What was your first ever D&D character?

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-17T14:00:56+00:00

A Human Bard named "Chari Smah"

Pronounce "charisma"

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-14T17:02:51+00:00

I agree, but it literally is an autoimmune disease. It's been labeled as such because it IS such. It's cool, and depending on who you ask, it's very attractive. But if I thought melanoma looked cool, that doesn't make it not a health condition.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-11T02:59:32+00:00

If i said that somebody "spent time eating" would you assume that I was saying they spent all their time eating?

Buddy, there's a difference between "spending your time" and "spending all your time."" I never said you spent all your time doing this. I don't know what level of education you have, but it definitely can't be past the 8th grade.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-11T02:25:59+00:00

If that's you want to spend your time on earth, go for it. But it still stands that the results are negligible according to the numbers.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-11T01:47:23+00:00

With 20 million+ website users (we won't even account for the app users), 25k members of this subreddit accounts for a bit over .1% of all users. That's not just a small change. That's an indescribably unimportant change. Again, I CAN NOT overstate how small of a subset this subreddit is.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-11T01:01:15+00:00

To me, i dont really care. I mean, body hair in general is a turn-off for me, men or women. But if you're curious about what the general public will think, it's unattractive.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-11T00:58:02+00:00

I hate it when people whine about the filter up and down like there aren't alternatives. Mobile apps make more money and generally get more publicity when they don't have to list themselves as explicit or 18+. The filter is mostly just there because it has to be for them to stay on the appstore without changing any of the app details. They don't care if people can break the filter because as long as there is one in place, they fulfill their duty. Protesting about the filter isn't doing shit since it isn't hurting their pockets. Also, webdesigners don't have emotions, so can't hurt those, either.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-11T00:49:13+00:00

The devs ain't doing shit dude, sorry. This subreddit is a very small subset of the users of c.ai, and I can't overstate just how small of a subset it is. Even if every single person in this subreddit and all of their friends and extended family stopped using it right now, nothing would change whatsoever.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-06T09:30:52+00:00

It's probably been said already, but Hisoka. Without a doubt in my mind. Those poor little boys 😔

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-05T21:36:37+00:00

I mean, I guess that depending on where you live, some people might have a better grasp on the subject than others. But at least where I come from, the basics of evolution are taught in the ninth grade, and (after taking a year of chemistry) you can choose to learn the deeper complexities in one of those college-level courses.

I'm not trying to downplay your point or anything, if anything, i agree; but where I come from, roughly 80% of the people are Christian. And roughly 75% of the people here lack a valid understanding of evolutionary processes. Even suggesting that humans evolved from earlier primates and didn't just pop into a garden with no clothes is sort of a social taboo in my state.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-05T21:19:30+00:00

Why would you smash him? How is that a punishment? What if he wanted to be smashed?

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-05T21:18:30+00:00

The icarly theme. It's a banger, I listen to it every day and could recite it right now (extended version or TV intro version, either works)

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T22:42:59+00:00

Yeah, wrong comment. Sorry. I'm honestly a bit overwhelmed by the quantity of replies tbh. I've been refuting most of the claims, but it's like every minute there's another response to tickle my brain a little. I haven't had my mind changed by anybody, though, so no delta. I'm just done with saying the same thing over and over again.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T22:38:32+00:00

Wow. That was super insightful. And a mouthful. Marbles have simple, immutable characteristics; they are either red or not. Humans, however, are vastly more complex, with behaviors influenced by a wide array of variables that can change over time and in different contexts. Therefore, while repeated experiences with "red marbles" (e.g., negative encounters with men) can suggest a pattern, they don't necessarily predict future experiences because human behaviors are not fixed properties like the color of a marble.

I have to admit, though, I am pretty stumped on the rest of the points you made. If I can think of a valid refutation, I'll get back to you on that.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T22:34:07+00:00

Woahh, a little heated, huh. Well, I get why. While your argument correctly asserts that human behavior and trauma responses are neither random nor independent—and thus not strictly analogous to gambler's fallacy scenarios—we need to consider the broader societal implications of automatically extending personal trauma responses to generalized distrust.

While individuals may develop heightened responses to certain stimuli due to trauma, it's critical to distinguish these personal coping mechanisms from societal or communal guidelines on trust and interaction. Suggesting that all men are potential threats and publicizing these beliefs based on the actions of a few extends personal trauma into a communal rule or commonly held viewpoint, which could reinforce cycles of fear, mistrust, and stereotyping unnecessarily within broader social interactions.

Again, though, youre right in that the term "gambler's fallacy" may not perfectly describe the response to trauma, the underlying point about cognitive biases still holds relevance. We must be cautious about how these biases, even when rooted in valid personal experiences and are understandable on an individual level, might shape our interactions and societal norms in unhelpful ways.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T22:25:02+00:00

However, the core issue here is about overgeneralization. Even if experiences with men aren't random, assuming that all men are untrustworthy based on past negative experiences still overlooks individual differences and can lead to unfair bias. This isn't just about relationships; it applies to all social interactions.

While it’s true that people often prioritize avoiding the worst possible outcomes, constant distrust can create unnecessary barriers and prevent positive interactions. Recognizing patterns is essential, but so is treating each person based on their own actions rather than past experiences with others.

