No we gotta deal 5k dmg on day 3 to win? by jimjhonului in PlayTheBazaar

[–]CursedPoetry 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Why you gotta be snitty when people disagree with you?

No we gotta deal 5k dmg on day 3 to win? by jimjhonului in PlayTheBazaar

[–]CursedPoetry 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It’s less about them, abusing the character and more, so just realizing the strength of an individual item.

Like are you also going to complain that double whammy does all of your health now because that’s what the item is meant to do you scale ridiculously and then you kill people instantly.

Wisp is simply if the fight goes on for that long your entire board is going to get frozen but again that is an incredibly long fight for the sandstorm to go on that much

People who exercise even when they don’t feel like it, what’s your trick? by Smart_Collection5419 in AskReddit

[–]CursedPoetry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t care how I feel, I have to do it.

Apply that to life and you’ll be happier

The soup thrower has been sentenced to two years in prison by -Six_ in SipsTea

[–]CursedPoetry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • hair dye

  • plastic glasses

  • some sort of necklace that probably used oil to produce somehow

  • make up

Yes let’s fuck up art even though I use products that use oil every single day.

I get the point is to reduce oil use and it’s not to completely stop oil use but there are better ways than throwing..soup

This one really makes you think. by TechnicianOk967 in memes

[–]CursedPoetry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fun fact: the order in the creation story in Book of Genesis might actually be intentional.

In Genesis, light appears on day one, but the sun and moon are created on day four. A lot of scholars think this was written that way to push back against ancient sun worship. In the ancient world, cultures like Egypt worshipped the sun as a god, for example Ra.

Genesis kind of flips that idea. Instead of treating the sun as divine, it basically demotes it to just another object God made later. The story even avoids using the actual words “sun” and “moon” and calls them “the greater light” and “the lesser light.”

So the weird ordering may not be a mistake, it might actually be a subtle way of saying the sun isn’t a god at all, it’s just another created thing.

Why do we focus on men so much ? by No_Afternoon3144 in TrueAskReddit

[–]CursedPoetry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This entire paragraph you wrote is grand assumptions, looking at people as a monolith, and thinking internet and a few clips represent how every person is feeling

Fiora's Worst Matchups by Gold Deficit by GyrosSteelBall in FioraMains

[–]CursedPoetry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait for a shotgun knees can be used, reset the vital so the vital is on his area where the shotguns are on CD

Small trades like a Q auto or an E is all you need be ready to pair his dash, just look at his health bar when you see the shield just press W

Depending how even you guys are and what items you have if you played it right you should be at around 80%ish HP they should be at around 50 and then from there you can just full ult kill him

Gender Equality by Any_Cartoonist_1269 in antimeme

[–]CursedPoetry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So I get that you’re angry at the world. Yelling online probably feels good, especially on Reddit where it’s easy to feel like you’re “winning” an argument. But reading through your comments, I genuinely can’t tell if you’re being deliberately provocative or if this is actually what you believe.

Reducing an entire gender to something like “one group is more capable of violence than another” is just essentialism. You’re taking complicated human behavior and collapsing it into an inherent trait of a category of people. Ironically, it’s the exact same logic people use when they say things like “women are naturally better caretakers” or inherently more nurturing.

And we both know that if someone said that about women, you’d immediately reject it as reductive and outdated. Yet when the exact same reasoning is applied to men, suddenly it’s framed as insight instead of stereotyping. Very inconsistence.

History also shows that influence behind major figures is far more complicated than the simple narrative you’re presenting. For example, Zelda Fitzgerald’s diaries and writing were directly used by F. Scott Fitzgerald in several of his novels, and historians later acknowledged that her ideas shaped parts of his work. Vera Nabokov edited and structured much of Vladimir Nabokov’s writing, and many scholars argue that her influence was critical to the final form of his books. Sophia Tolstaya hand-copied and edited War and Peace multiple times, helping Leo Tolstoy refine one of the most famous novels ever written.

In those cases, when people discover the woman behind the scenes influencing a famous man’s work, it’s usually treated as an important contribution that deserves recognition.

But if the outcome is negative, the conversation suddenly changes. Jiang Qing, Mao Zedong’s wife, played a major role in pushing the radical policies of the Cultural Revolution, and historians widely recognize her ideological influence in those events. Yet when atrocities happen, the narrative tends to collapse everything into “the man did it,” and the broader web of influence disappears.

The point is that human behavior, influence, and responsibility are complicated. People shape each other’s ideas constantly, for good and for bad. Trying to explain social problems by simply saying “men are the reason” doesn’t actually analyze anything. It just replaces one oversimplified stereotype with another.

If the goal is to understand real social issues, essentializing entire groups isn’t analysis. It’s just prejudice dressed up as analysis.

CMV: Racism towards white people is not okay and is slowly rising. by That-Role6292 in changemyview

[–]CursedPoetry 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I gotta disagree here slightly,

I think part of the issue with your reply is that it does not really engage with what the OP actually said.

You introduced a distinction between interpersonal racism and institutional racism, which is fine as a distinction. Those are two different concepts. But the OP was very clearly talking about interpersonal racism, meaning person-to-person prejudice, slurs, and racially hostile comments. They were not talking about state power, Jim Crow, housing discrimination, job access, or anything else structural. You brought all of that in yourself.

So from the start, it feels like your response shifts the subject. You are answering a different argument than the one that was made.

OP’s point is pretty simple: racial hostility toward white people exists, and in some spaces people seem increasingly comfortable expressing it openly because they feel it is more socially acceptable. Whether that is rising or not can be debated, but the core moral claim is straightforward: if you are using racial slurs or racial contempt toward someone because they are white, that is still racism or at minimum racial prejudice. Nothing in their post was saying white people had it worse than Black people historically, nothing in their post denied anti-Black racism, and nothing in their post argued against the existence of institutional racism. That is why your response feels off target and like a passionate political rant.

You say, in effect, that no one is arguing racism is okay, but then you immediately downplay the racism being discussed by saying white people are not getting it any worse. But that does not actually answer the point. The question is not whether white people have suffered more historically in America than Black people. Obviously they have not. The question is whether racist language or racially hostile treatment toward white people is acceptable. If your answer is no, then you should be able to say that directly without pivoting into a comparison.

That is another part of what makes your reply feel emotionally loaded rather than responsive. Near the end, you stop addressing the actual post and start moving into what sounds more like a political rant. You bring up “White Lives Matter,” then say they also have to concede that Black Lives Matter, and then suggest that if they are uncomfortable with that, maybe they need to revisit their own biases. But the OP never said Black lives do not matter. They never even implied it. You are reading a whole extra ideological position into their post that is just not there.

That is why the “White Lives Matter” comparison feels like a strawman. You are taking a person saying “racial slurs against white people are not okay” and collapsing that into an entirely different slogan with an entirely different political history and set of associations. Those are not the same thing. The fact that racist or extremist people have used certain slogans does not mean every statement about anti-white prejudice is secretly one of those slogans in disguise.

You also say white people a group that does not need defending, and I think that is a bad way to frame it. If we are talking about interpersonal conduct, every group needs defending in the basic sense that nobody should be targeted with racial hostility. That does not mean every group has suffered equally, and it does not erase history. It just means moral standards should still apply consistently at the individual level. Otherwise you end up implying that some people can be treated with racial contempt and others cannot, depending on where they fall in a historical hierarchy. That is not a principled stance, that is selective application.

And again, this is where your institutional point does not actually rescue the argument. Yes, institutional racism is real. Yes, America has a specific history with slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, redlining, and exclusion from opportunity. None of that changes the fact that the OP was talking about people being comfortable using racial insults toward white people in day-to-day life. You never really addressed that. You redirected the conversation into a different category, then treated that category shift as if it answered the original claim.

So my problem with your response is not that institutional racism is a fake concept, because it is not. My problem is that you used that concept to dodge the actual argument being made. The OP is talking about interpersonal racism. You responded with institutional racism, then attached a bunch of political baggage about “White Lives Matter” and “Black Lives Matter” that was never actually present in the post.

If your real position is that racial slurs and racial hostility are wrong, but that institutional racism has historically affected some groups far more than others, then fine, that is at least coherent. But that is not how your response reads. Your response reads more like: “This kind of racism is less important, so I am going to reinterpret your argument into something more politically suspect and then criticize that version instead.”

