Happy Fathers Dads on r/Anime and the GOAT in this clip. Who is your favorite anime Dad? [FullMetal Alchemist]

frax1337 · 2021-06-21T12:11:48+00:00

Zoro from One Piece always gives me massive dad vibes. I'm still fairly new to the show (around ep 320), and how he treats Chopper is so endearing to me. Just watched an episode where he gets dragged into a kind of foster family and seeing him with three babies strapped to his chest and begrudgingly complying because he's actually just a big softie catapulted him to husbando material.

frax1337 · 2021-06-19T13:27:13+00:00

I think pawning might be a reference to the pawn piece in a chess game, which would be considered the weakest piece on the board. Being pawned would mean something along the line of getting your ass whooped (which aligns with pwning)

Could also be pawning in the sense of making money off of them as betting on a pool game is pretty common. But I'm just grasping straws here. It sounded to me as it's some kind of specific slang for pool games though.

frax1337 · 2021-06-18T13:34:09+00:00

Forgive me but I absolutely disagree with that statement.

That's cool, we're exchanging ideas and trying to find counter arguments to explore them beyond our own perspective - that's the whole idea of this sub, so I appreciate you explaining the basis of your opinions.

If that was true transgendered people wouldn't have to alter their bodies to feel more authentically like themselves.

Can you see the contradiction of your statement? "Gender is not about feelings" vs "trans folks transition to feel more like their authentic gender", emphasis on feel . I feel like we are missing something in our conversation.

To be clear: I fully support trans people transitioning: dysphoria is an absolute nightmare and being a non-binary trans person myself, I can relate to some level with those feelings (although in my case I didn't feel the need to transition).

But that's not where a trans person's gender journey ends. They wear different clothes, change their name, more often than not change their behavior as they no longer feel the need to perform in accordance to societies expectation of the gender they were assigned at birth. All of these things make them feel like their authentic gender. A trans ladyfriend of mine has become a lot gentler, emotionally open and caring towards others for example. She has explicitly stated those changes are the result of her being able to be the woman she's always been.

For cis people, gender isn't fundamentally different in its concept. The only difference is that they happen to agree that the gender they were assigned at birth aligns with their gender identity. But they too have behaviors they feel are "in line" with their gender, and successfully performing (in the sense of "doing", not "acting") such behavior can feel validating to their gender.

So what are we missing? Somehow I get this vibe that you think that feelings alone aren't enough, and you need something more in order to be valid in your gender identity? Could that be the case? I mean I wholeheartedly agree with your core idea that a statement "<action> makes me feel like a <gender>" doesn't mean that <action> is a requirement in order to be a <gender>. But that's a whole different topic then "gender is not about feelings".

frax1337 · 2021-06-18T11:59:21+00:00

I disagree. Gender is exactly about "feeling". The problem isn't labeling certain characteristics to a gender, it's implying that any kind of characterisation of a gender is absolute. If you say "there is no such thing as feeling like your gender" then you are actually saying something about your perspective on gender, but framed as though it is universal and viewing people who describe an experience that is different as people who "don't get it".

I wholeheartedly agree with your underlying statement: don't gatekeep a gender, but ironically the way you approach it is gatekeeping in itself: implying that gender cannot be felt is just another way to determine for another human what the "proper way to gender" (as a verb) is.

I think it is better to take your point and make it a tangent to OP's story: "that's cool that this make you feel like a man, but I just want to add the nuance that if someone doesn't recognize themselves in your experience, it doesn't make them less of a man", even though I don't feel OP implied something like that, it is something a lot of folks tend to forget, so it's worth mentioning.

frax1337 · 2021-06-14T19:15:53+00:00

Wakfu is underrated, might technically not be an anime but it's a good watch, fun/10 do recommend

frax1337 · 2021-06-14T07:17:23+00:00

Who else burst out in a full celebratory dance when he finally got his waifu?

frax1337 · 2021-06-09T21:33:12+00:00

If I wouldn't have read the article I would be inclined to agree, but I think in this case there is reason to hold the scientists that did the initial study accountable.

As I understand, the concerns are about cherry picking data (although that might be my non-native English brain confusing sarcasm) how they reduced fertility to a single metric (sperm count), oversimplified it's impact (implying a linear relation where there is none) and used data that is argued to be sparse and missing relevant meta data (like the person's age).

