Delinquent
The Bee's Knees
Let me rephrase it then.
"That's what everyone did in 1938 and that worked out perfectly for everyone."
Other Unpopular Opinions
- Thread starter Slav
- Start date
- Status
"That's what everyone did in 1938 and that worked out perfectly for everyone."
Tulik
The Lone Athgari
People can have different political views and still be friends.
Slav
Senior Member
We really out here simpin.
natsukashii
𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯
Jump scares actually aren't so bad if you just appreciate them for what they are.
Ataraxie
Stay Peaceful
Some that I could think of:
1. People complain about honesty, but they don't really want to hear the truth.
2. Being independent doesn't mean you're lonely. You don't need a partner to live a fulfilled life - no matter how much society sells the idea of "romance" and "love" to be complete.
3. Feeling your emotions doesn't make you "soft" or "vulnerable" - it's normal. Applying logic to your emotions doesn't mean that you're shutting down or emotionally distant - you're just processing. You need one as much as the other and there's no need to pit these concepts against each other.
1. People complain about honesty, but they don't really want to hear the truth.
2. Being independent doesn't mean you're lonely. You don't need a partner to live a fulfilled life - no matter how much society sells the idea of "romance" and "love" to be complete.
3. Feeling your emotions doesn't make you "soft" or "vulnerable" - it's normal. Applying logic to your emotions doesn't mean that you're shutting down or emotionally distant - you're just processing. You need one as much as the other and there's no need to pit these concepts against each other.
FliesandSpiders
Junior Member
Well, I have some new ones. No really sure if they are unpopular because I'm relatively new to the Marvel fandom.
1. I don't like Jean Grey.
2. I like Cyclops and Wolverine equally.
3. The Cyclops/Jean/Wolverine love triangle is weird and seems forced.
1. I don't like Jean Grey.
2. I like Cyclops and Wolverine equally.
3. The Cyclops/Jean/Wolverine love triangle is weird and seems forced.
Idea
The Pun Tyrant
- Reality is objective, as is morality and quality, even in art. There being disagreements about a metaphysical aspect of something does not make those things subjective, it makes at least one party, or both parties, wrong. The reasons for believing those things are subjective are not legitimate, as they both circular and artificial, in the sense that they can only be concluded if you assume them, and you can only assume them because you decided to assume them, and not because there is anything that would indicate you should, whereas the way we live our lives would suggest we should do otherwise.
This does not mean one isn't just as valid in their enjoyment of a movie. Enjoying something is a subjective experience. It simply has no bearing on quality. It would be absurd to say that something like my mood- which can affect my experience in watching a movie yet be influenced by factors completely independent from said movie- should have any bearing on a movie's quality.
As for morality a distinction must be made between the morality of someone's actions and the morality of the person themselves. A person who believes they are acting morally in a kantian sense (who is acting morally first and foremost "out of respect for moral law") is a moral person, even if in objective terms their actions are immoral.
-To simply accept a viewpoint without attempt to contest it when one finds it wrong is dismissing that viewpoint, it is no different from how one might say "Yes, of course Santa is real" or "Yes, of course it's not your fault" to a child when you're really just trying to get them to feel better rather than taking them seriously. Of course, one is perfectly within their right to not actively seek out viewpoints one thinks are wrong to engage in debate or to avoid debate itself- however, this does not extend to the acceptance of the viewpoint.
-Recommending the best shows available when introducing someone to a new environment or medium has a tendency to be overstimulating, possibly discouraging further viewing by either making them feel overwhelmed, or by giving them untainnable expectations for other available goods.
-Promoting the same shows over and over again, and continually talking about them can cause a visceral reaction against them among certain groups- people like myself. If you keep telling me about how great Jojo is, I'm probably never going to see it, because I'd be looking for flaws not trying to enjoy the show at that point. This is even worse when said show is used to bash other shows that maybe aren't as good overall but do have their strong aspects that make them worth being given a shot, without being held to the impossible standard of who knows how much overanalyzing.
-Envagelion is pretty overrated and frankly kind of a mess, even after having seen the movies. In fact I burst out laughing during what I'm pretty sure was supposed to be a pretty sad and deep scene.
-Life and religious freedom are the highest values there are with everything being subornidate to them. This is because every single right one has ultimately relies on them being alive, aside from any potential afterlife. As such, though it may be cruel, I would support torture over the death penalty (albeit I believe that the best answer for such a situation is ultimately a life sentence, not either of the other two options).
-Realism is less important than narrative. While such a principle does have it's marginal utility, and at some point stops applying, for the most part I'm quite willing to sacrifice realism for narrative value.
-I, and everyone else, are not obligated to cater to anyone's specific conditions or sensibilites prior to even meeting them. If you have a disability or some other major concern you wish for me to be mindful of, I am not obligated to, however YOU are responsible for telling me if you want me to be mindful of those things, and to be specific about what you want be to be mindful of and how. Of course, it is always in good nature and good spirit to oblige to such requests within reason, and to take preemptive action, but the obligation does not exist. It is not discrimination to include code you cannot read, especially if you didn't tell anyone about your problem, and if you have some kind of mental disability or a topic about which you are particularly sensitive, it is in your hands to inform other people if you want them to be mindful of it.
That said, neither party is entitled to the other's time, effort or collaboration. If you are a GM that uses blinding BBCode, then the loss of players because they couldn't read it is still in your hands and a consequence of your actions that you have no right to complain about. If you are
-"Generic" is one of the worst forms of criticism out there. It is unsubstancial and simultaneously asks for the impossible. It at once depends only on what the commenter has personally seen and experienced, something which no creator has any control over and couldn't predict except very vaguely, while also seemingly carrying the expectation that the creator use no tropes at all, which is impossible. Furthermore, those who use this kind of so-called-criticism tend to stay at exclusively the most surface-level aspects of any shows, pointing at patterns that seem to display a trope, and assuming prior to inspection that the character is solely the trope and nothing more deep or complex.
-On that note, tropes are tools, not flaws.
-The dictionary was written by human beings at a specific time and place. It is by itself unable to catch the full nuances of an ever-changing language, and in fact often seems to falter in actual discussion or when it comes to any subculture, as those tend to have their own lingo.
-Statuses saying "I'm bored" are just... I have no words. You are in the literal internet, infinite content is at your disposal, surely you can find something better to do than post a status about lacking things to do?
-Child characters can be a rather fun addition to roleplays, they bring an unique perspective and set of inherent set of obstacles they have to overcome, plus can bring out sides of characters that would otherwise never be seen, yet help give those characters more depth. Child characters should be acceptable even in cases where they aren't particularly useful or could be harmed.
-Normalization does not work by simple exposure, but rather through the establishment of expectations. Something continually portrayed as negative is not normalized just because it appears, it will only be normalized if the image being portrayed itself isn't negative. Furthermore, from what I hear there have even been studies that suggest that the creating of fictional outlets for people's impulses actually provides a relief of said impulses that in turn reduces their manifestation into crimes.
-The word "loli" in an anime context refers exclusively to a character that in terms of looks and/or behavior (and in some rarer cases, actual age) is like a young child. It has 0 to do with sexuality or the book lolita. By research I did, the closest relation to that book comes from a fashion trend that may have been remotely associated with the book, the lolita style of dress,which was chosen for loli characters for its emphasis on cuteness.
This opinion isn't actually that unpopular, but it still shocks me how widely spread the misunderstanding is.
-A show or character can be appreciated even if there is something about their creation or content you find morally disagreeable with, as they can be appreciated in spite of those things. Good art is still good art even if it's maker is a horrible person, and safe for any art which actively and directly contributes to that behavior and any harming any victims thereof, one should not have to deprive themselves of genuinely good content for it.
-Death of the Author is a weak concept at best. The idea of millions of different interpretations being made of the same story all being equally valid is nothing short of saying that the story has no actual meaning. Now, of course a story can have individual personal meaning to any given person, what they take from a story is very much valid- however, it doesn inform the content nor intent of the story, much less the author's.
-Modern feminism and other similar causes do more harm than good. There are genuine problems for them to adress out there, but instead they continue to focus on a culture where they have to actually invent problems and keep lowering the bar for what even is a problem, to the point where everything becomes blurred and nobody knows what's acceptable or not anymore, while it infests more and more where it isn't needed or asked to go, corroding things from the inside until they are a shell or their former selves.
-Censorship is bad. Period.
-Fiction is fiction. It does not have to reflect nor speak about reality. If it borrows elements from reality, even if unrealistic ones, that is by itself not a problem, even if those elements happen to have some kind of negative impact on people in real life. I'll say it again: Fiction is fiction. It should always be treated with awareness of what it is.
- - -
This is about what I can think of right now... wow it's late...
This does not mean one isn't just as valid in their enjoyment of a movie. Enjoying something is a subjective experience. It simply has no bearing on quality. It would be absurd to say that something like my mood- which can affect my experience in watching a movie yet be influenced by factors completely independent from said movie- should have any bearing on a movie's quality.
As for morality a distinction must be made between the morality of someone's actions and the morality of the person themselves. A person who believes they are acting morally in a kantian sense (who is acting morally first and foremost "out of respect for moral law") is a moral person, even if in objective terms their actions are immoral.
-To simply accept a viewpoint without attempt to contest it when one finds it wrong is dismissing that viewpoint, it is no different from how one might say "Yes, of course Santa is real" or "Yes, of course it's not your fault" to a child when you're really just trying to get them to feel better rather than taking them seriously. Of course, one is perfectly within their right to not actively seek out viewpoints one thinks are wrong to engage in debate or to avoid debate itself- however, this does not extend to the acceptance of the viewpoint.
-Recommending the best shows available when introducing someone to a new environment or medium has a tendency to be overstimulating, possibly discouraging further viewing by either making them feel overwhelmed, or by giving them untainnable expectations for other available goods.
-Promoting the same shows over and over again, and continually talking about them can cause a visceral reaction against them among certain groups- people like myself. If you keep telling me about how great Jojo is, I'm probably never going to see it, because I'd be looking for flaws not trying to enjoy the show at that point. This is even worse when said show is used to bash other shows that maybe aren't as good overall but do have their strong aspects that make them worth being given a shot, without being held to the impossible standard of who knows how much overanalyzing.
-Envagelion is pretty overrated and frankly kind of a mess, even after having seen the movies. In fact I burst out laughing during what I'm pretty sure was supposed to be a pretty sad and deep scene.
-Life and religious freedom are the highest values there are with everything being subornidate to them. This is because every single right one has ultimately relies on them being alive, aside from any potential afterlife. As such, though it may be cruel, I would support torture over the death penalty (albeit I believe that the best answer for such a situation is ultimately a life sentence, not either of the other two options).
-Realism is less important than narrative. While such a principle does have it's marginal utility, and at some point stops applying, for the most part I'm quite willing to sacrifice realism for narrative value.
-I, and everyone else, are not obligated to cater to anyone's specific conditions or sensibilites prior to even meeting them. If you have a disability or some other major concern you wish for me to be mindful of, I am not obligated to, however YOU are responsible for telling me if you want me to be mindful of those things, and to be specific about what you want be to be mindful of and how. Of course, it is always in good nature and good spirit to oblige to such requests within reason, and to take preemptive action, but the obligation does not exist. It is not discrimination to include code you cannot read, especially if you didn't tell anyone about your problem, and if you have some kind of mental disability or a topic about which you are particularly sensitive, it is in your hands to inform other people if you want them to be mindful of it.
That said, neither party is entitled to the other's time, effort or collaboration. If you are a GM that uses blinding BBCode, then the loss of players because they couldn't read it is still in your hands and a consequence of your actions that you have no right to complain about. If you are
-"Generic" is one of the worst forms of criticism out there. It is unsubstancial and simultaneously asks for the impossible. It at once depends only on what the commenter has personally seen and experienced, something which no creator has any control over and couldn't predict except very vaguely, while also seemingly carrying the expectation that the creator use no tropes at all, which is impossible. Furthermore, those who use this kind of so-called-criticism tend to stay at exclusively the most surface-level aspects of any shows, pointing at patterns that seem to display a trope, and assuming prior to inspection that the character is solely the trope and nothing more deep or complex.
-On that note, tropes are tools, not flaws.
-The dictionary was written by human beings at a specific time and place. It is by itself unable to catch the full nuances of an ever-changing language, and in fact often seems to falter in actual discussion or when it comes to any subculture, as those tend to have their own lingo.
-Statuses saying "I'm bored" are just... I have no words. You are in the literal internet, infinite content is at your disposal, surely you can find something better to do than post a status about lacking things to do?
-Child characters can be a rather fun addition to roleplays, they bring an unique perspective and set of inherent set of obstacles they have to overcome, plus can bring out sides of characters that would otherwise never be seen, yet help give those characters more depth. Child characters should be acceptable even in cases where they aren't particularly useful or could be harmed.