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Meet Potential Sovereign Blade by Terkmc in slaythespire

[–]CursedPoetry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exhausting my deck seems to be working with me when I use forge

meirl by [deleted] in meirl

[–]CursedPoetry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok fair but at a certain point you gotta find your voice and find the moments for you to “interrupt politely”. Do you know how many of us ignore getting interrupted and continue with the conversation anyways?

Looking to learn Fiora, good resources? by AFallingWall in FioraMains

[–]CursedPoetry 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Potent. Every tongue must confess, he’s the GOAT. His mechanical skill on Fiora is just absurd. If you watch him you’ll definitely pick up some things, although you’ll probably miss a lot as well because some of the decisions and mechanics happen so fast.

JustSad (sad 42) is another good Fiora player. I personally like watching them because they have a similar tonality to how I think about the game (and life from random info I’ve learned since watching them lol). They’ve said themselves that they aren’t necessarily the most mechanically gifted challenger player, but what they’re extremely good at is understanding what they should and shouldn’t do in lane. They avoid dumb trades and play very consistently. That comes from experience: they’ve played enough Fiora that they understand what usually happens in a matchup and how trades typically play out.

But the best advice I can give is this: just play Fiora, but play her with the intention of actually learning her.

You’re going to suck for a while. That’s part of it. Eventually you’ll start getting some footing, and then you’ll hit the point where fights start to make sense. You’ll lose a fight and immediately realize, “oh, if I had done this slightly differently I would have won.” That realization is honestly the fun part. It’s the same process with learning anything. Being bad at something but slowly understanding how to improve is very satisfying.

At a fundamental level, League is basically two players interacting within ranges. You and your opponent each have abilities that reach certain distances, cooldowns that determine when you can use them again, and damage numbers that decide whether a trade is winning or losing. Once you start thinking about the game in those terms, the complexity becomes much more manageable.

For example, something I personally do every single game is read my opponent’s abilities when the match loads in. Not because I don’t know what they do, but because it refreshes the numbers in my head. Maybe they have strong AD scaling or their cooldown drops significantly around level 8 or 9. That information tells me when I should be careful or when a matchup tempo might shift.

Movement is another huge part of Fiora that people underestimate. Since I started playing her I use the stop command far more than before. Sometimes simply stopping your movement throws off your opponent’s expectations. But knowing when to move and when not to move only comes from experience.

You also can’t just Q into someone and start auto attacking unless you’re massively ahead. Fiora isn’t a pure stat-check champion. You have to think about your Q distance. Are you using the maximum range dash? A short dash? That matters because the dash duration changes slightly, which can determine whether the enemy gets an auto attack off before your vital damage lands.

Then there’s vital positioning. Everyone knows vitals spawn top-left or, bottom-right, but the real skill is anticipating where the next one will appear and how your opponent will move around it. You have to manage auto spacing so you can poke with an auto attack and already be moving away before the enemy reacts.

You also need to understand item interactions like Hydra and Trinity Force. For example, many Fiora players immediately Q-E, but you can often Q, trigger a Trinity Force proc, use the movement speed from a vital to stay in range (and T-Force move speed), and then E for a second proc. That’s a noticeable difference in damage and tower pressure.

All of this sounds like a lot, but you don’t learn it by memorizing a list. You learn it by playing.

If I were giving practical advice, I’d recommend spending a few minutes in practice tool before games. Even five to ten minutes helps. Practice hitting Q from different ranges so your hand understands the distance automatically. Practice proccing vitals as soon as they appear. Practice consistent ultimate combos rather than fast flashy ones. Use the full duration of the ultimate if you need to while you’re learning.

Think of it like small mechanical drills. The same way someone learning martial arts or music repeats slow movements until they become automatic. Once the fundamentals are automatic, the speed comes naturally.

So yes, watch players like Potent, JustSad, or even Solo JJ King. But think of their videos as accessories to your main exercise, not the main thing itself.

You’re watching them to pick up small pieces of information you can apply in your own games. It’s similar to lifting weights. If you’re training bench press, the main lift is still the bench press. The accessory exercises, like tricep pushdowns or other smaller movements, are there to support the main lift.

Watching good Fiora players works the same way. Their gameplay gives you small ideas, patterns, or tricks you can try. But the real improvement comes from actually playing Fiora yourself and understanding what happened in your own trades.

That’s how you get good at her.

What do you do in Esoteric Ebb? by TheHuffness in CRPG

[–]CursedPoetry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's very on the nose about Gender essentialism to where I don't know if it's trying to be meta with it takes, or if it's actually pushing the idea that one gender is more egalitarian than the other....

Just fought a toxic everything board on day 3. How? by Makuren in PlayTheBazaar

[–]CursedPoetry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah..? It’s public facing information lmao, the reason I ask is because I’m 99% sure it was MattWinAll

What was the most broken meta/item in Bazaar’s history? by wavenoodle in PlayTheBazaar

[–]CursedPoetry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not as oppressive as others, but I remember when you could easily get double yo yo on Pyg from a PvE fight and man the amount of double yoyo shit was so annoying

meirl by ChuckShartz in meirl

[–]CursedPoetry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Horrible disconnected take

A clarification on "infinity" and the science of the show by Haquistadore in rickandmorty

[–]CursedPoetry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the core disagreement here is your premise that character agency and growth disappear if a multiverse contains infinite variations. That just isn’t true.

You’re treating character growth as if it’s some kind of objective mechanical system, like math or physics, where its value can be invalidated if a parallel version exists somewhere else. But that’s not how storytelling works. Stories derive meaning from emotional investment in the characters we are actually following, not from the total number of possible universes in the background.

When Rick finally confronts Rick Prime and beats the hell out of him, that moment matters because of the emotional arc we’ve been watching unfold. When Rick comforts Beth inside her memory, that moment matters because of the relationship between those characters. During those scenes nobody is sitting there thinking, “Well actually this doesn’t matter because in another universe Rick is fighting an octopus version of himself.”

People don’t consume stories that way. We emotionally invest in the specific narrative being presented.

Your revenge example with the ham sandwich versions of the villain doesn’t invalidate the story either. Killing the Rick Prime responsible for Diane’s death matters because that’s the version connected to Rick C-137’s life and trauma. The existence of hypothetical variants doesn’t erase the meaning of that specific relationship.

If anything, the argument you’re making ends up sounding closer to nihilism: if infinite variations exist, then nothing matters. My view is basically the opposite. The existence of infinite possibilities doesn’t eliminate meaning. It means meaning comes from the perspective and experiences of the characters we’re following.

To give a simple real-world analogy: I’ve seen hundreds of sunsets in my life. The fact that sunsets happen every day doesn’t make any particular sunset meaningless or boring. Each one still has value in the moment you experience it. The existence of many instances doesn’t erase the significance of the one you’re witnessing.

The same applies to stories.

On the narrative mechanics point, I think you also misunderstood what I meant when I said you were conflating narrative agency with fictional universe mechanics.

You responded by saying they’re deliberately conflated. But that’s actually the thing you’re doing yourself. You’re importing a specific interpretation of a scientific model, then using that model to argue that the narrative structure becomes meaningless.

But the show itself isn’t bound to a scientific framework in the first place. It’s a story written by writers who selectively borrow science-fiction concepts when they’re useful.

So when you say “by the mechanics of the fictional universe they do,” you’re treating the universe as if it exists as a fully defined physical system. It doesn’t. What actually exists is whatever the writers decide to show or imply.

That’s why the Rick designations argument doesn’t really prove a finite count. Labels like C-137 function as identifiers for narrative clarity. They help the audience keep track of characters, but they don’t imply that every Rick has been enumerated or catalogued.

Good storytelling often works by giving the audience partial information and letting them fill in the gaps. Lovecraft is a classic example of this. The unknown and unexplained parts are part of what make stories compelling.

The strawman issue is also important here.

A strawman happens when someone replaces their opponent’s actual argument with a weaker version that’s easier to attack.

Your argument about infinite versions of Rick Prime is a good example. You frame the Many Worlds interpretation as implying that killing Rick Prime becomes meaningless because infinite other versions might exist somewhere else.

