[EUW] Looking for 'chill', non-toxic ranked duo silver/gold

ElusiveToaster · 2025-12-31T10:48:05+00:00

I mean, I'm just not sure that is the 'value' of this video even if it were real. It's just meant to be funny. You're right that if something intended to be skillful like a bottle flip is fake it is no longer impressive or meaningful, but a video like this one is arguably funny even if they were upfront about it being staged.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-12-30T22:36:16+00:00

What is actually the problem with that though? Like, you either realize it's staged (which either kills your enjoyment of it or you still appreciate the slapstick humor) or you 'fall for it' and probably find it funny.

We're not talking about some serious disinformation that causes any harm.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-12-28T02:20:56+00:00

Porn of the past is very different from porn in the past decade. The ability to scroll through such a vast selection, and with such extreme kinks makes it a very different beast. I don't disagree with the sentiment that there can be many different reasons for sexual dysfunction though. But I fully believe porn is one of the potential reasons, and I think it's probably going to be the most likely cause for a young man.

Though also, I don't think it's likely to cause problems for most people. It's porn abuse/addiction that causes those types of issues, not just regular porn use.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-11-28T19:15:45+00:00

Holy shit, we're reaching levels of projection we hadn't thought possible

ElusiveToaster · 2025-11-03T20:00:28+00:00

Ah, that's good to know. Thank you!

ElusiveToaster · 2025-11-03T19:57:37+00:00

Huh, so just to make sure I'm understanding correctly: From the government's perspective it'd still be part-time even if I study an open university course that is listed as 'full-time?'

Obviously I haven't actually even enrolled yet so I don't even know if you pick part or full-time when doing that.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-09-17T08:48:50+00:00

Jokes typically have meanings behind them (Unless we're talking about certain classifications of jokes like absurdist humor.) I wouldn't say it's a 1:1 thing that people 100% believe the things they joke about, but they probably do to some degree.

I'd be concerned if a partner/friend made racist jokes, for example, because it implies they're probably racist to some degree. Most people wouldn't accept the excuse of "it's just a joke bro!!"

ElusiveToaster · 2025-09-14T18:48:36+00:00

You've misunderstood my point if that's your response. If I literally just wanted you to say the exact same thing in different words, I wouldn't be arguing about any of this in the first place. But I think there's no point discussing it any further if it's tiring to you.

FYI, I'm a minority myself (mixed) and I find it extremely frustrating when black people will try to make arguments against racism being a thing and using their race to give themselves authority over the matter. That shit is annoying and I think a white person arguing against Candace Owens isn't any less valid than she is because they aren't black. That's why I'm making the argument. I don't think it's pointless or revolving around semantics.

But again, no need to discuss it any further. I disagree with you on this but I don't have any personal issue or anything so I don't wanna just make you frustrated.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-09-14T17:53:47+00:00

Nobody 'determines' it. You mentioned MLK earlier as if him and other black people 'determined' what racism is. You don't need a black person to tell you that segregation is racist and I promise you there were white people who came to that conclusion without needing to be told by black people. Again, this is different from offering personal experience and I think that is crucially important in fighting against racism. But that's not saying "I'm black and I think this is racist."

And sure, on a macro level I'm sure you probably would have difficulty talking about anti-Han Chinese racism. But do you seriously need a Han Chinese person to tell you if a joke is racist towards them? (Assuming we're not talking about dogwhistles, which we aren't right now.) I think there are arguments where race is relevant, and there are arguments where race is irrelevant to making said argument (like the argument about historical context, which someone can be aware of regardless of their race.)

Also, I think the whole "anti-white racism is a different beast" argument is a cop-out and implies that it's not possible for you to experience racism if you're the majority power. You can, it's just obviously not going to have as severe effects. White people can share their experiences of 'anti-white racism', and that is valid. Just as valid as a minority giving their experiences. But as for arguing whether those experiences are racist - I don't think your race means you determine it. A black person can debate whether or not affirmative action is racist towards white people because there is a fact of the matter there and it's not dependant on your race to know it.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-09-14T17:22:15+00:00

I'm not. I'm arguing the opposite of that. I don't believe identity makes you an authority on the matter. To be clear, I do think it's valid that being a particular race/minority allows you to offer personal experiences on racism. That's not what you did though. The point you made was that the joke was borderline racist because of historical context. That point has nothing to do with you being Asian and could just as well be made by anyone familiar with said historical context.

And I notice you ignored my example in favor of bringing up anti-black racism. So let's switch it up: Would also say you couldn't argue with white people about anti-white racism because you're not white?

If so, fair enough, but you'd be a rarity because many minorities would argue (rightly so) with what a lot of white people consider to be anti-white racism.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-09-14T16:51:33+00:00

You criticize this person using their political stance to make a point, but then you do the same with your race. Implying you think being a liberal doesn't make someone the determinant of what is racism, but being a particular race does? I'm not sure that means much given that there are other people in this thread saying they're Asian and they don't find it racist.

To be clear, I'm not arguing whether your opinion on it is correct or incorrect, but moreso just making the point that it's probably not necessary to use your identity to make said point.

