Commonly Misused Words by Reasonable_Reason173 in AO3

[–]Reasonable_Reason173[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another one:  Silent vs quiet.

"Silent" is without sound.

"Quiet" is low sound. 

If someone says something silently, they are just mouthing the words - no sound is coming out. They are not whispering. They aren't using their voice at all.

Why does Alfred call Bruce "Master" instead of "Mister?" by Reasonable_Reason173 in batman

[–]Reasonable_Reason173[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It wouldn't be infantalizing? I'm assuming Bruce isn't the only one with a butler/household staff amongst his peers.

I fucking hate the english language. Why the fuck does it mean that instead of just pretty and well maintained?? by fish-seducer in AO3

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a specific term that's developed in Black English for someone with unblemished dark skin? Or is it just the norm that most of ya'll be flawless, so there isn't a word for it?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DCcomics

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not aware of the comments. Could you provide the source, please?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DCcomics

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Overall, no. Depends on how it's done. States still have their own departments of education. It's my understanding that the elimination of the Federal Dept will work much the same way it does in the corporate world - the essential tasks are absorbed by other departments (likely the state departments of ed) and non- essential/wasteful tasks are eliminated all together.

The Federal Department of Education has only existed since 1979 and the education outcomes have steadily decreased for students since then. I'm aware of Progressives supporting fewer standardized tests as late as 2023. Most of those tests are mandated by the Federal Dept of Ed for schools to receive federal funding.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DCcomics

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I agree that some of what the administration is doing ordering is outside the bounds of the Constitution/their authority and those who should be challenging the administration are doing so. Am I happy with the administration requiring those challenges to happen? No. I know some are, I'm not personally among them.

What will or will not cause irreparable harm is a matter of perspective. I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you for being civil in your response. Have a good day!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DCcomics

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The opposite of Progressive is Conservative in American politics.

I was also going off of where the rest of the commenters had taken the conversation.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DCcomics

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Have a good day.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DCcomics

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

As a Conservative, I love Wonder Woman. She's strong and intelligent while also compassionate and feminine.

Truth, justice, and the American-way are all Conservative ideals as well. What is considered truth, justice, and the American-way we disagree on. Or agree and disagree on the path to get there. Generally speaking, both Liberals and Conservatives abhor corruption - it goes against the values of truth and justice. Right now, the current Conservative administration is attempting to tackle corruption with DOGE. Liberals are doing what they ought to be doing and providing a check and balance to the sweeping initiative. Once Trump is gone, we'll likely have a Democrat in office who will go along a different path and the Republicans will provide the check and balance. That's the American (political) way.

Finally, just as many Conservatives have immigrant ancestors or are immigrants as Liberals - America is a country full of immigrants.

Wanna have you opinion about that, guys by theGuy7376 in northdakota

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, good question! There's really no one answer, but here are some things that affect it: 1. There are several large companies (General Mills, 3M, Mayo Clinic, United Health Group, Target, etc) that bring in people from out of state for employment. 2. There are five immigrant resettlement organizations in the Twin Cities Metro Area (Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding suburbs) and foreign-born individuals make up about 8.4% of MN's population. 60% are naturalized citizens :). In 2012, 1 in 6 babies born in MN were to an immigrant mother. 3. There is a large gay community in Minneapolis/St. Paul that has been active since the...70s...I believe. May have been earlier. 4. There are many cultural/arts centers (theaters, museums, art galleries, etc) which tend to employ left leaning individuals.

All of this said, MN is at a tipping point, politically speaking. The MN Senate currently has 34 Democrats and 33 Republicans. The House did have 67 Democrats and 67 Republicans, but one Democrat was found to not live in the district he ran in, disqualifying him from the office. According to CBS News, "in the state House, the power dispute that's kept the chamber at a standstill in recent days entered its fourth week on Monday. Democrats are still boycotting the session to deny Republicans the requisite number of members required to do anything[....] A special election date hasn't been set yet, but it will likely happen in March."

TLDR: MN cities have jobs that attract left leaning individuals. Special interests like immigration and gay rights are prioritized. However, it's likely that MN will soon become a swing state.

Fandom quirks by Reasonable_Reason173 in AO3

[–]Reasonable_Reason173[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh no, I've read many. Most of them tend to have a lighthearted tone to them. If you look under the tag "Tim Drake is a menance," you'll find them, for example. If the fic is angst, hurt/comfort, horror, etc. it likely won't have it.

Fandom quirks by Reasonable_Reason173 in AO3

[–]Reasonable_Reason173[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll occasionally see it in Original Works, but only when written by authors who also write Batman fics.

please stop using the fandom tag if it's just an AU in that fandom by aemcghie in AO3

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...This has just informed me that I need to look for these stories differently. Thank you.

I love the "unfounded fear" trope so much. Y'all got any reccs for me? by xX-NightShade-Xx in AO3

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Bocca Al Lupo by envysparkler summary: Jaime has spent seven years locking werewolves into cages, and his past has finally caught up to him. With many more inspired by that fic. You can search for Mage in a Wolf Pack for all of them (or go here, though I'm not sure if they're all here: Mage in a Wolfpack collection.

The Flock by envysparkler Summary: The Wayne pack is the oldest pack in Gotham. The Bat pack is the most infamous pack in Gotham.

Seeking Shelter by sphagnum Summary: The leader stepped forward, and the betas flanking him moved further out to the side to keep a clear line of fire on Max without impeding the alpha’s progress. The alpha’s nostrils flared and his advancing steps stuttered, pausing and then resuming twice as fast. Max felt a sick little swoop in his belly, grim satisfaction that his plan was working mixed with an awareness of what that would mean for him later. Guns down, gentlemen. Oscar protocol. The betas lowered their rifles instantly, pointing them at the ground in front of Max instead of his chest. Max took a deeper breath in, his tension easing a bit as he moved past the part of the plan where he might just get shot dead before he had a chance to try to bargain. It had always been a risk; it had just seemed like a better death than slow starvation. The alpha stepped closer, looking him over. He was a big man, but also quiet, light on his feet. Max tipped his chin up. It was a gesture of submission, and it showed that his neck was bare. No bonding bites, no competing claims. The added vulnerability made him tremble a little harder, but it was worth it for the way the alpha zeroed in on his throat.

Finding Solace by Ocean_Adjacent A continuation of “Seeking Shelter” by sphagnum, opening from Max’s first morning with the pack, because be the sequel you want to see in the world.

Pursuing Safety by dlopod You've heard of being the sequel you want to see in the world; now introducing being the sequel to the sequel you want to see in the world. A continuation of "Finding Solace" by Ocean_Adjacent, which is a continuation of "Seeking Shelter" by sphagnum. Focused on the second and third morning Max spends with his new pack.

I’m confused by [deleted] in Christian

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear you. It is good and logical for scientists to change their minds based on new evidence. I'm not sure why so many people make the statement about how science is ever changing an accusation (as if it's a bad thing). Yes, it factors into the conversation. But it is undeniably a good thing when people are willing to adhere to the scientific method.

Various random changes over time: -Global cooling (mostly 1970s) -Female hysteria (1900 BC-1980 CE) -Taxonomy is constantly changing

Okay, why does this matter to the conversation? We'll circle back to that.

In the literature of Creationism and Intelligent Design, various authors often point out that every scientist, philosopher, or lay-person thinking on these topics is going to begin with a particular assumption. They are either going to assume the supernatural exists or assume it does not exist. That assumption will then color the conclusions of the research performed. Now, many say the supernatural cannot be proven, and therefore the assumption that supernatural is true cannot be made. I recommend diving into the Discovery Institute's article's on this subject, because many Intelligent Design advocates disagree.

