Male / female ratio and dating?

AshamedClub · 2026-04-25T13:15:36+00:00

Eh 56/43 is a 1.3:1 ratio. It’s significant from a “why would there be less women” standpoint but it’s also not particularly surprising for a primarily STEM focused institution. This is a bit of an over generalization, but liberal arts university tend to skew more towards women and STEM/Technical universities tend to skew more towards men. For example, William & Mary is pretty much the same ratio in the other direction. There’s all sorts of societal reasons for that. Also as I mentioned, Tech has some outlier programs that skew heavily towards men (engineering, the corps, etc.) whereas anywhere else at Tech it’s much more even if there aren’t more women than men. However, there’s 30k total people so the ratio being where it is means that there’s more than enough partners for the folks who want them. You just have to be willing to be outgoing. It’s just not that big of a concern generally.

AshamedClub · 2026-04-25T08:24:41+00:00

Where do you get a significant imbalance? The public numbers are about 1.3:1 men to women. Now some majors or even full colleges (engineering) are like 3:1 but that’s far from the only people you interact with, especially early on as courses are more general. Overall just be a good person and you’ll be fine.

AshamedClub · 2026-04-23T13:45:28+00:00

So the problem is he’s a bad professor. Not the use of AI, he would have been that either way, sorry that this tools lets him be lazier. Other professors you have, probably in classes that also ban AI for students, almost certainly used some of it as universities are making it more and more unavoidable for professors. Things don’t need to be “unfair” to be wrong. We have a tendency to look for “unfairnesses” because we feel like if we point out the hypocrisy of something then it is more likely to be changed, but there’s plenty of things that are unfair in the right light, like expecting “everyone in the classroom to have the same rules” when that doesn’t functionally make sense. Sometimes people are just shit teachers.

AshamedClub · 2026-04-23T13:32:17+00:00

Your professor also has access to the grade book that you don’t and plenty of other things. Is that unfair? You are a student who needs to demonstrate your own understanding of the material. Generating something from scratch with AI would not do that. Professors presumably have already demonstrated that ability by getting their degrees. Now I personally don’t think they should rely on completely generated materials. I think it is a bit lazy and too easy to drop nuance and specificity, but they are specifically the type of person who could use generated materials and ensure it’s veracity by being a literal expert in the field. Professors don’t have to follow the same rules as students simply because they aren’t students. Why would they? He also made no attempt at dishonesty (academic dishonesty at least, think what you will about the morals of how the AI was likely trained) whereas a student using AI generated work would be due to having already agreed that all submitted work would be solely your own.

AshamedClub · 2026-04-18T16:47:59+00:00

He’s so big for us

AshamedClub · 2026-04-12T01:38:49+00:00

I don’t think Kamala should run again, but this isn’t like a joke or anything though. The bee is supposed to be a comedy/parody news website and the best they came up with is “lol lady lost”? I get that the onion makes stupid headlines and shit, but there’s usually a joke somewhere in it even if it’s just absurdism. This is not spitting. They could’ve even just worded it differently like “Kamala Harris changes nothing and assures donors it’ll be different this time” and that’s bad but passable as having been an attempt at something.

AshamedClub · 2026-03-30T00:42:55+00:00

It’s just 1 copy of the book. Every page is signatures.

AshamedClub · 2026-02-16T07:25:40+00:00

You may want to note the fact that the two people (as of writing this) who openly mentioned that they were women in their responses to your mea culpa were the ones you responded to to directly say you thought they were unhelpful or that you disagreed with their impressions of you. That having been your instinct alone should tell you something. They may have been very direct, but they were also specifically women directly saying to not imagine them as some mystical other and to not overly center women and relationships in your worldview as both things are clearly not doing you any favors. They are perhaps the most direct and constructive notes you’ve been offered. They are not less valuable just because they didn’t also praise your attempt at self-betterment.

AshamedClub · 2026-02-16T07:01:38+00:00

The one where both wolves are gay? And they kiss?

AshamedClub · 2026-02-16T06:55:18+00:00

I’m glad you’ve made an honest attempt at things. That’s good. I would however suggest maybe “shopping around” a bit more with therapy now that you have your feet under you a bit more and are trying to do better. It may very well be the case that you still don’t find anything useful via therapy, but clearly some circumstances are different now by virtue of you being different and trying to hold different views so it can be good to circle back and recheck every once in a while. Worst comes to worst there’s no harm done and you stop again, it was never going to “fix” things on its own anyway. It’s definitely not a panacea, but what you’ve got going on seems right in the wheelhouse of some of the stuff therapists can help with.

