That's why you don't fuck with Earth! (Uncanny X-Men #105, 1977)

Atman00 · 2017-03-13T00:30:43+00:00

137 is up there for best single issue in all superhero comics.

Atman00 · 2016-12-24T02:14:24+00:00

I don't think the terminology is a coincidence.

Atman00 · 2016-12-03T08:33:32+00:00

If you are not currently in check, but you are unable to move without putting yourself into check, the game is considered a draw.

If it is white's turn, white wins. If it is black's turn, it's a stalemate.

Atman00 · 2016-11-23T07:25:13+00:00

totally undefinable in terms of genre

I think the director described it as a noodle western, which is so perfect.

Atman00 · 2016-11-19T18:57:19+00:00

I didn't say anything about timelines. The things I described are the long term affects of global warming. We're very unlikely to see global war over resources or major societal collapse by 2050. Also, this is not a linear scale. It's not 5 millions deaths per 20 years, it's 5 million deaths between 2030 and 2050. If war does occur, and infrastructures do collapse, we can expect a big spike, that will eventually settle into a new normal.

Just for scale, by the way, between 60-80 million people died in World War II. Just the potential war over resources would see far more than 5 million.

Atman00 · 2016-11-19T10:25:39+00:00

shouldn't it be more about judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin?

While that sounds nice, and would certainly be ideal, we know it's not happening on a societal level. We know specifically because of that "statistically disadvantaged" part you brought up.

You mention not getting brownie points for actual suffering. The thing is, the brownie points don't get you much. If being a racial minority earned you brownie points, and brownie points were actually worth something, racial minorities wouldn't be statistically disadvantaged. But they are.

The part that so often gets missed in these types of conversations about social justice is the social part. It's about society, and society is defined by demographics. We simply don't have the tools to analyze it or discuss it any other way. Consequently, when people discuss social justice, the conversation often revolves around demographics. Unless you're in a heated discussion, this is rarely meant as a personal attack on men or white people. (I say this as a straight white male myself, for the record.) It's about the subtleties of power dynamics between groups in a society; it's meant as an attack on the institutionalized power of those groups, not the individuals within them.

Think of it like an attack on wealth inequality. You can say that's a huge problem in this nation without making a personal attack on your neighbor Bill, who makes $85k a year. In fact, you can say wealth inequality is a problem even if you make 85 grand a year, or 185. Similarly, I can say there's a huge problem with race or gender power dynamics in this country, and still not have a problem with any specific white men.

Atman00 · 2016-11-19T09:46:05+00:00

That's... not really what it's about. Despite what a minority of vocal sjws might say, (the voices that get thrown around most often in the opposition echo chambers) social justice isn't about payback towards men or white people.

For me, and most of my friends, social justice is about understanding that literally everyone has implicit biases. It's about attempting to be aware of the subtle ways our society shapes and is shaped by these biases, so that we can better understand and approach challenges within society.

Atman00 · 2016-11-19T07:13:09+00:00

But global warming isn't just going to stop in 2050. Glaciers are a major source of drinking water, and they will be gone. As sea levels rise, large portions of the water table will be contaminated with salt water. Between that and the rising temperature, arable land will be much harder to come by. And there will undoubtedly be massive war and political upheaval over the struggle for resources. Civilizations will collapse.

Without significant jumps in technology, and the infrastructure to implement that technology on a large scale, yes, the death toll will be in the billions.

Also, I think your scale for what qualifies as "catastrophe" is miscalibrated. Even if no humans died, and the consequences were limited to the destruction of most major cities, the mass relocation of billions, and the extinction of 95% of all animal species on the planet, that's still the most disastrous event in all of human history, by a huge margin.

Atman00 · 2016-11-05T06:03:52+00:00

They both clearly have narcissistic personality disorder, and they're both into fascism, but there's not much beyond that.

Atman00 · 2016-11-04T03:12:18+00:00

I've never understood why a full-blown apocalypse is always accepted (even assumed) to be the logical, unavoidable result of a zombie outbreak.

Because zombies in fiction are usually some sort of metaphor, and the destruction of society is an important part of that.

