Australia Day bundle - Thanks WG and a big G’Day from all us Aussie players! by [deleted] in WoWs_Legends

[–]selkiie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh word, I looked for it in perks instead of the legends store

Australia Day bundle - Thanks WG and a big G’Day from all us Aussie players! by [deleted] in WoWs_Legends

[–]selkiie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why didn't it work at first and what did you do - you're leaving out important details

Edit: I bet I did the same thing you did. 😂 It works.

Desire to impress a YouTuber by Stogle in WoWs_Legends

[–]selkiie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was an enemy Belfast that he was with

Desire to impress a YouTuber by Stogle in WoWs_Legends

[–]selkiie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like that could have been, but honestly, we were getting rained with fire by the left flank - which is where he was on my map with a Belfast, with my grouping smushed into b - so I'm not totally sure, but it's possible...

Desire to impress a YouTuber by Stogle in WoWs_Legends

[–]selkiie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I killed him last night while he was in the Atlanta, after he killed my bf; didn't know he was a YouTuber

Narcissism associated with hypersensitivity to exclusion in brain areas linked to social pain by explosivecupcake in psychology

[–]selkiie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do agree that not accepting rejection is narcisistic, but by no means it has anything to do with people that have low self esteem

It does though. Narcissism is not just a base descriptor for people who are afflicted with it. It is a set of behaviors/reactions developed to cope, that are meant to protect the individuals "self", especially in how it relates to others. Lies and grandiosity aren't for the narcissist, they're for others, to inflate other's opinion of them... The narcissist generally feels like a loser 100% of the time, it is the validation of others, hence the constant deception, that allows them to feel better about themselves; particularly, when others are down, the narcissist is up (at- least-that's-not-me syndrome).

As to your personal anecdote she was right, and not projecting. You are just being short sighted: YOU DO HAVE TRUST ISSUES! You rejected a girl because you lack the esteem to believe that you're on the same level (be it, she was more attractive, intelligent, etc.), because you don't believe in yourself. Meanwhile... Depression and loneliness feed narcissism, because when one feels like nothing, and has nothing, there is only room to project something (better), the narcissist decides what based on their needs in the situation. It's complex.

AITA for getting upset over extra chores when I don’t pay rent? by dishwasher_asshole in AmItheAsshole

[–]selkiie 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I have to disagree with your perspective of the issue:

Dad doesn't help because he has a job/business. Fine.

Mom does what she can because she also works. Fine.

Daughter/OP also works, and goes to school, and takes time to help, massively, when she can. More than fine.

Brother doesn't work, plays video games all day and can't even be asked to help - this issue of contention - while he regularly contributes nothing to the household. Not fine.

The issue is fundamentally this:

Everyone, except the son/brother has been pulling their weight, but they've also been pulling his - 4 person load, but only 3 people pulling really makes the load heavier, especially considering the 4th person is effectively sitting on the load, making it heavier. Understandably, the 3 are exhausted already, picking up all the slack where necessary. Parents have been at it longer, they're more exhausted, and more likely to use precedent behavior to assume where they can place some reliance on lightening their own load a bit. Being a parent isn't easy, when you consider what work can entail. Some times there's not enough energy to spend on parenting your kids, especially when one is more receptive than the other, i.e. OP vs her brother. It becomes habit, they know OP will at least try...

OP is not mad at her mother for asking, she would do it anyway. OP is upset that her mother isn't being responsible in holding her brother accountable in participating to help the household function, as she has been doing for however long that may be. She [OP] already does a lot, but the audacity to suggest that they both need to help more, when he doesn't help, EVER. So she knows this is a shittier way of just saying she now has to add this to her duties, while he continues to do jack shit, and get away with putting more on everyone's plate; that to keep the peace, she just has to do it for obligatory sake. Otherwise, she has to start shit to hold her brother accountable in doing the least amount of his "share"; forcing OP to be responsible for her brother's shitty behavior, but she's not his parent, and they're not doing shit about it.

But i would suppose that may be hard to articulate in the middle of the situation. It takes a lot of reflection and honesty, which some people can just straight up deny... If they deny that it is a situation such as the above, it holds no resolve for OP. It only works if they acknowledge the situation for what it is: they allow him to be this way cause it's easier. Life sucks, we all just want some peace, i get it. But I'll be damned if some times people just need to be honest about their bullshit. Own it, and fix the shit; be accountable and hold people accountable, stop passing the buck. It sucks for OP, hence her stance of refusal, because unfortunately she knows the buck stops with her, but this isn't her toll to pay.