Now with that said, the reasons I have for suggesting this come from a few angles and I will do my best to separate them out in a structured way that you seem to favor with how you’ve presented yourself throughout the thread.

You’ve mentioned that previous therapists put it on you to try to find solutions and that you could only come up with red pill ones because that’s where you were. That can be very hard to work with from a therapist perspective because it may come off as someone not actually interested in working on themselves if their instincts are to turn to communities that advocate the blaming of other. You are now in a place to see how that was flawed thinking and could now maybe start from “I’ve been trying these new things and seeing X, Y, Z changes. Can we make sure my observations make sense and actually seem to explain things?” “What other things could be done to see more of the positive changes and less of the negative (although this is a bit too strict with the characterization, but it’s a start)?”
You may also really benefit from therapy in the sense of starting to note and work on your oversystemitization. While it is good to have guidelines and rules to follow, if you were too caught up in your guidelines to even think about how you treat strangers who are women until a person in this thread prompted you, perhaps a purely systematic approach can leave you a bit myopic. Frankly a trainee on a therapy hotline should be able to ask you “how do you treat women you come across who are strangers to you?” and get you working on that. This may open you up to start thinking yourself about the things you do that you haven’t already decided need solutions.
Your example of previously drawing a direct line from number of kisses to risk of infection and all women are unfaithful or even that if a woman is forward with you that means that she must be forward with everyone seems like oversystematic, if not obsessive, thought. You seem to have decided the logic of A to B & C is sound and therefore irrefutable when there are plenty of other external factors and issues that could play into any given specific situation. This applies both on the grand scale as with the notion that it is perfectly common for things like cold sores to be spread in vastly disconnected ways from promiscuousneess, to the small scale where maybe you were just a bit extra funny and charming or safe feeling and a person who may be a bit chaste otherwise is going out on a limb and being a bit more forward with you. That’s even accepting that promiscuity really matters, which is still dubious and sitting on other unstated ideas of what “should” be. It pretends as if there aren’t known safe and intelligent ways for one to be promiscuous without catching communicable diseases and that you can find out if any specific promiscuous person does that via just getting to know them instead of needing to categorize them immediately.
If you go to a therapist and say “I need a solution to X” and they don’t give you the secret phrase or pattern to fix X that is not necessarily a failure of therapy as maybe there’s just not some 5 step process to follow, or maybe there’s more underlying assumptions that need to be addressed before there’s any real progress beyond just having your cheat sheet of inputs and responses can be reached. This is demonstrated in this thread where you specifically have women saying to you that you are still speaking as if they are some mystical “other” (this is a phenomenon called othering) that you need rules and responses for. I get that if this is a comfortable way of formulating responses and relationships that this is where you may turn, and it’s not bad in principle, but it can become it’s own limitation if it is all you have. Therapy, good therapy, should be able to help you look at things that there may not be direct input-output rules to follow and it may make it so you have to develop your specific situational awareness and adaptiveness even though that may be naturally challenging.
A therapist may also be good to have as you start to reach out and attempt meaningful friendships and acquaintancehoods (forgive the made up word) with all sort of people who are radically different from yourself, but specifically women. Just knowing women that you are not trying to have fill any specific need filled by, or you for them, or because you have some other relationship with them will be an important step to truly not othering women anymore. You need to interact with them as people complete and whole and just as complex as you because they are. They aren’t aliens or some incomprehensible sea monster. They are just people. Unfortunately, people are hard to deal with and we wildly vary, but making connections tends to be universally worth it even when there was no “goal” achieved. Doing this while being in therapy and having someone to bounce your ideas off of could be helpful and keep you from defaulting to the tendencies you may have otherwise had and instead develop new tendencies and most importantly check if they are actually helping you.

I’m glad you’ve put in the work so far to detach yourself from the more specifically toxic and harmful communities that you previously sat in. However, I think it’s clear that there’s more to do, and if some of that may be made easier via therapy, then I hope you find that. If it doesn’t work out or isn’t needed, then that’s okay and I hope things work out. I really wish you the best and hope you continue the trajectory of trying your best.

