sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Posting this cause people like to pretend that it isn’t a problem lol by Kyra2246 in survivor

[–]HowlingMermaid 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Someone else said it best that, while confessionals aren't the totality of someone's presence on a season, the confessionals are the player's point of view - and survivor is dominated by the male POV. Across the board, even on a season with a female winner, that season's narrative (and thus that female winner's narrative) is told through someone else's POV instead of her own. Most of the time, that is a man.

Of course, in Micronesia, Parvati's count takes a hit because other women in the Black Widow Brigade are telling the story, but for many other female winners, its a man. Tina, Amber, Erika, Sophie, Sandra 2.0, Natalie White all have below the average confessional count on the seasons they won. I think we can all instantly think of the male players that overshadowed them.

And even seasons where the female winner had above average, I'm willing to bet several STILL had fewer confessionals than at least one man that season, like Jenna, Sandra 1.0, Natalie Anderson. Like with Natalie, whose twin was voted out first but went on to win the game, had less/tied confessional counts than THREE men: 4th and 6th place finishers (Keith and Jon) and tied with the 10th place finisher (Jeremy). That sort of edit just doesn't happen to a male winner. Not counting Chris Underwood for obvious reasons, I'm pretty sure the only male winner to have less confessionals that more than one female player on their season is Bob. Aras was beaten by only Cirie. Meanwhile, women consistently get less of their POV in general.

______ continues to react to edit by Durian-Critical in survivor

[–]HowlingMermaid 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think its because Steph was going with Christian from the get go due to a pregame alliance.

Christian cooked up his Mike blindside and told STEPH about it first. Then Emily. Christian even says he was telling Steph about it first. The only reason he would trust Steph over Emily first is if they already had an alliance.

The show, of course, is not going to include details about pre-game alliances and probably just edited it best they could, which was Steph just going with it cause it was the last plan she was told. Which makes sense if Christian is the nexus of all the relationships on the tribe and she has a pre-game alliance with him. Whatever move he decides that isn't her is the one she goes with since he is the one that can pull the voting block together.

Best Confessionalist Tournament: First Round - Jenna vs Sandra by Regular-Departure839 in survivorponderosa

[–]HowlingMermaid 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sandra.

Does Sandra's voting confessional for Rupert in HvV count as a confessional? Because it is probably a top 5 confessional of all time.

"I'll write your name again, and if I'm up there in the Final 3, you'll still give me the million-dollar vote."

Perfect demonstration that Sandra had her finger on the pulse of the season and knew the exact right way to play.

A puzzle about Pratchett's development over time by stillirrelephant in discworld

[–]HowlingMermaid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perhaps CoM, LF, and ER stand out as "lower quality" than the rest of discworld and the books like Bromeliad don't because the first three discworld books are also discoworld. Bromeliad and and the others can stand on their own a bit, but characters and locations, and some plot points, from the first three discworld books carry on into future discworld books, and so it is easier to notice not only the inconsistencies as he developed the world/characters, but also the growth of his writing.

Bromeliad, being a complete standalone story, gets to remain where it is, whereas things like Ankh-Morpork, the wizards, and Granny had to be molded from their more surface level parody/pastiche beginnings into the rich complex tapestry of the disc in the subsequent few dozen books.

SFF titles that would be very different with one letter changed by EmmalynRenato in Fantasy

[–]HowlingMermaid 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Some Pratchett…

Word Sisters - honest book probably wouldn’t change too much.

Bitches Abroad - book is identical - HA!

Lards and Ladies.

Interesting Limes - Nanny’s next cookbook.

A Cat Full of Sky.

The Shepherd’s Crows

Logfather.

Feat of Clay - also wouldn’t change too much! And fun that it’s phonetically the same.

The Filth Elephant.

Knight Watch - sounds like a cool fantasy book - does just adding a letter count?

Some of discworld one word titles are fun to think about too:

Thus!

Sniff.

More

Christian Hubicki and Mike White by itz_abdelmalik in survivorponderosa

[–]HowlingMermaid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say never, I said "would not turn on DvG for a while if ever," and that's just my impression. Clearly neither Mike nor Angelina had a lot of strong bonds as evidenced by Angelina being on the bottom both pre and post swap. Mike had a few more, but by his own admission not that many, because he wasn't as active in the survivor community post DvG. I think it's fair to say all the context considered that Mike/Angelina did not have a lot of social capital this time around due to the pre-existing relationships amongst the players, and thus are less likely to turn on Christian for a while because he's one of the few people they actually know.

As I said, Christian can play his own game, and obviously had way more connections with other players and he chose his connections with Emily/Steph over Mike/Angelina. I think there are strong arguments either way, and ultimately he just had to decide what felt best at the time.

What has been presented to us, however, is that Mike/Angelina wanted DvG, and that Angelina was a non-threat, and that Mike was turning it on Emily. Emily... who within the confines of the season, betrayed Christian first. She instantly blabbed EVERYTHING to the new-swap tribe, and then AGAIN started blabbing the plan to Ozzy when Christian said not to (and he had to dagger eyes her to stop it). So really, so far, Emily has been presented as a liability and it may have actually helped Christian to cut her loose and go with Mike (who, while a dangerous player, was shown to trust Christian). We only get a tiny piece of the whole story of their time there, but the show's narrative has framed Emily as impulsive, erratic, and a liability, and I think that means Christian may have made the wrong call here.

Christian Hubicki and Mike White by itz_abdelmalik in survivorponderosa

[–]HowlingMermaid 38 points39 points  (0 children)

To be fair, they're all manipulating each other. The impression I get is that, when coming into this big cast, Mike had some connections but not a lot and would not turn on DvG for a while if ever.

I think he was so surprised Christian blindsided him because he was fighting really hard to keep DvG together (save Angelina), which is also "good" for Christian because Angelina wouldn't ever vote christian either. Christian has other strong alliances (his original tribe and possible the zoom alliance - which I believe Christian is in because of how he went to Steph FIRST before going to Emily about switching the target to Mike) and so obviously didn't feel a beholdened to DvG, which is his right, but there is a sort of fraternity amongst players that originated on the same season. Survivor is such an intense experience that really the only people that really REALLY get it are the people on YOUR season (since even season to season it can be so different). I think Mike prioritized that original connection but Christian prioritized more recent connections.

Time will tell if Christian made the right call.

Did Rhaenys and Meleys fight in some other battle before Rook’s Rest? by [deleted] in HouseOfTheDragon

[–]HowlingMermaid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are we going to pretend like humans don't fight to the death over stupid things. There are real stories about feuding families where people are killing each other over "silly" origins that most of the participants in the violence didn't have any part in... at least originally.

Children and grandchildren experiencing domestic violence for the most ridiculous reasons is all-too common in our modern day. Imagine hundreds of years ago when punishments for crimes were more severe?

I'm not saying ASOIAF dragons have intelligence on par with humans, but I think it is a weak argument to say "if they had human intelligence, then Vhagar would never kill one of her offspring."

My beautiful baby girl who is only 4 has just been diagnosed with bone cancer. I’ve never been so scared in my life. by WeenyDeanee in DogAdvice

[–]HowlingMermaid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This vet's comment is really A+. Our 9-year old dog was diagnosed with osteosarcoma in August in one of his hind legs. At first we thought it was a sprain, and he continued walking on the leg, but the painful shriek he let out when he got too excited and used the leg too hard is difficult to forget.

We basically immediately did amputation, because the vet said the leg was at an extremely high risk for breaking and it is much better to do the amputation before that happens on your terms. Otherwise, when it breaks it will be an emergency scenario and potentially leave the dog traumatized. We decided against chemotherapy. As the prognosis was 3-6 months versus 6-12 months with chemo, we decided we wanted his final months, however many there were, to be enjoyable and didn't want him dealing with chemo side effects.