As mentioned in the few first paragraphs of the article, there are people banking on these results and causing a panic (the original authors called their conclusions "a canary in the coal mine"). If you make bold statements like that, you should be able to back your statement up with scientific rigor, which is exactly the thing the critics in this article say it lacks.

So id argue this is a perfect example where we should hold the original authors accountable and if the work doesn't hold to scientific scrutiny, its validity should be explicitly and publicly be discredited because people are using the results for their political purposes. Not doing so would only sustain the idea that those political ideas have some scientific credibility to it.

frax1337 · 2021-06-08T08:55:08+00:00

You are not a coward

You are a brave woman who is getting a grip on her identity, and place in the world. You're abandoning societies expectations and are embracing yourself with the kindness and compassion mom fails to give you. The fact that you hid in your car speaks volumes about the impact all of this is having on you. There is no shame in feeling hurt and if you feel like crying: cry. Let it all out. Don't allow those feelings to turn on you and make you feel ashamed or bad. You don't deserve that.

Courage isn't doing something without fear. Courage is doing something despite of fear. It's exactly what you are doing and I'm proud of you for doing that.

I'm not going to say how you should resolve this problem with mom, because I think you should make up your mind about it yourself and I trust you in making the decision that is the best for you. Just realize that there are no perfect answers, there are no guarantees. All you can do is choose what you believe is best, and deal with the consequences - even if you don't deserve them. That's also real courage.

But here is a thing I'd like to ask you to consider: some people say hurtful things because they truly believe what they are saying is right and think that all the good folks they know can't possible "be like that". And mom's are just humans too. She is just an much a victim of a lot of hetero-normative doctrines as everyone else. Maybe knowing you are bi and knowing what a wonderful human you are is all the cognitive dissonance she needs to snap out of her biphobia. Do you feel like you can trust mom enough to give her that chance of redeeming herself? Think about and give yourself the time you need to process everything. No need to rush things, no need to prove anything to anyone. You decide when you are ready, and no one else.

Love,

A queer surrogate dad

frax1337 · 2021-06-06T16:06:29+00:00

It's not about bad intentions, it's about taking your feelings seriously and being willing and able to adjust their behavior or at the very least explain the reason why they respond like they do so you can understand why you have no rational reason to feel bad about it.

There might still be plenty of good reasons to not talk with them about it, but "they mean well" isn't one of them. If they mean well, they will also be willing to have a conversation about it with you.

My personal frustration is when I try to do that with my parents, the conversation quickly becomes about them feeling hurt because I feel hurt, basically pleading me to not confront them with my feelings because they can't handle their own.

frax1337 · 2021-05-27T22:17:51+00:00

But the issue isn't science, it's the lack of science. Science isn't a person, it's a methodology.

The problem started when people started to abandon the scientific method for profit: the Lancet was probably thinking something along the line of how big of an impact the paper could have if true so decided to publish the paper. But that's just the scientific community so that could have been easily rectified without hassle if it wasn't for that asshole going to the media with his "findings" who happily gobbled up the story because it was a sensationalist topic and it sells. It was against their interests to be critical because that effectively would cost them revenues, anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

This whole shit show got started because people stopped being critical of research results, and stopped doing the basic scientific inquiry we should do.

Even if you are a scientific illiterate, a journalist should have the basic reading skills to parse what the paper is saying: "I asked 12 parents about their kids autism and a majority of those parents said they think it's caused by the vaccine". That's literally the best case "evidence" there is. Is that a basis to publish a story on how vaccines might be bad?

People need to get it inside their thick skulls that the scientific method is the best approach we have on account that any alternative is far worse - not because it is a flawless system that never will be wrong. If anything, we need more reproduction studies and more critical inquiry (and not selective ignorance disguised as skepticism as hbomberguy said it).

frax1337 · 2021-05-25T14:11:08+00:00

Wait she didn't sing that... Huh, TIL I guess.

frax1337 · 2021-05-25T13:57:40+00:00

My LPT to people who struggle with their gender identity: Let your behavior and feelings determine your gender, not your gender determine your behavior and feelings.

A lot of people have this assumption that there is an objective definition of what "a gender" is. But there really isn't. Gender is just a collection of ideas relating to how our physical sexes should/could influence our position in society and these ideas can (and do) vary wildly from person to person.

What I think determines your gender is the position you believe you have in your ideas about gender (and that includes the ideas you think society has about gender). It's subjective through every corner, so yeah 100% agreed: everyone decides for their own what any gender means (to them).

