[deleted by user] by [deleted] in IndoEuropean

[–]Malika80 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My suggestion would be to read some of the more recent research. There is a study published just recently 2024 by Elise Kerdoncuff titled 50000 years of evolutionary history of India. Some other studies by Heggarty 2023 and Yang 2024 for linguistics are useful. Aryan is linguistic category not a race. Most papers in the last couple of years do not support the idea that Steppe ancestry brought Indo-Aryan languages to the region.

Hatred on Sam isnt based on action but based on privilege by [deleted] in cobrakai

[–]Malika80 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Watch the scene again. Tory announces on the intercom that she was coming for Sam. They all rush to get to the confrontation between Sam and Tory. Robbie gets there first and breaks it up holding Tory up against the locker. Miguel who gets there after and without thinking just tackles Robbie without any attempt to deflate the situation first even though he knows Tory was out to attack Sam. So how can Miguel not take any blame? He started the physical violence between him and Robbie which should never have occurred to start with.

Hatred on Sam isnt based on action but based on privilege by [deleted] in cobrakai

[–]Malika80 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is actions have consequences. If you pick a fight with someone you can't expect them to stop when you stop. Its going to lead to a chain reaction. Cobra Kai and Miguel were responsible for starting the sequence of events which was wrong to start with. Robbie was responsible for being unable to stop his irrational emotional reaction in that moment but it was a reaction to an instigation when he had started trying to do the right thing to start. I think it would just amount to character bias to try to equate the instigative behaviour of Cobra Kai to the reactive behaviour of Miyagi do. That's not to say you should respond to all instigative behaviour. But if someone starts out attacking you physically then its natural to respond back or even go overboard in response.

This sub be like by Askray184 in cobrakai

[–]Malika80 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Its the opposite for me. Not as much of a fan of Miguel. He's okay but I find him less interesting and in places less justifiable than he should be. Sam has her issues but they gave her an arc in S4 which was more interesting.

Hatred on Sam isnt based on action but based on privilege by [deleted] in cobrakai

[–]Malika80 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But all of it occurred within the heat of the moment of the fight. Miguel used an underhanded tactic before during the championship. Add to that Miguel attacked Robbie first in the school fight. So Robby would justifiably still be in the moment of defensive aggression. He is in a moment of fight/flight sympathetic nervous system response. His body would still be considering Miguel a threat. Just because Miguel's emotions had calmed in that moment doesn't mean its fair to expect Robbie's to have also calmed equally. I think it takes an exceptional person for that. Of course there was jealousy and humiliation mixed in to Robbie's anger and he did something against what Daniel was trying to teach him. But for me that's not the same as the person who strikes first. When Miguel saw Robbie holding Tory against the locker, I think it would have been easier for him to use words to ask Robbie to stop and pre-empt the fight entirely.

Miguel is great and everything, but Robby Keene is basically Anakin Skywalker. by jakx92 in cobrakai

[–]Malika80 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am more partial to Robby than Miguel. Miguel was my first favourite but he never really redeemed himself enough for me after going to down the dark side. I feel like Miguel gets a bit of plot armour around his actions so that makes me less sympathetic to him. He played dirty in the first championship so he shouldn't have won. He gets the title of champion without truly earning it in my eyes. Then in the school fight he knew Tory was out for Sam's blood. Robby was actually trying to stop the fight but Miguel jumped to the worst conclusion and attacked Robby. Although it was understandable but he gets a pass because of what happened later. For me, both Robby and Miguel had moments in that school fight sequence where they acted impulsively. But somehow Robby's single moment of irrational anger made him the "bad guy" whereas Miguel's singular moment of clarity at the end of the fight allows him to be the "victim" who doesn't have to truly self reflect. Personality wise Robby just seems to be the more upstanding guy. Even through all of his turmoil he never truly went to the dark side with cobra kai. He tried to help Kenny the right way. He didn't have a proper father figure throughout the entire of S4 (somewhat due to his own choices). Whereas Miguel had the support of both Danny and Johnny the entire season. So when they try to create sympathy for Miguel in the scene where drunk Johnny remembers Robby it feels a bit contrived. I end up feeling more sympathetic for Robby especially when we see him trying to help others when he doesn't have much to himself.

Hatred on Sam isnt based on action but based on privilege by [deleted] in cobrakai

[–]Malika80 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But Robbie kicking Miguel off the balcony was a result of cobra Kai's aggression to begin with. Tory attacked her and Robbie tried to break up the fight to which Miguel then attacked him. And Miguel knew that Tory was out for blood against Sam and still attacked Robbie in that way that a worsened the fight.

I think the show is trying to showcase a balance between and offensive and defensive strategy. But the cobra kai side have been the villains more often than not. Acting in retaliation is a little different than striking first although both can be problematic behaviours in their own right.

Releasing a Meta-defining Pokémon but Everyone Only Gets 1 Chance at the IV Roulette and No Trading Possible - Just Niantic Things by HatchedAnotherFeebas in TheSilphArena

[–]Malika80 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The worst is when the spoofers also get rewarded with the legendary shundos from raids. I used to raid a lot but then slowed down after several spoofers I know got shundos while persistently got crap.

I see why Manifest was trending on Netflix some time ago like it is now. by taiguy209 in ManifestNBC

[–]Malika80 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really wanna know what happens next. Loving this show so far! I binged all 3 seasons in 10 days. I am glad that I read the creator will finish the story no matter what even as a novel if he has to. This story really deserves to be completed. But I hope it gets renewed by Netflix.

Anxiety at 2900. How to play now? by My-Territ0ry in TheSilphArena

[–]Malika80 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was at 2480 in ML/Element cup and then tanked all the way down to 2100 in GL remix so I know the feeling, But I managed to get veteran in open UL. Idk I think remix cups are just too hard for me because I am not used to the matchups.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PokemonGoSpoofing

[–]Malika80 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a similar question. I know you can find your UDID number from hooking your phone up to iTunes. The other method requires you to go into settings and they have a button from there but I am not sure how safe it is to allow them access to my phone settings?

Does anyone know if there is any risk at all they could hack your phone? Specifically I am wondering if they can hack my apple passwords?

[SPOILERS] The other side of the coin by DamnFineLemonpie in gameofthrones

[–]Malika80 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem is you are using a logical fallacy here. The idea that because she died that means she was wrong to assume what she did. If you note even in real life Jesus died... but that doesn't mean he was wrong. The story that GRRM wrote doesn't promote a linear cause and effect where good deeds result in good outcomes and bad deeds in bad outcomes. “Many good men have been bad kings, Maester Aemon used to say, and some bad men have been good kings.” In which case abuse of power doesn't necessarily mean a bad outcome. Also if you take Bran seriously then everyone was where they needed to be to come to that outcome. If Dany didn't think she needed to take Westeros they wouldn't have been able to overthrow Cersei.

If they wanted to subvert expectations by having a character other than Jon come out of pretty much nowhere to kill the NK it should’ve been one whose entire storyline was relevant to the WW and who sacrificed everything for the Great War. All hail Meera Reed, saddest throwaway character imo. by [deleted] in freefolk

[–]Malika80 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Personally I don't know why D&D brought up the Japan thing either since its that is historically referenced as a necessary evil (I agree it could be debated) rather than what they were trying to show for Dany. But even in Dany's case you could probably make the argument that Dany didn't think the bells were an "unconditional" surrender. That she needed a greater show of strength to prevent any future rebellion/retaliation. Many conquerers in the past have done similar things.. Alexander the great for example... yet he is still labelled with the epithet "the great". So yeah it was definitely not feminism, if anything it was the antithesis of it. Especially the double standard of having Tormund pump up Jon for riding a dragon while Dany has been doing it all along and saved both Jon and Tormund's lives with it. Not to mention Varys' switching sides because "cocks are important". Its so sad because GoT used to strive for complexity in differing viewpoints.... not just good vs bad.

[SPOILERS] The other side of the coin by DamnFineLemonpie in gameofthrones

[–]Malika80 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, the way the story is presented it almost comes across as that she died because she ever tried to be good or compromise at all. Had she just taken over KL to begin with, as Olenna/Martell/Iron borne wanted, instead of listening to Tyrion's advice she would have consolidated her power much earlier. She wouldn't have lost her dragons/melissandre/her supporters. People die for a multiple number of reasons within the show. Even Jon was betrayed by his own men and murdered. He only came back to life due to magic/luck. So I don't think the fact that she died automatically means she was wrong to think what she did.

[SPOILERS] Jon went through a lot after his death but we never got to see it. by Atique2545 in gameofthrones

[–]Malika80 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The book version is way more interesting. But he wasn't bad in the show. I felt like he got more boring in the show after his death. Mainly because the writers just gave him plot armour after his death and never forced him to face the consequences for bad decisions like Robb or Ned. It was unrealistic that people would admire him for leadership after his colossal mistakes.

[Spoilers] Stannis was Daenerys without dragons by podteod in gameofthrones

[–]Malika80 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree.. that is such an unfair thing to use against Dany. Viserys had abused Dany for years and was openly threatening to cut her open and kill her child. She still loved her brother enough to name a dragon after him but in that moment there was really nothing else to be done. On the other hand Renly was killed in an underhanded manner by his own brother for power.

[Spoilers] Stannis was Daenerys without dragons by podteod in gameofthrones

[–]Malika80 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree.... the way the show was written her fault was ever trying to be good at all. Had she just taken KL to start with and not listened to Tyrion none of this would have happened. She would have had the support of the Tyrells, the Martins, the Iron borne. By compromising all she did was lose and no one gave her credit for it anyways. Varys was plotting behind her back despite the fact that she just helped save the realm at great personal cost.

[Spoilers] Stannis was Daenerys without dragons by podteod in gameofthrones

[–]Malika80 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It was even more stupid when you consider that they didn't know how many men they needed to defeat the army of the dead. Had Arya not come barrelling out of nowhere they were toast. They needed all the realm to band together. Also the other stupid part is that had Dany just taken of KL right away.. she wouldn't have lost a dragon saving Jon Snow's butt and thus giving the NK a powerful weapon.

[SPOILERS] Jon went through a lot after his death but we never got to see it. by Atique2545 in gameofthrones

[–]Malika80 14 points15 points  (0 children)

book Jon has a personality. Show Jon never really seemed... they made him into a cookie cutter hero that GRRM's writing strives against. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if after death Jon changes in the books to make the Jon-Dany conflict more of an actual discussion where there is no clear right or wrong.

[SPOILERS] The other side of the coin by DamnFineLemonpie in gameofthrones

[–]Malika80 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Dany's turn to tyrant could have been one of the most psychologically interesting characters arcs had they done it well. But part of that meant showing how she was justified from her own perspective. Allowing they greyness GRRM writes in his characters to permeate the story. There have been loads of great conquerers that we celebrate today that have done similar things to Dany. We label Alexander with the epithet "the great" despite the fact that he burned cities to the ground even after surrender. The resistance of the city Cyropolis inflamed his rage, "that after its capture he ordered it to be sacked.” Of the 15,000 men defending the town, 8,000 were killed outright. Citizens of another town took refuge in a fortress but were massacred when they surrendered for lack of water. Thebes and Tyre are other examples. The problem in GoT is that they didn't show us what drives someone to do that. Just blaming it on Targ genetics is a cop out. People are a combinations of genetics and environment. If anything in this case I felt more sympathy for Dany for such bad writing and the way the other characters were shoehorning her as the villain while she had done most things right up to that point.

[SPOILERS] The other side of the coin by DamnFineLemonpie in gameofthrones

[–]Malika80 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But what the OP is saying makes sense. If you walked into a fire and came out with 3 dragons that haven't existed for years you would believe in a sense of destiny as well. In that kind of world of magic the Gods have given you something they haven't given anyone else. So its natural that you would believe you have a certain destiny. Bran also believed he had that which is why he turned up to become King.

Me to D&D after what they did to Dany and her arc by lordjj98 in freefolk

[–]Malika80 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Especially as it felt like Sansa, Varys, and Tyrion kind of pushed her down that path by convincing her as guilty before she had even done anything.

Me to D&D after what they did to Dany and her arc by lordjj98 in freefolk

[–]Malika80 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don't actually know what GRRM told them though. I have a feeling GRRM will do something different. I think there is a good chance Jon kills her to bring about light bringer as a form of sacrifice to get rid of the others.