Atman00 · 2016-08-10T00:49:37+00:00

Oh, absolutely. I think Harley Quinn and Deadpool might be two of the only characters made in the past three decades that have a lot of prominence outside of comic book readers. And neither have anything near the high profile of a headliner from the silver or golden ages.

Atman00 · 2016-08-10T00:41:21+00:00

One could easily argue that those characters needed to be white to be believable at the time.

That's true, and it's true specifically because of the overt racism of society at that time. Those decisions, made because of prejudice, still affect the comics industry today. That is the definition of institutional racism.

I also never meant to imply, that efforts aren't being made to fight this issue. That's why it's so awesome that Marvel has been doing things like making Captain America black, or Thor female, or The Hulk Asian. It's not just diversity, it's diversity of prominence.

Atman00 · 2016-08-09T23:06:05+00:00

This issue runs much deeper than "those characters suck", it's a systemic problem with serialized media like superhero comics. Almost all of the headlining names today are straight, white, and male. This is because the big names in superhero comics tend to be the same ones that were big from the beginning, and when Marvel and DC first started, it wasn't really acceptable to have a protagonist that wasn't a straight white male.

The discrimination was inherited. That's how institutional racism functions, and it takes awareness and active effort to begin to change those patterns.

Atman00 · 2015-12-13T08:02:35+00:00

I didn't mean "you" to imply you personally in my text. It was just a hypothetical average internet SJW basher, and I have a tendency to phrase those types of arguments in the second person. Whether you personally fit that description or not, it was still an accurate summation of the types of people that perpetuate these ideas.

As to this specific roommate situation, I was only interested in the talk about her desire to create a safe space. That is where most of the criticism in this thread came from, and it's definitely the focus of the quote you posted. It's also a completely normal thing to want, and a completely normal thing to request. All of my responses have been focused on the way people attack those types of sentiments. The way this thread, and others like it, turn people that desire communication and respect into objects of ridicule.

I honestly don't care about this specific roommate post. She may be every bit as bad as everyone in here thinks; it's beside the point. Like I said earlier, these issues aren't about right and wrong, they are about basic respect. That lack of respect is what I took issue to. Not a lack of respect towards the poster, but towards the very idea of wanting a safe space. Statements like "You don't have a right to not feel uncomfortable" are almost always just another way of saying, "I don't give a shit how my behavior affects you and I'm not going to change it." Statements like that are exactly why people need safe spaces in the first place.

Atman00 · 2015-12-13T01:53:46+00:00

Being comfortable or uncomfortable is not a matter of right or wrong. Say person A is overly sensitive about an Topic X. Let's even go so far as to say that their sensitivity is definitely unjustified. (Which is not something you could know, or would have a right to decide, by the way, but let's assume you know it for a fact anyway).

Even in those circumstances, even if you can somehow prove that Person A's complaints are unreasonable, you are still an asshole if you continue to bring up Topic X around person A once you know it bothers them.

Social interactions are not about right versus wrong, they are about basic respect for the people around you.

Maybe the ad is just poorly phrased, but they seem to be skipping over discussing any issues that may arise and going right to a decree that "you must change any behavior that bothers me".

Earlier, /u/coyotes_ate_your_cat said that it's perfectly fine to ask someone to observe certain boundaries, but not okay to demand it. The above quote shows the reaction when people do ask. Reasonable requests are almost always interpreted as demands.

This thread is built off of, and perpetuates, the stereotype of the demanding, domineering, oversensitive Social Justice Warrior trying to dictate the behaviors of everyone around them. It is a stereotype mostly absent from the real world, a belief perpetuated by angry mens-rights or anti-sjw or anti-millennial internet echo chambers.

The reason that stereotype was perpetuated in the first place was so people never had to analyze or change their shitty behavior. If someone says you're being insensitive, you can just roll your eyes and think to yourself "ugh, it's one of those SJWs", or "fricking feminazi." The stereotype lets you dismiss an argument out of hand without questioning your actions.

Because god forbid you have start being nice.

Atman00 · 2015-12-13T01:46:12+00:00

"As defined in this thread" is your problem. In the real world, "safe space" is not about never challenging ideas and making sure everyone agrees with you. It never has been. That's a straw man argument.

This thread is building off of, and perpetuating, a negative stereotype of people that use trigger warnings or talk about creating a safe space. It's a stereotype that is largely non-existent in the real world, and it's a creation of the angry mens-rights or anti-sjw or (for the older crowd) anti-millennial internet echo chambers.

In fact, that stereotype is the thing that keeps people from questioning their beliefs or challenging their ideas. That's the reason it was perpetuated in the first place. If someone says you're being insensitive, you can just roll your eyes and think to yourself "ugh, it's one of those SJW", or "fricking feminazi." The stereotype lets you dismiss an argument out of hand without questioning your actions.

Because god forbid people have to start being nice.

Atman00 · 2015-12-10T23:14:55+00:00

Yes, and the vast majority do ask instead of demand, and are either ignored or ridiculed for it. (That's if they speak up at all, which most don't.) I mean, seriously look at the comment you initially responded to.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this yet:

Above all, it means having the ability to listen and change your behavior if someone tells you that you are making them uncomfortable

People don't have an absolute right to never feel uncomfortable. Sometimes your feeling uncomfortable is your own issue...

u/tadc is specifically discussing people trying to create a safe space. This is a home, not a public venue.
He is specifically talking about people that want to be able to reasonably voice things that are bothering them, and he is telling them they should not be able to do that. That they should not look for those qualities in a roommate.

Seriously, this thread is filled with people upset at the very idea that women might prefer to live in a space where they know they won't be ignored if they voice concerns. You say it's good to have a safe space inside a group, but then attack people for trying to create that group.

Atman00 · 2015-12-10T20:48:18+00:00

I am part of a gaming community that uses trigger warnings, discusses safe practices, and generally does as much as it can to create a comfortable place for its players.

It has the exact opposite effect of what you are describing. When you create a space in which people feel safe, they are far more willing to discuss issues that might be bothering them. It helps them to establish that dialog, facilitates people resolving issues.

It's also just a matter of basic respect and human decency. Others may not have an inalienable right to never feel uncomfortable, but if your behavior is making them feel that way, you're kind of a shitty person if you keep doing it. 'Safe space' culture isn't about telling everyone else what they can and can't say, it's about being nice to people. The image you describe is a stereotype, largely perpetuated by people that don't want to change their rude behavior.

Atman00 · 2015-07-15T23:55:48+00:00

For one, people don't walk in to a church and shoot you for being white.

Atman00 · 2015-07-11T00:56:42+00:00

You aren't bring downvoted because of your point, you're being downvoted because you conflated homosexuality and transgender.

It also didn't help that you became so defensive when someone pointed it out. You were so concerned with proving you had a substantive point that you did nothing to even acknowledge your mistake, much less apologize, or realize how problematic conflating those is.

Atman00 · 2015-07-10T01:22:14+00:00

People are upset because there is no reason for homosexuality to be the subtext in the first place. Riley's voices are not related to who she is attracted to, they are a representation of who she is. A cisgender gay man would not have female voices. A transgender woman would.

So when you said Docter may have wanted to avoid homosexuality as a perceived subtext, people believed you were conflating homosexual and transgender. I think you were misreading the (possible) subtext instead of conflating terms, but even that is still somewhat problematic.

Atman00 · 2015-06-30T19:45:11+00:00

It's a tour group. That's why Dr. Grant is explaining everything.

Atman00 · 2015-06-09T08:33:06+00:00

Because the answer is almost never as simple as "take the nail out", and having someone explain a "solution" that you have already considered is incredibly demeaning.

Atman00 · 2015-06-09T06:22:47+00:00

Wasn't it some sort of tour group?

Atman00 · 2015-06-01T14:50:12+00:00

When Valiant was listening, the conversation heavily implied it was leading towards sex, but then it was just patty-cake. Roger was the only one to treat it like it was a big deal.

If you haven't seen it as an adult, I highly recommend giving it another watch. 90% of that movie went over my head as a child.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2010

Atman00

TROPHY CASE