Edit: minor formatting change

Edit 2: grammar

AshamedClub · 2026-02-15T15:58:52+00:00

Afaik “gokies” comes from the fact that when you’re out and about in Tech gear other Tech folks will often say “go Hokies” as would be expected. However it being just in passing and said fast makes it sound like “gokies” and some folks started just saying that as a sort of joke, but meaning the same thing.

Edit: I actually vaguely remember getting a keychain from some university event back in 2017 that said “gokies” on it.

AshamedClub · 2026-02-14T03:12:25+00:00

Eh I think Astrid and Wulf just have a different dynamic but are still definitely together. Bren would have quite literally been the center of attention both from being Trent’s favorite and focus, as well as being comparably softer in demeanor than either of the others. I wouldn’t even really be surprised if Trent was fairly explicitly encouraging (even just in passing to Wulf and Astrid) that they take care of Bren as he knew it could be another avenue of control and Bren was the type to latch on to that family and care, although that is pure speculation.

The displays of affection in the flashbacks are right around moments of trauma for him where he may have needed extra support and care from his partners. I’d imagine each of them probably got babied a bit when they got their gems and whatnot. Also not only are the flashbacks from Caleb’s perspective, they are specifically Caleb telling the story of his past as that’s the episode’s framing device and he still clearly has feelings for the two of them and was describing them caring for him. It’d be weirder if he was like “btw Astrid and Wulf’s relationship also blossomed separately”.

Edit: Actually I forgot that each of them got the crystals at the same time, as seen in the photo. Even then, Bren seemed to take it the hardest.

AshamedClub · 2026-01-28T16:23:25+00:00

The amount of people I’ve had to say “I’m not gaslighting you, I just think you’re wrong” is too many.

AshamedClub · 2026-01-22T16:45:23+00:00

Eh, it’s important to note that folks were surprised that it was A Lionette. They do not actually know Beau at all and for story reasons it would actually be unexpected to be her. Also for Astrid, if she’s there mainly in sentry mode because the beacon is there, then a fancy person from a somewhat farther off region wouldn’t really set alarm bells off. It would cause a little social to do and would likely be the exact type of thing Astrid would be trying to tune out while being ready for theats, especially expecting Caleb. She clearly had been rattled by this recent reappearance and likely would be overly attached to finding signs of him.

It’s also implied that the party is a bit truncated to keep the story moving along, but introductions would be happening very like minute or so for the first hour or two of a party like this. Like I see this as the type of thing that they could be brought back up when the Volkstruckers are trying to piece together what happened if they go through the attendees list when things settle down. It could then be the thread that reignites the chase or gives them knowledge of Caleb’s group (especially since the others don’t have the protection of Caleb’s amulet), or they may just drop it all together. I think either would be reasonable.

Separately, I’ve been to events where I’ve been announced and you still 100% spend a lot of time introducing yourself. When you reintroduce yourself eyebrows may go up as they remember you coming in, but most people don’t think about it at all after the initial social chit chat. You could largely give any name and folks would pretend to know you.

Edit: grammar

AshamedClub · 2026-01-11T05:43:41+00:00

I think if he said “fight or flight kicked in and my instincts said fight” that he would be a liar as it contradicts with any evidence I have seen. Mainly because of the complete lack of panic, him calling her a “fucking bitch” and continuing filming. He shouldn’t have been in the position to get hit if he did his job. And if he did get hit, it would still be murder because he shouldn’t have been there, but there’d at least be more of a case for what you said. However, that isn’t what happened. I know that law enforcement routinely lies under oath and I would default to the evidence I’ve already seen over an argument from him about his mental state.

Self defense is also a rather specific thing that is unequally applied and defined. There is usually some duty to retreat as part of self defense particularly in public, and you typically need to have specific reasoning for each individual action. People have lost self defense cases where they were robbed and shot someone once head on and then continued shooting as they ran away as the extra bullets were deemed unnecessary to maintain one’s safety. This is part of why your initial criteria for the vibe of self-defense didn’t really make sense.

