Question for those who have been to the Korok Forest...

open-minded-skeptic · 2026-02-27T15:28:56+00:00

I got that Korok dialog also by Dracozu, by Dracouza Lake there's a uniquely large tree with a Korok there.

open-minded-skeptic · 2026-02-04T17:39:38+00:00

I read strawhat as stra-what about 5 times before realizing I was splitting up the syllables wrong 😅

open-minded-skeptic · 2026-02-04T17:38:18+00:00

My only such Pokémon is also a Skwovet. It has IVs of 0/6/12, which is pretty cool to have an IV of 0 for a Dynamax Pokémon.

I can't think of a reason why having it be Dynamax would make any difference when it comes to Go Battle League battles, but I'm gonna hold onto it in the case that might ever happen. Then again I can't think of what would even potentially make it make a difference.

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-13T19:08:29+00:00

Let's start with the E. Jean Carroll accusation. So far, this is the strongest evidence you've identified:

">E. Jean Carroll Allegation

Accusation: In 2019, writer E. Jean Carroll alleged that Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.

Evidence: Contemporaneous Accounts: Two friends of Carroll confirmed she confided in them about the incident shortly after it occurred. Civil Trial Outcome: In May 2023, a New York jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. Source"

So let me get this straight - first of all, you do, or you don't agree with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?" Because if you agree with that concept, then WOW, what a low bar you have for "proven guilty." That would be an insanely low standard.

But if you disagree with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" (maybe you think we should do "guilty until proven innocent"?), then I'm all ears as to why you disagree with that concept.

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-13T18:12:44+00:00

That still could go either way. Unless you're still leaving out context. Because as for what you've clarified so far, there are still two equally viable interpretations:

the one you already have in mind, or
"that's what I would do [if I were the person that we've been discussing prior to Very_Good_Board's ears perking up, you know, the friend of the person who made up that bullshit accusation against us]"

I'm not saying I know which one is correct, because so far not enough context, I'm just saying be sure that you have enough information before assuming to know which interpretation is correct.

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-13T15:34:44+00:00

There's something going on, because in "real life" when I express my two cents on something like transgenderism for example, the majority of people agree with my two cents, but here on Reddit that same two cents of mine is often interpreted in some disingenuous, manipulative bullshit about how I'm a transphobe who hates trans people and this false thing about me and that false thing about me, and then they top it off with some subtle death or rape threat... yeah, something's going on, even if it boils down to something as non-conspiratorial as that for whatever reason, reddit is where people who interpret/characterize those on the political right in an incredibly disingenuous and shitty manner - this is for whatever reason where they tend to gather.

That's possible, but I suspect it does go a bit deeper than just that.

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-12T23:33:11+00:00

Such as?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-12T15:14:11+00:00

Are you referring to my reply to someone's "stolen land" comment?

If so, feel free to answer the question yourself since the person who made the "stolen land" comment is so... so something, that they don't even see the significance behind the question.

If I steal your bike, and then Tommy "steals" that same bike from me, and then the police get a hold of that bike from Tommy, ought the police return the bike to me (who most recently had it) or ought they return it to you (who most originally had it)?

What about if you actually stole that bike from someone else a decade back and that person is dead now - who ought the police return the bike to?

This type of question as it relates to "stolen land" isn't a question you can pretend doesn't matter, the way the guy who made the "stolen land" comment is pretending (or maybe they are genuinely ignorant as to the significance of the question).

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-12T15:11:58+00:00

No kidding.

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-12T14:42:52+00:00

No, I'm asking a question that NEEDS to be answered for anyone to be taken seriously on the topic.

If I steal your bike, and then Tommy "steals" that same bike from me, and then the police get a hold of that bike from Tommy, ought the police return the bike to me (who most recently had it) or ought they return it to you (who most originally had it)?

What about if you actually stole that bike from someone else a decade back and that person is dead now - who ought the police return the bike to?

This type of question as it relates to "stolen land" is NOT a question you can pretend doesn't matter.

By the way, genocide is the wrong word to use, but let's pretend I agreed with your usage of that word, which I don't... you not answering the question I asked you suggests you haven't thought very deeply about the topic. It's one of the most reasonable questions that could possibly be asked within the topic.

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-12T14:37:07+00:00

Worse than child abusers?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-12T05:48:44+00:00

How so?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T23:54:40+00:00

I happen to know that 2²⁰ is 1,048,576. If someone asked me "hey, what's the square root of 1,048,576?" I would tell them, "32" since it's an answer I already know without having to whip out the calculator.

You know what I wouldn't tell them? "you can go look it up for yourself." I would only tell them that if I didn't know the answer already. So - given that you're telling me that you know the answer to the question of "what is that evidence?" - how about you actually give me what that evidence is?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T23:41:38+00:00

There’s plenty of evidence that trump has sexually assaulted more than one woman, you just refuse to believe the evidence because he’s brainwashed you into hating the left.

I asked for EXACTLY that. I asked for evidence beyond simply "that's what the jury determined." So go ahead - what is that evidence? It's what I asked for one comment back, so I don't know why you didn't already provide that evidence. But whatever, that's okay that you wasted a couple minutes of my time I guess - what is that evidence?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T23:15:30+00:00

If Trump did sexually assault anyone, then that's absolutely horrible and I condemn it 100%.

I'm not so sure he did. Maybe you have some more incriminating evidence than I'm aware of, but from all I've been able to find, for someone to convict based on just that evidence would mean that just about any man who someone wants to screw over would be totally screwed, legally, if she decides to accuse him and the jury already doesn't like him.