-Normalization does not work by simple exposure, but rather through the establishment of expectations. Something continually portrayed as negative is not normalized just because it appears, it will only be normalized if the image being portrayed itself isn't negative. Furthermore, from what I hear there have even been studies that suggest that the creating of fictional outlets for people's impulses actually provides a relief of said impulses that in turn reduces their manifestation into crimes.
-The word "loli" in an anime context refers exclusively to a character that in terms of looks and/or behavior (and in some rarer cases, actual age) is like a young child. It has 0 to do with sexuality or the book lolita. By research I did, the closest relation to that book comes from a fashion trend that may have been remotely associated with the book, the lolita style of dress,which was chosen for loli characters for its emphasis on cuteness.
This opinion isn't actually that unpopular, but it still shocks me how widely spread the misunderstanding is.
-A show or character can be appreciated even if there is something about their creation or content you find morally disagreeable with, as they can be appreciated in spite of those things. Good art is still good art even if it's maker is a horrible person, and safe for any art which actively and directly contributes to that behavior and any harming any victims thereof, one should not have to deprive themselves of genuinely good content for it.
-Death of the Author is a weak concept at best. The idea of millions of different interpretations being made of the same story all being equally valid is nothing short of saying that the story has no actual meaning. Now, of course a story can have individual personal meaning to any given person, what they take from a story is very much valid- however, it doesn inform the content nor intent of the story, much less the author's.
-Modern feminism and other similar causes do more harm than good. There are genuine problems for them to adress out there, but instead they continue to focus on a culture where they have to actually invent problems and keep lowering the bar for what even is a problem, to the point where everything becomes blurred and nobody knows what's acceptable or not anymore, while it infests more and more where it isn't needed or asked to go, corroding things from the inside until they are a shell or their former selves.
-Censorship is bad. Period.
-Fiction is fiction. It does not have to reflect nor speak about reality. If it borrows elements from reality, even if unrealistic ones, that is by itself not a problem, even if those elements happen to have some kind of negative impact on people in real life. I'll say it again: Fiction is fiction. It should always be treated with awareness of what it is.
- - -
This is about what I can think of right now... wow it's late...
Idea
The Pun Tyrant
After some mistakes I made in the past, I made myself try to live with all the honesty I could, at least online. And boy, I really have to agree with you. Everyone wants the truth until you say something they don't like, and then it's months of friendship down the drain.
Becker
“Someone else always has to carry on the story...”
The L85A1 is a good rifle... 
Slav
Senior Member
You can barely reload while laying down.
Melpomene
Writer of Tragedy|Art by ROYTHEART|
As an American, I think not. Go back to tea and crumpets you Brit!
Becker
“Someone else always has to carry on the story...”
I swear, Former Colonist
... If you throw one more crate of tea into the river, I shall be forced to unleash Her Majesty upon yee'
I hear she does not take prisoners...
Melpomene
Writer of Tragedy|Art by ROYTHEART|
I swear, Former Colonist
View attachment 712414
I hear she does not take prisoners...
BRING IT ON EUROPEAN SWINE
USA USA USA
Daisie
Strangely regular (better than the usual bizarre!)
Leeeeet's get back on topic
as entertaining as it is, you may continue your warring in PM.
Lorsh
Varlot
Zombie genre is still cool, even though it's overdone
Kazami42
Budget Morpheus, soldier #1,128,300 reporting in.
-People say that America has the best technology in the world, but assets such as robotics are at best 30 years away from what alot of other countries already have, such as Germany and Japan. Then there's groups whose sole existence is to undermine fields of research, either for how they feel, paranoia, or what they view as economic benefit. Despite for the latter, alot of concepts would actually boost how much they can make off selling it.
-Other technologies that can help with mental stresses of both sexes, or improve health is labelled as bad, sexist, or bound to destroy humanity. In one potential example, one tends to look at a person that bonds with a social robot on levels of shame akin to them suddenly becoming subhuman. If they merely want it there as a presence to help with being alone at most times, it's immediately thrown up that it's impossible for there to be a human connection to a non-human construction. Despite bonds forming with pets, cleaning devices, etc.
If they even have a remote thought of having a construct for a preference, though there are some who want one due to inability to date even, then some default to lousy shaming. Such as lumping up people with a preference/kink, with the mentally ill, abusers even, as well as labeling them all as an incel. If that fails, then the party resorts to declaring that it has no soul, it can't ever feel, it can never hold a conversation, one won't ever be able to have a connection/bond to it, or it is to reinforce some sort of bizarre abuse fantasy. God help them if they are also the type to wanna use it beyond acts of photography and cosplay, they get the infamous "end of mankind!" Spill, and then wig out when they get told that these people could just get a surrogate, using "the bank", using some sort of profound bizarre technology, etc. But with developmental inevitability, what is the point, meaning, or purpose of the fight?
-Why are people giving current "AI" rights, freedoms, and consent forms? True AI at least to me, does not yet exist. Artificial lifeforms such as androids therefore does not have the 110% possibility to exist, despite the technology of enabling pain, heat-based "healing" for what I presume was a skin layer, silicone skin to mimic human appearance, etc. All we have thus far are primitive communicatory aides, automated arms, unadaptive super computers, and stereotypical robots. [Which the term, I view as meaning any visually robotic appearing drone, that merely does a or a limited amount of tasks, like a more complicated robotic arm one can find in an automotive factory.] Thus, with no sign of true self awareness/consciousness, let alone sophistication to yet reach a level for it, why the bloody hell is any of this necessary? I don't need to have my toaster's consent to toast bread, merely because it has Siri's voice built into it.
-When people are afraid of a time where terminators will come, yet in present day outside of liquid terminators, we have the technology that rivals, and in some cases, purely surpasses everything a Terminator has, and we can stuff it all into a smaller form. And people have theorized nanotechnology to mimic the effects of the T-1000, and the dark fate guys. What doesn't yet already exist is a reactor compact enough, and the CPU/main brain component to keep the design practical. Therefore if we fight terminators with lAzOR bEaMz from the films, it's safe to say they'll get yeeted if they don't adapt to the present technology. But if a real skynet appears, and it's AI is disabled enough to believe wiping all of humanity for what one group or country does, I think it's safe to say that we can and need to launch such a unintelligent construct to the moon. It can enjoy eternal boredom until it's systems shutdown. Or until a super virus turns our bodies to sand/Ash, and a bunch of depressed TAI Android's come over and bully it in the name of supporting humanity.
Ironically, that seems to be happening. I'm just waiting for the dragon boi to come in, and some genius trying to murder humanity by doing some stupid body transfer shenanigans. The cyborg wannabes seem to be having a go for that one, in a mental aspect.
>What's the deal with airline food? Why does one care? Isn't most of it peanuts? What's their fascination with peanuts? Why the bags designed to annoy you? Would it be better if it had a speaker screaming glory to mankind?
-Other technologies that can help with mental stresses of both sexes, or improve health is labelled as bad, sexist, or bound to destroy humanity. In one potential example, one tends to look at a person that bonds with a social robot on levels of shame akin to them suddenly becoming subhuman. If they merely want it there as a presence to help with being alone at most times, it's immediately thrown up that it's impossible for there to be a human connection to a non-human construction. Despite bonds forming with pets, cleaning devices, etc.
If they even have a remote thought of having a construct for a preference, though there are some who want one due to inability to date even, then some default to lousy shaming. Such as lumping up people with a preference/kink, with the mentally ill, abusers even, as well as labeling them all as an incel. If that fails, then the party resorts to declaring that it has no soul, it can't ever feel, it can never hold a conversation, one won't ever be able to have a connection/bond to it, or it is to reinforce some sort of bizarre abuse fantasy. God help them if they are also the type to wanna use it beyond acts of photography and cosplay, they get the infamous "end of mankind!" Spill, and then wig out when they get told that these people could just get a surrogate, using "the bank", using some sort of profound bizarre technology, etc. But with developmental inevitability, what is the point, meaning, or purpose of the fight?
-Why are people giving current "AI" rights, freedoms, and consent forms? True AI at least to me, does not yet exist. Artificial lifeforms such as androids therefore does not have the 110% possibility to exist, despite the technology of enabling pain, heat-based "healing" for what I presume was a skin layer, silicone skin to mimic human appearance, etc. All we have thus far are primitive communicatory aides, automated arms, unadaptive super computers, and stereotypical robots. [Which the term, I view as meaning any visually robotic appearing drone, that merely does a or a limited amount of tasks, like a more complicated robotic arm one can find in an automotive factory.] Thus, with no sign of true self awareness/consciousness, let alone sophistication to yet reach a level for it, why the bloody hell is any of this necessary? I don't need to have my toaster's consent to toast bread, merely because it has Siri's voice built into it.
