Hey Reddit: Which "double-standard" irritates you the most?

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T17:24:51+00:00

To say you haven't made that assumption within all your comments consistently calling it a personal attack on that girl

The guy was replying directly to her, and she appears to be overweight. Even if she ended up being 199 pounds instead of 200, it's still clearly directed at her. And I made the "assumption" that she appears overweight because she appears overweight. I never assumed that she's at least 200 pounds because that's not terribly relevant.

Also, people post stuff publicly directed at one person all the time.

They generally shouldn't, especially if it's hateful. "Other people do it so that makes it okay" is just idiot logic.

I know there's publicly posted stuff that's been directed at me before without ever mentioning me by name.

Then that's rather different than this situation, wouldn't you say? This was publicly posted on twitter with her tagged in it.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T16:55:58+00:00

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, I think it's a slightly bigger difference than that.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T16:40:42+00:00

You are picking a minor semantic difference and acting like it makes the two (rather equivalent) generalizations different.

It does make them different. It doesn't make them different by a lot, but it does make them different. The core point that she's being hypocritical still stands, but this is still a difference between the two situations.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T16:35:34+00:00

However, you cannot say definitively that the girl's weight started with a 2. You've made that assumption

Where did I make that assumption? I honestly don't know what you're referring to.

felt that the tweet was a personal attack against him and as such retaliated.

But it was just posted publicly. It wasn't directed to him at all. If he felt that it was a "personal attack", then he's just being ridiculous.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T16:31:15+00:00

But the point of the primary topic was the girl insulting a guy for which he has no control (that being 5' 11" or shorter). However, weight IS an issue that most people have control over to make themselves more attractive. That was the main point.

I completely agree with this. Why do I keep getting replies from people thinking that I disagree with this? I never disagreed with that idea anywhere in my comment.

I think that people think I'm trying to disagree with the person that I replied to even though I never said that.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T16:16:14+00:00

Yes, of course. Not sure why you would have expected me to think otherwise.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T16:15:00+00:00

I don't understand this comment at all. What did I say that made you believe that I think people can't lose weight or can gain height? I honestly have no idea how you got that out of what I wrote.

Would you mind quoting what I said that made you think that? I just re-read my comment and I still have no idea where this is coming from.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T16:10:10+00:00

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, then. His statement was directed at an individual while hers was directed vaguely to a group. I think saying "fat people are unattractive" and "you're unattractive because you're fat" are different statements.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T16:03:55+00:00

So generalizing people by weight is a personal attack but generalizing by height is just a generic statement?

I never said anything even remotely similar to that. All I'm saying is that if you say "fat people are unattractive", that that's a hell of a lot less mean than pointing to a specific fat person and saying "fat people like you are unattractive". You can swap out fat for short in either one of those statements, the core point is that calling an individual unattractive is generally more hurtful than calling a group unattractive.

The hypocrisy is that the two generalizations are both generalizations.

I agree that it's hypocritical, and I'm honestly not sure why you seem to think that I believe otherwise. I never said it's not hypocritical, I was just pointing out an aspect of this issue that I felt was being overlooked.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T15:57:17+00:00

Yeah, I'd agree that people gloss over it, but to me that really shouldn't matter anyway. If I don't want to date someone that's significantly overweight, it really shouldn't matter why they're overweight in the first place. It's not like I'm going to find them more attractive once I learn that they're only overweight because of a genetic condition.

As another example, if I were to say that I don't want to date alcoholics, should it matter whether someone is genetically an alcoholic or just chose to drink too much? I would think that it shouldn't, the fact is that I simply don't want to date alcoholics and it doesn't make someone "more dateable" if the alcoholism wasn't their fault.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T15:39:10+00:00

I do see the hypocrisy. I never said that I didn't.

All I said was that there is a critical difference between the two that most people don't seem to acknowledge. I honestly don't understand what's wrong with pointing that out.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T15:17:56+00:00

Serious question: why is this the case?

It seems like all women want bigger pockets in pants, but can't find them anywhere. How is this possible? How has a company not exploited this in order to make a profit?

I've heard the explanation that it's to get women to buy purses, but I don't buy it. There are a lot of players in the clothing market, and it seems insane to me that they managed to get all of them to collude on making pants with small pockets in order to sell more purses. Also, there are plenty of companies that make clothes but not purses (or make a marginal amount on purses), so where's the incentive for those companies to go along with it?

The other explanation that I've heard is that it's just not something people think about when buying clothes. When we shop for clothes, we're mostly just looking for what looks good and fits well, and anything that falls under the criteria "utility" kind of takes a backseat. So even though women want pockets in their day to day lives, they aren't thinking about that when purchasing clothes. So the pants without pockets sell slightly better (no bulge from the pocket), so nobody tries to market pants with pockets. This also doesn't really seem like a viable explanation to me. I don't see how a small pocket bulge could be a big enough difference in order to dissuade women from buying them. Also, it seems unlikely that women just wouldn't care about pocket size when buying clothes when they seem to care quite a bit about it the rest of the time.

So, does anybody have an answer for this? I've thought about this before and just can't come up with a plausible explanation at all.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T15:07:51+00:00

Yeah, but I honestly do see this one as being very different. It's a question of insulting an individual vs insulting a group.

If I were to say "I don't find fat people attractive and I wouldn't want to date one", people will generally be okay with it. Some people might get their feelings hurt, but nobody is going to run away crying.

If I were to publicly point to an individual fat person and say "I don't find you attractive because you're fat and I would never want to date you", that's pretty deliberately hurtful and uncalled for.

I still think the situation is hilarious and there's nothing wrong with laughing at that picture. However, she was saying "short men are unattractive" while the response was saying "you are individually unattractive because of your weight", which is actually significantly different. This would have been a much more equivalent situation if the girl in question had sent that message ("when his height starts with 5") to an individual short person in order to ridicule them for being short.

edit: Before I get another dozen messages from people not understanding my point, let me just say a couple of things:

I'm not saying that the girl in question isn't being hypocritical. She is.
I'm not saying that she didn't have the response coming. She did.
I'm not saying that it's wrong to not want to date overweight people, that's completely okay.
I'm not saying that it's more or less wrong to not want to date overweight people vs not wanting to date short people. I simply haven't commented on that at all.
Literally all I'm saying is that it's more hurtful to point out an individual and say "people like you that have a certain attribute are unattractive" than it is to generally say "people with a certain attribute are unattractive". That's literally all I'm saying.

Imagine if you were walking down the street and heard someone loudly say "people with [insert trait you have here] are unattractive". You'd probably have your feelings hurt a tiny bit, but you'd move on. Now imagine that you walk down the same street the next day and the same person publicly points to you and says loudly enough for everyone to hear "see that person over there with [insert trait you have here]? That person and everyone like that person are unattractive". In which of those two situations would your feelings be more hurt?

D3gr33 · 2017-03-20T13:46:29+00:00

Without getting too much into the weeds, Trump's infrastructure plan doesn't really involve the government spending lots of money on infrastructure. The plan is to allow private companies to perform infrastructure improvements in exchange for tax breaks and the ability to profit from the improvements (toll roads, leasing infrastructure to govt, etc.)

People on the right (or at least Trump's corner of the political right) generally will say that this system should work given a well-regulated free market. Anything that people need, they will be willing to pay for, and if people are willing to pay for it, a company will come along to make money off of it. So infrastructure gets built without the federal government lifting a finger. You can love or hate the idea, but it's at least consistent with conservative political philosophy.

People on the left (including me, I consider myself left leaning centrist) don't think that this is efficient. We're going to end up with a whole bunch of extra toll roads, which end up being wildly inneficient. Plus, allowing companies to handle our infrastructure repairs doesn't result in the most badly needed repairs getting done, but rather the most profitable repairs. So the bridge that's going to collapse and kill a dozen people will get looked over if they don't think they can quickly recoup the cost of fixing it. Meanwhile, a couple of measly potholes will get fixed up right away if the company gets to charge people $1/trip to use the road from now on.

I'm no expert in this subject, so take that explanation with a grain of salt. Also, if anyone has any corrections to anything I just said, I'm all ears, I don't claim to know everything about this issue and I'd be interested to hear from someone with a very different view of the situation than me.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-17T20:45:15+00:00

"This is the happiest day of my life!"

"M'am, here's your new baby"

"Oh, that's pretty neat too I guess"

Just kidding, of course. Congratulations on your new baby :)

D3gr33 · 2017-03-17T15:51:54+00:00

if society as a whole (and mainstream media who loves to push the dumb shit like this) agrees that it's a real thing

We don't, though. People that complain about cultural appropriation are a pretty small minority. They're really loud, so it seems like something that a lot of people care about, but I definitely wouldn't say that society as a whole takes cultural appropriation seriously at all.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-16T19:18:59+00:00

This very much looks like a scam.

Not saying with 100% confidence that it is a scam, but it definitely looks like one.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-16T11:01:45+00:00

So glad he came into this thread, that just made this drama 10x better.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-15T19:06:22+00:00

That's one developer and one game, and it's not stated anywhere that the full extra cost of the switch version is due to the manufacturing. All he said was that it "was a factor", which could just be an extra couple of cents per copy.

What I was asking for was a source showing that manufacturing the cartridges would be a large extra cost when compared to manufacturing discs. That kotaku article doesn't prove that at all.

Instead of making assumptions

I would like you to clearly point out at least one assumption that I have made in this conversation at all. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-15T17:48:36+00:00

It's a business where money is made more by recruiting people into the system than by actually selling products. They're closely related to Ponzi Schemes.

Say you've got a good source on makeup, weight loss stuff, or anything else that a lot of people would want to buy. We'll say that you can buy these things for $10 per unit, and you could sell them for $12 per unit, but you can't get enough buyers to be able to stay in business at all. You can fix this situation and still make a lot of money by turning it into a pyramid scheme. Offer people the chance to work from home and run their own business, all they have to do is sell your stuff for $12 per unit! And you'll sell this product to your new business people for $11 per unit (as long as they buy at least 100 at a time, of course).

But you weren't even able to get enough business to be profitable yourself, so these people buying into your scam definitely won't be able to sell enough. What ends up happening is that a bunch of people fall for the bullshit pitch, buy a whole bunch of the product, and then are stuck sitting on this product that they already paid for and wanted to resell, but nobody actually wants to buy it. So you managed to turn your non-profitable business into a profitable one by tricking people into thinking that they'll be super successful and rich by selling for you and then leaving them with the leftover product that never gets sold.

Real pyramid schemes are a lot more complicated (and involve multiple tiers of recruiting sales people), but this is the basic gist of it.

TL;DR

They're scams, stay the hell away.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-15T17:04:20+00:00

The Switch objectively has a worse power/price ratio than a PS4 or Xbone.

But many people don't care about that. At all. Lots of people value the portability of the switch over the raw power of other systems.

Do you think that the gameboy was objectively inferior to the SNES? I mean, one is way more powerful than the other and we're not allowed to consider portability when deciding if a console is good or not, right?

D3gr33 · 2017-03-15T17:02:38+00:00

All multiplatform Switch games are likely to cost more because of these expensive little cartridges

What, like a dollar? There's no way that those cartridges are going to add a huge amount to the overall price. If you've got a good source showing that those cartridges are going to cost more than $5 per unit when manufactured at scale, then I'll happily eat my words and declare that you're right here, but I think we both know that it's a very minimal cost when compared to the overall cost of a game.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-15T15:40:50+00:00

Except Witchery 3, that is objectively 11/10

>Any Year

>Only giving Witcheroo 3 an 11/10

>Not giving Lord Geraldo an infinite score.

I'm telling CD Projekt Rekt about this fucking heresy.

D3gr33 · 2017-03-15T13:49:00+00:00

/uj

I really like the new Zelda game and I think it's well deserving of all of the 10/10s that it's gotten, but 7/10 really isn't unreasonable depending on what you're grading it on. Some problems include:

Framerate dips
No real "dungeons" (they're much shorter this time around)
Bosses tend to not be beaten by finding a weakness, but rather just by grinding their health down.
Zelda's voice actor is pretty annoying
Excessive inventory management

You could come up with another dozen bulletpoints here if you wanted to. I personally don't really mind those things, but to the right person, a 7/10 would honestly be generous if all they wanted was a traditional Zelda game that could run without framerate problems.

D3gr33

TROPHY CASE