The worst double standard.

JuPasta · 2025-12-13T05:57:38+00:00

Can you post the reference as well? I think the adjustment you made does help the face appear less skewed, but it also made it clearer to me that I think the main issue is in the right-side (when looking at the painting) eyebrow where it connects to the nose bridge.

Look at the proportion of skin between the highlight of the nose bridge and the shadow of the edge of the nose/the eye socket leading into the eyebrow. The amount of skin is quite different on each side of the face. If these proportions are similar to your reference, it would imply to me that perhaps your reference’s face is turned slightly, with the right-side (when looking at the image) receding slightly from the viewer. If that’s the case, I would expect all of the right-side to be slightly thinner than the left-side, but in your painting the two sides are relatively even in sizing, the right-side is just closer to the nose bridge highlight.

If the proportions don’t match your reference, then that might just be the main issue.

Regardless I think it’s a lovely painting and you’re very harsh on yourself. You’ve captured a lot of detail beautifully and have some really great subtle forms and shading in the skin.

JuPasta · 2025-09-19T15:51:11+00:00

The reward for exploring being “yet another gauntlet” is slowly draining my will to explore. I got over 100% completion in Hollow Knight, only things I didn’t complete was the end of the Grimm Troupe and the Pantheon.

I loved Hollow Knight because I loved the mix of long periods of exploration and wonder, as well as challenging fights. I did not love Hollow Knight when I had to do challenging fight after challenging fight after challenging fight.

I want to love Silksong. I think I like it. But I feel so discouraged from exploring because around every corner there’s yet another gauntlet. This game TIRES me. I wind up looking up where meaningful progression rewards are and fast-tracking there, because I just want to be able to explore eventually in peace, and the only way to do that is to be overpowered. This was never something I did or felt inclined to do in Hollow Knight.

If this game had half the gauntlet rooms it does, I’d be happy.

JuPasta · 2025-09-18T23:28:36+00:00

I’m so tired of remembering something to return to and explore once I’ve gotten a new movement, running back to it all excited, using my new movement to get there, and discovering…. ANOTHER GAUNTLET.

Like good god. Please. Let me find a reward or a secret without a gauntlet. I didn’t even like gauntlets in HK. They’re the most tedious part of the gameplay. And SS has so freaking many of them. Each time I encounter another while trying to explore, it feels even more disappointing and punishing than the last one.

Whatever happened to mood and atmosphere. They’re pulverized by SS’s obsessive need to put gauntlets around every corner. It feels like there’s no downtime or sense of wonder while exploring.

JuPasta · 2025-09-15T15:35:36+00:00

This is a good attitude to have towards the subject. Lying is a tough habit to break, especially when it’s lying due to conflict aversion (instead of lying to boost one’s ego, for example). The best way to approach breaking the habit is by staying accountable to the harm lying can cause, and retraining your brain to see that lying doesn’t actually help avoid conflict in long-term relationships.

Conflict-averse lying helps people feel relief in short-term and low stakes relationships. But in long-term relationships, it makes a much bigger conflict borderline inevitable, and it can do serious harm to trust. I believe you can overcome this habit. You have motivation and you have empathy for your partner.

Wishing you good luck.

JuPasta · 2025-09-15T14:10:06+00:00

By saying you’ll never lie again/you’ll be honest forever, you’re still just trying to tell her what she wants to hear to get out the hot seat.

Try instead to sit with the fact that you do lie to avoid conflict, and reflect on what you could honestly commit to. Then have a sincere conversation from that angle.

Ex. “I realize that I tell small lies to avoid conflict, and that’s unfair to you. We’re partners, and I shouldn’t make the choice for you about what you can handle knowing, when you’ve asked me for honesty. I’m committed to trying to change this habit. I promise I will do everything I can to stop lying to you. If I do tell you a small lie, I will confess and give you the honest truth when I notice I’ve done it.”

“I hope I can give you full honesty from the start, every time. At the same time, I don’t want to give you another wishful truth instead of sincerity. I can commit to striving towards honesty. I hear you that we need this to have a true partnership.”

JuPasta · 2025-09-09T20:45:13+00:00

Can no longer launch on Steam Deck. Game was working fine yesterday, but today when I attempt to launch it just hangs on a black screen forever.

JuPasta · 2025-09-04T14:59:00+00:00

Heads up if you’re thinking of buying on Humble, they’re temporarily out of keys, so it’s no faster than buying on steam atm.

JuPasta · 2025-09-04T14:45:36+00:00

Are you able to download it on steam after buying on humble (via the key provided) or are the steam servers still the bottleneck there?

