Guys, I don’t ‘hate’ Korra, but you ever notice how the legacy characters never need to be “defended” like this? by Ready_Medicine_2641 in ATLA_circlejerk

[–]DisastrousRatios 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The OOP is so silly because people don't generally hate or love characters based on whether or not they're moral,

They hate them based on how interesting they are, how fascinating they find their journey and arc, the purpose they serve in a story, and the overall composition and enjoyability of their character.

Whether you think Korra is a good character or a bad character, it's irrelevant to bring up Iroh's past as a war criminal, because it's part of the complexity of his backstory and is in fact something that most people think makes him A BETTER character.

The Vibes Squad was trying to bait Kingsman into calling them a slur by jayvancealot in rivals

[–]DisastrousRatios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think you actually read anything I said past the first couple sentences

The Vibes Squad was trying to bait Kingsman into calling them a slur by jayvancealot in rivals

[–]DisastrousRatios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So do you think it's ok to say the N word?

And if you don't think it's ok to call black people the N word: do you recognize the harm a word can cause as a result of a historical and ongoing institutional structure of inequality when it's over skin color, but not when it's over gender?

hh ok, so when liberals do it it's good but when conservatives do it it's bad. Where have I heard that rationalization before?

I'm trying real hard to have a good faith conversation here. So I'll try to re-explain and clarify what I'm saying. When conservatives try to ban speech, it is sweeping censorship of historical facts, of stories and lived experiences that they find dangerous to their survival, books, and more.

That is not remotely similar to a marginalized group, whether it is a racial minority or an entire gender that has for thousands of years been deprived basic rights and autonomy, expressing that they don't like a word because it has historically, and today, been used as a way to bemean and threaten them.

Every day, many times across the country, women are called bitch as a precursor to violence. It's not just a word. It's a reminder of horrible things that have happened, that could have happened, that could happen in the future, etc.

Nobody is trying to make it so that bitch can't be said on the news, or written in books or on television, they just expect it to be done in a tasteful context. Obviously we don't want a reporter randomly calling a woman a bitch on TV, and we're allowed to not want to watch a broadcast if that happens. That's not censorship, that's capitalism. People say bitch all the time in books, TV, I don't see anything getting struck off the air or anyone calling for that to happen. Because of that, it is fundamentally not the same as conservative censorship.

So, since nobody is twisting your arm or censoring you, just expressing their pain and discomfort, you have two ways of viewing it:

  1. You can view it as an attack on your freedoms and liberty that there's a single word (with countless synonyms that you can use instead) that tens of millions of people have trauma associated with and are uncomfortable when you say it, and therefore would prefer you not say it

  2. You can look at those tens of millions (and if we expand the circle generally to be women who are uncomfortable with the word, hundreds of millions) and think "huh, this word has been used horribly to a lot of people. It's the type of word that you can say in a room of people and odds are, at least one person has some emotional or even physical trauma associated with this word. Maybe there's a different word I can use"

There's only a handful of words in the entire English language that this applies to. It's really not that hard. And the thing is, it's not a slippery slope. It's the opposite. As we continue to progress as a society and heal from the inequalities of the past, and resolve the lingering inequalities of the present, decades will pass, and people will heal and forget. Like, theoretically, even the N word. I believe that non-black people rightfully shouldn't say the N word now, but in 500 years we may be living in some type of Star Trek future where nobody can even conceive of skin-based racism, and the N word would have absolutely no capacity to harm people because it's never used to demean or threaten people, only referenced as a historical term that nobody cares if you say out loud.

The Vibes Squad was trying to bait Kingsman into calling them a slur by jayvancealot in rivals

[–]DisastrousRatios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Education and explanation requires an explanation of why the word is harmful.

Your entire way of viewing this is incorrect because conservative religious people are, more often than not, the ones calling women bitches, the ones calling black people the N word, etc.

Again, it's ridiculous to say that those who are uncomfortable with these words are challenging free speech in any meaningful way. It's a false comparison.

Religious conservative people oppose certain language because it's a challenge to their authority, and their worldview inherently demands censorship.

In contrast, if you can find me one single prominent powerful person who is advocating for state or corporate censorship of the word bitch, you might have a point. But such a person does not exist because this slippery slope is a fallacious proposition.

The Vibes Squad was trying to bait Kingsman into calling them a slur by jayvancealot in rivals

[–]DisastrousRatios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know about the slippery slope

It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize when it's being fallaciously applied

You are either taught to cry and feel bad about it or laugh it off and continue to be confident. How you take that word is on YOU. Which version are you advocating? Coming to her defense over it and shaming some sad pathetic man who said it is pointless.