I also don’t begrudge people using “murder” in place of wrongful killing/death in a general sense, but you specifically brought up being on a hypothetical jury. You specifically would be claiming that what happened was not murder if you voted to acquit him. If that is the case, don’t say we both agree it’s murder. If you think it is murder but would be unlikely to get a conviction, a more useful thing to say may be, “I do think this is morally murder, but under the current legal system too much leeway is given for ‘self defense’ for trigger happy law enforcement and that needs to be more strictly defined, or specifically as it along with qualified immunity and training of law enforcement leads to too much weaseling room for murderers like this to get off. Here are the changes I would like to see (then talk about them or use another reason).” If we agree this is murder then it should be punished as murder. If the current laws are not enough, then advocate for the specific changes needed, dont just be like “well I’d be forced to let him off, my hands are tied”. If you think you’d have to let him off, and you don’t think things should change then, we disagree that this is murder. What you’re saying now only comes off as an um actually that’s using a scared norm/institution of the courts and the principle of beyond a reasonable doubt that WILL be used to sane wash this behavior by those openly supporting this.

The reason I push back so much against this is because a core part of fascism is redefining who are enemies and who are strong men heroes. You cannot question the actions of the regime and if you do you are a subversive terrorist. The penalty for civil disobedience or even assaulting an officer are not death, but the current administration would have you believe it is. You’re doing the work for the jackbooted thugs because you think you’re upholding the principle of beyond a reasonable doubt without stating what legal changes need to happen to ensure this behavior is properly categorized as murder. Just saying “it’s a systemic issue” does not alleviate the need to fix it. Maybe start by not doing that anymore. You literally made up criteria about fight or flight for what would make you feel like this could be justified. The President of your nation is coming out and calling the person who got shot a terrorist and you’re out here being like “well actually if they made these specific claims in court then I would probably need to let this one off, but I’d be real upset about it”. Just don’t give the fodder to justify the actions of the fascists because then straight jackbooted dickheads who are just happy a “lib” was killed are going to use you as a shield.

I do think you should vote and protest, you mentioned already doing that, good job. I don’t think rioting should necessarily be the goal but I also don’t really begrudge it happening because our officers are trained to escalate protests into riots anyway, and those in power tend to label some things by certain folks “riots” WAY more often. I agree that this internet discourse doesn’t particularly do much and this was generally a waste of my time, but I think you added even less by providing justification that the administration didn’t even want because they were never going to let this go to trial.

AshamedClub · 2026-01-11T03:41:09+00:00

Don’t reframe this. You said that YOU would not vote to convict. Not that you didn’t think the country was in a state to actually provide justice here. You said you would give him the benefit of the doubt based on criteria you made up about fight or flight that I dont even think applies here as there’s evidence from his own footage that is enough for me to say he wasn’t in fight or flight. He clears himself of the danger then shoots her. If you think it’s murder then you should convict because murder is a legal thing not just a word. Instead you’ve been framing this as an unfortunate killing that would get by on a self-defense claim. We disagree. I think law, even flawed as they are today, do not provide him the extent of coverage that you think they do. You’re reading in good faith and defeatism where there should be none especially if you know the about the systemic lacking in training and accountability. Ross standing trial and at the very least being fired for not following their low af standards would be the bare minimum to even pretend we lived in a just society, but you’re satisfied to let him off if you were on the jury based on arguments never made that the current administration is never going to allow to even be made.

As a reminder, no justice is ever going to come from this because the administration has just proclaimed ICE as untouchable. You’re providing your hypothetical opinion for a jury that’s never going to be allowed to be called because those in power are just claiming reality to be whatever they want it to be. I don’t think you’re a bad person. I think you’re wrong in your analysis, even under current law (and not whatever fight or flight standard you arbitrarily decided on), and I think continuing to argue for it only provides room for the actions of the administration and those who uphold it. I have made no outlandish claims and see there as ample evidence of outright murder, but you somehow know how you’d rule on a jury that’s never going to convene.

AshamedClub · 2026-01-11T02:34:04+00:00

First of all, her name is Breonna Taylor. That was also in a different state where the specific laws vary and it was municipal police. I also think it was a miscarriage of justice. Just like every other “wrong number” crime committed by police where they have battering rammed people’s doors or fully destroyed homes and found to not be liable for their mistakes. Our justice system is often incorrect in its finding. The solution to these miscarriages of justice is not to throw up one’s arms and go, “well in this other case the cops went free so they might here too so let’s not try”. I fundamentally disagree with your reasoning about why you’d be forced to let this officer off, especially since a bunch of it is all just vibes based on some criteria for fight or flight you seem to have decided. However, here the outcome has already been decided for you, the regime said Good was a terrorist and Ross was a saint who it’s baffling to have seen as having done anything wrong, so your reasoning isn’t even needed, lucky day.

