
« on: May 07, 2020, 05:31:14 PM »
Galinsky, Adam D, Kurt Hugenberg, Carla Groom, and Galen V Bodenhausen. “The Reappropriation Of Stigmatizing Labels: Implications For Social Identity.” Research on Managing Groups and Teams Identity Issues in Groups, n.d., 221–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1534-0856(02)05009-0. Abstract:
We present a model of reappropriation, the phenomenon whereby a stigmatized group revalues an externally imposed negative label by self-consciously referring to itself in terms of that label. The model specifies the causes and consequences of reappropriation as well as the essential conditions necessary for reappropriation to be effective. To place the concept of reappropriation in proper context, we begin by discussing the roots of stigma and the mediating role played by social categorization and social identity in the realization of stigma’s deleterious effects. We also discuss the strategies available to both individuals and groups by which stigmatized individuals can enhance their devalued social identities. We provide a discussion of two historical cases of reappropriation and some preliminary empirical evidence concerning the consequences of self-labeling and attempting to reappropriate a stigmatizing label. Finally we discuss the implications of the model for groups and teams,both within and outside of organizations.
85
« on: May 05, 2020, 09:55:11 PM »
You don't have to be sexually attracted to the person in you ass bro
therefore, receiving anal is entirely separate from the hetero/homo binary.
anal is just about g spot stimulation tbh
Also approaching sexuality in terms of labels generalizes a lot of subjects, forcing them into presorted categories that they typically don't entirely belong to. Hetero and homo are ends of a spectrum to which people describe themselves and the connection between parties involved, not a spectrum of actions.
Also also a relationship, as based upon this premise, relies on the identities of every involved. Relationships ought to be founded on trust and mutual comfort; whatever they decide to call it is their choice, not that of someone from without the matter.
when the fuck did you get so based
Somewhere between Das Kapital and On Contradiction.
87
« on: May 03, 2020, 12:23:31 PM »
Don’t you think it’s useful for words to have solid definitions? Of course all definitions have some flexibility but if it becomes too subjective, you lose the ability to convey meaning. Like we been discussing in this thread you could take a dick up the ass and there’ll be be debates as to whether that’s gay or not
Good definitions must be both encompassing and specific i.e. not Plato's featherless bipeds. If you lack either characteristic it can be worse than useless: it can be harmful to the subject/discourse. In relation to this subject: gay marriage only became legal 4 years ago in the US. There are still many parts of the country where being/doing something "gay" leads to being assaulted. The discussion here is relatively fruitless; deciding by unanimity whether some is gay ultimately means nothing when tearing down the walls we've surrounded our selves with is the greater issue. You are more than your individual actions, you are also your thoughts, emotions, and relationships. If a man is fine with getting dicked down but doesn't identify as gay, it's nobody's place to convince them otherwise.
88
« on: May 03, 2020, 07:47:48 AM »
89
« on: May 03, 2020, 07:33:16 AM »
Only thing that bothered me about the show is how they didn't set up that mandalorians were so vulnerable, when all the mandalorian helmets were piled up at the end of the series it didn't seem believable. When Mando left, it looked like they were doing great in the fight and were primed to leave shortly afterwards. Just seemed odd
I disagree. When Mando escapes with the child in Episode 3, his hesitation to leave is because of the insane danger they put themselves in to help him. The scene is explicitly framed as brave/heroic of them, which wouldn't be true if this wasn't a big deal. The issue was never that specific battle they flew out for, it's that this is an operating location of the Bounty Hunters' Guild and people are hostile towards Mandalorians. This is supported by the fact that Mando states they'll have to move the Covert because of this, and the helmets being piled up in the Covert shows that they weren't able to escape fast enough.
90
« on: May 03, 2020, 07:12:53 AM »
You don't have to be sexually attracted to the person in you ass bro
therefore, receiving anal is entirely separate from the hetero/homo binary.
anal is just about g spot stimulation tbh Also approaching sexuality in terms of labels generalizes a lot of subjects, forcing them into presorted categories that they typically don't entirely belong to. Hetero and homo are ends of a spectrum to which people describe themselves and the connection between parties involved, not a spectrum of actions. Also also a relationship, as based upon this premise, relies on the identities of every involved. Relationships ought to be founded on trust and mutual comfort; whatever they decide to call it is their choice, not that of someone from without the matter.
|
Show Posts