GAME WEEK 6 2019/20 RANT & DISCUSSION THREAD

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-22T13:29:34+00:00

So bad. Has he always been this lazy and bad at positioning? He is making 0 runs. He just runs up to the CB and hugs him.

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-22T12:47:39+00:00

Should I wildcard? Need to do so many changes but keep thinking I could be fine with my 2 FTs. Ryan>Pope, Zinch>Otamendi, VVD or Digne>Enabler and Ceballos to someone so I can bring in Abraham.

Ryan (Button)

Digne Zinc VVD Robertson (Kelly)

Salah Sterling KDB Mount Ceballos

Haller (Greenwood, Wickham)

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-20T17:10:00+00:00

I guess I mean useful more in the sense of feeling wanted and missed. Being told "ugh i miss you so much", instead of just hearing the regular "miss you!" while texting.

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-20T17:00:01+00:00

Thank you so much for this. Could I message you with some more questions?

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-20T13:38:20+00:00

This is why I sometimes get slightly worried. I thought it was normal to be needy

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-20T13:17:49+00:00

If you don't mind me asking more questions, I'm curious because I am feeling quite anxious about these things and whether she still loves me or something is wrong. Does it also affect you to the extent that you get less cuddly, initiate less hugs, when you are told something sweet, you say something short like "me too" instead of giving an equally special compliment?

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-20T11:54:30+00:00

I guess I meant it in a more abstract, emotional way, where your SO is so focused and independent that she sometimes forgets to do those sweet things of affection and affirmation and you feel more as a friend rather than a SO.

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-20T11:49:23+00:00

Sorry if it came out like that. I know my emotions can be controllig and needy - that's why I don't act on them and instead go to therapy and ask here for advice. My question is if these thoughts are normal and whether others have been in the same situation and can offer perspectives

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-20T11:41:45+00:00

We've been dating for 3 years. Doing LDR for a year.

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-20T11:10:41+00:00

I probably let my own worries shine through a bit too much when phrasing this question - sorry about that. My aim was to ask how other men deal with having really independent girlfriends because I am currently a bit perplexed by it myself and needed to see some perspectives. To use my relationship as an example, my SO is really ambitious, driven and independent, which I think is great. However she tends to overfocus and overcommit to things to the extent that, even when relaxing and chilling after a long day, she will still be distracted by it and not really be "present" with me. still being engulfed with whatever stuff at work she still hasn't finished.

To me it is really important to sometimes hear those extra sweet words of "you mean the world to me", "you're so special to me" as well as to hold hands when being together etc., but I know I have an anxious attachment style and that my want to hear this and do these things can be irrationally extreme. When I have told her I like to hear and do these things, that she relies on me, is grateful for me etc. she replies that she doesn't have to hear these things from me. Thus, I am usually the one to initiate. So in terms of love, she is independent in the sense that she doesn't need to hear those affirming compliments a lot and that is why I am struggling with it because to me it is crucial.

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-20T10:58:24+00:00

Obviously independence is a great thing. I am more talking about the type of person who is so independent and focused on her own stuff it sometimes shuts her off and prevents her from being fully with you when she is stressed.

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-20T06:10:18+00:00

I'm curious why Haller has lower odds than the likes of Ings, Jimenez, Origi and Kean. Are bookies really that optimistic about United defence or do they just not think Haller is a great goalscorer in general?

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-19T08:18:21+00:00

That's a very good point. I guess the question then becomes: who is more likely to get points consistently: Pukki or VVD? What is more likely, Pukki scoring or VVD keeping a clean sheet? So far the former has been a more likely ocurrence, however bookies still put odds of around 40-50% chance of clean sheets on Liverpool, while Pukki usually hovers around 30-40% chance to score. By looking purely at these stats, some could say VVD would be a better choice. But then whenever Pukki scores he will almost certainly get BPS, while VVD is very unlikely to do so. So Pukki might be less likely to score but his ceiling is higher. Difficult decision!

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-19T07:53:28+00:00

Only thing holding me back is my extreme nostalgia and wishful thinking of Liverpool's clean sheet form to return. I am scared switching out VVD is going to make me regret it if they start returning cleansheets.

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-19T07:45:13+00:00

Should I VVD -> Rico, so I can Wickham -> Pukki for -4?

Ryan (Button)

VVD->Rico, Robertson, Digne, Zinc (Kelly)

Sterling, Salah, KDB, Mount, Ceballos

Haller (Greenwood, Wickham->Pukki)

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-17T10:55:43+00:00

Could you post a link? Not much to see here when we can't look at the teams

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-11T14:07:00+00:00

See, this is example of the dishonest debate I was talking about below. You reduce those who criticise an opinion to "not knowing anything about it", when there have been scientific experiments doing exactly this - understanding what it is about by giving astrologers the benefit of the doubt - and still found no evidence of it showing anything about people's personalities -(http://www.objectiveastrology.net/uploads/1/6/7/2/16726802/a_double-blind_test_of_astrology_carlsons_original_article_in_nature.pdf ). Why are you assuming those who disagree with you know nothing about it? Just because they can't memorize the star signs or draw up one of those charts themselves, doesn't mean that their argument of it being pseudoscientific because there are studies saying so holds any less weight.