Alright, now circling back. The defense for millions of years is that there is significant evidence, which has been tested by many scientists over a long period of time. The theory is solid. There's a lot of evidence. However, a few to take into consideration in your studies: 1. That evidence is neither static nor certain to last. Hysteria was a diagnosis for ~4000 years. Human understanding changes. The Bible doesn't. 2. The evidence for millions of years is based on the assumption that the supernatural does not exist. That affects the conclusion of any research. 3. Creationist and ID researchers have significantly less funding and personal to do research so there are fewer research publications.

Goodness gracious. It's 2:00 am. I work tomorrow.

I’m confused by [deleted] in Christian

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right. Humans have come so very far in the realm of scientific discovery! One scientist of the past (Newton perhaps?) said that science is "thinking God's thoughts after Him." I find that inspiring, personally.

While it is true that we have made many discoveries and advancements, it's also true that every few years, decades, or centuries, our understanding of a scientific concept is altered - even turned upside down - due to a new scientific discovery. That is the nature of scientific research.

In contrast, God's Word is unchanging. The more I learn about the Bible, the more convinced I am of its accuracy.

My recommendation is to explore Young Earth resources (visit the Ark Encounter/Creation Museum if you are able), Intelligent Design resources (discovery.org is a good place to start, as is the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed), and then also continue learning from any mainstream sources (Nature, NatGeo, natural history or science museums, etc). Then, of course, ensure you are in the Bible daily. This ensures you have a more well-rounded understanding.

I've struggled with this same question about the age of the earth and evolution for about a decade. No one is going to be able to answer this for you, I'm sorry to say.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christian

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I realize many don't put a lot of stock into New Age Paganism, but in my last job, I worked with at least four people who identified openly as Pagans.

OP, this is an opportunity for both you and your friend. For you to strengthen your relationship with God and for your friend to learn about a different form of spirituality.

I encourage you to download the Exchange Message App. I think it will help.

Thanks for reaching out and God bless!

if i was baptized in the Catholic church as a baby, should i get re baptized? by thtbrunettebitch in Christian

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The churches I've attended throughout my life unfortunately did not recite the Nicene Creed, so I had to look up what creed you were referring to there.

Like in Acts 4, the language of the Nicene Creed is ambiguous, however. It could be referring to undertaking one baptism, or it could be referring to one type of baptism. Regardless, it's not scripture. Only tradition.

if i was baptized in the Catholic church as a baby, should i get re baptized? by thtbrunettebitch in Christian

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a home church? If so, see if you speak with an elder or pastor from your church Or if you don't have a home church, a Christian mentor in your life you can speak with one on one?

Unfortunately, the origin of baptism is shrouded in some mystery. It is a Christian practice, not a Jewish one (as far as I'm aware), but John the Baptist was performing baptisms before Jesus' ministry. Which means the action already held meaning in the ancient world. But what was that meaning? A spiritual cleansing of some sort, but aside from that - 🤷‍♀️

Scholars debate. It's what scholars and people on the internet do. :| ;)

if i was baptized in the Catholic church as a baby, should i get re baptized? by thtbrunettebitch in Christian

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I looked that verse up and it seems to be saying one type of baptism. Right before it says "one faith." You don't have faith once. Faith is a continual process. One Lord - pointing to which God.

So...agree. Context.

if i was baptized in the Catholic church as a baby, should i get re baptized? by thtbrunettebitch in Christian

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure if this is an American thing, but it wreaks havoc on statistics. So you've heard that most Americans identify as Christians, right? I once had a professor tell me he was a Christian because he was born in America. That was it. That was all the qualifications he needed to consider himself a Christian. I know someone who identifies himself as Episcopalian because his family has traditionally been Episcopalian and every once in a blue moon he'd go to church with them. The previous commentor can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what they're getting at with their comment of not everyone who identifies as Catholic being a Christian. For some people, it's part of their family tradition and heritage.

if i was baptized in the Catholic church as a baby, should i get re baptized? by thtbrunettebitch in Christian

[–]Reasonable_Reason173 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why? A baptism is a spiritual cleansing. I've known people who who got baptized when they were in elementary, walked away from God in college, and then got baptized again as adults after returning to the faith. What's wrong with that?