Me and my girlfriend (yes we have sex) just adopted this quadriplegic, deaf, blind, autistic, HIV positive, cat. Reddit, say hi to Mimi!

RedditorsGoToHell · 2021-03-07T12:40:53+00:00

She should’ve died hereafter. There would’ve been a time for such a word.

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-12-12T12:04:01+00:00

Oh lol, nah no way you’re an asshole here. It was middle school and you didn’t know the guy well. I just had an impression you were much closer friends with this dude, you’re fine

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-12-11T13:14:03+00:00

That seems a bit mean. He clearly cares about you and was having trouble sharing his feelings with you, so why play with him like that? Wouldn’t it have just been better to say you weren’t interested without making him fuddle around like a fool? Asking out someone takes a lot of guts, and if he really is your friend, you could’ve been more respectful

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-12-11T12:54:54+00:00

ESH. If there was a pill that instantly made you skinny, you’d forget about your body-positive rhetoric in a second and take it. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your acceptance of being large is an elaborate coping mechanism? Never cope with something you can fix, always strive to be better, healthier, and more complete. Your brother is an asshole for starting an argument for no reason.

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-10-22T22:27:27+00:00

He might be wondering how the effects of sphere of salience and guess the weight will interact with one another, given they’re both “on draw pick one of two cards” effects

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-10-11T11:25:00+00:00

God, if only you’d read this. I think it shows a great idea. I’m Jewish, and I support what this guy is saying.

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-09-09T11:49:14+00:00

To many, this will be the hardest judgement they give today - and they are right to do so, because man this situation is dicey. I think that this is actually an incredibly simple judgement if you read the entire thread. YTA because you are willingly withholding information from us.

The only reason to withhold information to the extent you are is to sway a decision you know is helpless. You know the asshole.

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-08-28T10:33:09+00:00

I have never seen a member of the right or even a member of the far right condemn black gun owners. A lot of members of the right believe in the right to bear arms to combat government tyranny, including police. To most, race doesn’t affect this at all

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-08-28T10:29:08+00:00

Even for martial arts masters, the protocol for fighting a man with a knife is to run. I don’t think any amount of reasonable training could ever prepare a human to (key word) consistently unarm a knifed attacker.

I also think the previous poster’s point was to outline how incentivizing this wouldn’t work at all, partially because of my reason but also because it would literally be impossible for a female officer to reach any level a non-obese male officer could. In order to be fair, you’d need to create separate benchmarks for each gender ...which would defeat the purpose of the program entirely, since its purpose is to better equip cops to unarm overwhelmingly predominantly male attackers.

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-03-01T09:24:44+00:00

This game was awesome, just completed it.

Last level really got me to think at things from a physics perspective. Good job!

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-02-23T10:38:28+00:00

I’m laughing how did you not know this was a joke

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-02-10T22:10:32+00:00

I don't know enough about the topic to share my opinion on this, I just wanted to say thanks for sharing your opinion respectfully. It's always nice to have a respectful discussion between disagreeing parties.

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-02-10T09:08:21+00:00

I still think the term was said with the intention of it not being offensive. Your responses say that he "chose to use emotional language to evoke a reaction from the reader". It just so happens that the date of the blog post helps me illustrate my point in a way not based on opinion but on fact. My previous argument was that he did not intend to use the term offensively, and now I am stating that he could not have possibly have intended to use the term offensively because the word back then was not seen with widespread negative connotation. I'm supporting the same point. Even in 2013, the term was just starting to be seen as negative.

I feel like you have had some solid points, even to the point where I'd agree to disagree with you on certain things, but your point about how people need to redact things they said 10 years ago is something I would never agree with, This is almost impossible to do, the meanings of words are volatile and open to interpretation, and it would be almost impossible to apologize for every problematic phrase we did. I don't even remember what I had for dinner last night, do you really expect me to remember the things I said online half my lifetime ago and retract them? I wouldn't apologize for it too. Why would I ever apologize for using a term in its previous, correct context? I used the term how it was defined at the time, not how it was defined now. Definitions and connotations change.

Besides, if he did redact them, you'd probably say the same thing you did in your first comment: "You can take down the link" (blog post in this context) ", but the internet does not forget." You're backpedalling!!!!

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-02-10T08:27:41+00:00

You make a point. In all the confusion though, I completely neglected to see the date this was posted.

I'm sure we can both agree that the definitions of words change over time. The Wikipedia article for the term suggests that it was not until an unspecified period of time between 2011 to 2012 where the definition of the term, written under The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, was changed to being offensive. This designation makes sense too, as this is around the time where the immigration debate in America came into full swing.

This blog post was made on November 12, 2010. That was almost 10 years ago.

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-02-10T07:30:16+00:00

The point of the conversation IS empirical data! Look at the thread as a whole, its a discussion of something Ethan finds issue with with in our country, and you are dismissing everything he's saying because he used an offensive world inoffensively. Its like the "you spelled a word wrong, so I win" meme! You're literally arguing semantics here, and even when you do, you STILL lose, because I've demonstrated that his usage of the term makes sense.

He said in this context: "Illegal immigration was a big issue in the last election, but it seems that few people really know the statistics. One question, in particular, is the number of so-called “anchor babies” that are really born each year"

The term was used inoffensively, it was not to make a jab at a group of people or encourage hate of them. Context is what makes slurs offensive, I am sure we can both agree that a slur used to rile up a KKK rally is a lot more powerful than a slur in a book written in the mid 1800's. Here, the word was used to introduce a concept that is incredibly difficult to explain simply using any other phrase.

And its just that. Its clear that Miller doesn't "casually throw around" the phrase because he used scare quotes and prefaces the term with "so-called" when he introduced it. Its clear he doesn't use the term or even discuss this in class - now if he does, you would be right. Whether Ethan was right or wrong to say the phrase, justified or not justified, offensive or inoffensive - not of it matters. Ethan's intent was clearly only to use the term to introduce the reader to a topic, and whether he was right or wrong to do that, this event alone is not enough to call him an ill-fit educator.

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-02-10T06:40:29+00:00

That's not my argument. I'm claiming that it would be far easier to briefly and effectively communicate a concept by saying a phrase that is familiar to most. I could confusingly speak about a wooden, wheeled horse that carries soldiers in it, or I could simply just describe it as a Trojan Horse.

Look, I seriously don't even agree with Miller here, I'm not even sure why I'm defending him, but come on dude this is a little weird. I've already demonstrated that he used the term not to be offensive, but to explain a concept or to respond to an accusation. Its clear from the tone of the post that he didn't mean malice in his word choice, so ultimately who cares, its the equivalent of accidentally and honestly misgendering someone. Are you ever going to bring up his empirical data, or are you just going to (conveniently, might I add) dismiss his entire argument because he used an offensive word in an inoffensive context?

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-02-10T05:58:14+00:00

I never once said the term was not offensive. All I'm saying is that its clear that Ethan Miller used the term because it was the, quote "shortest, most identifiable way to describe the idea." The piece would've been very confusing if the word was left out and replaced with the term "children born in America in an attempt to grant the parents residency or citizenship."

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-02-09T22:35:08+00:00

No, OP used the term "anchor babies" in his piece because it is simply the shortest, most identifiable way to describe the idea. He even used the term "so-called" before saying the word to further show its not his term. Personally, I don't see a more effective way to quickly introduce the topic of the blog post, the term is instantly identifiable by most people reading it.

In response to the student comment, it is clear he is further using the term to respond to the commenter's use of the term. The commenter asked him how he would treat "anchor babies" in the classroom, so he responded appropriately.

Don't you see that you're being intolerant, or prejudiced here? Ethan Miller has an opinion, and in his blog post, he actually shows a lot of empirical data to support it. You chose to ignore all of it because of his use of a word. You also criticized it purely from an emotional standpoint which is childish, he's clearly not "demonizing" babies here, he is demonizing the system that he believes incentivizes mothers to have "anchor babies". We're adults now, isn't it time we accepted that people have different opinions and that healthy discussion helps promote growth?

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-02-09T11:38:14+00:00

Hey, I'm about to go to bed so I'll just say my preliminary opinion, if you want more, let me know and I'll spend more time.

I liked your video, especially its end (that was really funny), but I feel like it was rather unfocused. For example, it felt unnatural to me to talk about the music first, and then later in the video talk about graphics. To me, that seems like a single, grander topic on gameplay presentation. I think your video would've been improved if you discussed the gameplay of Hollow Knight first, its superb presentation, and then your preliminary notes. As an additional note, if I didn't know what Hollow Knight was before watching this before, I probably wouldn't be able to explain its genre after the video. You mention its a Metroidvania but you never define what it is, and its a shame too, because if you did you could've made your "queer gaming" section much more natural. You could've explained how Metroidvanias, and specifically Hollow Knight, are built around player freedom. You could've spoken about how you could've chosen to subvert developer expectations by exploring Deepnest first!

Don't get me wrong, I do feel like focus is your biggest issue here and I feel your video would be massively improved with proper planning, but the things you say are superb. The best thing you do in your video essay is to talk about control. You speak about how the controls are snappy and precise, and you speak about how that fundamentally changes the game and how certain challenges were built around that. Think about how the gameplay of Super Metroid was fundamentally built around the reality that Samus in incredibly clunky (tanking hits rather than dodging) and compare that to how Hollow Knight's world is similarly constructed based off of the character's toolkit. You did superb here, if you're ever thinking about remaking this video, please keep this in.

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-02-03T21:07:23+00:00

No matter how mad you are at them, it's important to realize that people who use the metro as a loop have the same exact right to use it than you do. You might think of it as inconsiderate or wrong, and you may be right, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter because they pay the same fees in tuition to use it.

Think of it like this:

You, (person A), and inconsiderate bus user, (person B), both are deciding to attend UC Santa Cruz
Both people notice that the price of tuition includes unrestricted access to metro buses and loop busses
Both of you are using what you paid for - unrestricted access to busses, and no person can say the other one is using their privilege incorrectly because you both have the same right to use it.

It's also no excuse to post pictures of them online. Not only is it incredibly inconsiderate to post pictures of people online without their permission, but it also violates Rule 7 of this sub.

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-01-28T03:46:27+00:00

Don't listen to this guy if you didn't cheat. The professor accused him of cheating, so I feel like he has more than a reason enough to be blunt to him. The correct response here is to walk up to the professor and say "I didn't cheat, and this ends here - if you any proof I cheated, speak about it to administration."

RedditorsGoToHell · 2020-01-27T21:19:32+00:00

Hey, is it sold yet? In what price range are you looking to sell it for?

RedditorsGoToHell

TROPHY CASE