-When people are afraid of a time where terminators will come, yet in present day outside of liquid terminators, we have the technology that rivals, and in some cases, purely surpasses everything a Terminator has, and we can stuff it all into a smaller form. And people have theorized nanotechnology to mimic the effects of the T-1000, and the dark fate guys. What doesn't yet already exist is a reactor compact enough, and the CPU/main brain component to keep the design practical. Therefore if we fight terminators with lAzOR bEaMz from the films, it's safe to say they'll get yeeted if they don't adapt to the present technology. But if a real skynet appears, and it's AI is disabled enough to believe wiping all of humanity for what one group or country does, I think it's safe to say that we can and need to launch such a unintelligent construct to the moon. It can enjoy eternal boredom until it's systems shutdown. Or until a super virus turns our bodies to sand/Ash, and a bunch of depressed TAI Android's come over and bully it in the name of supporting humanity.
Ironically, that seems to be happening. I'm just waiting for the dragon boi to come in, and some genius trying to murder humanity by doing some stupid body transfer shenanigans. The cyborg wannabes seem to be having a go for that one, in a mental aspect.
>What's the deal with airline food? Why does one care? Isn't most of it peanuts? What's their fascination with peanuts? Why the bags designed to annoy you? Would it be better if it had a speaker screaming glory to mankind?
Cosmo
Does Not Know Kung-fu
- Mecha manga/animes tend to be garbage.
- Tanks are better then mechs in both appearance and in, you know, actually making sense.
- EDM and Reggie are so bad I get migraines if I am forced to listen to them for more then a few moments.
- Dwarves > Elves.
- Most vampires these days are just elves who never got out of their goth phase.
- I could never get into Community. I couldn't stand Jeff, yes, I know, you're not supposed to, he is supposed to grow on you. Tried two seasons. He didn't grow on me.
- Never liked the Witcher series, games or novels. Wasn't the world's fault, thought it was neat. I liked the side characters. Just hate Geralt and its bloody hard to like something if the eyes you are viewing it through are just boring.
- Genders and sexuality never bothered me and I don't even remember the names of most of them. Its not because I'm tolerant, its more that I just don't really care. Its more apathy then anything.
- Phantom Menace was not the worst star wars move. Neither was Rise of Skywalker or The Last Jedi. Worst movie was Attack of the Clones. It was so bad your mind has actively blocked out half of it.
- Never could get into Star Trek
- The Asari from Mass Effect are not attractive, I find them a bit repulsive. Think its the tentacle hair.
- Hunger Games and Maze Runner were so dumb it hurt my soul. Like, I think it is still bruised.
- Not all cultures are created equal, the majority are inferior to western humanism.
- College league players should be paid if their likeness is being used to generate revenue. Don't feel this is unpopular in most circles tho.
- I hate the newer look of cars. I much prefer the boxy look of older vehicles and is why I still love Jeep Wranglers. Yes, I know the curves cut down on wind resistance which, in turn, improves performance, but its ugly and I hate it.
- I really enjoyed Bioshock 2, fight me.
- GTA V's Trevor Philips was a horrible character and should have been put down as a mid-game boss. The game would have been better off focusing on the relationship of Michael and Franklin.
defenderofberk
And... We're doomed. Fun times.
Here's just a few of mine recently:
- Not everything about you has to be beautiful. It's okay to have flaws but that doesn't mean that your flaws are wonderful or awesome; they are just part of being human.
- As a teen/young adult it's normal to feel attracted to people of the opposite gender or to feel attracted to no one in particular. That doesn't instantly make you gay/bisexual/asexual.
- It's normal to feel insecure and uncomfortable about your body or to wonder what it'd be like to be the other gender. That doesn't make you transgender/non-binary.
- If you want a conversation, have a conversation. Don't cherry pick what you do and don't want to talk about - write a blog in that case and disable comments.
- Culture/religion isn't an excuse for cruelty and abuse if you live in the Western World.
- When it comes down to it, people are inherently more comfortable around people similar to them.
- Taking ages in a shop right now because you can't decide what to buy whle coughing is not only selfish, it's dangerous.
- If you're going to care about people's experiences and are concerned about people being ignored, don't ignore someone's experiences just because it goes against your narrative.
- Americans are generally childish and entilted (as a people) compared to the Brits
Slav
Senior Member
Americans are generally childish and entilted (as a people) compared to the Brits
Yes, that's why american comedy is better.
defenderofberk
And... We're doomed. Fun times.
Have you seen Blackadder? It's way better than any American show I've seen, if I wanted something childish I'd go and watch Tom and Jerry.
Slav
Senior Member
Tom and Jerry is a fantastic cartoon, I still watch that shit. I have not seen Blackadder but I can guarantee you that the Dave Chappelle Show is much better.
defenderofberk
And... We're doomed. Fun times.
I've seen it, it's okay, not a patch on blackadder though
defenderofberk
And... We're doomed. Fun times.
I think opposite attracts works on a surface level as there's a feeling of almost exoticness and excitement at something so completely different to you, but as for a long term relationship it seldom works. While surface differences can be okay and even desirable to ensure a bit of variety, your core principles and way of life should at least mostly similar. My partner is very much a night owl and although I tend to peak in the afternoon/evening it's far more compatible than if I was an early bird who peaked at 8am every morning (like my nan, so staying with her for a week on holiday was a bit of a strain for us). It does occasionally cause issues where he wants to go out all night and I'd rather have afternoon tea in a garden, but like you said, we work around it. Because British cafes are so god-damn tiny I get why he'd feel uncomfortable in one as a six-foot two guy who wears a leather jacket (he has to duck just to fit through the door of my favourite one and the walls are light pink covered in flowers and unicorns; it was pretty amusing seeing him in there). He gets why as a 5"8 woman who doesn't even look old enough to frequent a bar and who doesn't like rude behaviour I'd feel uneasy going out and getting drunk even with him there, especially as I'm not really a heavy drinker as it is.You, you, my good sir, you've spoken the very truth.
I cannot emphasise enough how the "opposites attract eachother" logic is flawed in most part of the cases.
Alright, tastes are tastes, and everyone's tastes are different, and there are out there people who enjoy being friends and/or being in a relationship with a completely different personality.
However, even though it is not a rule, as I mentioned, individuals tend to enjoy being around people who are similar to them, as the sense of empathy and identification is bigger in such contexts.
The fact that "different personalities balance eachother" isn't exactly true, as such differences sometimes reduce the chances of compatibility between two individuals when it comes to friendships/relationships. It is always good to have someone by our side that understands us in a deeper level and that prefers to enjoy the same types of stuff we do.
Picture a couple: one of them is extrovert and another one introvert, a simple difference. But thus simple difference, if not well balanced, can become uncomfortable, for both of them. The extrovert will become more and more frustrated, because the introvert won't want to go out as frequently as them, and f they go out frequently, the introvert will become drained, and eventually shut down.
This can be managed, but the effort made by both people is heavier than if the couple was composed by only extroverts or only introverts. And again, I must once again say that yes, it is perfectly possible that two people with different personalities become good friends/partners (in fact, as an introvert, most part of my friends are extroverts, but I guess it has to do with demographics). But logically speaking, I guess it s more common to people with similar personalities to stick together.
I'd like to apologise for my awful English. It's 4:31am here at the moment and my cognitive processes are at the same level of those of a broccoli
Last edited:
Blemmigan
Illusion is eternity. Machines will live forever.
Re: British VS American comedy super smackdown ultimate:
Stephen Fry had an interesting idea on the difference in American and British comedy:
Probably not wholly accurate (as, especially these days, there are plenty of US sitcom failure characters) but hey. Interesting.
Though IMO both styles are fully capable of showcasing wit and clever writing, same as they're both capable of slapstick and simplicity: guess they just showcase it differently.
Stephen Fry had an interesting idea on the difference in American and British comedy:
"American optimism is a really important thing. Not only optimism but a refusal to see oneself in a bad light. [...] The American comic hero is a wisecracker who is above his material, and who is above the idiots around him. [...] The American comic here like John Belushi or someone like that. You know that scene in Animal House, there's a fellow playing folk music on a guitar, and John Belushi picks up the guitar and destroys it. I mean he just smashes it, and then waggles his eyebrows at the camera. Everyone says: 'God he is so great.' Well, the British comedian would want to play the folk singer. We want to play the failure. All the great British comic heroes are people who want life to be better and on whom life craps from a terrible height and whose sense of dignity is constantly compromised by the world letting them down."
Probably not wholly accurate (as, especially these days, there are plenty of US sitcom failure characters) but hey. Interesting.
Though IMO both styles are fully capable of showcasing wit and clever writing, same as they're both capable of slapstick and simplicity: guess they just showcase it differently.
- Status
