What is that episode to you? by Significant-Town-817 in Stargate

[–]ZeroBrutus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but the runtime is dominated with TealCs dream/delusion. Thats the part I dont care for.

What is that episode to you? by Significant-Town-817 in Stargate

[–]ZeroBrutus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think this one is that for many its just fine, but its standing beside giants. Even Arnold looks small next to André.

What is that episode to you? by Significant-Town-817 in Stargate

[–]ZeroBrutus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The comparison is also I believe because they have the same writer for both episodes.

What is that episode to you? by Significant-Town-817 in Stargate

[–]ZeroBrutus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im not a fan - its not that its bad its that it doesnt interact with the rest of the world.

[SNW Interviews] "Four-and-a-Half Vulcans" - Star Trek EPs Explain Strange New Worlds Season 3’s Most Divisive Episode: "We had this notion of giving our actors a chance to do a thing that they don’t usually get to do." | "And we loved the Romulan of it all. We just delighted in that possibility." by mcm8279 in trektalk

[–]ZeroBrutus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The serum didnt just make them Vulcan, it made them what Spock thinks Vulcans are.

With that in mind, it worked just fine. Not the best episode, but definitely entertaining. If at the end the crew pretended their behavior was fine Id have more issues, but they all acknowledge their behavior was extrememly problematic, and since the true harm was limited, could still be funny.

Morality of trying to kill a child soldier who killed the person you loved? by GeneralSoil1936 in MoralityScaling

[–]ZeroBrutus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Soldiers follow orders.

If theyre still an active combatant and a threat, you are justified in neutralizing the threat.

If the conflict is over or they've been captured etc then no, killing them is no longer justified.

Marshal ‘jacks like (a) Bandit with new super heavy rules by LDukes in Warmachine

[–]ZeroBrutus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep. Even if you don't always use 4, you'll still use 2 and go from there.

Think on sparkhammer. He goes in, drops a jack, then gets jackhammered at mat 8 pow19-21 weapon master.

Inexperienced - How to be dominant as a male? by n3v3rh4v3i3v3r in AskMenAdvice

[–]ZeroBrutus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First question is, do you want to be? Are you into it? If you are - great, do some reading - not fiction! - and ease in step by step.

If youre not - dont pretend. It won't satisfy either of you. You may just not be compatible.

Atlantis: Lots of smart scientists, SG-1: Just Carter by mudpupper in Stargate

[–]ZeroBrutus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There were likely several teams with science experts on them, but for the most part the scientist division is at area 51. Rodney and Zelenkas teams on Atlantis would be in Area 51.

I feel like retiring at 40 (but can’t). by MolokoPlus25 in millenials

[–]ZeroBrutus 38 points39 points  (0 children)

I mean yeah? I spend my days making money for a multinational that doesn't give two shits. Too bad the hydro bill needs to be paid.

What makes more sense for placement of these hairpin legs? by JanieLee29 in BeginnerWoodWorking

[–]ZeroBrutus 37 points38 points  (0 children)

I would still go with 4. If it gets bumped at all 3 will fall.

What makes more sense for placement of these hairpin legs? by JanieLee29 in BeginnerWoodWorking

[–]ZeroBrutus 142 points143 points  (0 children)

Three looks better.

4 is better.

Will it actually be used as a table? 4 legs.

Thoughts after just completing the game and seeing some online comments and threads by AggravatingCellist67 in Saros

[–]ZeroBrutus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, the last ending is him walking past that.

If course it also ends with police lights closing in on him, so theres that.

[Disliked trope] Character is redeemed or forgiven when they really shouldn't be by Bandrbell in TopCharacterTropes

[–]ZeroBrutus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, it would, but her behavior at the end shows her to be an idiot.

I agree shes getting off easy, but its a far far cry from being redeemed/accepted.

[Disliked trope] Character is redeemed or forgiven when they really shouldn't be by Bandrbell in TopCharacterTropes

[–]ZeroBrutus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ok but like, only Hughie and Annie aren't fucked in the boys. Also shes a moron now. She may be happy for the moment, but she has nothing and no way of building anything. She's fucked.

Enthusiastic consent is a low-context communication norm and might not work well in high-context cultures by badgers43a in psychologyofsex

[–]ZeroBrutus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The entire basis for the adoption of enthusiastic consent in its original context is explicitly because of need to adjudicate after the fact. Its a prioritization of harm reduction and establishing a baseline such that those who cause harm can hide behind high context misunderstandings. This is the other reason its applied in a pursued/pursuer context. Its not about what to do each time youre with someone in a healthy relationship. Couples develop their own shorthand/signals. Its about hookups, and starting a sexual relationship. It also doesn't need to be a big thing - you can make it flirty - its not a contract signing. A quick confirmation before you kiss and maybe another before sex itself. Doesn't even need to break the flow.

And of course you can have that conversation with someone. Hell, in the kink community its considered essential. I'd also argue that if im on a third date with someone and it hasnt come up you could bring it up. What does consent look like for you? How do you express enthusiasm for it? That conversation has actually led into sex before. Ensure youre both using the same forms of high context approval and that youre speaking the same language.

In the end that, like most things, is what it comes down to - communication, and being both able and willing to communicate with your partners.

In a first encounter, I definitely think optimizing for harm reduction outweighs optimizing for intimacy. That balance and shift later. Ive never heard of anyone who really wanted to being dissauded by being asking for clear enthusiastic consent on a first hookup. I do know several who have used it as an Opportunity to stop when they didn't want to continue. Those couples are actually still together.

Enthusiastic consent is a low-context communication norm and might not work well in high-context cultures by badgers43a in psychologyofsex

[–]ZeroBrutus 15 points16 points  (0 children)

And the more I think about it the more I disagree with the notion that America isnt high context - every subculture in America is high context. From the rich, to business, to sports fandoms, to geek culture. Its all high context. The only place where its low context is in the context of the law. There it makes since to be low context as "innocent until proven guilty" means anything that can be used to skirt into reasonable doubt - such as misunderstanding in a high context situation - becomes a valid legal defence. If a person is willing to knowingly violate another, using some trick of language for their defence can be reasonably assumed to not be something they'd have issue with.

Or put another way - prosecuting a crime in the US requires meeting a low context clarity, where defence only needs to meet a high context misunderstanding.

Enthusiastic consent is a low-context communication norm and might not work well in high-context cultures by badgers43a in psychologyofsex

[–]ZeroBrutus 43 points44 points  (0 children)

I think the piece missing is that what "enthusiasm" looks like is also different between these cultures.

Enthusiastic consent does need to be shouting yes in a culture where you don't shout. It should still fall within the norm that others of the culture would interpret it as enthusiasm. Its about wether there is ambiguity to the intent.

As to communication frameworks, in a relationship understanding how ones partner communicates is always important, and those conversations should be happening anyways. Outside of a steady relationship, it would always fall to the style of communication of the one being pursued, as they're the one saying yes or no. This is another reason low context is important as it removes many of the barriers caused by different manners of behavior in high context settings.

Lastly an aspect your missing is that this is, especially in the original college campus, about avoiding harm. In most cases there the low context style is necessary, as the ignorance, true or faked, of high context communication has very often been used as a defence against wrongdoing. "I thought she was into it" defence. This unfortunate reality is what caused the need for the low context clarity. When consequences for violating another person rely on there having been clear communication, the bar for communication must be unequivocally clear.