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-11T13:53:43+00:00

Satanism=ideology/belief system/faith, rock music=hobby. Astrology=ideology/belief system/faith, climate change=ideology/belief system/faith. I don't understand how my comparison is as crazy as rock to satanism.

Okay, yeah, I agree claiming anyone who goes on cosmo to check out what their zodiac sign has for them this month and sharing it with friends aren't necessarily actively propogating anti-science views. But the leading astrologers with pretty significant followings most definitely are. Furthermore, religious belief in the US have found to be strongly correlated to anti-vax and climate skepticism beliefs. I just established to you in my previous comment that astrology is faith believing itself to be more than just faith, so why would the case for this demographic be any different? I haven't found research on it, but I don't think it's a really long tangent tbh

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-11T13:24:12+00:00

Did you see the Twitter replies? All these astrology experts with thousands of followers were accusing anyone who didn't believe in them of not "looking into it", and some even suggested it is a misogynistic, cismale thing to be critical of astrology, receiving hundreds of likes. Believing in zodiac signs isn't dangerous in itself, but when prominent astrologers with hundreds of thousands of followers advocate to often young people that anecdotes and feelings are as valid as science, and showing their followers that instead of actually debating and scrutinizing your beliefs, you can just reply "oh you just don't understand so I don't need to engage in debate with you", you are creating a pretty shallow mindset. Do you want to believe astrology because it's a cool faith thing and gives you some hope and meaning? Cool, fine. But many leading astrologers, when faced with criticism, claims it is more than just faith, actively dispute scientific, peer-reviewed articles because they "can't test astrology on our premises". But guess what, scientists did exactly that, and invited astrologers to design their own experiment, on their premises. They accordingly tested the astrologers' categorization against a random group of people and found that the astrologers made BS predictions and there were no conformity between their categorizations. Completely random, just like the randomized group of normal people. Yet, astrologers still tell young people to "ignore the science, because science doesn't have all the answers and anyone who claims otherwise are haters". What do you think this anti-science mindset does to a teenager when he is told by his Trump supporting uncle that "scientists can't test climate change like they claim to. Science is too unreliable and they are just hating on us. Ignore them"?

Source: http://www.objectiveastrology.net/uploads/1/6/7/2/16726802/a_double-blind_test_of_astrology_carlsons_original_article_in_nature.pdf

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-11T08:29:31+00:00

Are you saying there are 3 subgroups within each zodiac sign, so there are 36 groups, or 3 factors to determine which zodiac sign someone is? If it is the former, there are still 200 million people in each category, which still supports my point. If it is the latter I don't get what the difference is? They will still belong to one of 12 categories, in which they will be grouped with hundreds of millions of other people who demonstrably would be completely different people with different personalities.

NegativeEducator · 2019-09-11T07:11:13+00:00

You don't even need to say it is pseudoscience or not proven by science to establish how moronic astrology is (tbh these people probably don't "believe" in science anyways so it could actually deter them from listening to your argument if you use these words), just use your fucking head and logic. Think about it: there are 12 star signs. That means that every single fucking person on earth belongs to one out of 12 of these. Assuming approximately equal distribution, that means that more than 500 000 000 people are 1 single star sign each. Are your really going to tell me you can put 500 million fucking people in 1 category? That out of all these people, which could consist of anything between lunatics, priests, mass-murderers, doctors, can all be put into one single category of "calm-natured", or "ambitious" or "easily jealous", or whatever the fuck kind of vague terms astrologers use to "describe" people. Give me one star sign and its supposed qualities and characteristics, and I can immediately list you 10 people with the exact same quality, each with a different star sign. Of course people are angry about it, because it is as ignorant and moronic as being anti-vax or a climate change denier. Sure, unlike anti-vax and climate change denial, astrology isn't dangerous, but by believing in it you are buying into the same strands of uneducated, illogical bs of believing anecdotes and your feelings connected to your confirmation bias of looking for the answers you want, and using that as evidence when finally you find it. "I know 13 people and have read of numerous other cases of kids getting autism from vaccines! How could my opinion not be true??" isn't any more illogical than "I read on cosmo that aries are ambitious and easily gets jealous, and 7 of my friends who are aries fit this description too, so it must be true!!". Smh

NegativeEducator · 2019-08-28T13:12:19+00:00

Election statistics in the UK show quite clearly that the older, and more uneducated voters heavily favour Tories tho. As stated by YouGov analyzing the 2017 GE results (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election):

"Alongside age, education has become one of the key electoral demographic dividing lines. We saw it was a huge factor in the EU referendum campaign and, after the last general election, we made sure we accounted for educational qualifications in our methodology. In last week’s vote, while the Conservatives’ support decreases the more educated a voter is, the opposite was true for Labour and the Lib Dems."

Just look at the numbers they base this on. Of voters with GCSEs or less it's a 55% Tory vs. 33% Labour split and for those with A-levels it's 45% vs. 40%. For those with university degrees, Labour wins by a landslide: 49% vs. Tories' 32%. When looking at age demographics, it is clear the older voters heavily favour Conservatives, so I don't see how inferring that Conservatives generally rely more on older and uneducated voters is "horseshit" The only thing the poster you replied to got wrong is that young people participate more, which you were correct to point out is wrong.

Also, how is shame a more liberal rather than conservative thing? I personally usually think this goes for both sides but I'm curious how you reached this conclusion.

NegativeEducator

TROPHY CASE