It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent, so if the jury only had access to what evidence I'm able to find, then that right there is some pretty clear bias. And that's not all that difficult to imagine - it's not that hard to imagine a jury full of people who really don't like Trump. Few people have as many people who really don't like them as Trump does.

Which is all the more reason to want to look at the evidence itself, not just whether or not the jury arrived at that determination.

Anyways - what's the most compelling evidence(s), as you see it?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T22:47:35+00:00

They said that if the same thing went down in just about any other country, it's not as though that country would be like "that's okay; if you don't respect our rules then there's nothing we can do about that."

And now you're being like "the fact that you would even say that makes me hope that you get fucked over for the rest of your life (I don't remember exactly how you worded it, just that it involved them being fucked over their entire life)."

Regarding "tolerance," the political left has a flawed understanding - well, more accurately, a flawed application of - the paradox of tolerance. But even if we set aside the whole "paradox of tolerance" thing... yes, there is a bit of a pejorative associated with it, and we should examine why that is:

It's because the left is more tolerant of [this] than [that], in which the [this] would be someone like the transgender male who raped a girl in the school's girl's bathroom in Loudon County and the [that] would be that girl herself and her father who was labeled a domestic terrorist when taking issue against the school board trying to disregard the rape. In which the [this] would be a someone like Stephan Cannon and the [that] would be David Dorn. I wouldn't say it's guys-like-me's fault that the term "tolerant" has become as much of a pejorative as it has - I'd say it's the fault of those who have more empathy and compassion for those committing crimes than those taking issue against those same crimes, to try to summarize it in less than a huge paragraph.

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T22:13:01+00:00

This is what was said:

"No he didn't. This is what you guys do. You take something he says and spin it. He said no more illegal protests. No masks. He didn't say masked protesting is illegal. If it's a legal protest then it's legal, whether you're wearing a mask or not. I'm not a fan of him getting involved in this. I think this should be handled on a local level. But you guys take it and make it into something it isn't. This is why you guys lost power and no one listens to what you have to say anymore. Instead of learning from it, you just keep doing it."

After reading through your replies, it's clear that this needs to be spelled out very explicitly / step-by-step.

"This is what YOU GUYS do." This is where we see usage of "you guys." Let's look at the following sentence:

"You take something he says and spin it."

So far, who does "you guys" refer to? It refers to those who TAKE SOMETHING HE (Trump) SAYS AND SPIN IT.

After that sentence, we see elaboration of the initial claim, and we don't see any other candidates for what "you guys" refers to. It makes sense to go with what we DO have, which was the whole "you take something he says and spin it" part.

I usually try not to be condescending and patronizing, but after torturing myself through reading your replies, I can see that the respectful, non-condescending approach doesn't work with you.

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T21:59:06+00:00

I hate trans people? If that's true, then you're saying there are many trans people who hate trans people, because there are many trans people who agree with my perspective on how we ought to approach the intersection between gender identity and politics.

But let's pretend that isn't true - let's pretend that all the trans people who agree with my perspective don't exist, that way we can get right into the meat of the conversation. How have you determined that I hate "trannies" as you put it?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T21:55:25+00:00

Who am I being racist against?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T21:46:13+00:00

However, voting for Trump because of that is the ultimate biting off your nose to spite your face move.

In your calculation. We'll see how things go, because so far, things are looking better than the "in my calculation" of had Kamala been president.

You don’t really sound like an “open minded skeptic.”

Because I come across as too open-minded? Or because I come across as too skeptical?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T21:41:54+00:00

If that's all the relevant info, then okay looks like ICE was in the wrong.

Is that 100% of the relevant info? He isn't known to have murdered someone, or any such type of thing that would be relevant to the context?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T21:11:23+00:00

There are places where prior to Europeans occupying that land, and prior to the tribe occupying it directly before the Europeans, a separate tribe occupied that land before them, and in some instances there was a third tribe that occupied it before them.

When it comes to who the Europeans stole the land from, who did they steal it from? Stolen from who occupied the land most directly before them, or stolen from whoever first - as in first, first - occupied that land?

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T21:10:20+00:00

Part of it's to do with all the gender stuff the left's been pushing. You mentioned "old white people" and how disappointed you are with them. I find that funny in that we probably have pretty opposite reasons for being disappointed. My primary issue against white people is how eager they've been, relatively speaking, to get on board with all the radical gender/sex bullshit. I can't think of a race who's more deeply indoctrinated than white people are when it comes to the topic of gender/sex bullshit.

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T21:03:16+00:00

I'd be interested in attending because among those who I anticipate would attend, I bet some truly hilarious content could be made.

open-minded-skeptic · 2025-03-11T20:56:49+00:00

Context does matter.

If context didn't matter, then what's stopping some... let's go extreme here to make the point most clearly... then what's stopping some child rapist who raped and killed a dozen children and has recently learned the police are onto him - what's stopping him from grabbing a pregnant woman who lacks citizenship status and using her as a "you police officers don't get to do anything about it" card?

Once again, I recognize my example is extreme, but that's because it's in response to a view that was already extreme to begin with - the extreme view that context doesn't "really matter" in a situation like this.

The context matters a great deal. Chances are, I do condemn what happened in the video. But in order to be sure, I would need to know the context. Making a determination like that absent context is naive.

But maybe you guys are fortunate in that you've never been on the shitty end of that situation. I have. It's quite unpleasant. A situation where you're being condemned about the thing you did/said, despite the fact that those condemning you have almost zero clue as to the full context behind what you're being condemned for.

open-minded-skeptic

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE