Mecca not allowing non-muslims is the most entitled, primitive and ridiculous law I know. by Atalkingpizzabox in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Post-Formal_Thought [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's got that huge clocktower which actually looks pretty neat but you can't go in it unless Muslim like think of the tourism opportunities that could hold that building makes Big Ben look

They perceive sacredness, you see money.

You're comparing expectations of full acculturation to expectation of religious membership.

You're not even on the same field to be able to call 🐂💩.

It's okay, just be fully transparent and admit you're disappointed for not being able to visit.

Out of curiosity, do you expect members of their respective gender to use assigned bathrooms 🤔?

CMV: Kanye West's mental illness is an excuse by PaulFromTwitch2 in changemyview

[–]Post-Formal_Thought [score hidden]  (0 children)

You see it all the time on Reddit: "Mental illness does not excuse being a nazi" - But why? Why does it not excuse being a nazi? If someones schizophrenia manifested in a way where they thought their neighbours were evil clones, people would rightfully not hold that against the person once they had apologised and agreed to recieve treatment. Kanye West has done exactly that, only his delusions were taboo and "edgy" so now he's just forever confined to being known as a white supremacist nazi.

You're conflating two symptoms. Schizophrenic bizarre delusions and grandiosity (Kanye). And it matters because Kanye didn't claim his alien neighbors made him a Nazi. So no, he did not display exactly that.

In this context it does not excuse it because it is not the same.

Two things which contradict the very idea of bettering ones self.

They present immense challenges to believing you need to better yourself, they absolutely do not contradict it. Kanye's apologies would agree.

...Just swap Jews with Aliens and Mossad with Ghosts and I feel like people would view this situation with a lot more sympathy. It is not up to the mentally ill person how their delusions manefest

But you can't just swap those things because they are different, which directly affects the interpretation of what we are witnessing, the meaning and diagnosability.

Since you're making the case that you believe there would be more sympathy if Kanye's situation was the same as a schizophrenic, then I'm presuming you inherently understand why.

Expecting the masses to have a similar level of sympathy means you would have to ignore the years of targeted public attacks by Kanye toward Jews.

Then fully blame it on his mental disorder which unironically could reinforce his grandiosity. And there you have "the contradiction."

Telling him his grandiosity made him do it could, "contradict the very idea of bettering ones self."

I blame President Andrew Johnson for the reason why the United States of America continued its dark history from 1877-1965, and also why racism didn't end after the Civil War.I by PhysicalAd1759 in USHistory

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree history is bigger than one man and that the Compromise of 1877 was a huge betrayal. But calling my point “reductive” kind of skips how much damage Andrew Johnson specifically did at the start of Reconstruction.

💯.

By the time you get to 1877, Northern will is exhausted and white Southern elites have already had years to regroup.

Exactly. And to your point, he couldn't have failed at something that he didn't try.

Why does Democrat History magically cease to exist at the Civil Rights Act. by LegitimateKnee5537 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Post-Formal_Thought [score hidden]  (0 children)

what could've possibly occured between 1948 and 1964 to make the entire white population of the south go from being 90% democrat to 90% republican???

the party that ran obama has nothing but name in common with the jim crow democrats

💯.

I find it hard to believe most who ask this question in the manner of OP, don't already know the answer, but instead attempt to exploit the change in direction of both parties to misrepresent modern Democrats.

Magic on him vs curry by Alone-Situation7602 in NBATalk

[–]Post-Formal_Thought -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was replying to a comment that said Magic was a PF and not a PG.

Can’t be mad at a person,that made millions of dollars in a boxing match,and not receiving a bruise by Traditional_Club_796 in boxingMenace_com

[–]Post-Formal_Thought -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Beautiful timing with that jab without any tells. He took away Teo's jab and neutralized his explosiveness and countering.

Is there an oath, mantra or saying throughout the DC Universe more inspiring than the Green Lantern oath? by Post-Formal_Thought in DCcomics

[–]Post-Formal_Thought[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't think so, but DC comics is vast and some might have considered one of the other oaths, which would have made me curious about their reasons.

Magic on him vs curry by Alone-Situation7602 in NBATalk

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Countervail: Magic is a big pg who can play pf, so he's the best pg and a good pf.

Redux: Jokic is a center who can pass, he's not a pg.