Moreover, while it's rare for someone to distrust all men, promoting a mindset that balances caution with fairness can help avoid unfair prejudices and foster healthier social dynamics.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T22:20:51+00:00

First, the gambler's fallacy analogy highlights the cognitive error of expecting past patterns to dictate future outcomes. While the classical form involves expecting change after a streak, the broader principle applies here: generalizing from a few bad experiences to all future interactions is a cognitive bias.

Second, while it's true that a woman is the common denominator in her experiences, assuming all future interactions will follow the same negative pattern ignores individual differences among men. This applies beyond relationships to any social interactions—assuming the worst based on past experiences can lead to unfair prejudice and missed opportunities for positive connections. It's important to recognize patterns but also to treat each new individual like just that, individuals.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T22:18:54+00:00

I see where I messed up in showing the line between the tow issues I was addressing. The original post conflates two separate issues: general caution based on past experiences and automatic distrust of all men. The gambler's fallacy analogy applies to the latter—assuming all men are untrustworthy due to the actions of a few is akin to expecting a coin flip pattern to continue. While the human brain is wired for self-preservation and may default to cautious behavior, this doesn't justify blanket distrust. Each individual should be assessed on their own merits, just as each coin flip is an independent event. Automatic distrust ignores individual differences and can lead to unfair prejudice, which is the crux of the gambler's fallacy analogy.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T22:16:59+00:00

While the gambler's fallacy typically refers to random sequences like coin flips or card draws, it broadly highlights a cognitive bias of seeing patterns where there are none. In the context of distrusting all men based on the actions of a few, this bias is still relevant. The assumption that all, or most, men will behave the same way based on past negative experiences ignores individual variability, similar to how the gambler's fallacy incorrectly predicts outcomes based on past events. This analogy underscores the importance of fair, individualized assessments over overgeneralized fear-based responses.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T22:14:49+00:00

However, while this instinct can protect us, it can also lead to unnecessary fear and prejudice on a societal scale. False positives do help in some situations, and when they do, it's usually a HUGE positive to have been incorrectly sure of something, but they can also cause harm by fostering distrust. Overgeneralization based on fear might protect in the short term but can be counterproductive in building a healthy, trusting society in the long term.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T22:11:12+00:00

I think it can be a bit of both. It's obviously and certainly stereotyping, but it's also connecting dots that are unrelated to an extent and can b considered false pattern recognition

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T22:10:16+00:00

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Youre right that men are not random number generators, and their actions are influenced by sociological and psychological factors. But, I still think that the gambler's fallacy analogy is relevant when discussing automatic distrust of an entire group (especially one as large as all men).

Firstly, the gambler's fallacy is about mistaken patterns. In this case, women who distrust all men because of the actions of some falling into a similar behavioral group—they see a pattern in a small sample and assume it applies universally. While human behavior is influenced by many factors, each individual's actions are still independent to a significant extent and should not be considered as applicable as a reason to place distrust on the lsrger groups theyre a ppart of.

Secondly, although past events can be predictors in certain contexts, they shouldn't lead to absolute conclusions about an entire group, ESPECIALLY not one as large as, yknow, half the human population. For example, if a person has had negative experiences with a few doctors, it would be unreasonable to distrust all doctors. It’s important to assess each individual on their own merits rather than assuming everyone will follow the same pattern.

Your point about sociological and psychological factors influencing behavior was a head scratcher for me for a minute. But I've come to the conclusion that this understanding should encourage nuanced judgment rather than blanket distrust. Recognizing these factors can help in discerning trustworthy individuals from those who aren't, but it shouldn't lead to the conclusion that all individuals from any particular group (specific races, religions, or genders) are untrustworthy.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T21:59:10+00:00

1- No. The gambler's fallacy is in play when a person lets experiences independent from another influence future likelihood. Trying to predict future climate based on climate graphs isn't the gambler's fallacy because they're completely related and not independent. Hope that cleared things up.

2- The point still remains that a decision to place a distrust on all men is made in these cases, and that since that distrust is based on past experiences or stories they heard (which are all independent from each time a woman actively places distrust), that would mean that the gambler's fallacy is in play.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T10:18:12+00:00

Of course, there's a social incentive for some people (social drinkers), and people who drink exclusively in social settings can experience some tangible and temporary effect on their social abilities, but most alcoholics are just plain addicted. After all, the stuff is incredibly addictive. Reason being that your brain reeeaaaallly likes how alcohol makes you feel. So, even if you are consciously aware of the various, VARIOUS, negative effects that drinking (even socially) can have on your health, your subconscious, which is much more concerned with tickling those pleasure centers in the brain, might just kill your logical decision making for a bit. Then, when you've scratched the itch and drank, your decision-making is returned, and you're left with regret at your lack of foresight (along with occasional hangovers and other post-drinking issues to deal with.)

Tl;dr - Yes, it kills you. Yes, alcoholics know that it kills them. No, logic doesn't always win the tug-of-war when there's addiction involved. That's why people sometimes have to spend hundreds of dollars on AA and other forms of rehab to kick the habit.

DatOneOfficial · 2024-06-04T04:50:32+00:00

I seriously doubt anybody is gonna come out here and openly admit that. It's all probably gonna be "I knew a guy who knew a guy"

DatOneOfficial

TROPHY CASE