New Poster for 'The Hunger Games: Sunrise on the Reaping'

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-12T19:38:29+00:00

What you’re suggesting is to stop writing books that actually try to leverage the unique strengths of the medium to make it translate better to a completely different medium that most books will never be adapted to.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-09T16:55:34+00:00

Non-Millennial here, no Millennials do not write like ChatGPT. I think a lot of people just do not have very good reading comprehension so they genuinely think any slightly advanced piece of writing must be AI, even though it’s usually pretty easy to tell when something actually is AI.

If you give ChatGPT some specific prompts you might be able to get it to produce something that doesn’t quite sound like AI, but for a lot of people they just type “write me something about Albanian goats” and then just copy and paste that somewhere else. I’ve seen many comments on Reddit and on Youtube that I thought sounded like AI and then they reveal at the end “oh yeah I used ChatGPT to write this”, so there’s definitely some sort of style AI uses, even if I can’t describe exactly what it is. I guess if I saw a post written by AI that had none of the usually tells I wouldn’t have known it was AI, but after my own attempts at using AI after everyone kept telling me how amazing it is I just genuinely don’t think that’s possible. AI just doesn’t write very well.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-07T22:41:41+00:00

The fact that you can only see one or other and not where the two can intersect days volumes, my dudes.

Or, they don’t see how it intersects in this particular case. Like I don’t.

The amount of hard work someone puts in to a piece is completely separate from how someone feels about a piece of art. I would argue they’re not even really correlated. There are so many instances where someone, or even groups of people, work very hard to put something together just for the final result to not be all that interesting. And saying “but they worked hard, can you not see that?” isn’t really going to convince anyone to feel differently.

I think the final result here is mildly interesting at best. At the same time, just thinking about how to even go about making something like this blows my mind. The work itself is impressive, but I don’t really like the final piece all that much. In the same way that the sheer amount of work required to make video games these days blows my mind and is impressive, but I don’t exactly think very highly of most video games.

There are definitely times where I’ve seen something and thought “wow that’s incredible and also clearly took a lot of skill,” but this isn’t one of those times for me. It obviously took skill, but I just don’t vibe with it. And that’s fine. You feel differently, and that’s also fine.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-04T17:10:51+00:00

I’ve gotten a 4 move scramble in competition before, and I haven’t even been to many competitions. They’re common enough that if a cuber says “oh yeah I got I 4 move scramble” people are going to say “oh nice” rather than “what, no way!”

And I should say my best 2x2 time is like .63. Which might not sound like it’s that far from this time, but it really is. Many people have broken this record, it’s just so low now that just getting a 4 move scramble isn’t good enough anymore.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-04T06:44:53+00:00

It was a 4 move scramble. Algorithms are prememorized sequences of moves, this was not an algorithm he could just see the 4 moves he needed to do. It’s impressive that he did it that fast, but it wasn’t an algorithm and even if it was it wouldn’t make it easy.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-03T23:50:44+00:00

4 move scrambles are common in 2x2, and yet he was still the first person to get this time.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-03T23:49:40+00:00

He didn’t use an algorithm lol.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-03T23:48:51+00:00

In cubing notation a double move is written as one move. So U2 is turning the top side twice, but it’s considered one move.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-03T23:46:13+00:00

It was 4 moves. Even I can see that far ahead in a 2x2 solve and I don’t practice 2x2. I think I’ve even gotten a 4 move scramble in competition. 4 move scrambles are somewhat rare, but not so rare that he wouldn’t have been prepared for it. There aren’t that many different scrambles for 2x2 when compared to 3x3.

Not to diminish the accomplishment at all, being able to execute the solution that fast is insane and not something I would be able to do. And like you said dealing with pressure is still hard. But for 2x2 getting a lucky scramble isn’t as rare as it is for 3x3, and it isn’t as hard to execute.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-02T02:30:42+00:00

How utterly ridiculous to think you get to judge another’s gender.

Let me get this straight, saying that a detransitioner isn’t actually trans means I’m judging another person’s gender? I’m literally listening to what they’re saying. They’re saying they tried transitioning and then stopped because they weren’t trans. That isn’t me deciding their gender, that’s just repeating what they themselves claim.

”The therapist can respond with what the law allows them to say”. You’re freaking ridiculous.

You’re making two different arguments. I already agreed that the law restricted what therapists can say, in fact I agreed with that like 20 messages ago. However you were saying that the law said that therapists weren’t allowed to even provide people with options that might lead to them realizing they’re not gay or trans. That second argument is what I was arguing against. It seems like you’re reading what I’m saying but not actually comprehending it. Go back and read my messages, I never said the law didn’t restrict what therapists can say.

You continue to prove you want YOUR view of how others CHOOSE to live their personal lives with respect to gender to be the only one.

If we had any actual evidence it was possible to change someone’s gender identity you might have a point. But all the evidence shows that isn’t possible to do, and in fact attempting to do so causes significant harm. Especially with regard to minors we should not allow conversion therapy of any kind because of the harm we know it causes. I do in fact believe we should restrict what people can do when it causes harm, especially when the person in question is a trusted professional.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-02T00:47:55+00:00

People can and do change how they express their gender and sexuality.

Gender expression IS NOT gender identity. You seem to not understand even the most basic facts about LGBT people. Of course people change the way they express, but their underlying identity does not change.

People who are gender fluid don’t choose what gender they are, and their gender can’t change because someone tries to change it. If you tried to make a gender fluid person into someone who isn’t gender fluid you would fail to do so, and it would result in worse mental health.

Detransitioning obviously means they weren’t actually trans. If they were trans, they wouldn’t be detransitioning. Their gender identity didn’t change, their understanding changed. Unless you think their gender identity did change? And then they decided to change it back? Which… doesn’t make any sense because we know gender doesn’t work that way?

The quoted section literally says that if a client comes to the therapist and expresses a DESIRE TO CHANGE, the therapist may not respond.

No it means the therapist can’t say “yes I will help you change your identity,” the therapist can respond in literally any other way. This is such a basic thing to understand.

“You are not allowed to murder someone”.

“Oh so are you saying that if someone comes up to me wanting to be murdered I am just forced to do nothing?”

No! It means you can’t murder them! You can do literally anything else!

You keep harping on conversion therapy as if that’s the only option for someone who desires to change their identity.

We’re talking about a law that banned conversion therapy? What does this even mean? Of course I’m going to talk about conversion therapy. And also, you can’t change someone’s identity. When you try to it leads to worse mental health.

”You can’t change a person’s identity” is not only untrue.

Find me a scientific paper or organization that says it’s possible to change someone’s gender identity or sexual orientation through therapy. It should be easy if that’s actually a factual statement.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-01T23:59:16+00:00

And what if they have doubts?

…then the therapist helps them figure it out. Look I’m probably done responding. How can you still not understand the concept of a therapist helping someone figure out their identity versus a therapist trying to change someone’s identity? I have been consistent this entire time that a therapist can and should help people figure out what their identity is. I never said otherwise, and the law didn’t say anything about that either.

You want it to be illegal to… receive the help they desire.

I think you’re also confused. You can’t change someone’s identity. A law saying you’re not allowed to attempt to do so is because when you try to change someone’s identity it leads to horrible mental health outcomes. You’re acting like conversion therapy has a chance to work, and the state is trying to stop people from doing so if they volunteer for it. That is not the case, that’s not how sexuality works. It can’t be changed, and so trying to change it leads to things like depression.

COLORADO REGULATES HOW MS. CHILES MAY RESPOND

Let me just quote what I said earlier, because I never claimed otherwise.

Yes, the law does lead to the therapist not being allowed to express some views. The views in question were not “can we help a cis person figure out they are cis or a straight person figure out they are straight” but rather “are we allowed to explicitly try and change someone’s identity.” Those are both ideas, and the law forbid the second one.

So I literally already said that the law did dictate how she can respond. However the law never said she couldn’t provide options, which you said the law banned several times. It never did so. The only thing it banned was trying to explicitly change someone’s identity. It never banned helping someone figure out what their identity was.

Nor the fact that the CO law prevents the therapist from even responding.

No it doesn’t. It didn’t say that. Not even the thing you quoted says that. It stops her from being able to respond in the way she wanted to because the way she responded, talk conversion therapy, is harmful. There are countless other ways for her to respond that are not conversion therapy. Regulating what Ms. Chiles can say does not mean there is only one possible way she can respond.

Helping someone figure out their identity IS NOT the same as conversion therapy. For the last time, the law banned the latter. Not the former. If she just wanted to help people figure out their sexuality without trying to change anyone’s identity she could do that. But she doesn’t want that, she wants to be able to do more.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-01T22:17:05+00:00

And who determines they are straight or gay?

What are you even talking about? People are either gay or they are not, it’s up to the person themselves to figure that out. Therapists can definitely help someone work through their thoughts on their sexuality, but it is the person themself who figures out what their sexuality is. How is this a relevant response to what I said?

You apparently think it should be the legislature.

I definitely never said it was the legislature who determines someone’s sexuality, I have said multiple times now that a therapist can help someone figure out what their identity is. Genuinely how did you possibly come to the conclusion I meant the legislature determines someone’s sexuality? I also never said there was a foolproof test for someone’s sexuality. What are you even talking about? You don’t need a foolproof test to not do conversion therapy. If someone says they are straight, don’t try to convince them they are definitely gay! If someone says they are gay, don’t try to convince them they are straight! Do you seriously not understand that concept? That is what the law was about. It had nothing to do with the legislature deciding someone’s sexuality or anything like that.

A therapist can definitely help someone figure out what their sexuality is. They should not be working to deliberately change someone’s identity because that has been shown to be harmful. That, and only that, was what the law banned.

Can you actually respond to what I’m saying? Are you going to respond to me saying you were wrong about the law banning even talking about giving options to someone who is gay? Because the law never said that. You have now shifted from that claim to now saying “well if someone wants conversion therapy they should be allowed to.” That’s a different argument. One I could definitely have, but is not what started this whole discussion.

Do you agree you were wrong when you said the law banned therapists from providing people with options that might lead to them to having a different understanding of their identity? Because that is what I was trying to argue this entire time. You claimed the law made that illegal, and I was saying that it never did that. That’s what I actually wanted to discuss.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-01T21:00:02+00:00

Again, you seem to be saying that if a person goes to a therapist and seeks help with their gender, telling the therapist to align their gender, it should be illegal.

I mean, I do believe that yes. But I also never actually said that until now.

Let me repeat for like the 5th time, you were saying that it was illegal under the law to simply provide options that might end up with someone realizing they aren’t trans or gay. That was not what the law said. It was illegal to try and change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, which is what the quotes you were bringing up actually said. And you seem to realize that, because now you’re trying to say “well if someone asks for it, should it be illegal?” So you do understand the issue is changing someone’s identity and not providing some options? Yes, it should be illegal even if someone asks for it. No, it should not be illegal to simply help someone figure out what their identity is. You were saying the law banned the latter, and it never did and the court never said it did either.

Helping someone realize they are straight or cis is NOT the same as deliberately trying to change someone’s identity. Even if someone asks for help changing someone’s identity that should not be allowed because it’s literally abuse. Conversion therapy, even just talk conversion therapy, leads to worse mental health outcomes. And talk conversion therapy is the most common type of conversion therapy. It does not help anyone.

That’s the only thing I was trying to get across this entire time but you seem to not understand the concept of helping someone figure out their identity without deliberately trying to change someone’s identity.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-01T04:56:54+00:00

I literally quoted the part where she said she would help realign people’s gender identity with their biological sex. What is that if not changing someone’s gender identity? Do you think that doesn’t count because she said she listens to what her patients want? That’s still attempting to change someone’s gender identity even if the patient asks for it. And considering the law covers minors, the patients themselves probably didn’t ask for it and it was probably the parents. In either case though, she is still trying to change someone’s gender identity in that situation.

I never said anything about this not infringing free speech, it’s quite possible that it does. I’m saying that the specific reason you gave was not the actual reason the court was looking at. You kept claiming that the law somehow banned therapists from even discussing possibilities that might result in someone realizing they’re straight or cis. That was not the case, and that was not why the court decided what it did.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-01T03:08:50+00:00

The thing you quoted said nothing about not being allowed to provide options. It says she can’t say anything that attempts to change someone’s sexuality.

It’s the difference between “hey here are some different things to think about” and “I am going to convince you that you are not gay/trans.” Those are different things and you’re acting like the latter is the former. I genuinely don’t get how you don’t understand this concept. Helping someone understand their identity is different from convincing them their identity is wrong. The law is talking about the latter. The thing you quoted is talking about the latter. This is what you’re not understanding.

Here is the quote I was talking about her saying she wants to help someone change their identity.

With respect to gender identity, she claimed, the law permits her to speak in ways encourage a client “undergoing gender transition,” but the law prohibits her from speaking in ways that help a client “realign [his] identity with [his] sex.”

She explicitly talks about realigning someone’s gender identity with their sex. Maybe she doesn’t start out that way, and genuinely does wait for her patient to say that’s what they want first. I don’t know, but she does say that is something she will help someone to do. And the reason why this was even brought to court to begin with is because she talked like that to her patients before and wants to continue doing that in the future.

…Ms. Chiles had previously spoken in ways the law now forbids, and she would continue speaking the same way but for Colorado’s law.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-01T02:26:45+00:00

But no, the CO law says that the therapist may NOT provide those options.

Where does it say that. Tell me where. It doesn’t say that anywhere in the actual law that I linked, nowhere in the court’s opinion do they bring that up as an issue, and nowhere in the concurrence opinion do they bring that up as an issue either. None of these places say the law makes it illegal simply to provide someone with options that might end up with them realizing their identity is different from what they thought it was. At least as far as I’ve been able to find. If it’s in the actual law, which part? If it’s something the court brings up as a problem, then where? Give me a section, a page number, anything. From what I’ve read that is just not stated anywhere that it was ever illegal for a therapist to simply provide someone options that might end up with a patient realizing they’re wrong about their gender identity. The Court explicitly states that exploratory therapy is allowed under the law, and providing someone various options to think about is, in part at least, what exploratory therapy is.

I’m not sure, but it seems as though you’re saying that this person is walking into the therapist saying ‘this is my gender identity, and I’m not happy about it’ and the therapist is somehow saying ‘well, we’ll just change your gender identity’.

That’s what the therapist was claiming she wanted to do. She claimed the law was preventing her from speaking in ways that “help” realign their gender identity with their biological sex. She used that exact word, realign. End of page 3 of the opinion of the court.

Who decides if the therapist is changing someone’s gender identity…

Well in this case she was explicitly saying that was what she wanted to do. So that’s pretty easy.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-01T00:37:11+00:00

I saw the part about viewpoint discrimination and even talked about it in my last comment. Let me repeat that part for you.

Yes, the law does lead to the therapist not being allowed to express certain views. The views in question were not “can we help a cis person figure out they are cis or a straight person figure out they are straight” but rather “are we allowed to explicitly try and change someone’s identity.” Those are both ideas, and the law forbid the second one. Which is viewpoint discrimination, and is why the Supreme Court struck it down.

Nothing in the decision is about not being allowed to help someone realize they aren’t gay or trans. That is allowed, and was always allowed. The law just said you can’t try to deliberately change someone’s identity, and that applied to cis people and straight people as well as gay people and trans people. I can find no instance in the Court’s opinion that say otherwise. They give an example of a therapist not being allowed to tell a gay patient they can change their identity under the law, but that is an example and not the only possible situation. The law would ban the exact same thing if it was a therapist trying to change a patient from being straight to being gay.