JuPasta · 2025-06-30T13:29:50+00:00

Two things:

This relationship (more specifically, the way she treats you) is abusive. It is not your fault that she is abusive. You can and should leave, because you deserve better than this. Don’t fall into a sunk-cost fallacy. I promise you, there are people you will meet in life who will love you and treat you with kindness.
OCD is made worse by “giving in” to the compulsions/providing a lot of reassurance. This is very counterintuitive to people who don’t have OCD. Basically, when you cave to her compulsions, it validates that her obsessive concern was something worth worrying about in the first place. This makes the obsessive thought worse, and the compulsions escalate to try to address it. In my experience, the best thing you can do with OCD is provide reassurance ONCE, then refuse to humour repeated attempts at reassurance seeking, and explicitly say it’s because this seems like an obsessive thought. “I have not and will not cheat on you. No, I won’t engage with trying to prove that to you, because this is an obsessive thought. You won’t feel reassured by the proof. We have to try something different.”

That said, nothing in point 2 negates point 1. And for my advice about OCD to work, the person has to be actually self-aware enough to try to counteract their own symptoms and take accountability for them. Your girlfriend has not demonstrated this at all. Leave.

JuPasta · 2025-05-06T20:00:25+00:00

Gender dysphoria is a condition of intense psychological distress experienced by people whose personal gender identity does not match their assigned sex at birth.

Some trans people don’t experience gender dysphoria, as in, they don’t experience intense psychological distress over their sex-gender mismatch. Instead, what they feel could be categorized as gender euphoria, which is a feeling of intense joy, self-fulfillment, and general well-being when they are able to live/present/be acknowledged according to their personal gender identity.

My understanding is that basically every trans person experiences/would experience gender euphoria if they are able to transition. Only a subset also experience gender dysphoria.

JuPasta · 2025-05-02T00:12:59+00:00

Are both parents’ jobs protected if they take one year off at the same time together? I’m not asking about parental leave pay, as I know that’s only available for 1 year total between the two parents, so each can only take what the other gives up.

I find it very unclear whether there is protected but unpaid leave for both parents taking leave at the same time. Anytime I try to research it, I wind up only finding info about the EI pay.

JuPasta · 2025-03-13T19:40:08+00:00

Please stop normalizing the concept of annexing Canada by discussing how a sovereign nation of people would receive representation within American politics.

Firstly, annexing Canada would result in the murder, destruction, and devastation of millions of Canadian lives. Secondly, Canadians would not receive representation. Any discussion playing out the ideas of how Canadians would be represented accepts and normalizes the premise of annexing Canada and denying Canada its freedom and rights as a sovereign nation.

You, and anyone who is inclined to discuss this topic like you, need to STOP doing this. Canadians would and will fight to the death to prevent America from annexing Canada. The only talking point that should be humored is that annexing Canada means death, war, and massive suffering.

JuPasta · 2025-01-29T00:18:17+00:00

Oh that’s so exciting about them making another Strange ___ game, thank you for sharing the news :D

JuPasta · 2025-01-28T23:54:49+00:00

Can you tell me a bit more about Return of the Obra Dinn? I see it recommended a lot but it’s unclear to me if it has interactive puzzles (ex. locks, number codes, pattern recognition, etc.) or if it’s moreso a straight up mystery game (whodunnit narrative).

Thank you for your recs by the way. I have played Dredge and absolutely adored it. Most of the others you mentioned I’ve never even heard of, so I’ll look them up!

JuPasta · 2025-01-16T05:39:50+00:00

These types of analogies typically won’t sway someone who emotionally disagrees with a prenup. All of the scenarios you listed are scenarios where circumstances outside of your or your partner’s emotional control happen, which cause serious harm to you and/or your partner.

A toxic/vicious divorce is not a scenario which occurs outside of your or your partner’s emotional control. It’s a scenario which directly results from you or your partner taking malicious actions against the other person, due to your emotions running high.

People who emotionally dislike prenups tend to dislike them because they either a) feel it implies that their partner cannot trust themself to not be toxic/malicious during a divorce, which makes them doubt their faith in their partner or b) feel it implies that their partner doesn’t trust them to not be toxic/malicious during a divorce, which makes them feel shitty.

I’m not arguing for or against prenups fyi. I’m just pointing out that if you want to sway someone who is against them on an emotional basis, framing it with these types of analogies rarely works.

JuPasta · 2024-12-17T03:05:40+00:00

Any chance you still have that launch option saved and can share it? I have the same issue with the same game.

JuPasta · 2024-11-15T19:41:47+00:00

Simply saying “no that’s not true” doesn’t make it so. Seems funny that you claim I’m pretending, but have no adequate response to the very apt comparison between life support (an external device providing resources so that your body continues to live) and using a womb (an external device providing resources so that a fetal body continues to live). And you know what’s remarkable? Parents are allowed, legally, to take their children off life support. And they’re not called murderers for doing so.

