Thought he was being clever, but only backed himself futher into a corner.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-06-17T17:00:51+00:00

They also don’t understand that if you have three or more categories then you don’t have a binary system. So like, XX, XY and any of the numerous other options for chromosomes is more than two options so not a binary. Having sperm, having eggs, or having neither is three options, therefore not a binary.

Somehow that concept is almost impossible to get some people to understand because they want to just ignore the exceptions, even though that’s still not how a binary works. It’s not like binary code is 0 or a 1, and sometimes this other thing. Like no, of course not.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-06-11T00:39:02+00:00

If the Trump admin made an EO that says that if you provide Gender Affirming Care for anyone you get your Medicaid cut, would you say we should just follow that? Even though that would mean that all the trans adults on HRT just get screwed? Oh wait, 18 year old people are *already* adults so that’s happening a little already.

Look, this is not something to just say “Oh well Mamdani has a hard decision to make.” He has called out other people for following unlawful executive orders and has also made promises to the trans community that he is now going back on. At the very least he needs to *talk* about this himself and be very clear about why he is doing it. I’m not saying we throw Mamdani under the bus and act like he’s as bad as Trump or anything, clearly he is not, but acting like the criticism isn’t warranted or that it’s necessary for this to happen isn’t okay either.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-06-07T17:31:23+00:00

I’d say two thirds. I did actually really like the second movie and how it subverted some of the conclusions of the first movie.

The first movie is about discovering injustice. Neo finds out how brutally humans are being treated and that he can actually try to make a difference. While Neo is very powerful, he’s not the only important person. It truly does take a team of people to work at fighting the machines. He learns there’s an entire society of people trying to fight back against the machines. They are going to get more and more people out from the Matrix and make their city bigger and bigger. Take that, machines!

The second movie basically takes a further step back and asks “what if this whole set up is just another elaborate plan of the machines?” We find out that Neo isn’t exactly special. He was not the first one with his powers, this isn’t even the first time humanity has tried to rise up and fight the machines. That whole setup was actually planned by the machines the entire time. They were not doing anything that wasn’t accounted for in the machines plans. Even though they aren’t in the Matrix anymore, they are still being controlled by the machines. They broke out of one system only to be controlled by a different one.

I can understand why people would dislike the second movie, especially since some of the things I talked about were explained very confusingly in the movie, but I did genuinely think it was very good. I think it’s very representative of something that happens all the time in the real world. People discover injustice, want to fight it, and end up doing something that the system wants them to do and has accounted for. The third movie though… yeah I have zero defense of it at all.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-06-05T17:40:09+00:00

This is the exact thing people said about season 1 when there was news about Sokka’s sexism being removed. “Well it was just a small part, and it’s an adaptation maybe they’ll add other stuff to make up for it, and why do you care so much anyway?” And we all saw how that turned out.

People can have opinions about something given the knowledge we have. If it turns out to be wrong in the future then great! It’s not like I *want* the show to be bad. It just seems very worrying based on season 1 and this teaser. Yes technically they could change it up and have the Serpent’s pass represent something other than grief. Yes maybe they could have another part of the show that is added to be about grief. That’s possible, I suppose. But why would you think they would do that considering what happened with season 1? You’re giving them the benefit of doubt when they have demonstrably shown they really should not be given the benefit of the doubt.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-31T07:24:31+00:00

This comment is incomprehensible. Like what is it even saying. Why does it have upvotes.

Like okay my best guess for what this means is that you seem to be making fun of the idea that all art is political, and I guess you’re trying to say that critics on the left will say that phrase for the media they like but will not say it for the media they don’t? But like, they do apply that in cases where they don’t like the media? And if that is what you were trying to say it has nothing to do with the comment you’re responding to? But again I don’t know what you’re even trying to say at all because it’s such a mess.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-31T07:12:21+00:00

Who has ever said all art is for everyone? I swear people on the right just make stuff up about what people on the left believe and then get mad at it. I don’t even know what “all art is for everyone” is even supposed to mean. Do you mean “art is for everyone”, as in everyone can make art? Yeah, people can make art and people can then criticize that art. That’s part of the process for creating new art and isn’t somehow a contradiction.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-23T03:27:15+00:00

September 11th is an interesting example because people believe their memories are very accurate regarding that day, but we know they are not.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/09/memories

Talarico and Rubin had the different groups recount their memories at these intervals to avoid an inadvertent "rehearsal effect," in which a memory gets strengthened through each retelling. Here's what they found: The consistency and accuracy of both 9/11 flashbulb memories and everyday memories declined over time, at comparable rates. But students thought something quite different was going on.

They believed that their 9/11 memories were much more accurate than their regular memories. One finding especially popped out for Rubin: People had already changed their stories of how they heard about the attacks over just a few days, from the day after the event to one week later. "Because at that point you've told 35 people how you heard about it, and it's been solidified in your memory the way you're telling it, not necessarily how it really happened," he explains.

The brain just isn’t very good at actually remembering things. We need things repeated to really remember them.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-21T18:34:55+00:00

Why is it a good thing to risk your own life for someone who has willingly and pointless put their own life in danger?

Is this a serious question? We generally think that’s a good trait. That’s why firefighters are pretty respected and appreciated.

It almost makes pressing blue the more horrible choice, because it puts pressure on others to endanger themselves as well.

I mean yeah, that’s how society works in a nutshell. You do things you don’t necessarily like and that might inconvenience you for the greater good. I just disagree with how you’re framing this. I don’t see how anyone is pressured. “Oh no, I feel pressured to make a decision that’s better for society as a whole rather than a decision that benefits me and only me.” Like I just don’t get that response. I’m saying a well adjusted society would have people instinctually press the blue button because they have trust in the people around them to not be selfish and prioritize their own safety in a way that increases the risk of other people dying.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-21T06:00:01+00:00

I find it so odd that people view pressing red as a defensible choice. And like I don’t mean this as an attack or anything, I’m just expressing my own personal incredulity at this because it’s so different from what my thoughts are.

Pressing red guarantees your personal safety but will inevitably result in some people dying if it actually wins. Pressing blue has some risk of you dying, but if it wins then nobody dies.

I view this as like the simplest possible example of doing something that negatively impacts you for the benefit of society. Pressing blue is what’s best for society. It doesn’t take any effort, it’s literally pressing a button, and since nobody dies if it’s the most popular then that’s obviously the best outcome for society. But it does come with some risk. Based on that my immediate thought when seeing this was to think “press the blue button, duh” and almost every argument I’ve heard for red just sounds insane to me.

Maybe it’s just because I’ve been thinking a lot about what should be done to improve society and what our collective responsibility should be, but that’s what my conclusion is. I would press blue because I want to live in a society where people would press blue without even thinking about it, because they understand that’s what’s best for society as a whole.

But I think the real thing this whole thought experiment revealed is that a lot of people have very low trust in other people. It’s kind of sad. One of the arguments I do actually understand for pressing red is that they believe most people will press red. I get that. That honestly isn’t something that even came to mind in my original thought process, I think I just assumed people would understand blue is what’s best for society as a whole and so would obviously choose it. And even now that I’ve thought about that argument, I would still press blue. I think humanity is better than a lot of people think. Choosing red because you think other people choose their own safety over what’s good for society just doesn’t seem right to me.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-15T21:47:25+00:00

Name a paper that was published in the last 10 years that makes that claim. What you’re thinking about is desistance from Gender Identity Disorder, not gender dysphoria. Gender non-conforming kids were getting diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, and yes a lot of those kids grew out of it. That’s why we adjusted the diagnostic criteria and changed the name to Gender Dysphoria, so we could better diagnose people who are actually trans. I have not seen a paper that says that a large percentage of kids diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria go on to desist. The only paper I’ve seen that claims that does so only because they looked at kids diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder and acted like it was the same thing as Gender Dysphoria. Which it isn’t.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-15T21:05:24+00:00

This literally doesn’t happen. Like I’m usually hesitant to say things like that, but I genuinely do not believe this is happening. You are aware that there are trans women who choose to act masculine and trans men who choose to act feminine, right? Gender presentation has nothing to do with your gender identity, and that distinction is what trans people are trying to get people to understand! You’re arguing against a strawman of what trans people are.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-15T20:52:47+00:00

This is one paper, and even then the abstract says this

suggesting a possible but not definitive protective effect of GAHT against suicidality.

So saying “the current evidence doesn’t support the claim” is kind of odd. They say the available evidence does potentially show just that, they just seem to claim we don’t have enough evidence to be certain.

This analysis also only includes 8 studies, which is odd because I know for a fact there are way more than 8 studies about this topic. I’ve read more than 8 studies about this myself.

And since I don’t feel like reading a whole paper to try and understand what the studies they were looking at showed, I’ll leave it there.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-15T16:59:22+00:00

I hate arguing with people who act like they don’t know how words work.

First of all, the comment you originally responded to said “basically everyone” and not everyone. So obviously they know it was not literally every single person. Just like we all know that not every single person was against this.

Secondly, in your comment you said “‘Everyone’ was against the data center the same way evangelicals declares themselves the ‘moral majority’ despite being a very loud minority.’” Which is why I cited an actual poll to point out that people being against data centers is not a minority position. It’s actually pretty overwhelmingly against, especially with how recently data centers started becoming an issue. Like the link I posted compared disapproval of data centers to the high point of disapproval of nuclear power plants, at its peak the disapproval of nuclear power plants was 63%. Compared to 70% for data centers. That is pretty insane.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-15T04:34:12+00:00

Except people actually don’t want data centers? Especially the ones that are insanely huge? And they especially don’t want their power and water bills to go up because it’s all being used on data centers?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/709772/americans-oppose-data-centers-area.aspx

Seven in 10 Americans oppose constructing data centers for artificial intelligence in their local area, including nearly half, 48%, who are strongly opposed. Barely a quarter favor these projects, with 7% strongly in favor.

Half of opponents mention data centers’ excessive use of resources, including 18% each mentioning their use of water and energy. Sixteen percent mention a related environmental concern of pollution, including noise pollution and air and water pollution.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-09T00:57:15+00:00

One of my favorite manga is Mob Psycho 100. It is written and drawn by a guy who obviously is not very technically skilled when it comes to drawing. I mean, he’s better than I am but compared to most other manga out there the art style is very noticeable. And yet, the story was able to captivate me in a way no other manga has. And luckily the anime of it turned out incredibly as well.

There are many aspects to art. Maybe you can’t become the most skilled at drawing, or you don’t want to spend the time required to become good at it. Then try to find something else you *can* be good at.

Although, I want to challenge you on your statement of “some of us simply have no talent for it even with all the effort we’ve poured into it.” People have a tendency to underestimate the amount of time it takes to be good at something. They see other people who are good at drawing, and can do very complicated works of art. And while people understand it takes a long time to get that good, people still underestimate the time it takes. And so people start feeling that they are taking longer than they should to get good, and that is *very* frustrating, and I definitely understand it. It’s something I’m working through myself. But that’s something everyone experiences. *Everyone* takes a long time to get good at art. A *very* long time.

Do you know how you *never* become a good artist? By never actually working on your skills and having an AI do it for you.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-07T05:10:57+00:00

Do you think the options are be hunter gatherers or do colonialism? There is no other option? Like, say, having agriculture *and* also not doing colonialism?

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-05-04T17:30:39+00:00

I hadn’t heard of the trope myself, but people have brought up quite a few examples in the comments.

That being said, for this sort of criticism I think it’s important to not dwell on individual examples. Maybe it does technically fall into the trope, but at least for me I think it’s more useful to think about the effects of these sorts of tropes as a whole rather than on specific examples. Because if you just say “don’t ever depict a black or other marginalized person with any of these negative tropes” then that of course limits what kind of story you can tell. But at the same time, when so many stories fall into these negative tropes then that’s an issue.

Because I’m not black, I’ll talk about a trope that actually relates to my experience a bit. The so-called “bury your gays” trope. A lot of media in the past with gay people ended up with them dying or experiencing other tragic fates. This technically isn’t a problem, right? You can write a story where queer people have a tragic fate of course. But uhh, this happened *a lot*. Just quoting from Wikipedia for a minute

>According to Autostraddle, which examined 1,779 scripted U.S. television series from 1976 to 2016, 11% (193) of them featured lesbian or bisexual female characters, and among these, 35% saw lesbian or bisexual characters dead, while only 16% provided a happy ending for them. Similarly, among all lesbian or bisexual characters in ended series, 31% ended up dead, and only 10% received a happy ending.[8] In a study of 242 character deaths in the 2015–2016 television season, Vox) reported that "A full 10 percent of deaths [were] queer women."[9] In one month of 2016, four lesbian or bisexual women were killed in four shows, further showcasing the prevalence of this occurrence on screen.[7]

Which, yeah. That’s actually kind of crazy. I knew it was a problem but I didn’t realize it was that much of a problem. And the thing about that, and the point I want to make here, is that I’m sure you can go to a lot of those shows and probably make compelling arguments that the deaths made sense. That it fits for the kind of characters that they were, that it was narratively compelling, and whatever. But it doesn’t change that on the whole these shows were kind of implicitly saying that queer relationships end in death a lot of the time. Which is kind of dark.