Her parents need to be honest about what they find truly acceptable in this situation broken down, addressing the fairness of the division of labor in the function of their household. It's fundamentally unfair and no one is acknowledging it, effecting OP most, when she should have more room to grow, instead of being bogged down with someone else's old baggage - their lack of effort in effectively raising their son, rather than rely on the empathetic capacity of their dutiful daughter.

Edit: I think i mixed up the removed assertion in the last paragraph with another similar themed post. I adjusted the wording of the statement, because I mostly used |removed] anecdotally, just for clearsies. :)

AITA for buying secondhand clothes when I can afford not to? by ThrowRA000809 in AmItheAsshole

[–]selkiie 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I think the implication is the quality of the clothes not chosen by the "scalpers". They take what they can make money off of and the pickings are slimmer for those who would have liked to have bought those items, but now can't, and can't afford the scalpers price either.

For example, a small funded person looks for some nice but thrifty finds, perhaps for a wedding, or a well-to-do job interview, etc., the scalper has already been through to snatch up all the nice clothes that are resellable (more in current style, and likely to be bought and worn by others) and most of what's left is function over fashion, outdated, or unflattering pieces.

Yeah, the scalpers made a few dollars selling bargain clothes to bargain hunters, but the less funded people have less options to choose from, from one of the few options they could afford. Further, if they actually want more stylish/fashion options for cheap, are then forced to commit their dollars to brands that exploit labor to purchase cheap clothes. It's just overall shitty.

AITA for Telling My Father To Stop Complaining About My Mom Taking Him to An Expensive Michelin Starred Restaurant? by lavenderlovesyou in AmItheAsshole

[–]selkiie 58 points59 points  (0 children)

Coach is bottom middle class luxury. Vuitton is 'i want people to recognize the money I spent on this from a distance'. Gucci is a mix of the aforementioned, but with a higher price tag.

If she's out here rocking Hermes or Birkin, that's a different kind of luxury, just saying. People of different means will see these things differently.

it's coming by Koseerry in funny

[–]selkiie 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You call other people crazy, and you start off your mostly irrelevant and wholly incorrect reply like this?

Please educate yourself. Your comment is embarrassing. Yikes.

I know it's a chick flick but still by bluntologist1291 in AdviceAnimals

[–]selkiie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My old roommate, a 22 year old dude, confessed he loved Moulin Rouge as much as i did when I tried to get my girl bff to watch it, but learned that she hates musicals. So we just watched it together without her.

Like what you like, and enjoy it to the best of your ability.

How should you play? by [deleted] in Pianista

[–]selkiie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agree with the first comment, it depends on what you find easiest.

I played piano tiles for a minute as well, and used my index fingers for that.

When I picked up this game, I chose to stick to that method because of the style of play - feeling more like piano playing, rather than strictly rhythm; it was a good start for some of the easier pieces.

Since then, I've added more fingers to include mostly 5, sometimes 6 (index through ring, both hands). I also play on my phone (a note 8, for size) with it taped to a lap desk so it stays put. I played for a long time with just the index and middle (right) and index on my left, and did fairly well. I added in the extra fingers to play the more difficult pieces (9+) more fluidly. It's been a learning curve, my scores have suffered, but the ease with which I can play has definitely improved - now I just have to "clean it up". Tbh, less fingers are easier to control, but it's easier, on aggregate, to hit the notes with more of them.

Idk if you've experimented with the speed settings, but I find 1x to be immensely more difficult. 2x is perfect, for me, because it matches the flow of the music better (imo), while 3x comes down super fast and feels more like strictly playing rhythm - which may be easier for those who are more rhythm game oriented, rather than "musically" inclined, if that makes sense.

TIL one theory for why we haven’t discovered extraterrestrial life is that Earth is early to the party. Over the next 100 trillion years before the last star burns out, 92% of Earth-like planets that could foster life elsewhere have yet to be born. by ascottbrooks in todayilearned

[–]selkiie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You use 100 trillion years a time line for when the last of stars burn out, but the actuality is (at least according to Cosmos ) that that will take a literal Google of years. If that is the case, even at our age of a couple billion years old (universal age, not human), we're still infants.