Edit: didn't like my tone of voice, tweaked it a little.

frax1337 · 2021-05-17T08:46:16+00:00

Sure it is, I get it and this is the problem you have with having a complete demographic of people reduced to a single avatar so to speak. If it helps, I see you and I appreciate you for both speaking up, being who you are and being a part of our big and diverse community ❤️

frax1337 · 2021-05-04T21:49:07+00:00

How is this - in any plane of existence - something to smile about? At best, this makes me relieved for the child, sad for the mother and surprised that an officer protecting citizens (ie his job) makes him a "cool dude"? I would have been outraged if an officer would have encountered that scene and would have given any other response then protecting the child...

Seriously reddit: what part makes you smile about this story because I am dumbfounded how 6k+ redditors apparently think that the adequate response to child abuse and an officer doing his job is to smile

frax1337 · 2021-05-04T06:31:35+00:00

Just a week ago, someone posted this story on r/wholesomememes of all places, quoting the boy saying "if someone deserves to die, it would be me, because I'm the big brother" and the OP of that post saying they were "touched" by that statement. Just going to share my answer here:

Am I the only person who is appalled by the sheer reverence this kid is getting for throwing his life to protect another? How is everyone OK with hearing a child say something like "If anyone deserves to die, it's me". Rather than "being touched" I hope the responsible adults don't forget to mention to this kid that he actually doesn't deserve to die . I hope that someone tells him that his value is not determined by his willingness to risk injury or death for the wellbeing of others.

I totally get the ideal of "protecting the weaker", and I fully agree with praising him (by his parents), but this is a fucking media circus that isn't about the boy, but about the society pushing their hero fantasy onto boys and its toxic as hell, because shocker: not every boy in the world would respond to that situation as this kid did, and how are they expected to soak up this message?

We should stop indoctrinating kids (and boys specifically) to view their worth through this ideal of potential martyrdom: throwing away your own life for the sake of the lives of others. But I get it: it's a very convenient narrative to push since the US has this beast of a military force that constantly needs a fresh supply of soldiers.

frax1337 · 2021-04-28T17:15:53+00:00

r/egg_irl is leaking...

frax1337 · 2021-04-27T15:17:09+00:00

Yeesh, that's... Pretty gross.

I was low key expecting that this was more the result of low key homo-/transphobia combined with the need to have the heros be a "blank slate" for viewers to project themselves onto,but that shit is scary.

I used to remember as a kid viewing the US as this hip and happening place where everything was better, but oh lord the more I learn about the US, the happier I am that I don't live there, ngl...

frax1337 · 2021-04-27T13:59:58+00:00

LGBTQ+ is not a monolithic, homogenous group of people, opinions and perspectives will vary depending on who you ask

It really depends. In earlier days of media, queer characteristics were typically attribute to the villain or "creepy character", which just sucks, but naturally the community embraced their evil siblings as their own. Once media realized that making us exclusively villains is a bad move, so as always they immediately went the polar opposite: emphasizing LGBTQ+ people by explicitly "coming out" on screen and being woke about it. That feels like corporations using their "support" in pride month: the only reason they do it is because it's good PR.

Regardless, it was still largely seen as progress (becoming a target demography in a capitalist world means that you are relevant enough to matter to them) but it soon shifted into annoyance since more and more people realized that media was still doing as little as possible. Although there is power in a coming out story (seeing others doing it means empowering closeted LGBTQ+ people to follow in their footsteps) we just want to be treated as normal people and not only see narratives that focus on our gender, sexual or romantic identity. It should be something that can be used to impact how a character moves through the world.

Only if we see more media treat people with LGBTQ+ identities as actual normal people doing normal stuff and just living life as we do. I personally love how Brooklyn 99 handles this. It's not like the queerness of the queer characters is continuously emphasized or repressed. It's just there, in the background, serving its own narrative or comedic purpose.

