Signtist

It’s basically the same thing every product goes through under capitalism - when the ultimate goal is to make as much capital as quickly as possible, eventually everything profitable gets bought up to be squeezed of its profits until it stops making money, and is then abandoned for the next thing. EA is just a product of a system designed to incentivize their exact business strategy, and there are many more like them.

We’re saying the same thing. My definition of antisocial is not someone who doesn’t want to socialize - that’s why I included the bit about asocial people, who are those types of people who fit the layman definition of “antisocial.”

As you said, someone antisocial is someone who wants to harm society. Being antisocial isn’t “not being social,” it’s about specifically using social interactions to dismantle society. Antisocial people interact with others all the time - manipulating, lying, stealing - all social interactions, but used against society instead of for society the way the “friendlier” social interactions would be.

They are highly social people, but their goal is to destroy society, which would end up destroying human social interactions.

Antisocial people are specifically antagonistic to the concept of society - they want to prevent interactions between people. It wouldn’t be accurate to call someone who only hates one person or a group of people “antisocial,” because they aren’t antagonistic to the concept of community as a whole, and so “hatred” in general isn’t what defines being “antisocial.” Asocial people are a bit simpler, only wanting to avoid interactions between themselves and others, and not caring about whether or not other people interact with one another.

I mean, aggression and hostility are social interactions, aren’t they? I’ve never really considered “social” to specifically mean “friendly.” As far as I understand, any time 2 or more people don’t just completely ignore one another would be an example of some sort of social interaction.

My family’s motto growing up was “Eat all mistakes.” It mostly applied to not wasting food, even if you messed it up. So when I baked cookies in the oven after my mom made a roast, but forgot to turn the temperature down and burned the shit out of them, I had to eat them all. Stuff like that. It really taught me to pay more attention, and appreciate when food was good, even if it wasn’t my favorite.

Nowadays I use it for a lot of things - if I decide to watch a show that ends up not being great, I’ll eat my mistake and finish the season before dropping it. If I start a hobby that I end up not being as motivated to do as I initially thought I’d be, I eat my mistake and use up the materials I bought before stopping.

It both gives me an opportunity to make sure I really don’t like something before I give up on it, and also trains me to not dive too deep into something before I know whether I’m going to enjoy it.

Because life is about looking back as much as it’s about looking forward. Every year you live is just as much a celebration of having survived as it is an acknowledgement of being closer to death. We’ve had yearly celebrations for various reasons throughout all of recorded history, and likely well before it - it’s ingrained in human behavior to seek patterns, and the seasonal cycle is one of the most recognizable patterns there is. So long as people enjoy being alive, we’ll want to party when we recognize that we’ve made it one more cycle.

It’s called Ultima Retrospective.

Never played any of the games, but I’ve been watching a YouTube series about the history of the series, and would love to play a modern title!

People will fight you tooth and nail to prevent something they view as immediately threatening to them. On the other hand, they’ll pay you to implement something they view as immediately useful to them. In either case, they don’t care at all about any non-immediate repercussions for anything.

They were filmed saying exactly this back in January/February.

Trailer parks are stereotypical places to get hit by tornadoes. Tornadoes don’t hit trailer parks more often than anywhere else, but since trailer parks are often wide open spaces with few trees to break up the wind, and a lot of loosely-secured objects to become projectiles, they’re often hit hard enough for the news to do a story on it, thus perpetuating the stereotype.

The joke is that since we’ve just determined that dinosaurs die from tornadoes, we should look for fossils in the stereotypical tornado place. For comedic effect it overlooks the fact that trailer parks are cleared of trees and filled with clutter by humans, so the locations wouldn’t be any more likely to have dead dinosaurs - even those killed by tornado - than anywhere else.

My guess is that it’s just waking up from being under anesthesia.

Oof, I appreciate the candidness. It’s true, I simply don’t fully understand everything you’re trying to convey at the moment, but I don’t doubt the validity of your argument.

I can at least say that I recognize that my current lack of understanding doesn’t mean I’m incapable of understanding; I’ll work on being more mindful about the questions I don’t immediately think to ask about things like this, and I’ll keep in mind that my interpretation of my own actions has some holes that I’ll need to fill before I can fully trust it.

Thanks again for taking the time to educate me - I know the internet has all the information in the world, but I still think the best way to learn about interpersonal stuff is to ask a real person.

Thanks for the rundown! I think I understand a little, at least about the lack of general cultural consideration of consent, but I’m not certain about what specifically pushes this meme over the line into problematic territory.

Would be be fair to say that the issue with this particular meme is that we shouldn’t assume they are in a relationship? I certainly believe it was implied, but it’s true that there’s nothing outright stating that he’s not looking at some unknown woman as she sleeps, which would certainly be rapey. Or is okay that we assume that they’re in a relationship, and the issue is that being aroused while looking at someone, even someone who accepts your attraction to them, is inherently objectifying, and while that can be acceptable, it should never be assumed to be acceptable without express consent being given in the presence of the observer?

Or is the issue here not with the meme itself, but the simple fact that not enough people outwardly asked the question of whether consent was present, even if after more consideration it likely would be? Like, I want to assume the best in people, and I know that even just questioning if someone might be evil can drastically impact the personal and public perception of them, so I don’t want to walk around assuming the worst of any given scenario, but I also don’t want to overstep into territory that’s going to make someone uncomfortable past the normal amount of discomfort everyone has to put up with that’s just inherent to interpersonal communication.

The more I think about it the more I think it’s just about keeping consent in mind, even if there’s no clear “right” answer, even for a specific given scenario, but it’s hard to make that into an actionable plan for change that isn’t just always being pessimistic about human nature. Like, even though I know it’s not meant to be, the act of asking for consent is essentially the act of asking if someone is doing something wrong. It’s fine when it’s between you and another person, but when it’s someone on the outside looking in, it’s hard to know when to ask, and when doing so is being too suspicious of someone who doesn’t deserve that. Maybe that’s wrong, though, and I’m hitting a wall of my own internalized misogyny… it’s tough.

So I’m not trying to argue, but I want to better understand what it means to objectify someone. Is this rapey because the SO isn’t consciously choosing to appear attractive? Is attraction to someone only acceptable if they are actively aware and desiring for such reception, even if you’re not otherwise interacting with them, and are in a relationship with them? It’s honestly not something I’ve thought about much when it comes to people in an existing comfortable relationship where consent is generally always present for normal interactions unless expressly revoked.

Like, when I look at my wife I think she’s attractive, often even moreseo when she’s not doing anything special to appear attractive. She seems to appreciate this, so I don’t believe it would be something bad, but I don’t really know. I know I would want her to feel the same way about me, but again, I suppose that very desire might be a form of consent that isn’t necessarily established in the meme. Is it rapey because we don’t specifically know that she wants to appear attractive to her SO? Is that not something we can at least assume in a relationship between 2 people we otherwise know nothing about?

Again, I’m just trying to better understand because it’s not something I’d considered before your comment. I can definitely understand someone wanting to be sure that consent is established, but I also know that when you’re in a relationship with someone for months/years, those conversations about consent fall away after you both know in and out what the other is okay with. Or are you saying that even that is too far, and it should always be discussed every time, even when full trust is established?

Nah, he had such a bad experience with it that he doesn’t want to talk about it.

I remember when youtube first came out. Thinking it was some kind of online TV, I searched for “The Simpsons” and got no results besides a low-quality upload of The Bartman music video. I decided there wasn’t really anything there for me and I left, not returning until several years later when there was content there that I wanted to watch and couldn’t find on TV. Now I primarily watch youtube, and again I find myself not wanting to switch to peertube until there’s enough content there that I want to watch but can’t find on youtube.

Yeah, that definitely became the creator’s favorite way to stretch things out. The Wano arc had one big fight toward the end that went on for around 80 episodes… There were several different people fighting in different locations, but it was still way too long. I haven’t seen the “One Pace” edit that someone else brought up in this thread, but it sounds like it cut out a lot of that unnecessary filler.

That was near the start of Dressrosa, which was a pretty long arc with a lot of fight episodes that seemed to just be the same back and forth stalemate over and over again. It’s unfortunately just a few arcs before the Wano arc that does the same thing to an even greater extent, unfortunately. The filler was already starting to wear on me by that point, but those 2 arcs took it to an extreme. Luckily, it seems that the creator has realized this as well, and the arc after Wano is a nice quick pace with plenty of stuff going on.

I bake. I like to try out new recipes, usually cookies, since they travel well and can easily be given to multiple people and enjoyed wherever. I’ll be making cinnamon rolls today, though, since there’s a breakfast thing at work tomorrow.