aluminiumtrioxid

So libertarians are all about interventionism and state interference. Gotcha.

Do... people actually do that? With their exes, I mean?

Isn't he the Locke & Key guy? Stephen King's son?

And yet this week's episode was one of the dumbest things I've watched this year. Hell, I thought it was vapid and out of touch when Black Mirror tried to do the same, but for ****'s sake, the Orville managed to have an even dumber and more superficial take on it.

You learned wrong, the hind is a female deer, and the one in the myth is male

No pictures at all.

Been slowly working my way through this one in the last month: Not feeling particularly smarter or more knowledgeable about the subject, but that's probably a good thing.

Yes, there should be a sort of rectangular icon on the northern side of the map saying "to the White March" or something to that effect when you hover over it.

You've just reinvented the signs and nutrition labels. You're suggesting trigger warnings are the same as nutrition labels? you sound like you're triggered by the suggestion

Ironic, coming from them, but what can you do.

I dunno, would you feel comfortable complaining to a guy about someone being mean to you on an internet forum (which is basically what the report function is for), when that someone thinks legitimate psychological trauma is something to be dismissed with derisive laughter? I mean, what kind of mod response would you expect from someone like that besides "boo hoo, man up you little bitch"? (Not that I actually have a problem with the guy on the mod team, he's way too lazy to ever actually do anything legitimately harmful by misusing his powers. Or, y'know, his job.)

Yeah, this "snowflakes, amirite? hur hur hur" stuff is not exactly a groundbreaking novelty as far as humor goes.

we'll make a proper overdramatic misandrist **** out of you someday, you have promise

I maintain multiple profiles, each with a completely different set of lies! (No dog pictures though.)

Not the same thing... but the latter is only a short step from the former.you can’t be serious? What is essentially a brief summary of certain moments is close to the same as the censorship and symbolic destruction of literature? By that logic, I might as well say book titles are a short step from censorship, because they direct the readers interest without giving him explicit information. I didn't say they were the same or equate them in any way other than to point out the former is a step (even a small one) in the direction of the latter. I'm just going to point out that the slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.

I think there are two main concerns - Does it help? If the student still has to experience the 'triggering' content does knowing about it actually make a difference? Does it hurt? If the student continues to avoid triggering content, are they keeping themselves from healing over the long term? ...How are these even questions? Literally everybody I spoke to who actually attends or lectures at university told me that yes, these things are useful, yes, they help students cope with material that is difficult for them to process, and no, nobody is actually exempt from the normal requirements for successfully completing the course. Trigger warnings don't exist to protect the precious fee-fees of students, they exist to allow them to digest the texts on their own terms. I can't believe there are people who are arguing - no doubt from a position of ignorance, but ignorance should not be an excuse - that there is a positive societal value in expecting people to engage in a demanding intellectual activity while in a state of fight-or-flight panic mode as opposed to, y'know, giving them a heads-up that 'hey, this material might be difficult, so go ahead, take a minute, and prepare yourself so you can engage with it properly'. There are some from the psychology/psychiatry area who argue (or have argued, I'm not up to date on it so they may have had further research) that trigger warnings only cause more issues than they solve (I think Richard McNally at Harvard and Metin Basoglu at King's College are the two I remember reading comments from). At the core of their view was the idea that avoidance not only does not alleviate, but instead may worsen, PTSD (and I believe Basoglu further claims that it can further feelings of helplessness and depression as well). Yeah, but when the warnings are - at least in an academic context - issued not with the the intent to foster avoidance, but to allow people to gather their bearings before engaging with the material, that complaint rings a bit hollow. Why do I have a feeling you guys start to sound like "you don't know life if you haven't been raped". ...Because you can't differentiate between calls for compassion towards people with a different life experience than yours, and people screaming "you're a cishet white male and therefore your opinion should be discarded forever"?

Uhh... I'm genuinely happy that neither you nor anybody close to you has ever experienced rape and the kind of trauma it can inflict, but I'm not 100% sure that this warrants the kind of casual cruelty where you're describing people who are in actual pain and distress as "not far from being legitimately mentally challenged".

I think there are two main concerns - Does it help? If the student still has to experience the 'triggering' content does knowing about it actually make a difference? Does it hurt? If the student continues to avoid triggering content, are they keeping themselves from healing over the long term? ...How are these even questions? Literally everybody I spoke to who actually attends or lectures at university told me that yes, these things are useful, yes, they help students cope with material that is difficult for them to process, and no, nobody is actually exempt from the normal requirements for successfully completing the course. Trigger warnings don't exist to protect the precious fee-fees of students, they exist to allow them to digest the texts on their own terms. I can't believe there are people who are arguing - no doubt from a position of ignorance, but ignorance should not be an excuse - that there is a positive societal value in expecting people to engage in a demanding intellectual activity while in a state of fight-or-flight panic mode as opposed to, y'know, giving them a heads-up that 'hey, this material might be difficult, so go ahead, take a minute, and prepare yourself so you can engage with it properly'.

Oh no, how dare they... warn people that rape and violence is happening in these plays? Clearly this is the same thing as burning books! something something cultural marxism something something outrage

Huh, I thought this post was going in a different direction re: watching something... (spoiler'd for NSFW and strong language)

Man, you're easy "stop ****-shaming him, you androgynist pig" would be the obvious joke here but I have a brand to maintain

You know what is really depressing? There are both male and female people that actually accuse #metoo posters as overreacting whiners. I love the fact that these posts are in this exact order

Better, actually.

And then some! Ive also never seen: Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, Its a Wonderful Life, Citizen Cane, etc. *runs* They made me sit through those in film class when i was a kid. They're all terrible. You don't know terrible until you're forced to sit through all 111 minutes of Blowup.

I found it to be pretty underwhelming: it's not very effective or reliable CC which periodically yanks people in practically random directions (you can't even expect them to end up in the middle, sometimes they overshoot), making it very difficult to pull off a combo where you use Pull of Eora to make enemies bunch up, then hit them with some nasty AoE. It's practically inferior to Slicken, a level 1 spell. Pick Confusion instead.