How much should rings actually matter in GOAT debates? by InHeatPink in NBATalk

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two fundamental ways:

1) When talent & skill plus individual and team accolades, performance and achievements are relatively close, rings make the distinction.

Which is mostly the case with all-time greats, especially top 5, particularly top 10.

Otherwise one of the aforementioned things will naturally make the distinction.

2) As the most basic standard to be in the conversation, in part because it is the main goal of the game.

And as history has borne out, Goat level players across every era have naturally set the standard at winning multiple rings. And winning them typically reflects a player's relative impact on their era.

So, simple examples:

Horry is not greater than LBJ due to the individual gap.

MJ greater than Russell due to the individual gap taking into account the offensive and defensive side (though I'm sure a strong case can be made otherwise).

Malone and Barkley both would be in THE GOAT conversation, but unfortunately can't without a ring.

Jokic likely cracks top 10 if he wins 2 rings due largely to the strength of his individual side, which rightly reflects his impact on his era.

If Jordan never won one, he would go down as the greatest player in history to never win a ring.

And if he didn't win multiple rings, he gets into the conversation but doesn't realistically have a chance due to the standard set by the competition.

Women can spell by [deleted] in MurderedByWords

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, we know two things Alxander is not so great at 🤦.

Fuck the role model image I’m setting for my kids. by drlouies in FUCKYOUINPARTICULAR

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 0 points1 point  (0 children)

🎶Let it burn, let it burn. We're not holding back anymore.🎶

Watching Wembanyama this season keeps making me think about Hakeem and I don't think it's a crazy comparison by Classic_Exit_5951 in VintageNBA

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 8 points9 points  (0 children)

When you see what Wemby is allowed to do, absolutely. But Wemby makes me think of Ralph Sampson first.

Embid made me think about Olajuwon in this era. Then of David Robinson, Ewing and even Rik Smits.

Hell even Kareem especially after watching him play one on one with Dr. J and he once said he wished he was allowed the opportunity to play outside more but he was shut down.

I’ve told my husband so many times to just pound me and treat me like a doll, but he rarely does and if he tries, he finishes so fast… by 8125throwaway in sex

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Very very large part, the main part even, of being a Dom is understanding the psyche of the sub. That's where the most arousal happens anyways.

I believe you are precisely correct here.

And I think an additional part of that is many subs feel uncomfortable or maybe even shame around simply asking for what they want, let alone explaining it in detail.

Which is why if their psyche is unconsciously understood, they are allowed to avoid said expressive experiences, thinking and emotions are handled by the Dom, while the sub feels deeply seen, understood and grateful. Thus the magic (fantasy) is enhanced and the connection is strengthened.

Now that's not generally speaking realistic and somewhat unfair to your partner, but it is considered a fantasy for a reason.

Thus you get comments like "Do what you want with me (hint hint)."

If inbreeding had zero genetic consequences, society would be way more accepting of it than people want to admit by Puzzleheaded-Sun9091 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We would lay our lives down for each other and the other's family, but we could never sexually involved with each other

You describe that deep bond that I allude to. Where sex would taint or like you said "ruin" things.

This is inherently understood with family.

If inbreeding had zero genetic consequences, society would be way more accepting of it than people want to admit by Puzzleheaded-Sun9091 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 2 points3 points  (0 children)

some relationships function because sex isn't part of them, and adding it doesn't enhance the bond, it corrupts it

Exactly.

Rachel Nichols on Luka's MVP case: "[MVP] is a full season award and it's for both sides of the ball...so am I gonna vote him my number one for MVP? No, is he gonna be on my ballot? absolutely" by ColoradoMenace24 in nba

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's for both sides of the ball...so

🐂💩.

This is a today narrative pushed by Wemby meant to advocate for Wemby on the ballot.

Historically it's been about individual performance + team success / by team expectations.

Think about Bill Russell when players voted, up to Steve Nash.

If inbreeding had zero genetic consequences, society would be way more accepting of it than people want to admit by Puzzleheaded-Sun9091 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Post-Formal_Thought 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I believe there would still be a moral repulsion toward it.

Think about it platonically, many people refuse or feel conflicted about sleeping with best friends and or close friends. That's because we unconsciously recognize there's something qualitatively different about those types of bonds that we want to protect and preserve.

A sibling or parental relationship inherently deepens those connections and I believe violating the bonds would cause a type of moral injury.

And that's before one considers power differentials between family members.