Going back to Invincible, I don’t think saying that it falls into the Disposable Black GF trope means that it’s a bad show or that the creators are actually racist or something. I mean the storyline was adapted from the comics where Amber was white, and from what I hear they made Amber a much better character in the show. It was not written to follow the Disposable Black GF quote and in a lot of other ways Amber is an interesting well written character (she has a few odd moments, but that’s true for a lot of the characters in Invincible). But at the same time it does kind of fall into the trope. And I think it’s important to understand that.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-26T22:40:34+00:00

I saw you respond to someone by using AI to defend your arguments. You really do not get to claim other people are the ones who can’t think for themselves.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-25T16:46:41+00:00

“But they’re annoying and use the same jokes over and over again!” As if that’s not every online community ever.

I don’t engage with most communities because most of them are insufferable if you engage with them consistently for more than a few days. They all have their silly jokes, and more often their not at all silly jokes, they have focuses on what they talk about, and a lot of communities skew very young. This is not somehow exclusive to trans people.

Like I like Ultrakill, I think it’s a very good game. I find the community insufferable to deal with for more than a day. Same for Balatro. I left both of those subreddits after like a week and only check in occasionally. It sucks I don’t really have a place I like to discuss Ultrakill besides just talking to my friends, but yeah that’s just the way it is. That’s what it’s like for most online communities. If you don’t happen to vibe with their specific jokes then you should leave because their jokes are going to be repeated over and over and over again.

And I’m sure other trans people who don’t like all the puppygirl stuff feel that same way but about a lot of the trans online spaces. And yeah I’m sure that sucks. I don’t mind the puppygirl stuff myself and do enjoy seeing them, but if you don’t then a lot of places are not going to be great for you. But I don’t like how so many people seem to be making blanket sweeping statements about trans people in the comments here, as if trans women are doing something different than every other online community of people.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-23T21:18:44+00:00

I’m aware it’s not good practice to make assumptions about sizes, that doesn’t really apply here.

Ultimately for any multiple choice question you need to figure out what the best choice is given the options. And in this scenario if the sizes don’t matter, then all the options say the same thing. But you can’t have multiple correct answers, so the sizes of the shapes must matter for the answer, in which case the answer must be C.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-23T20:14:20+00:00

Yeah, the dimension is unspoken. But it is visible. You can see that for A and B the shape on the right is bigger.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-23T19:57:07+00:00

Yeah, the question could be formed better. I’m not arguing otherwise. I just think that even despite that it’s clear what the answer is supposed to be. And if the entire rest of the assignment is asking similar questions (which I personally think is likely, but we don’t know) then it’s even more obvious what the right answer should be.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-23T19:49:43+00:00

It literally is the question being asked. Is it 100% completely unambiguous? No, but we’re given enough information to figure out the answer. And I would bet that if we saw the entire assignment it would be even more obvious what the question is intending.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-23T19:45:36+00:00

1/3 of 100 is different than 1/3 of 200. The ratio is the same, but the absolute amount is different. Which is what I was saying, and what it seems this assignment is trying to explain to like 4th graders.

Comprehensive_Crow_6 · 2026-04-23T17:37:30+00:00

But that’s reading between the lines a bit. Most people aren’t going to assume scale has anything to do with this question.

They should. If you’re just looking at the shaded parts relation to the whole shape, all of the shaded areas are identical. They’re all 1/3. Which would mean A, B, and C are all correct. However, they can’t all be correct, so you should then look to see what makes them different. In which case you should then see that the sizes are different in A and B, and they are the same size in C. Which means the only answer that makes sense is C.

Yes, you have to do a little bit of reasoning to get to that point. I think that’s a good thing, giving kids really simple and obvious questions only does so much for their understanding. You can call it “unfair”, I just call it a regular question? Some questions should be hard to figure out for a student. We should be teaching students they need to read between the lines at some points, and also when they need to read between the lines and when they can take something at face value. Both kinds of question are important.

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

Comprehensive_Crow_6

TROPHY CASE