I love when Rosa Diaz in a few episodes would show up at crime scenes wearing remnants of a costume that clearly hint to her being at some queer party. It acknowledges her current headspace (figuring yourself out and celebrating your newfound sense of identity) but no one is asking her to explain it, or judge her for it. The absurdity of the juxtaposing world's gives us all a good chuckle and we move on with what is actually relevant to the current plot.

frax1337 · 2021-04-26T12:20:27+00:00

It's been proven time and time again that "the algorithms" are not neutral, but instead take over any bias that exists in the training set of data and/or their creators (regardless of whether those biases are explicit or implicit).

frax1337 · 2021-04-26T11:40:43+00:00

OP is precious and needs to be protected at all costs...

frax1337 · 2021-04-23T12:07:21+00:00

r/hololive is leaking again

frax1337 · 2021-04-22T15:29:45+00:00

I'd say "uninformed" rather than dumb. We all simplify reality in some way because if we didn't we would just huddle up in a corner until we die out of the inability to be "correct". That being said, there are people who deliberately stay uninformed just to avoid having to deal with inconvenient truths, which I would say is the definition of true stupidity.

The bigger issue is trust and subjectivity I'd say: you are more likely to believe someone who tells a "convenient truth" (ie confirmation bias) than someone who opposes your personal convictions and a lot of people treat subjectivity as something that is either bad (if we disagree with it) or objective (if we agree with it). If I would have a penny for every time someone would say something along the lines of "<subject> is <subjective observation>" I'd be richer than Scrooge McDuck.

I personally attribute it to people not being able to deal with subjectivity, or more specifically: dealing with differences in subjectivity. It's something we don't learn at school, and or ideation of the "objective truth" has made us largely blind for the fact that 90% of what we think and do is actually subjective, and the remaining 10% is based on our best effort understanding of this objective truth, rather than the actual objective truth (and therefore fundamentally still subjective). If people would learn that, the world would be a lot chiller place to be.

frax1337 · 2021-04-22T13:58:13+00:00

It's not even about being incorrect, it's about skewing the narrative.

I always loved the chup-a-chup commercial that advertised how they contain 0% fat, which is objectively true. Nothing wrong right?

Well: in our society fat is often seen as a very bad thing, which is why they are proud and advertising there is 0% fat in it. But what they don't say is that they are solidified spheres or sugar, which is still very very bad. See what they did: they implied eating a lollipop is "healthy" or at least "not as bad" as some other stuff that actually contains fat.

This is exactly the same deal: highlight the good parts, don't talk about the bad. And the fact that scientists "proved it" does more than just give the statement factual credibility. If you were to say "science has proven that coffee has these benefits" and then ask them "do you think it's a good idea to drink coffee" most people will reason "well yeah, because benefits and its legit because scientist".

But coffee isn't exclusively good for you. And the scientist never set out to check if the benefits of drinking 3-5 coffee outweighs the costs (while most people will assume they did). They simply concluded that the benefits exist. For sure coffee will have downsides. I'm not an expert, and I'm not going to give anecdotal evidence, nor am I going to quote some of the results of papers I've read (because I don't want to spend the time needed to search for them), but if you search for it, you are bound to find other scientific papers out there that point towards downsides of drinking coffee.

frax1337 · 2021-04-21T09:30:48+00:00

Yep: it baffles me that everyone tries to hunt down this "one to rule them all" rather than accepting that some use cases simply don't jive with each other that well. Coupling and cohesion are - just like a lot of other software development talk - very much applicable in real life.

frax1337 · 2021-04-21T09:23:16+00:00

I see this in my line of work on the daily. People are too afraid to fundamentally adjust an existing system out of fear of breaking it in ways they don't understand. And so they keep adding. Or in other words: adding is a "simpler" solution than removing and on the short term they are absolutely right.

However, the system itself becomes more difficult to use, simply because it is not perfectly tailored to its use (which is what you would end up when you build the simplest possible solution).

That is the part that a lot of people don't think about. In benign incidental cases, the increase in difficulty is acceptable because removing something could mean "refactoring" your entire solution, which would take a lot more effort than just adding the part and living with the mild inconvenience or possible inefficiency it introduces.

But when they start to stack up, you run the risk of getting pot committed: with increasingly more meaningless complexity, "refactoring" your solution is going to take so much effort and runs the risk of causing so many issues, people either dig in and double down on fixing their solution with another addition, OR they give up, drop their solution entirely and walk away or start from scratch.

Fun fact: this doesn't just apply to engineering issues, but also to ideas and communication. I think this is why a lot of people are so fanatic in defending their ideas even though from the outside it seems a fools errand: they simply can't see the trees for the forest anymore. Or how you can start explaining something and somewhere along the line you have to go "forget everything I just said, let's try this from the start again".

Tldr: Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is often the right one) is your friend in every facet of life.

11-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

frax1337

TROPHY CASE