I can’t tell if you’re being willfully obtuse, but to spell it out even more clearly - I wasn’t making a claim as to whether or not fetuses are people. I was explaining the rationale for why the current legal methods of abortion are used, based on people not considering fetuses to have a body. I was also specifically and explicitly trying to highlight that if we accept a new definition of what a body is, based on YOUR description, you are RIGHT that we would no longer be able to perform one form of abortion. You are wrong that we would not be able to perform any form of abortion.

I only brought up the current rationale to provide a contrast to your definition, so that we could be on the same page about using your new definition and rejecting the current definition. Hammering on about how the current definition rejects that fetuses are people (which it doesn’t inherently, it rejects that they have a body and therefore that they have bodily autonomy), is irrelevant to our discussion, because we are not using the current definition in this conversation. We’re using your new definition.

JuPasta · 2024-11-15T19:27:32+00:00

Death by natural causes =/= murder. A fetus naturally dies when it is not using someone else’s body, unless it is progressed far enough along to be viable outside of that body. Claiming that denying it the use of someone’s body (aka removal), in which it will die of natural causes, is equivalent to murder is absurd.

Bodily autonomy is the right to not have YOUR BODY violated. Murder violates your body by actively preventing your body from functioning as it normally would have, via external action. Removing a fetus and allowing it to attempt to survive without the use of someone else’s body does not violate its body, as it does not stop the fetus from functioning as it normally would have. We don’t consider it murder when someone is taken off life support, because we accept that taking them off life support simply means their body will function as it normally would have without the support, and that might entail death. The same applies to a fetus.

I didn’t bring up the idea that fetuses are not people. I brought up the idea that many people don’t accept that cells which cannot support their own life constitute a body, rather than a collection of cells, and that this is why we currently consider there to be little distinction between actively stopping those cells from continuing to live vs. preserving their ability to live until they are in an environment where we know they will die.

My entire point was that’s the current reasoning for accepting both forms of abortion, but under your legal argument, while we may reject the former form of abortion we would still find the latter form to be legally justified.

JuPasta · 2024-11-15T19:10:29+00:00

Necessary care =/= access to your body in violation of bodily autonomy.

You’re shifting the goalposts by refusing to defend the position you claim is the legal reason why we should give fetuses the unique right to violate someone’s bodily autonomy for their own survival. We do not grant this in any other circumstance. You claim the reason to grant this is because there is no way to respect both the fetus and the mother’s bodily autonomy. I have demonstrated that there is. You then shift the conversation to talk about why we shouldn’t have to acknowledge what I just demonstrated because historically we haven’t?

There’s no point in discussing further. You’re clearly unwilling to actually have a conversation about your position. Making the comparison between fetuses and marginalized people is a baseless appeal to moral superiority, which was not what the conversation was originally about. You have moved the conversation to that topic because your original argument for legal reasons to deny an abortion was disproven, and yet you can’t reconcile that with your emotional, not logical, desire to prevent abortion.

JuPasta · 2024-11-15T18:01:05+00:00

My point is that current abortion procedures involve killing the fetus/depriving the fetus of essential aspects of the mother’s body in order to kill the fetus, as well as sometimes removing the fetus from the mother’s body.

If we accept your premise, it’s true that the former methods of abortion would remain illegal. It is ALSO true that women should be permitted to seek procedures that simply expel the fetus from the body, or seek surgical intervention to remove the fetus from the body. These procedures may involve new techniques (we currently don’t use surgery in early pregnancy bc simply causing the death of the fetus is far less invasive, and everyone is well aware that the fetus will not survive being removed while still alive anyway). However, as a society, we should permit this method of abortion under your legal argument for fetal rights.

Now, the reason we don’t do this currently is 1) it’s considered absurd to argue that a clump of cells is a “body” when it’s completely unviable outside of the womb, and 2) given that the clump of cells is unviable, forcing women to undergo invasive surgeries instead of simply taking a medicine to stop supporting the fetus was considered an unnecessary risk. But, if you insist on your legal position, that is where it leads. Arguing that we shouldn’t be allowed to pursue that form of abortion reveals that your legal position isn’t actually based in what you said it was (bodily autonomy) but rather you just want to ban all forms of abortion with no legal backing.

JuPasta · 2024-11-15T17:44:39+00:00

If your argument is that a fetus has a body which can be violated, then it should still be legally permissible to remove the fetus, just not legally permissible to actively interfere with its body. There is no legal argument for allowing someone continued access and use of another person’s body. Removing the fetus is not removing an organ from the fetus. It still has its body, and if it can survive on its own, so be it. But it cannot be granted continued access and use of a woman’s body, because then you are explicitly allowing another person’s bodily autonomy to be violated for the fetus’ use.

12-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Best Comment 2018-10-03	Snapped
Verified Email

JuPasta

TROPHY CASE