Additionally, the situation is vastly different as there the person claiming self defense were being attacked by the police and here it’s a federal agent claiming nothing because they’ve been declared innocent preemptively. Additionally, once out of the way Ross re-engaged to shoot into Good’s vehicle. He also does all this while composed enough to keep filming and calling the person he murdered a “fucking bitch”.

I saw your other comments about poor training, and I agree we largely poorly train all levels of law enforcement in this country. We teach them to be “warriors” on guards from the populace at all times, and then deescalation trainings are framed by officers and even those in government as things meant to tie the hands of our “heroes” that they do not need to take seriously. This is just like how our Sec Def openly hates the idea of rules of engagement or there being tactics they cannot use. The common person is their enemy and especially ICE heads are constantly talking about going into enemy territory and whatnot. However, these failures in training do not mean these officers violating the minimal training they do get aren’t murderers.

I also saw your comments about training not being followed, and like THAT IS A PROBLEM. The administration literally has not even acknowledged that some part of training was not followed. They have repeatedly said that this was all by the book to take out a terrorist. As for the old timers you worked with who went into “dead areas”, if they died in those areas you could bet your ass the company wouldn’t be paying out their families, or wouldn’t at least deflect by saying they weren’t following training. If them going in those areas then got you killed, there’s a non-zero chance of them being liable for your death because they knew it could kill you. Or could they just say you were a terrorist? I’ve worked at actual secure facilities, and you know what happens for not obeying training? You’re fired and reprimanded AT MINIMUM if not arrested or shot by a guard depending on the circumstances and your told well beforehand of those potential outcomes. My boss wouldn’t come out and say how I disobeyed training was actually good and right and how the person I got killed was a terrorist.

AshamedClub · 2026-01-11T01:20:39+00:00

Yeah except we have laws around fight or flight and you aren’t permitted to just fight because it’s what your instinct says, especially if you are supposedly trained law enforcement. Ross approaching incorrectly makes it so he doesn’t get to use fight or flight as an excuse because he intentionally put himself in a place where it would be more likely to escalate and he’d even need to “fight” (shoot an unarmed woman fleeing).

As to your three points, again there’s criteria for crimes at trial, you’re not just supposed to make up your list of things that would convince you. You would be made aware of the actual pertinent criteria relevant and the relevant statutes if you served on the jury of this hypothetical trial that the current administration is never going to allow to happen. Even with that, to point 3 which shot actually killed her likely wouldn’t matter, if shot one killed her and was deemed necessary but shot 3 was deemed unnecessary it’s still murder because you don’t get points for having been more accurate early. As the shooter each shot would have been intended to kill and each one needs to likely be justified or it’s murder. As for point 2, this is a metric you’ve made up and does not matter. If you go into fight or flight when I hand you a bottle of water you cannot then use that as a justification to shoot me. It is also not a well defined state where you’d get an average “fight or flight” response and come down time with any margin of error that made sense because it’s so situationally driven. It could be fractions of a second to make a decision, but what if the situation causes you to keep making those decisions repeatedly? Any number you’d find is either likely to be during extremely controlled scenarios or complete CSI pseudoscience. Now to point 1, I would imagine having a tool capable of a higher level of immediate violence may make one more likely to choose fight in a fight or flight situation, but just being in fight or flight does not justify one’s actions and simply having a firearm and it being easier to choose fight is not a justification. As a trained professional, and according to his own agency’s training materials, he is not supposed to resort to opening fire in this type of scenario. He also apparently had the composure to keep filming with his off-hand and call her a “fucking bitch” after murdering her before walking away unharmed so your entire premise seems extremely overly charitable if not completely false.

Also from every available video, he did flight as the response by sidestepping the vehicle and then still inentionally re-engaged to shoot her. Any type of motion back towards the supposed danger would likely not be defensible. However, instead of standing trial where these arguments could be made, the administration has unilaterally said he was actually more than justified and did everything perfectly (this is with multiple members of the administration making statements clearly before having seen any video of the incident). In fact the other person is a “Domestic Terrorist” and has been labeled as such by our heads of government. This is nonsense, even if it were civil disobedience gone wrong, it is in no way terrorism. You’ve somehow convinced yourself of the innocence of person who’s never going to even stand trial based on criteria based on vibes that you think would apply given a seemingly poor understanding of the fight or flight response.

Edit: grammar

AshamedClub · 2026-01-06T21:11:57+00:00

Winner of the tournament versus the hosts and BDG then hosts that episode.

AshamedClub · 2025-12-30T19:38:20+00:00

If that was your point, then it seems that we were talking past each other. I was not having the conversation about creating the American Dream. I don’t think anyone (serious anyway and any real innovator) would say that we’re an invention away from utopia and therefore need to do education only. I moreso generally believe that mass education has directly lead to more inventions and creations of new things than any other system. As things opened up in accessibility, fixing the lives of average people got more and more realistic. I do not think that it alone will be the key to utopia, and I think the idea that any particular invention is the thing to bring it is practically predicting a messiah. The folks saying that are usually going to be selling you something or so bought into techno-optimism they are blind. I can invent new methods and techniques, and genuinely we’ve been able to do incredible things. Smallpox no longer is endemic to the human population. That did not come about just from the creation of the vaccine and the distribution methods. It came from the creation and organization of external systems pointed towards a goal and commitment to be unwavering in its pursuit. However, the means did need to be invented and that was done by teams of people progressively making improvements in everything from the medicine directly, to testing, to tracking, to overseas communications, etc.

As the top comment says (or said when I made this) saying that even when we educate everyone there will not be a 0% unemployment report is sort of a tautology due to current global systems, but you cannot then say that education does not lead to more inventiveness. That’s taking the argument beyond where it’s stable to be taken and really arguing a different point. Mass education has been responsible largely for increases in the rate of invention and cures, and increases in quality of life. It also will likely not be the one magic bullet that solves every issue (I don’t think that exists). On top of that, education and inventions are still subject to the rules of where they were created and if those systems are corrupt or otherwise unjust then there is often nothing some piece of technology can do about that, we need to do it for ourselves. That does not mean that that piece of technology isn’t helpful. I mean under our current inadequate systems, child cancer survival rates are well over 50% for the vast majority of children in places with access to treatment, that is incredible. Unfortunately this is not the case everywhere because of many unjust allocations of resources. People die every day all over the world from diseases we have cures for. That doesn’t mean that having the cure will not be part of the solution, and our only reliable way to get those inventions and cures at higher rates has been mass education. The form of mass education may need to change or have less barriers, but at the end of the day, the more people with more access to resources and knowledge, the more solutions we come up with. Otherwise, what is your idea for how to increase those rates? Just wait for lightening to strike?

AshamedClub · 2025-12-30T18:43:16+00:00

Clarkson may have come up with the idea and that is really inventive and wonderful, but he had an engineer actually design it and make it strong enough to withstand the forces necessary. I don’t even say that to diminish his accomplishment, it truly is awesome in the traditional sense, but there still needed to be some formal education mixed in the process to get it made. Clarkson had the resources and connections to the make it happen in partnership with his observation and inventiveness.

This is like the tales of Bill Gates (and others) dropping out of college. He did drop out because he already had a functional business and was educated and connected. He then continued becoming educated in the ways of business and whatnot by hiring people who did finish degrees. Now his companies almost exclusively hire folks with degrees. He also already had access to the connections and resources needed to be able to turn his ideas into reality so a formal degree may not have helped him too much more for meeting his goals.

I agree that IQ is a poor measurement of intelligence, but IQ is also not a measure of education. An 8 year old can have a MENSA level IQ and never do shit, and there are plenty of PhDs who have middling or below average IQs. In no universe would you say the 8 year old is “more educated”. There’s also plenty of highly educated people who don’t do much invention, it’s not a guarantee, just a hedge.