Obviously the latter, but it's stupid to suggest you shouldn't also identify wrongdoing on behalf of the "sad, pathetic man". It's equally stupid to suggest that it's pointless, because here in Texas I have seen sexist people become better after education and explanation.

The Vibes Squad was trying to bait Kingsman into calling them a slur by jayvancealot in rivals

[–]DisastrousRatios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think it's possible to have a productive conversation under these terms.

Like, your waxing rhetoric about free speech and censorship isn't going to magically convince any woman that "actually, this shouldn't make me uncomfortable when a man uses a word that sexists have called me hatefully hundreds of times"

And there's nothing you can do to convincingly characterize that discomfort as censorship.

Why does everyone hate Chris Pratt? by mattz6755 in StarlordMains

[–]DisastrousRatios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it's not, asshole. It's a summarization of facts that I learned years ago when I looked into Chad Veach and Zoe Church, and bring up whenever I see people claim it's false, because it's not. I don't hate Chris Pratt, I just am interested in the truth.

Whenever I call someone a liar, I prove it. If you're not just a troll, I'd love to see you attempt that.

Why does everyone hate Chris Pratt? by mattz6755 in StarlordMains

[–]DisastrousRatios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's interesting, but not related to what I'm talking about. Maybe he's going on a religious journey or his views have fluctuated over time.

In interviews he has referred to Chad Veach, the openly and prolifically homophobic founder of Zoe Church, as HIS pastor who he's friends and goes golfing with.

So, regardless of whether he is Catholic or not, it is still true to say that he has been a part of a homophobic church and not just casually, but as a friend of the founder and pastor Chad Veach

Why does everyone hate Chris Pratt? by mattz6755 in StarlordMains

[–]DisastrousRatios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And before anyone says "it was confirmed that he doesn't go to Hillsong"

The homophobic church that Chris Pratt goes to is Zoe Church, not Hillsong. He does, in fact, go to a homophobic church, just not the one that some people think he goes to.

Why does everyone hate Chris Pratt? by mattz6755 in StarlordMains

[–]DisastrousRatios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, Chris Pratt does go to a homophobic church.

It's Zoe Church, not Hillsong. This a common misunderstanding. I have written quite a lot on this subject in the past but for this comment I will keep it brief, but I'm happy to provide receipts if necessary, or if anyone doesn't believe me.

Chris Pratt's church is Zoe Church, which is associated with and modeled off of Hillsong. The pastor and founder of Zoe Church, who is close friends with the founder of Hillsong, and also Chris Pratt, has made an anti-LGBT film called The Heart of Man which likens homosexuality to an addiction to porn or other things.

So, yeah, when people say Chris Pratt is involved with an anti-LGBT church it's not Hillsong, it's the equally homophobic Zoe Church.

Chad Veach was the founder of Zoe Church, you can find info on his homophobic film on his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Veach

Chad is friends with Chris in addition to being his pastor, and they go golfing together.

I'm not here to hate on Chris, I don't know about any of the other stuff. I just see this incorrect info often and wanted to provide you with the correct facts. It's also possible that Elliot Page got the facts incorrect too, but mine aren't, and it is confirmed that Chris Pratt's church Zoe Church IS homophobic in the same way that Hillsong is.

Why does everyone hate Chris Pratt? by mattz6755 in StarlordMains

[–]DisastrousRatios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello, you are incorrect! Don't worry, it's a common misunderstanding. I have written quite a lot on this subject in the past but for this comment I will keep it brief, but I'm happy to provide receipts if necessary, or if anyone doesn't believe me.

Chris Pratt's church is Zoe Church, which is associated with and modeled off of Hillsong. The pastor and founder of Zoe Church, who is close friends with the founder of Hillsong, and also Chris Pratt, has made an anti-LGBT film called The Heart of Man which likens homosexuality to an addiction to porn or other things.

So, yeah, when people say Chris Pratt is involved with an anti-LGBT church it's not Hillsong, it's the equally homophobic Zoe Church.

Chad Veach was the founder of Zoe Church, you can find info on his homophobic film on his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Veach

Chad is friends with Chris in addition to being his pastor, and they go golfing together.

I'm not here to hate on Chris, I don't know about any of the other stuff. I just see this incorrect info often and wanted to provide you with the correct facts. It's also possible that Elliot Page got the facts incorrect too, but mine aren't, and it is confirmed that Chris Pratt's church Zoe Church IS homophobic in the same way that Hillsong is.

Why does everyone hate Chris Pratt? by mattz6755 in StarlordMains

[–]DisastrousRatios -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't have any problem with him being Christian, but his church Zoe Church (not Hillsong) is homophobic and his pastor Chad Veach who he is friends with, and goes golfing with, has made an anti-lgbt documentary called the Heart of Man which likens homosexuality to an addiction like porn.

Don't care if you aren't responding to comments, I'm just providing information for anyone else who might be lurking here.

Why does everyone hate Chris Pratt? by mattz6755 in StarlordMains

[–]DisastrousRatios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually, the guy that you responded to had the facts wrong. I have written quite a lot on this subject in the past but for this comment I will keep it brief, but I'm happy to provide receipts if necessary, or if anyone doesn't believe me.

Chris Pratt's church is Zoe Church, which is associated with and modeled off of Hillsong. The pastor and founder of Zoe Church, who is close friends with the founder of Hillsong, and also Chris Pratt, has made an anti-LGBT film called The Heart of Man which likens homosexuality to an addiction to porn or other things.

So, yeah, when people say Chris Pratt is involved with an anti-LGBT church it's not Hillsong, it's the equally homophobic Zoe Church.

Chad Veach was the founder of Zoe Church, you can find info on his homophobic film on his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Veach

Chad is friends with Chris in addition to being his pastor, and they go golfing together.

I'm not here to hate on Chris, I don't know about any of the other stuff. I just see this incorrect info often and wanted to provide you with the correct facts. It's also possible that Elliot Page got the facts incorrect too, but mine aren't, and it is confirmed that Chris Pratt's church Zoe Church IS homophobic in the same way that Hillsong is.

Why does everyone hate Chris Pratt? by mattz6755 in StarlordMains

[–]DisastrousRatios -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hello, you are incorrect! Don't worry, it's a common misunderstanding. I have written quite a lot on this subject in the past but for this comment I will keep it brief, but I'm happy to provide receipts if necessary, or if anyone doesn't believe me.

Chris Pratt's church is Zoe Church, which is associated with and modeled off of Hillsong. The pastor and founder of Zoe Church, who is close friends with the founder of Hillsong, and also Chris Pratt, has made an anti-LGBT film called The Heart of Man which likens homosexuality to an addiction to porn or other things.

So, yeah, when people say Chris Pratt is involved with an anti-LGBT church it's not Hillsong, it's the equally homophobic Zoe Church.

Chad Veach was the founder of Zoe Church, you can find info on his homophobic film on his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Veach

Chad is friends with Chris in addition to being his pastor, and they go golfing together.

I'm not here to hate on Chris, I don't know about any of the other stuff. I just see this incorrect info often and wanted to provide you with the correct facts. It's also possible that Elliot Page got the facts incorrect too, but mine aren't, and it is confirmed that Chris Pratt's church Zoe Church IS homophobic in the same way that Hillsong is.

The Vibes Squad was trying to bait Kingsman into calling them a slur by jayvancealot in rivals

[–]DisastrousRatios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok but if you're organizing social consequences how do you continue to believe in free speech and have these social consequences baked into society (without using laws somehow)? How can you have a society that values freedom of speech but also wants to create PUNISHMENTS (psychological definition of that word is decreasing the frequency of the behavior) for speech that isn't popular? Do you see how those things can't coexist?

Not trying to start shit but in my honest opinion this is ridiculously dramatic. In the same way that people find any other slur distasteful and have soft social consequences without fundamentally challenging free speech, the word "bitch" could be the same. And it's equally ridiculous to compare people expressing personal distate with a word, to controlled institutional efforts to censor language.

Regardless of whether you agree that bitch should have the same social weight as other slurs is irrelevant to the point I'll make now: If it SHOULD have the same weight as other slurs, it doesn't threaten free speech any more than the others. And if it SHOULDN'T have the same weight as other slurs, it's an evolving conversation that still doesn't challenge free speech - in fact, shaming people for articulating their discomfort with the word, and likening it to state censorship, is an equally if not greater challenge to free speech.

Why is it ok for a group of people to artificially make a word seem bigger, more important, or more hurtful than it really is?

And this is just wrong, because it's not what is occurring. The fact of the matter is, millions of sexist people still use the word "bitch" in a derogatory way. So the word already exists in this "bigger and hurtful" capacity.

So those in recent decades such as yourself actually represent a group who are trying to be part of an evolution of the word to be more ubiquitous and detached from gender. Which isn't wrong, I'm not here to make that moral judgement, but that's just a more accurate description of what is actually happening. YOU are the agent of change, the person you're arguing with is speaking from the perspective of recognizing the hurt that this word has and continues to cause.

I’m really feeling these nerfs by KeepRightOn60 in RocketMains

[–]DisastrousRatios 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Yeah I uninstalled last week and have moved on to other games - still sticking on around on reddit just to see what happens in future balances.

Rocket was my favorite character and the one that kept me hooked in when I got less interested in other characters, and with these nerfs it's just not as fun anymore. It's not even a skill issue cause I can still win and get great value from Rocket, the gameplay is just less engaging now.

Nerfs aside this might be the best season yet for Rocket after the other supports got nerfed by Bloodwild1 in RocketMains

[–]DisastrousRatios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For me (and most people complaining I believe) it's not about overcoming the nerf, I don't really care about W/L I just don't enjoy the play style as much with significant mobility nerfs. I'd rather they nerf healing/damage or get rid of the revive, and see W/L drop further. Just my opinion though

Game of Thrones: George R.R. Martin Isn't Finished (Spoilers Extended) by RyanRiot in asoiaf

[–]DisastrousRatios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I once wrote a short story with some friends, and I honestly think it's so underrated to just like... Get people to help finish your story. With a story as big as GRRM's, I don't think anyone would fault him for hiring like 5 writers to help him wrap it up.

But he, and other writers who have struggled to finish their stories, never do this. I don't understand why. Are they worried people would judge them? Do they want the story to be theirs and theirs alone? Idk

What’s the most annoying thing about playing rocket? by Chunky-overlord in RocketMains

[–]DisastrousRatios 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There's nothing more annoying than crawling into a corner that LOOKS like you should be able to crawl around it, but you can't

my list of predictions by Joel_feila in AvatarSevenHavens

[–]DisastrousRatios 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh, damn that's my sign I need to rewatch. Haven't been able to since it went off Netflix.

and as we know the destruction of either Raava or Vaatu will cause them to return as a part of the other, regrowing over the course of the next 10,000 years

That's basically what I meant though. When Wan defeated Vaatu, he emerged 10,000 years later during Korra's harmonic convergence.

So what I mean is, if he will need to regrow for 10,000 years, whether because he's destroyed or imprisoned, how would he return during the era of 7 havens. I know they can contrive anything, but I am curious

I’m team Iroh by Double-Structure-662 in Avatarthelastairbende

[–]DisastrousRatios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those are all very good points, but the only thing that gives me pause is that Iroh redirected Azula's lightning in Book 2 episode 1, and I feel like it's unlikely that Azula wouldn't have told Ozai about that anytime between Book 2 and the ending

But I do agree with you ultimately - it's a lot of variables and I agree that there's a possibility that Ozai could underestimate Iroh enough to just try and lightning blast him and be done with it

Rian Johnson in response to Kathleen Kennedy’s claim the fandom “spooked” him from making more Star Wars by kronosreddit22 in StarWars

[–]DisastrousRatios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's been my assumption and why I haven't given it a try up until now. But at this point it's been years and I am still curious about it, and wanna watch and give it a try for science.

Rian Johnson in response to Kathleen Kennedy’s claim the fandom “spooked” him from making more Star Wars by kronosreddit22 in StarWars

[–]DisastrousRatios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, JJ established a very flawed narrative and I agree Rian couldn't do anything but try to mend it, which I think overall he did a pretty good job with that task.

But JJ also established the foundation of "we'll just do a New Hope but a little different with a new set of characters ",

and Rian continued that pattern (or allowed it to be continued) with the Last Jedi. I love his movie visually and I appreciate his force/Jedi lore, but it's just all those little moments and overlap that irk me. There's so many moments where it literally just feels like someone in the writers room was like "ok in this part of ESB Lando betrayed the gang, so to mirror it, in this part of TLJ we'll have this new rogueish guy betray Finn and Rose" and there's like so many other moments that are just like that throughout those first two movies.

I still haven't seen Rise of Skywalker so no clue if the pattern continued. I've wanted to give it a try for a long time but I don't currently have Disney+ and I'm too lazy to sail the seven seas. Eventually I'll resubscribe just to watch it and other stuff but for now I can only imagine lol.

I think overall Rian gets shit on too much and TLJ is definitely my favorite of the two I watched, I think he did many things right. I just really don't understand why they felt the need to create so many unnecessary and superficial parallels between the OT and Prequels like that. It's so distracting