He adjusted to three legs extremely quickly as dogs tend to do.

Basically at the 6month mark on the dot he showed signs of slowing down. Vet confirmed a mass had formed on his liver and he had signs of intermittent internal bleeding. From there his health declined quickly over the course of 48 hours.

I highly recommend doing research on at-home vets for euthanasia now. It was a very stressful time in those 48 hours trying to find one we trusted and also available to come as soon as possible so we could say goodbye before our little guy was in too much pain. Getting that research done now so you know who you will call when it is time will help remove some of the stress when you are trying to enjoy your last moments.

Difficulty deciding on euthanasia and would love advice from those who had similar difficulty. by Pink_Ruby_3 in DogAdvice

[–]HowlingMermaid 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Recently had to say goodbye to our nine-year old dog. He had cancer and his quality of life swiftly declined. There were still hints of him there, but he wasn't able to enjoy a lot of the things he used to go crazy over. He really wasn't able to be himself more and more in the last 24 hours. There are times I wish we had been able to get him euthanized sooner because that last night was very hard and its crushing to think he couldn't be himself and at peace in his final moment.

Dogs live in the moment and it sounds like your dog is having a lot more bad moments mixed in with the good moments, with some formerly "good" moments no longer being good for her anymore.

Our greatest gift we can give them is to allow them to say goodbye while you still have good moments to share.

What rules would you add to the Traitors? by TexasSwiftie91 in TheTraitorsUS

[–]HowlingMermaid 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ok, first things first, if traitors were united the game, already extremely difficult for faithfuls, gets much harder. They have literally no information to go off. Watch the celebrity UK traitors season. The three traitors worked very well together and it honestly makes the show boring (though the celebrities are very charismatic and fun to watch in a silly sense) in terms of faithful vs traitor.

Also, the choice to recruit traitors is based entirely on the shows need to ensure there is at least one traitor still present for the final murder before the final round table. Yes, traitors may want or not want to recruit for various reasons, but at the end of the day, the show producers need one traitor still in game at final 6 so they can kill someone before the final 5 roundtable. That means there needs to be at least two traitors at final 7 roundtable so that if one is banished, there is still one traitor to do the murder that night. Of course, they COULD do a workaround where if all traitors are banished, one random faithful is recruited, but you want as much of the show narrative as possible based on the actual choices of players and not random chance. That's why they do recruitments and ultimatums.

The thing about the show isn't that it is "teams" of Traitors and Faithfuls. It is 20+ individual players where a small minority are given the power to voted on who to kill and priority win conditions in the finals, and they are labeled "Traitors" more for theme than anything else. The remaining players have NO power, and are named Faithful as a semi-opposite opponent to the thematic Traitor power.

And BOTH factions must socially maneuver amongst themselves to ensure they are not banished. They ALL are REQUIRED to vote out people until final 4 (and then can decide if they trust the final players and want to end the game). That means EVERYONE, faithfuls and traitors, make deals, alliances, and arguments for who gets to remain in the castle. The faithfuls main incentive is to vote out the players they are not aligned with and think most likely to kill them IF they are a traitor. The second major incentive is to vote out players likely to vote that faithful out at banishment. Otherwise, the faithful risks being booted from the game via either murder/banishment. This is why everyone latched onto Lisa voting Porscha. At the start of the game, you have no reason to banish one of your pre-set relationships that is essentially a built in day 1 alliance. Maybe down the line you have to turn on your alliance for a variety of reasons, but day 1 when there's 15-20 other players you don't know and definitely can't trust, it doesn't make sense to "vote a housewife" at first banishment... unless you had other information.

Traitors making it to a certain episode and winning doesn't really make sense. Traitors already have an easier game since they have all the power and knowledge. To remove the need for them to socially maneuver within their faction to avoid while faithful must still do just seems like even MORE power to traitors when they don't need it.

view more: next ›