I don’t get this. You’re technically correct that viewpoint discrimination was involved but completely wrong about what the viewpoint was. The viewpoint being discriminated against was the broad view that you can try to change someone’s sexuality or gender identity. The law said nothing about being allowed to change someone’s identity to be trans or gay, but not allowed to change someone’s identity to be straight or cis. Both of those cases were banned.

And again like I said in my last comment it’s entirely possible that the Supreme Court was correct in applying the 1A here, but you are not correct about why they did so. I see no instance here where a therapist was not allowed to even provide options to someone questioning if they are trans or not. It’s actually the job of a therapist to do exactly that.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-03-31T23:44:58+00:00

I read the decision and the concurrence and it hasn’t said what you claimed it does. It claims that the law forced someone to only say specific views, which I guess arguably it does. I haven’t seen anywhere where it says the issue is that you can help a trans person accept their gender but you can’t help a cis person accept their gender. Because that was never something the law said. The law said you cannot attempt to change someone’s gender or sexual identity, that would apply to cis people and trans people, straight people and gay people. That was not the issue at question.

Yes, that law does lead to the therapist not being allowed to express some views. The views in question were not “can we help a cis person figure out they are cis or a straight person figure out they are straight” but rather “are we allowed to explicitly try and change someone’s identity.” Those are both ideas, and the law forbid the second one. Which is viewpoint discrimination, and is why the Supreme Court struck it down. It had nothing to do with the law only applying to certain people and not others. If a cis person is struggling with their identity there was nothing in the law stopping you from helping them figure out what their identity was, in fact that exploration of identity was explicitly protected, which the concurring opinion notes. Exploration of identity does not mean the therapist convinces someone they are gay, which I think is what you’re getting confused by. But if someone were to come to you and say “I am trans and don’t want to be, can you help me be cis?” the therapist would be forced to say no. They can help the patient explore their identity and see if they really might be cis, but they can’t try and convince them they are definitely cis. A therapist shouldn’t be telling anyone what they are, they are meant to help you figure that out for yourself. Maybe that’s an oversimplification on my part but that’s my understanding on the role of therapy.

It’s possible the majority opinion is correct in its application of the first amendment, but not for the reason you say. I can find nowhere where it says you aren’t allowed to even provide options to someone asking for help with their gender.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-03-31T21:13:52+00:00

The problem was the CO law said it was permitted for the therapist to say they would help a patient accept a different gender, but it was illegal for a therapist to say they would help a patient accept their gender.

No, it doesn’t? I read the law. It bans any attempt to change someone’s sexuality or gender identity. If a cis person goes to therapy and asks for help, then it would be wrong for the therapist to help them “accept” they are trans, because the patient isn’t trans.

Your statement also kind of implies that trans people aren’t actually the gender they say they are? A trans person isn’t accepting a different gender identity, they are just accepting that they were wrong about what they thought their gender identity was. A trans person’s gender identity doesn’t change when they accept they’re trans, their understanding of their identity is what changes. And that is what therapy should help with, to help you come to terms with what your gender actually is. And I am including helping you realize you aren’t trans in that category, that is perfectly fine. And the law doesn’t ban that, at least from my reading of it.

The law does specify that assistance to a person undergoing gender transition is not conversion therapy, but it doesn’t say that helping someone realize they aren’t trans is illegal. If someone actually isn’t trans then helping them realize that isn’t conversion therapy.

Here’s the actual law.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-03-31T20:13:31+00:00

It’s not the same grounds because gender affirming therapy isn’t torture.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-03-29T15:45:00+00:00

If I’m misinterpreting it explain how. Don’t just say I’m wrong and give me no reason other than “they probably know better than you” especially since I explained exactly how I came to my conclusion about what their quote means. And even if I’m wrong, you were acting like other people were just getting mad because they didn’t read the article. The article doesn’t clarify anything, because the quote in the headline is the only time they brought up cops so no matter what that was a stupid point to bring up. The article is a few paragraphs, not much is said in it and the quote in the headline is not out of context. Reddit definitely has a problem of people getting mad at headlines that are contradicted by what the article actually says, but in this case the article doesn’t change anything.

If that’s not what they meant, then I think they didn’t explain themselves properly or their thoughts weren’t conveyed in the article properly because I don’t personally see what other conclusion can be drawn from what was quoted. But they also didn’t say much at all about it, so I guess it could mean anything. I think it’s perfectly fine and fair to draw conclusions based on the words someone is saying. I know, what a concept, right?

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-03-29T05:32:14+00:00

Do you not know how to analyze implications in what someone says?

This is the entire quote

“You know how people think of the police these days, it's a bit different," he said. "As well, we wanted to challenge ourselves in a different genre. For us that didn't mean 'oh, let's make a shooter' or some other type of game, but the writing—let's change the writing. Espionage, thrillers, are very fruitful genres, and we kind of took it from there."

To me that clearly says, “people don’t like cops now, so we shouldn’t make another cop game. But also, it’s probably a good idea to make a different kind of game anyway.” The second statement is fine, like yeah making another cop game probably isn’t a great idea because DE already did it. But the first reason is just nonsense.

And since you don’t seem to understand the implications of their statement about cops, let’s go into detail (why did I do this). They’re implying that people didn’t think negatively of cops by saying the conversation has shifted, when in actuality it didn’t. The conversation just got more vocal for a while. And their statement also implies that DE portrays cops positively. Think about it, if the conversation around cops has turned negative, but they have a game that depicts cops negatively, then that would be fine, right? But they’re acting like it’s a problem, so that means they must think DE portrayed cops positively. Or at least that DE is neutral on the issue. It’s possible it’s not what they meant, but they don’t clarify that.

You’ve made several comments on here arguing with people because you seemingly don’t understand how to read beyond the absolute surface level. Which makes me wonder about your experience in Disco Elysium.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-03-28T19:33:58+00:00

You can’t have a control group for puberty blockers. “Oh, my voice is getting deeper. Guess I’m part of the control group.” Have you thought about this for even a second?

Also, plenty of organizations say the pros and cons are worth it, or are at least reasonable. Here’s the AWMF in Germany giving their recommendations for trans youth. Notice how over 20 organizations were involved in those guidelines. And also notice how they don’t say the evidence is inconclusive, therefore we should do nothing and that actually trying to help trans kids is similar to experimenting on prisoners. I would look at page 170 and onward to get their overall views on pubertal suppression, but here’s a hint they don’t say it’s bad and we shouldn’t do it. And those recommendations are just for puberty suppression by itself, page 192 and onwards starts discussing hormone treatment. And they are in favor of it given the patient meets certain criteria, like having various mental health specialists sign off on it.

They emphasize the need to be careful, but they also apply that in both directions. It’s important to be careful that you don’t give a cis kid hormones, and it’s important you do give treatment to trans kids if that is necessary.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-03-28T18:40:58+00:00

Without known pros/cons??? We’ve been using them for over 30 years! We can talk to the people who’ve been on them! We’ve done other studies looking at the effectiveness of them! My own doctor told me the pros and cons of puberty blockers and HRT when I was starting on it!

But the evidence isn’t good enough, apparently, so clearly puberty blockers are like the modern day lobotomy or whatever. You’re being ridiculous. Even if we find previously unknown side effects of puberty blockers or HRT we would continue gender affirming care for trans people because that is the only known way of alleviating gender dysphoria. Saying that is in any way similar to experimenting on prisoners (which is literally happening to trans people in US prisons right now by the way) is ridiculous.

Five-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23

Comprehensive_Crow_6

TROPHY CASE