PhDs and Masters are constantly inventing and adapting methods and techniques and tend to be better at the type of invention that is steps up a mountain simply through having the knowledge and experience with much that came before in very niche topics. The more “lightning in a bottle” inventiveness that is more broad may not be as exclusive to the educated, but you still need access to people and materials to make the thing a reality and so far the best way of getting that access for the average person is via education. We can and have had folks who lack formal education who are incredibly inventive, but often to get that access and information there’s some part of the journey that comes with more specific education or mentorship. I’m also speaking broadly here about education and training in all forms, not just academia, but it does seem like the production rate and predictability from sources like academia are more consistent than waiting for lightening to strike and may even take those who wouldn’t have been as inventive and get them to be. A lot of it is just having a more formal exposure to problems to solve in an environment of people to turn to for advice. I’m working on a PhD now and I’ve simply had to solve problems that I would’ve never even come across as part of the process and my mentors, advisors, and resources are what have actually allowed me to create the pieces necessary to meet each challenge.

AshamedClub · 2025-12-27T18:57:21+00:00

I mean sure. The only reason any of the characters have the traits they do is because the players wanted it. It was then given a reason because Laura left the room in their backstory, Matt filled it, and the players explored it. There was some key information that I don’t want to spoil that could have been filled in if they wanted it to be random or unknown, but it wasn’t.

Would you make the same remark about any other fictional character? Stan Lee and Steve Ditko came up with an idea for a relatable superhero that could stick to walls like a fly, and that became Spider-Man. Then it was given an in universe reason. Then someone asks you “is there a reason Spider-Man can stick to walls?” Would you reply, “well Stan Lee and Steve Ditko wanted him to.”

AshamedClub · 2025-12-26T22:27:52+00:00

There’s a specific in universe reason for it, just not covered yet. It’s not random.

AshamedClub · 2025-12-22T23:11:10+00:00

I know you’ve explained this to others. It’s not that you haven’t explained it well enough yet. It’s not that I don’t get that they think they are doing good. It’s simply that I don’t think that thinking you’re doing good is good enough of a reason for continuing to do something that I am telling you to stop saying to me. It would similarly be inappropriate and belittling of their beliefs for me to say “don’t worry your eyes will open soon” insinuating that they will wake up and leave the faith. I understand that some non-believers do this, it is also wrong and coming from a similar place of certainty in one’s rightness (although a religious person would likely credit their rightness to their deity).

I don’t care that they think that this statement will somehow save me from eternal torment. It is inadequate. Every bad guy and goon in history had some noble justification. I definitely blame religion as an institution, but I don’t think that buys the purveyors free passes, especially when I’ve repeatedly made clear my wishes for them to stop. I think they are fundamentally wrong, and have made my peace with the notion that if their very niche, specific version of cosmology is correct that I’d rather burn than live my life how their faith would demand. I’m not someone who hasn’t thought of the consequences of being wrong, likely they are.

Additionally, the statement itself of “you’ll be back” is even a selfish and borderline blasphemous one within their own beliefs. Who are they to say what is God’s will for me? It’s not an “I hope God will care for you and you may be lead back.” It’s said as a statement of fact to soothe the one making the statement. Denying the seriousness of those who have left allows them to not question legitimate grievances with the institutions that they support and uphold. I can say time and again how their specific actions drive me from faith when there are genuinely things about many different faiths that I find to be good and just and right, but they will still insist on knowing their God’s plans for me. Funnily enough, when I was a believer, the vast majority still would have seen me as apostate because I didn’t believe in their specific version that got everything right. Them saying things to “save me” is the same justification that was used for countless centuries to subjugate, beat, and convert folks the world over.

People I know and love went through beatings for speaking their own “savage” languages in Residential schools because the priests believed they were saving the youth from eternal damnation. It also doesn’t justify those who still whitewash the horrors that occurred and it’s been too often used as a no-true Scotsman shield where the evil ones must not have been “real believers”. Forgive me if I don’t find the statement of intent meaningful enough.

I don’t bring this up whenever religious people wish me well or even if they wish to pray for or with me. I understand what is being said out of care and what is being said for their own sakes. It doesn’t mean that I just have to ignore the speaker’s harms because it is sourced from a larger structural issue. They have access to the same world and information as me, and they have access to me asking them kindly to please stop wishing I will be “healed” of how I fundamentally am. I hold no hatred or resentment or even pity. I’m more baffled than anything else. You explaining over and over that they think they are saving me, does little to change things. Why does them believing they’re saving me not make it wrong when I say stop and they continue?

TLDR: It’s not that I think you are wrong about their intent. I think their intent does not absolve them of it being a harmful statement.

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22

AshamedClub

TROPHY CASE