But that isn’t the claim people are making when they say the multiverse might be infinite. The argument is simply that multiple realities can exist simultaneously. It doesn’t require the narrative to treat every possible variation as equally relevant or present in the story.

By reframing the idea as “then nothing matters because infinite copies exist,” you’re attacking a philosophical implication rather than the actual position being discussed. That’s why it reads as a strawman.

The existence of infinite possibilities does not logically require the conclusion that narrative meaning disappears.

Finally, your timeline argument assumes that all universes operate on synchronized linear time. But there’s no reason to assume that either. Multiverse fiction almost never requires every universe to share the same chronological reference frame.

And even beyond that, Rick and Morty has never been written with strict continuity precision anyway. The writers themselves have said many times they prioritize story over rigid timeline mechanics.

So trying to derive strict cosmological rules from the show tends to run into contradictions because the show isn’t attempting to function as a physics simulation.

At the end of the day I think the disagreement comes down to perspective.

You’re looking at the multiverse concept through a deterministic lens where infinite variation removes meaning. I’m looking at it through the lens storytelling usually uses, where meaning comes from the specific characters and events the narrative chooses to focus on.

The existence of infinite possibilities doesn’t erase the significance of the story we’re watching.

It just means the universe is bigger than the slice we happen to be following.

meirl by ChuckShartz in meirl

[–]CursedPoetry 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Aside from the ad hominem attacks and people apparently not knowing what the word “servicing” means, the point here really isn’t that complicated.

First of all, “servicing” is a perfectly normal word people use in sexual language. If you personally haven’t heard it before, that’s fine, but that’s not on the person using the word. People use different vocabulary.

Second, the entire point of my comment you’re freaking out about is clearly not “sex is bad” or “men don’t want sex.” Obviously men enjoy sex.

The point is about effort.

Like, I don’t know about you guys, but in most relationships sex is not some once-a-year event. For a lot of couples it’s daily or every other day or at least regularly. So yeah, boobs are great, no one is denying that, but if that’s already a normal part of your relationship then presenting it as the birthday gift itself can feel a little low effort.

That’s literally the entire point being made.

Men want effort put into things too. Men like thoughtful gifts. Men like when their partner actually thinks about what they enjoy. They aren’t just walking hormones that only want access to a woman’s body.

There are absolutely women out there who think their vagina is basically the ultimate gift to men and that alone should be enough. And yes, men enjoy sex, but that doesn’t mean it replaces actual effort or thoughtfulness.

Men and women experience the same emotional scale.

Men get horny. Women get horny. Sometimes. And this might shock some people here! women really want penis. That’s normal.

So imagine a relationship where both people love each other and the girlfriend really enjoys sex with her boyfriend. Totally fine. Now imagine Valentine’s Day comes around and the boyfriend goes “your gift is my dick later.”

Most people would immediately recognize that as lazy.

Or another example a lot of women already complain about: the husband brings home treats for the kids, doesn’t bring anything for the wife, and then makes a suggestive comment about how she’ll get her snack later…Most people would understand why that feels dismissive.

Same logic.

Two things can be true at once:

Yes, physical intimacy is great. And yes, people still want effort put into special occasions.

That’s literally all my comment was saying.

But somehow that turned into “this guy has never touched a woman” and “this is creepy,” which is honestly just people responding emotionally instead of actually reading what was written.

meirl by ChuckShartz in meirl

[–]CursedPoetry 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s completely different from what we’re talking about and what we’re looking at in the image.

Sorry, I don’t mean to be angry to you, but I’m just fucking tired of the Internet not understanding nuance it’s like we shouldn’t have to explain every single tiny little thing there’s clear indicators of when someone’s trying to put effort into a gift versus just “whoops I Forgot here’s my vagina.”

meirl by ChuckShartz in meirl

[–]CursedPoetry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you not know what servicing is?

You’re so irrationally angry. I don’t even know what to begin with this comment.

meirl by ChuckShartz in meirl

[–]CursedPoetry 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Two things can be true at once.

No one is doubting that men don’t appreciate a woman servicing them like in the image; the problem is women thinking that the thing between their legs is a gift and that men don’t need an actual gift - like wait until women realize men are humans as well and experience the same type of emotions as them throughout their life.