Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

I suggested to my dad we watch Avatar: The Last Airbender.
He asked whether I was talking about the cartoon or the movie, and I answered that the cartoon, of course.
"Are you crazy? You're not a child anymore!"
...?

I tried to explain that just because it's a cartoon doesn't mean it can onky be watched by children, but he seemed to ignore me.

Try better, in your explanation you already agreed with his premise that cartoons are exclusively for children

Whatever it is, it's crappy to want to share something you liked with someone else, only to be undermined by whatever preconception they had. Best thing for it is probably to seek out some folks who will share it with you, and who won't undermine you or make you feel crappy for liking the things you like.

If you can honestly be undermined by someone not having the same cartoon preferences as you, you should seek help, and not from insular groups
That shit is unhealthy

Clearly you must punish him with the bad movie.

Subjecting people to Shyamalan over petty shit is a war crime

[Descan]

to be fair, this is Carolines father, in a rather patriarchal country

though hopefully by now Caroline has learned not to give a shit about her fathers/parents thoughts or opinions, given the ample evidence of how shite they all are, but still

[Solifuge]

If you can honestly be undermined by someone not having the same cartoon preferences as you, you should seek help, and not from insular groups
That shit is unhealthy

Er, easy there tiger.

It's just nice to share things with people. If they turn you down, that's no big deal. If they don't just turn you down, but also take a dump on something you like, and insinuate that you're immature or weird or stupid or whatever else for liking it, that's undermining you, yeah? It's a (mild) personal attack.

It's about sharing something and being rejected. No one likes that; it feels crappy. That's why it's good to be conscious of who you're being open or sharing things with.

[Loud Whispers]

to be fair, this is Carolines father, in a rather patriarchal country

though hopefully by now Caroline has learned not to give a shit about her fathers/parents thoughts or opinions, given the ample evidence of how shite they all are, but still

You should give a shit about their thoughts and opinions yet not let it rule you. Very easy to not play into two destructive extremes, one where such things as cartoon preference undermines ones' self, or the other where one totally cuts themself from their parents, reconstructing every action to be further proof of their shitty nature.
Someone once told me to not judge my parents til I was their age and it did me good, that's advice I'd give here. I didn't have to make his same regrets of judging his parents for situations out of their control or actions he wouldn't have done in their boots... Once he was their age.

Er, easy there tiger.
It's just nice to share things with people. If they turn you down, that's no big deal.

Yes it is, you can't demand the attention of everyone for things they don't care about just because it is nice for you.

If they don't just turn you down, but also take a dump on something you like, and insinuate that you're immature or weird or stupid or whatever else for liking it, that's undermining you, yeah? It's a (mild) personal attack.

No it's not because what looks like a dump to you is merely an expression of total disregard for something they hold no interest over. Much better to not just take everything personally, the (mild) brackets has me laffin. Talking about media preferences here between family
Molehills and mountains

It's about sharing something and being rejected. No one likes that; it feels crappy. That's why it's good to be conscious of who you're being open or sharing things with.

Yeah that sounds like the good foundations for neuroses. I don't see emotionally guarding yourself against everyone you speak to on any intimate level as in any way preferable to merely not placing the basis of your personal interactions, emotional health and raison d'ętre on the approval of others in what you share. This is not even comparable to rejection, that's just degrading

[Descan]

i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know what caroline's home life is like

[Putnam]

"aren't shitposters those guys that made that kid shoot up a school"

[Shadowlord]

Clearly you must punish him with the bad movie.

Subjecting people to Shyamalan over petty shit is a war crime

If they don't just turn you down, but also take a dump on something you like, and insinuate that you're immature or weird or stupid or whatever else for liking it, that's undermining you, yeah? It's a (mild) personal attack.

I SEE DEAD PEOPLE

Edit: This post is not a comment on Putnam's post. I just got cockblocked by the [NEW POST] alert three times in a row after writing the above.

[Loud Whispers]

i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know what caroline's home life is like

Doubt any of us know, which is why if there's more to it help should be sought

 

"aren't shitposters those guys that made that kid shoot up a school"

If you get to the point where violent videogames and shitposters are raising your kids you need to reevaluate everything

Cos they were fucked from the start

[Putnam]

i mean there's saying "i'm not interested in what you're interested in" and there's saying "i respect you less because you like that thing"

[Solifuge]

Spoiler: EDIT: I'mma just... put this in here. (click to show/hide)

LW, I'm not suggesting ramming things down other people's throats for self-gratification. I don't get where you're getting that from. I get the sense that this is about something other than what it appears to be about, or that there's some emotional background for this that I don't understand. Sorry if something I said set you off.

EDIT: As for the rest... I really don't know how to respond, but I seem to be on the receiving end of a lot of assumptions about who I am and/or what I was saying? If you're really curious, I can explain, but I'm not sure that's necessary or particularly important.

[Loud Whispers]

i mean there's saying "i'm not interested in what you're interested in" and there's saying "i respect you less because you like that thing"

True, both have the same reaction - yeah?
Like it seems this is just a small sign of some far deeper issues on which bay12 is poorly qualified to handle

Spoiler: EDIT: I'mma just... put this in here. (click to show/hide)

LW, I'm not suggesting ramming things down other people's throats for self-gratification. I don't get where you're getting that from. I get the sense that this is about something other than what it appears to be about, or that there's some emotional background for this that I don't understand. Sorry if something I said set you off.

EDIT: As for the rest... I really don't know how to respond, but I seem to be on the receiving end of a lot of assumptions about who I am and/or what I was saying? If you're really curious, I can explain, but I'm not sure that's necessary or particularly important.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Why spoilers

Eh whatever

I don't understand where you're getting more stuff from as I was pretty frank and can't get any moreso, and I mean this in the kindest way possible in that I don't care who you are and I don't expect you to care who I am because that's not important, Solifuge and LW are not people who exist, they are made up internet avatars and you're probably just reading my "you" as a direct address to you when it's not, unless you also think I am criticizing Putnam for rearing shitposting school shooters

[Tiruin]

i mean there's saying "i'm not interested in what you're interested in" and there's saying "i respect you less because you like that thing"

True, both have the same reaction - yeah?
Like it seems this is just a small sign of some far deeper issues on which bay12 is poorly qualified to handle

No, both have different meanings. This is less of a case of reframing the situation and more on differing comparisons for expression.

And I've no idea about the last sentence but...it seems like the train of thought is going into assuming and presuming hypothetical situations now o_O

[Loud Whispers]

No, both have different meanings.

Which is why I said true, not false
Don't double negative

And I've no idea about the last sentence but...it seems like the train of thought is going into assuming and presuming hypothetical situations now o_O

Have you not read any of the posts alluding to something worse going on

[Shadowlord]

"Look, Soli, we're all Agent Smith, so why are we arguing?" - LW

Feel free to argue over this instead:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctica-at-risk-of-runaway-melting-20189

TL;DR: "If pollution continues to be released without being reined in, the modeling showed that high Antarctic air temperatures could lead to melting that would push up sea levels by dozens of feet during the centuries ahead. Warmer ocean waters would prevent a recovery for thousands of years after that, the scientists found."
"The breakdown that they discovered was not triggered when warming in the models was limited to levels similar to those called for under the Paris Agreement — something that Pollard described as potentially “good news.”"
"Although the Paris Agreement contained highly ambitious goals, individual countries have not come close to committing to action plans that would ensure that the goals are actually realized."

[Loud Whispers]

"Look, Soli, we're all Agent Smith, so why are we arguing?" - LW

Agent Smith has very fruitful arguments with Agent Smith
Yet there is no point in Agent Smith trying to save face with Agent Smith
And lo, if Agent Smith strikes Agent Smith
He will be laughed at
Because he is hitting himself

Feel free to argue over this instead:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctica-at-risk-of-runaway-melting-20189
TL;DR: "If pollution continues to be released without being reined in, the modeling showed that high Antarctic air temperatures could lead to melting that would push up sea levels by dozens of feet during the centuries ahead. Warmer ocean waters would prevent a recovery for thousands of years after that, the scientists found."
"The breakdown that they discovered was not triggered when warming in the models was limited to levels similar to those called for under the Paris Agreement — something that Pollard described as potentially “good news.”"
"Although the Paris Agreement contained highly ambitious goals, individual countries have not come close to committing to action plans that would ensure that the goals are actually realized."

RIP Bangladesh, Venice and Florida

"With that warming, the flanks of Antarctica will start to melt drastically in about 50 to 100 years, and then it will start to kick in according to our model."

It's some forgotten future's problem
They're already toasty