erin

Oooh if you’re reading stormlight I hope you’ve read some of the other cosmere books. There are some awesome cross series plotlines that I totally missed my first time reading.

If you had enough fiber elsewhere in your diet it should not matter. They do not need to be consumed at the same time. You’re being needlessly stubborn.

Fructose, glucose, and sucrose are the same whether you refine them or not. If you’re getting enough fiber and vitamins in your diet, which you should doing either way, both are processed the same. I’d like to see your source. All refining does is strip the natural sources of the fiber and other nutrients that come with those sugars, which again, you should be getting either way. The whole “natural sugar good, refined bad” thing is a total myth made up to make a larger market for apples and oranges than would exist otherwise, as any dietician could tell you. If you’re getting balanced fiber and nutrients in your diet, the sugar source does not matter. It’s the exact same molecules.

Does this happen as well when you drink juice or eat fruit? If not, it’s likely a placebo and not the sugar.

There are a lot of 40k fans, me included, who are very antifascist. The game has a large queer audience and many fans who enjoy the grimdark aspects of the setting as a cautionary tale. Anyone that knows anything about 40k knows that there are no “good” guys, and that everything sucks for everyone but a few in power. That’s the appeal. It’s a universe where everything is awful all the time and trillions of lives are wasted, and yet stories of compassion and hope can still arise in the middle of it (even though they’re ultimately fruitless). I personally refuse to monetarily support GW but enjoy the setting in other ways. There will always be those that don’t get it and glorify the evil unironically. We just make fun of them and move on.

Entirely depends on the disagreement. There are instances and communities where bigotry is tolerated. I do not frequent them. I would very much like the mods of the communities I use to continue banning people that disagree with them about things like basic human rights and hate. People are free to share their opinions on basically anything most places on the fediverse. Just don’t be a dick, you should be fine. If the “freedom of speech” you’re looking for is the freedom to be racist, homophobic, transphobic, or generally hateful, you’ll probably be disappointed.

I’ve read your replies to the reasonable arguments others made. I don’t feel like engaging you in that way. Your entire premise is based on a worldview entirely divorced from reality that you’ve built up in your head, based on assumptions you’ve made with no evidence. Scientists, artists, engineers, and lawyers do not run the world. Capitalists do. Scientists and engineers are ignored for politically convenient reasons and the interests of the ruling class. Artists are all over the spectrum, from pop to counter culture. Lawyers are merely a cog in the legal machine that props up the status quo. “Concentration” has nothing to do with any of it, and your entire message and responses to others sound more like someone having a psychotic or manic episode than a cohesive and thought out philosophy. I cannot convince you away from a worldview built on delusion.

There is no universe where you change your mind. You’ve made it up, and don’t seem to be the type of person to be able to change it when provided new information. You present your own presumptions as fact, with absolutely nothing backing it up except “trust me bro” and vibes. It would be a waste of time to try and persuade you.

it’s not taken out of context

Sounds like you’re assuming an awful lot on behalf of women in general and ignoring our experiences. Doctors do absolutely have to ask certain questions for diagnostic and treatment purposes, but they also do ignore our perspectives and tend to misdiagnose or misattribute our problems. Every woman has a story or knows someone that has been “diagnosed with woman,” or mistreated by the medical system. Take two minutes of googling and you’ll find countless studies. Look up the slang “WWW” (whiny white woman), or other regional variants. The “female hysteria” stereotype is still very much real. More than once in my life I’ve handed the phone to a man who restated the EXACT same words I said, and was only then taken seriously. I’ve had a doctor suggest that my symptoms are likely PMS, despite the fact that I have no uterus and have never had a period, and didn’t even believe me after I told him as much until he checked and double checked my chart, as if I would lie about something so easily disproven!

Medical misogyny is real, and the purpose of the comic is to point out the priority of the system to view us first as reproductive vessels, and the tendency to ignore our perspectives specifically because of our gender. If the very first question a doctor asked after “I HAVE AN OPEN GUNSHOT WOUND IN MY ARM” was “When was your last period,” instead of immediate triage and first aid, it would be ridiculous. Even in this incredibly pedantic view of the comic, taking everything directly literally instead of comprehending the obvious point it’s making, it still doesn’t make sense.

What do you suggest I, and American, do? I’m part of local antifascist and socialist organizations. I help support those most affected by the gestapo. I protest (and yes, I attended No Kings) and frequently write my local officials and representatives. Am I supposed to rise up in revolution? With what organization? How do we have any possible chance of defeating the US military, much less the Christian right who own almost all the weapons?

Genuinely, what else do I do. I feel like I’m doing everything I physically can to resist short of throwing my life away in what will be deemed a “terrorist attack” the next day, and yet constantly see people derisively commenting on the uselessness of American opposition short of a hopeless violent revolution. What would you have me do? Not protest? It’s one of the few ways that most citizens can resist, and the administration clearly fucking hates it.

What an insane take on a sailing expansion for Mount and Blade, of all games. Yeah, the medieval field battle and fiefdom game was super incomplete without *checks notes* ship to ship combat??

Intelligence is an inherited trait?

The law might not be equal, but it’s equitable. Women need specific protections that statistically, men don’t need. And thank you for engaging as well.

As the other commenter said, only one person needs the dlc to play the (non-character) DLC content. It also frequently goes on pretty big sales, though right now it’s probably full price since the newest (and imo, best) DLC just dropped. Each DLC is a significant content expansion to the game, and is absolutely worth the asking price (except maybe seekers, which fell a bit flat for me on release. It’s since been rebalanced).

If you wanted to weigh which DLC to consider getting, I would recommend Void if you like the idea of modified items that do cool shit, an alternate ending to the game, and some cool new mechanics. It comes with a dope sniper survivor and a void survivor that trades health for damage or vice versa.

Seekers comes with an alternate path of stages leading to an alternate (very challenging) boss. I find that the seekers boss is a severe difficulty check compared to the ease of reaching the boss, compared to the void boss which you only fight late in a run or after a different boss. Two of the survivors feel lackluster to me, but False Son is an absolute beast and the only melee character capable of truly tanking rather than using i-frames or mobility.

Alloyed Collective is the newest, and comes tons of new mechanics (free for everyone but expanded on in the DLC), a new path to follow, SEVERAL new super interesting boss fights, tons of new stages, and tons of new enemies. Overall, super worth it. The characters it adds are a drone controller (a previously unviable play style) and a loot gremlin that gets tons of really awesome interactions and A Cube.

My list would be Alloyed, Void, then Seekers. Alloyed and Void add the most to the base game, Seekers is mostly alternate stuff that won’t touch your runs, though the new shrines are pretty useful early game.

My only complaint is that “femcel” has largely been reclaimed and repurposed from the incel movement to an ironic label mostly used by queer women.

I wouldn’t generalize trans (or cis) people like that. I’m trans, but feel no pressure to conform, I chose to be the unique person that I am. That person happens to dress and look feminine, and enjoy some things that are stereotypically feminine. She also enjoys plenty of things that are very much the opposite. I am absolutely choosing to be who I am and who I want to be, and that person happens to align with many cultural norms. Every other trans person I know is similar. I’ve run into people saying things similar to your comment, with varied levels of severity, all relying on the same essential misunderstanding.

Some people whose gender doesn’t align to any societal stereotype seem to believe that this is because of some enlightenment they have found, and that anyone that conforms to those gender norms must be insecure or brainwashed. What they fail to realise is that their gender just happens to not conform, and that for many people their truest self just does align with the societal norms to some degree. Those norms did not arise from a vacuum. To a large degree, they’re “just” a social construct, but social constructs reflect an average of the realities that society experiences, shaped through a lens of social pressure, class, culture, and other filters.

I highly recommend you read “Who’s Afraid of Gender” by Judith Butler. It’s a great look at what gender really means, why people present the way they do, and what “performative gender” really means. All gender is performative, fundamentally. This is not to say that it’s obsolete or inferior, but simply the nature of gender itself.

It would be sexist if they made a law that unfairly benefits one gender. This law does not. If women were killing men at nearly as high of a rate, then there should be a law for them as well.

It is not unreasonable to talk about “sexism against men.” It is unreasonable to go “well what about men?” in a circumstance where men are not being negatively affected to the same degree. It’s like going “well, ALL lives matter” in response to BLM. White people aren’t statistically targeted by the US justice system, where black people are. “All lives matter,” or the sentiment behind it, might not be technically incorrect, but it’s distracting from the present and current problem, which is systemic racism in the justice system.

It’s the same thing here. There is societal mistreatment of women and misogyny baked into our social systems and upbringings. Women are killed at a FAR higher rate than men are killed by women, and especially related to intimate partners, harassers, stalkers, etc. There is a significant population of men that see sex as a right and women as a means to an end, and rejection, denial, or unavailability makes them dangerously obsessive and/or violent. Until we spend the time to undo that societal conditioning through effective education, laws like this prevent violent misogynists from hurting more women.

Men commit murder far more than women do, but men kill women for the above reasons at an even higher rate. If women perpetuated this kind of violence at significant rates, then there should be another law for that case. In fact, I don’t think this law goes far enough, and has awkward implications when applied to those that don’t conform to gender norms and/or are transgender, let alone men. I think this law could’ve been written in a gender non-specific manner, which would undeniably be better, but they chose the wording they did as a strong stance against a rash of sexually motivated violence against women right now. Similar to outdated rape laws in some places, we can only hope that more inclusive laws are put into place in the future. A law for the vast majority of victims of a type of crime is better than nothing.

I am not suggesting that education shouldn’t happen. It’s the far more effective long term solution, part of addressing the underlying causes of hate-motivated crimes. Hate crime laws do not do nearly enough. However, in the short term, getting those that commit hate (or gender) related crimes off the street for longer is going to save lives, and maybe convince some offenders to change their mind. I think you misunderstood my meaning. Hate crime laws of any kind do not prevent hate crimes.

They do absolutely reduce hate crimes, as those that commit hate crimes are likely to reoffend. The benefits in proactive reduction are hard to prove and collect data on, as are all crime statistics, where there are simply too many variables to account for. However, reoffender rates are easily documented, and a law that takes those likely to reoffend off the street for longer than linked non-hate crimes would is absolutely reducing those types of crimes.

It’s not a redundant law any more than hate crime laws are redundant. You aren’t understanding the premise. It’s not a new crime entirely, it’s like hate crime charges. They can make sentences more severe or reduce the possibility of early release, among other reasons. By the same argument you’re making, hate crime enhancements for violent crime are unnecessary and performative, because those crimes were already illegal.

Hate crime enhancements do work. Why wouldn’t this? In any case, it’s a clear statement being made by society at large that that behavior is unacceptable.

It isn’t sexism in law. Laws are written in blood. If women are frequently being killed because they refused sex or a relationship, then a law should exist as a deterrent. It isn’t just “killing a woman because they hate women,” it’s specifically in cases where women are stalked, harassed, or pursued non-consensually for sex or a relationship. If women were targeting men in the same way, a law should exist in that case as well. That isn’t the case, though. Women are VASTLY disproportionately killed by men for reasons pertaining to sex and relationships compared to the other way around.

Italy sees a problem: women are being frequently killed by intimate partners, stalkers, and harassers specifically because of their gender. They made a law to deter that. If the opposite problem presents itself they should do the same.