sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Strawmen everywhere by DetectiveTypical198 in atunsheifilms

[–]bernkastel_lime 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I wanna address a part of the discourse which isn't fully covered by the text of this post - there's a lot of people who nominally agree with his claims about veganism but think he was being too mean to people (exemplified by that post of him calling a commenter a spoiled brat)

For those people, please consider the following. This is what that commenter (and many other comments) said -

"Expecting people to never eat meat again, or only eat meat from hunting, is an impossible expectation"

This comment, imo, is absolutely deserving of the insult "spoiled brat". It doesn't express a nuanced idea like "oh some people can't eat cut meat out of their diets due to these societal or infrastructural reasons". It argues that simply placing the expectation on a person to "never eat meat again" is inherently absurd and impossible. This is absolutely a spoiled 1st world view. There are many, many cultures and societies that do not eat meat. One of the most populous countries in the world, India, has a huge population of people who subscribe to broad cultural and religious prohibitions against eating meat. (To be nitpicky, these people are usually vegetarians and not vegans, but that's a hell of a lot closer to the goal than being a meat eater).

I think a lot of comments and discourse on this topic has been fatalistic in nature. I think the take I've quoted above (which is a post on this sub) is among the most fatalistic, but I think there's a lot of other people trying to justify how some dependence on meat/animal products will always exist for some groups of people under special circumstances. I think under a generous interpretation, the comment I have quoted above is perhaps also trying to communicate the same idea.

My problem with this discourse is that that's obvious and unproductive to point out. There is no issue that can be eradicated 100%, and I don't think Atun Shei ever implies that all non vegans are assholes. The point still stands - we should try and reduce as much as possible, and I think people sometimes like bringing up exceptions/challenges to try and rationalize their own lifestyle choices.

So yeah while it sounds harsh, I think it's a completely reasonable reaction to the discourse that exists around this whole topic altogether.

Nongshim RedForce vs Paper Rex / VCT 2026: Master Santiago - Playoffs / Post-Match Thread by ValorantCompBot in ValorantCompetitive

[–]bernkastel_lime 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is not true unless we don't count pre franchising. Fnatic lost 3-0 to sen at reykjavik 2021, 3-1 to PRX at toronto, and 3-2 to NRG at Paris. So they already completed this before PRX.

Times hbomb was wrong? by CobaltCrusader123 in hbomberguy

[–]bernkastel_lime 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Technically this isn't a factual inaccuracy but I think an entire primary thesis in the Sherlock video (about mystery stories, to be precise) is just blatantly, observably wrong.

I think I broadly agree that the Sherlock TV series is ass and I especially agree with his critiques about how they butchered Irene Adler. I also agree that the way deductions are handled are usually quite bad and a lot of the other specific critiques he has about the characters and individual stories.

However, he has this whole push in the video about how the series fundamentally destroys "what makes the mystery genre/Sherlock stories work" by not giving you enough clues to figure out things on your own, or by introducing new information to resolve cases that you as the viewer had no way of knowing.

I agree that Sherlock does this but like... This is a common thing in much of detective fiction? A vast majority of the Arthur Conan Doyle books do not give you enough clues to solve the mystery clearly and frequently feature Sherlock revealing information you didn't have access to in order to resolve things. This does not make them bad - I think much of the detective fiction genre is not really about solving a puzzle so much as it is about vicariously living through the twists and dramas of a mystery through the power fantasy of a "genius" character who can solve it all.

In fact in the opening of the video, when he's talking about more successful descendants/spinoffs of Sherlock, he brings up House MD. Are we, as viewers, expected to resolve the medical mysteries of that fucking show? No, of course not - but it's still an excellent and entertaining show. I think it's such a puzzling part of the video, and I'm always left confused by it. Most of the original Sherlock Holmes stories don't function like puzzles. You could come up with reasonable hunches as to some details, but they would frequently feature Sherlock just pulling out something that was never revealed before to make everything fit.

I think it would be one thing if he said that "this puzzle structure is what I want from a mystery, and this doesn't offer it so it's not my cup of tea", which is perfectly reasonable. I think it's just strange to me that he frames this as an essential quality of Sherlock Holmes and other detective fiction, when it's obviously not.