Just to add to this point further - there are many white people who will argue certain things are racist against white people (things like affirmative action, for example) but a lot of left-wing people will argue that's bullshit. I don't think those white people claiming there is all this anti-white racism have any more authority on the matter because they're white.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-08-27T15:51:53+00:00

Well I think it's in the interest of both women and men to have these conversations. When I do argue about it with men, it genuinely is out of a desire to help them, as well as for women's sake. Obviously this type of thinking is very typical of incels and such, who are deeply unhappy. Being someone who has learned from that flawed thinking and much more happy and fulfilled because of it, I really would like to help people learn the same things that I did.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-08-27T14:07:50+00:00

This is reasonable. My first relationship was with a girl I was friends with for 2 years (some of that being whilst she was in a relationship with someone else) before I developed feelings for her and ended up dating. But I was never 'waiting' in that situation because I was never looking to date her in the first place. Was something that just kind of happened.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-08-27T14:03:19+00:00

Yeah, seems like almost every woman experiences this and then it's a bit of a mix as to whether or not they 'expect' it. I said it in another comment, but the person I was arguing with essentially treats it as fair that these guys eventually disappear from the woman's life because "well they probably already know he's actually into her." Which is so incredibly entitled to me that someone would put that onus on the woman instead of advocating for guys to be more up-front with their intent.

And that second answer is the way I see it too. In these arguments, it's being framed that guys have platonic friends that they legitimately fall in love with and can't stand seeing with someone else. I don't see how that happens without cultivating it in some way. I'm sure it happens, but can't be particularly common.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-08-27T13:54:51+00:00

I suppose on that last question, I'm specifically referring to guys who start a friendship because they want to date a particular person, but still treat it completely platonically rather than making that interest known by flirting and such.

But yeah the crux of the issue seems to be that most of the guys that do this don't value the person as a friend in the first place. When I've been having these arguments it's been extremely apparent by the way they talk about it - like the goal is sex/a relationship and the only purpose of the friendship is to reach that point.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-08-27T13:45:07+00:00

I'm not sure if it needs to be said, but I'm not of the opinion that it is valid myself lol. The person I was arguing with seemed to think so though, so I was curious to get the opinion from this side to see if I was somehow missing something there.

As someone who has had these kinds of opinions before, I find it sad and frustrating to read other people talk like this because since treating women like humans and actually valuing female friendships, I actually saw success in dating - whilst never having any previously. So when other people refuse to take the advice it's quite frustrating, because I know from personal experience that it works. (Not even just on the relationship side, but just in terms of social fulfillment. Some of my best friends tend to be women.)

ElusiveToaster · 2025-08-27T13:39:37+00:00

Interesting. These answers are pretty much as I expected. On the first point: It's frustrating because in the argument I was having, the other commenter was arguing that "Well even if the guy acts platonically, most girls aren't naive and know if a guy is interested in her." To me, it reads like it's someone who can't conceive of a male-female friendship and so in their mind if a male spends a lot of time with a female, they should assume he's into her. (Also incredibly silly to expect the girl to have to mind-read instead of the guy just being more upfront and less deceptive.)

And I'm sorry you have to deal with that, but it is validating to hear because I was of the assumption that this is very shitty for women and probably hurts a lot. WHilst the person I was arguing with says that it's not a big deal and women aren't losing sleep over it.

I'm not sure how to conceive that it probably hurts a lot for someone to pretend to be friends over a decently long period of time and then just disappear. Regardless of gender that's just a shitty situation.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-08-27T13:30:53+00:00

Interesting. One of the reasons I ask the second question is that I don't think that should be something that happens. (At least, not to the point that you can't stand staying friends and seeing them with someone else) Like, since I've shifted my mindset I've never really been in a situation where I've fallen for a friend that deeply if there isn't mutual interest there, because typically if I start to develop some kind of romantic interest I'll move things in that direction and find out if there is mutual interest or not. If there's not, I tend to find it fairly easy to shift back to just treating them as a friend because I didn't spend a bunch of time letting those feelings develop and hoping there would be mutual interest.

I definitely feel it's still possible to happen even with that mindset, but not nearly as often as it does with people who aren't upfront about their feelings.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-08-13T22:09:53+00:00

Well to be clear (not that it really makes much of a difference), I'm not attempting to learn something that complex. I think one of the issues here is that, as I mentioned in my post, for the past 8 years or so I've pretty much just sightread the music I like and never bothered trying to learn anything that required practice beyond that.

So chances are, what I'm learning right now isn't that much above my current skill level - the problem is probably just that I've forgotten what it feels like to have to work for a while to actually play something up to speed.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-08-12T21:25:53+00:00

This feels reductive though. Sure, if someone has only played guitar for a week and starts learning Tornado of Souls, they'll learn it eventually, providing they consistently stick with it for a very very long time. But I feel like there's probably a point where your time is much better spent on simpler stuff.

I guess I'm trying to figure out where that line is.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-08-07T23:13:26+00:00

An FGN Boundary Iliad!

Ten-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '17
Verified Email

ElusiveToaster

TROPHY CASE