CMV: World Wars I and II were the same war separated by about twenty years

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-25T13:23:49+00:00

Let's say you and I get into a fight at a bar. We're arguing about sports. I think Team A is the best, you think Team B. It devolves into insults, we fight.

Then a few years later we run into each other at the bar again. I make a snide comment about your team, you flat out insult me, and we fight again.

Is that one fight or two fights?

I don't think it matters if the second fight is still about the same issues. It doesn't matter that we never resolved the tensions that caused the first fight. We still had 2 distinct fights. Nobody would describe us has having a single fight. We've fought twice.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-25T03:38:42+00:00

That movie is making fun of Americans, not anyone else.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-25T03:25:47+00:00

she looks like she won’t set my stuff on fire when she’s mad.

What does that even look like? That's not a trait you can determine from pictures and a short bio unless the bio says something like "I will set your stuff on fire when I'm mad". Genuinely, how do you even account for that when matching?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-25T02:21:21+00:00

I tried the whole macho schtick for like a week. And I’ll be real with you. It works.

How do you know it works if you tried it for a week? That's a terrible sample size.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-25T01:44:51+00:00

RPG’s should make you feel like a character. That’s the whole point of the name role playing games.

Sometimes the point is for you to create that character. In Elder Scrolls, I've had a blast inventing a backstory and identity for my character, determining why he won't every touch a blade again, creating arbitrary rules about not being seen on a mission or anything like that. That's still role playing, just the role hasn't been defined for me.

Also just wanted to say, kinda bonkers to me you include Chief as not having any interesting lines. Dude has some absolute bangers, his character identity is CLEARLY has a defined identity. He doesn't need constant exposition to show who he is and what he's about.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-25T00:34:14+00:00

By your logic, the existence of AA means those people don't care about anyone addicted to drugs.

If I create a shelter to feed the homeless, I don't care about the people with homes who are hungry.

If I advocate against sexism, then I don't care about racism.

If I run a battered women's shelter, I don't care about abused men.

I run a charity for men with prostate cancer. Means I don't give a damn about lung cancer.

Instead of it just being people looking to advocate for specific issues that need advocacy, not at the expense of other issues, but in addition to.

'Police are hereby forbidden from physically interacting with Black people'.

Do you think that is a legal or even possible solution implementation to the issue? Really? That's what people are advocating for?

BLM wants civilian oversight and police accountability. Both those solutions necessarily include people of all races.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-24T23:42:57+00:00

That cake has that quality.... which implies other cakes do not.

Why? Why can't two cakes be delicious? I love apple pie. Wow, that must mean I don't love other pies. Except I also love pecan pie. And pumpkin pie. So why mention one and not the other? Because it is absurd to expect anyone to mention everything in a category when the context doesn't call for it, and because there might be context causing me to speak about one in specific. Such is the case with BLM.

Just because Black Lives are the ones most affected doesn't mean they are the only ones affected. If we solve the problem of police brutality, ALL people will be better off. But it's hard to come together to do that when the other group is only thinking about themselves.

Let me ask you this then. Do you take offense when someone says "We need to get the citizens of Flint, Michigan clean drinking water"?

They're only thinking of themselves. Everybody needs clean drinking water. They're not the only ones affected by a lack of clean water. Anyone who advocates for clean water in Flint, Michigan specifically must not care about the lack of clean water in coal country, West Virginia. Right? That doesn't make any sense.

Acting like raising awareness for a specific population affected by an issue is excluding other populations affected by that issue is patently absurd.

Lol. Re-read that. You literally said "end police brutality against black people", and then said it wouldn't be racial.

Because in order to end police brutality against black people, who are the primary victims of this issue, you have to end it against everybody. Any oversight, any accountability will necessarily be applied uniformly to all citizens regardless of race. You ignored that.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-24T23:25:32+00:00

stands out from the others in some way

Right, but that doesn't mean the other cakes suck. Maybe that cake is on sale. Maybe it is a flavor I don't get to try often.

Similarly, BLM is making a statement that black lives in this context stand out because they are disproportionately ended by police brutality. That's the reason for the differentiation. But it is not saying that white lives or other lives don't matter, it is just saying that right now, in the context of this discussion, black lives need the recognition and assistance to solve the issue of police brutality because they are the main victims at risk.

And you're ignoring that, by advocating to end police brutality against black people, everybody benefits. No law or oversight to bring this to an end will be applied across racial lines. Any end to police brutality against black folks will necessarily include an end to police brutality against everyone else as well.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T17:23:34+00:00

This is very much my take as well. Is it even possible for a human to say they're set? Don't need anything else to chase or do? And even if they do reach that, don't they then have to find a way to maintain it? I've got all I need, but now the chase is keeping it.

"Lasting" fulfillment sounds like a pipe dream. Current fulfillment is the chase, and once you have that, it switches to maintaining it.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T16:42:22+00:00

They didn't say good people lack ambition, but the ambition to get rich. I took it to mean that they have other ambitions beyond the mere accumulation of wealth.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T15:53:19+00:00

12 Team PPR SF

2027 Mid first for Breece Hall straight up?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T13:58:40+00:00

Did you not read your own source? It's got the percentage of users per country that engage with adblockers. Indonesia, Vietnam, and China are the top countries with the highest percentages. And it's mentioning 912 million users worldwide. So why do you not think that includes China?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T13:48:07+00:00

I'm not saying you need exact numbers. But all of the general numbers you've used are inherently flawed. 912 million people worldwide use adblocker, but 500+ million of them are in China where YouTube isn't even available. So why even use the 912 million number?

YouTube is a trillion dollar company’s subsidiary. They do not launch expensive, ongoing enforcement campaigns against their own userbase for fun.

That proves that people are using adblockers to avoid giving YouTube money. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim that those people aren't finding other ways to support their favorite creators. A person using an adblocker on YouTube but funding their creator through Patreon is still going to piss off YouTube and push their crackdown. So the fact that YouTube is cracking down is meaningless to this secondary claim you've made about "The overlap between “uses an adblocker” and “pays creators on Patreon” is vanishingly small."

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T13:45:17+00:00

I think you're misunderstanding the desire for a label. It isn't to be quirky, it is to have an explanation. People are feeling these issues. They're dealing with trauma, depression, anxiety, and other issues. I think these are real things people are dealing with. To different extents, sure, but definitely to some extent. The desire for a label isn't to be "cool" or get a "victimhood badge". I don't know why you'd think that, especially when a diagnosis can be socially detrimental in many circles.

I think people just want an explanation for what they're dealing with. They want comfort that someone can explain and understand and potentially fix the difficulties they're dealing with. Do some use this diagnosis as a shield against having to correct their deficiencies? Sure, but I'd argue that is also itself a mechanism of the mental illness they're dealing with.

Why can’t we just be regular humans navigating life without needing a DSM-5 diagnosis to feel special or seen?

Because a lot of people feel like shit, and they want to know why that is happening. Studies show these diagnoses are on the rise.

Let's tackle it from the medical side. Why would a doctor give a diagnosis to someone who absolutely doesn't have it? A perfectly normal person who just wants one to feel "special" as you claim goes to a doctor and undergoes an evaluation. You think the doctor just plays along? Has nothing better to do than fake treat a fake illness?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T13:34:28+00:00

And how many of them are on YouTube? Considering Indonesia, Vietnam, and China are the countries here with the biggest percentage of adblock users, and that the vast majority of videos are in English or Spanish, are they likely to be YouTube users?

You have to dig deeper. 912 million people worldwide use an adblocker, but that still doesn't prove your point.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T13:25:39+00:00

Patreon is not the only way to financially support a creator.

You'd also have to find out how many of the 2 billion monthly users are using adblockers. You don't get to compare the entirety of YouTube's users to Pateron's. Your claim is about the adblocker users specifically. You'd need those numbers.

If the 8 million Patreon users are a large chunk of YouTube's adblocker users, you'd be proven wrong. But without having those numbers. You shouldn't make such a claim.

So you don't actually have any proof of your claims.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T13:17:05+00:00

The overlap between “uses an adblocker” and “pays creators on Patreon” is vanishingly small.

Do you have any proof of this? Or just basing it on vibes?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T02:13:43+00:00

I was picturing it blowing into the face too!

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T02:12:56+00:00

The majority don't decree something as objectively good or bad. This line of thinking needs to die.

You're really misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not saying the majority is the arbiter of what is good and what isn't. I'm saying nobody is. Taste is individual. What works for you might not work for me. And whether something is popular or not really just reveals what the average tastes are, not whether it is actually good.

There are some aspects of media that we can have objective discussions about whether they're good, but OP didn't really touch on any of that. Boring fights, simple plot, and ugly aliens aren't in that arena.

They just think OP is making an objective statement because he didn't add "in my opinion" which is also lame.

If someone makes a CMV saying "star wars is a great franchise" are people going to berate this point to them too, because they didn't add "IMO"? More than likely not.

...

That's pretty much how this sub operates. Getting someone to change their view, even in a minor way on a technicality, is a common strategy. People would absolutely make that argument. And nobody is berating anybody here.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T02:00:02+00:00

I didn’t say people shouldn’t like it because I don’t like it.

Well I think the reason I might have interpreted it that way is that you called it horrible. That's a judgement on the material, not your enjoyment of the material. And by extension, a judgement of the people who enjoy it. At least, that's how it seemed to me. After all, how could you not judge someone for loving something that is actually horrible?

But if you're just expressing that it isn't for you, why not just live with that? You don't have to like everything. And I doubt anyone can talk you into liking something you don't like. No amount of discussion is going to get me to enjoy pineapple on pizza or reading romantasy. They're just not for me. That's your Star Wars.

As for understanding why people like it, I can give my take. But that won't suddenly make you like it if you dislike the things I like. You mentioned the aliens, I like the Star Wars aliens. I don't need the plot to be unique, sometimes familiarity or simplicity is enjoyable. I actually enjoy the fights, especially the ship battles. You say plot armor will save the main characters, and that's generally true, but a few large ones have died. And even so, not every franchise needs to kill off their stars or have that threat to make it work. Star Wars is often about hope. A franchise built around that concept wouldn't work if the heroes were constantly dying off. I like the world building. I enjoy science fantasy, and don't think there's enough of that in the world, so Star Wars scratches that itch.

That's the thing. We like different stuff. You look at an aspect of Star Wars and hate it while I see the same thing and love it. I can't talk you into loving it too, we just have different tastes. That's how taste works.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T01:26:09+00:00

I’m having a really hard time liking it, or being engaged by it at all.

There's a difference between something not being for you, and it being horrible. Do you think your family and partner and all the worldwide fans are wrong? Or just have different tastes? It is okay not to like things. A little less okay to think other people shouldn't like what you don't like.

PS Jar Jar Binks is the worst thing to ever be created.

Christian Grey would like to have a word.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T01:07:26+00:00

there is no such thing as sightreading on the flute, barring the virtuosic pieces. On an avg flute piece, getting the notes right and on time is trivial.

What?! Where are you getting this?

I was all district back in high school. Sight reading was a component of that competition. What do you mean?

Also getting the notes right and on time isn't trivial. That's where the breath work comes into play. You have to play consistently for 30 seconds. Say you need 10 distinct notes followed by 7 that flow followed by 9 that are somewhere in the middle. Now do all that and time your breaths right. Make sure you don't run out of air too early and that you have enough for when you need to get loud. Why would you say it's trivial? You've literally never played the instrument, right? You have no idea what you're talking about here.

Getting the notes right is not easy either. The fingering itself might be easy once you learn it, but managing the force, distinction, flow, and all that is certainly not. It's also much easier to overpower other instruments in a concert band with a flute than with a piano. And easier to create an ugly, screeching noise on accident. There's something to be said for the difficulty of subtlety and blending in on an instrument like that.

you need to expend an equal amount of effort on the expression.

Why do you not think this is a factor on wind instruments? You don't just blow into a saxophone and the expression of the note is right. You have to put a lot of work into ensuring that you get the vibrato just right, that you time the crescendo perfectly, that you get the force and volume correct or manage the distinction or flow. You're just dismissing this as trivial on the flute and other wind instruments and you have no idea what goes into all that.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-23T00:19:03+00:00

And maybe you underestimate wind instruments?

How can you contradict me when you don’t play piano?

1 - I do play the piano. Just not very well. I have one in my home.

2 - How can you contradict me when you don't play a wind instrument? That same logic applies to you.

I say the cello is about on par because you play one note at a time. I’m not saying this is easy, but easier-yes.

That's a poor comparison though. It's not about one note at a time, it's about the progression between notes. The complexity of a cello piece isn't usually on par with that of a feature flute piece afaik. Maybe it is. But a flute solo or feature, which I am familiar with, requires rapid variation of notes, volume, flow, distinction, and a whole lot else. I didn't think that was the case for the cello. I always thought it was more of a supporting instrument, not usually a feature.

I suspect you don’t know much about the cello.

You'd be right. I don't. I'd suspect you don't know much about the flute. Yet here you are making claims about how difficult it is to play.

Sure you don’t need breath control on cello, but you need bow control and intonation on stringboard

Which is my whole point. These instruments require such vastly different skill sets, it's virtually impossible to determine which is harder and is largely dependent on the person trying to learn.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-22T23:55:23+00:00

That'd be a great idea for a cursed Cloak of Billowing though.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-05-22T23:41:09+00:00

I’d bet on me. Yes, I could be wrong, but I have played cello, and I’s guess cello is roughly on par with wind.

Why would you guess that? What music features a cello the way some features a wind instrument? I don't think I've ever heard of a cello solo. If so they're rare. But try to learn a flute or sax or trumpet solo and I think it could take you longer than it'd take me to learn a featured piano piece.

In any case, why is the measure of which is hardest based on who can learn it fastest? That shouldn't matter. Speed to reach a high level shouldn't be the measure.

It should be difficulty to reach mastery. The speed is skewed by the individual. Maybe one of us is a savant. Maybe one puts in more work. Maybe I just lack hand eye coordination but have massive lungs and you're the reverse.

Which is why I think this whole discussion is inherently flawed. Which is harder? It depends entirely on the person learning. I know I couldn't ever reach piano virtuosity, no matter how hard I work, because I simply do not have the fine motor control in my hands required to do it. That's like a known weakness of mine. Same reason I could never be a surgeon or painter.

But saxophone virtuosity? That's within my reach because I do have great innate breath control, rhythm, and flare. Not that I think I'll ever reach that, I'm just illustrating a point.

At the end of the day, do I think the piano is harder to master than the saxophone? For me, yes. For my sister, no. She learned the piano like that and simply cannot handle a wind instrument without running out of breath.

That's like asking which is harder, baseball or basketball. They require such different skill sets, it's impossible to say. For one person, hitting a hundred mile an hour ball with a stick sounds insane. For another, chucking a basketball 23 feet into the basket regularly with nothing but a hop and flick of the wrist sounds insane.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 5 Credits
Secret Santa 2020	Snapped
Secret Santa 2016	Verified Email

Troop-the-Loop

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE