Regarding Noctis' inclusion in Tekken 7, I can't help but think that the Tales series would've made much more sense for a Square-Enix/Bandai Namco collab, but that's probably because i think we all deserve to see Final Fantasy 1 redone with the Linear Motion Battle System
Relevant to the current topic - people who say "it's not my responsibility to self-educate" are massive idiots who can't take responsibility for themselves.
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53022387]Relevant to the current topic - people who say "it's not my responsibility to self-educate" are massive idiots who can't take responsibility for themselves.[/QUOTE]
I think if someone doesn't want to go out and self educate, that's fine! Nothing wrong with admitting that you can't know everything and can't be bothered to learn everything ever! But if that's the case regarding a specific issue, then they shouldn't really be taking a strong stance on that issue.
[QUOTE=rutolfus;53021296]If some people want other ones to learn about some certain topics, It would help a lot to not sound harsh towards the people who doesnt know these topics.
I've seen this happening and it always turn people off and make them not care about these topics or worse.
Also some people here really need to calm down sometimes, I know this is not an Unpopular opinion but I had to say it somewhere.[/QUOTE]
and on the flip side as well I really hate people who argue about a topic (like something lgbt related) but their defense is that they haven't really researched the topic. So why fucking argue about it then if you don't know shit about it? Most people who are in this position are people throwing out the most toxic shit regarding it as well.
But what benefit do you get by getting angry at them? In fact I will say if you are doing a really good job if you manage to stay calm when dealing with these people.
If someone doesn't actually know about certain topics and bring their opinions on it, then better to camly tell him that he doesnt know about these topics rather than bossing him to go and learn about what he's talking about and if the dude keeps arguing without doing some research then just ignore him.
And if you get angry towards someone who intentionally doesn't want to know about some topics (like LGBT) and throw toxic shit, they will just point fingers at you and laugh at you because these kinds of assholes wants you to look bad.
Trans issues will be hard-pressed to get major positive traction because of how the vocal part of the community is also aggressive a lot of the time and even ostracize their own if they don't 100% subscribe their beliefs.
So far I've looked into trans studies and articles not because I'm genuinely interested in the subject, but because I'm obliged to as otherwise I'm painted as a bigot.
I'm aware that I'm coming off as an ass because of this but as an observer, this is the impression I've been getting and it's not selling me on your cause, but I'll try my best not to discriminate against you because that's a dorky thing to do in general.
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53022387]Relevant to the current topic - people who say "it's not my responsibility to self-educate" are massive idiots who can't take responsibility for themselves.[/QUOTE]
On the flipside, so are people who refuse to provide sources or anything to other people because "you can look this information up on your own" like bitch you're the one making claims here don't try and shift the burden of proof
Ive never personally understood a lot of 'atheist/secular internet's' anti-religiousness. I dont just mean the usual neckbeard atheist types, but even a lot of very progressive types seem to be personally repulsed by religion even if they are respectful towards other people of faith.
Maybe its because ive had the privilege of growing up in a very progressive Christian household, but it seems like there is a lot of resentment towards religion as if it were somehow impossible for religions to be progressive on, say, LGBT issues and the like. I feel a lot of dislike and hatred is misplaced on religion (not necessarily religious people, mind you) without taking into account its positive social effects and its ability to transform over time.
[QUOTE=Boilermaker;53024052]it seems like there is a lot of resentment towards religion as if it were somehow impossible for religions to be progressive on, say, LGBT issues and the like.[/QUOTE]
Sure, it's not impossible, but I sure don't ever fuckin see it.
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53024086]Sure, it's not impossible, but I sure don't ever fuckin see it.[/QUOTE]
Really? Churches like the Episcopal Church, Church of England, and Church of Sweden are all pretty big and are definitely accepting of trans issues from my knowledge. Unitarian Universalists and other minor religions also dont have such prescriptions against gender identity usually. They may not be in the majority, but they very much do exist.
When such a large portion of the world is religious and religion runs so deep in most world cultures, I dont think it is helpful for progressives to view religion as harmful in the long run.
[QUOTE=Boilermaker;53024096]Really? Churches like the Episcopal Church, Church of England, and Church of Sweden are all pretty big and are definitely accepting of trans issues from my knowledge. Unitarian Universalists and other minor religions also dont have such prescriptions against gender identity usually. They may not be in the majority, but they very much do exist.[/QUOTE]
The fact they're the minority is kinda the issue?
[QUOTE]When such a large portion of the world is religious and religion runs so deep in most world cultures, I dont think it is helpful for progressives to view religion as harmful in the long run.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if religion wasn't responsible for just as much harm over the centuries as it is good things then people wouldn't look down on religion so much? The mass amounts of morons out there who utilize religion as an excuse to justify their discriminatory and/or harmful beliefs really doesn't help matters at all. And you know the whole HIV pandemic that Africa's been having for so long? You do realize that one of the biggest reasons it got so out of hand is outright because of the Church, right?
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53024104]The fact they're the minority is kinda the issue?
Maybe if religion wasn't responsible for just as much harm over the centuries as it is good things then people wouldn't look down on religion so much? The mass amounts of morons out there who utilize religion as an excuse to justify their discriminatory and/or harmful beliefs really doesn't help matters at all. And you know the whole HIV pandemic that Africa's been having for so long? You do realize that one of the biggest reasons it got so out of hand is outright because of the Church, right?[/QUOTE]
I probably should have specified that Im talking about antipathy towards the concept of religion, spiritual thinking, or experience. I understand that religion has had a very large influence in the politics in African countries which leads to HIV denialism as well as anti-LGBT sentiment, and it makes sense to be angry about religion's influence in these issues. My problem comes when people, typically white americans or europeans, take this to be indicative of all religions and believe that somehow the world would just be better if all religious people gave up their faith or traditions, often without any real reverence for how people outside their small culture actually feel about it. This is what happened to the Native Americans who were not allowed to practice their spirituality until the 1970s and were huddled into boarding schools to 'kill the Indian and save the man'.
Religion is central to many culture's and people's identity. I absolutely understand why you dont want to associate with it, but that doesnt mean you should ever entertain the idea that people would be better off by removing their religiosity.
[QUOTE=Boilermaker;53024130]I probably should have specified that Im talking about antipathy towards the concept of religion, spiritual thinking, or experience. I understand that religion has had a very large influence in the politics in African countries which leads to HIV denialism as well as anti-LGBT sentiment, and it makes sense to be angry about religion's influence in these issues. My problem comes when people, typically white americans or europeans, take this to be indicative of all religions and believe that somehow the world would just be better if all religious people gave up their faith or traditions, often without any real reverence for how people outside their small culture actually feel about it. This is what happened to the Native Americans who were not allowed to practice their spirituality until the 1970s and were huddled into boarding schools to 'kill the Indian and save the man'.
Religion is central to many culture's and people's identity. I absolutely understand why you dont want to associate with it, but that doesnt mean you should ever entertain the idea that people would be better off by removing their religiosity.[/QUOTE]
If that's the case I think you should have chosen your words better. Can't speak for everyone but to me at least you definitely gave the wrong impression. Can't say I personally have a real issue with someone being religious so long as they don't use it to justify awful beliefs.
[QUOTE]Religion is central to many culture's and people's identity. I absolutely understand why you dont want to associate with it, but that doesnt mean you should ever entertain the idea that people would be better off by removing their religiosity.[/QUOTE]
On this bit though, it largely stems from religion being such an enormous source of conflict throughout history. It still often is in a lot of peoples' lives. So it's not totally unreasonable to come to the conclusion that getting rid of religion altogether would probably be for the best. Those negative perceptions, especially on a personal level, tend to be far more visible to most than the positive aspects.
I firmly believe that religion, on an extreme macro scale and treated as a monolithic entity, is a net negative for humanity
but of course I'll never get in anybody's face for individually subscribing to religion.
The anti-California circlejerk has become a bit ludicrous tbh
texan btw this took a lot to post
[QUOTE=Boilermaker;53024096]Unitarian Universalists and other minor religions also dont have such prescriptions against gender identity usually. They may not be in the majority, but they very much do exist.[/QUOTE]
Yeah us UUs were the first church in the world to my knowledge to accept transgender people as full members and they are also eligible to become clergy. We've worked [URL="https://www.uua.org/lgbtq/witness/policy/facts"]with promoting LGBT rights throughout our history[/URL].
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53024148]I firmly believe that religion, on an extreme macro scale and treated as a monolithic entity, is a net negative for humanity
but of course I'll never get in anybody's face for individually subscribing to religion.[/QUOTE]
We'd be hundreds of years behind if not for the catholic church and several caliphates. Ecclesiastical scholars preserved and tenured to art and knowledge lost after rome fell, and their islamic counterparts did extremely well in their learning. The first crusade brought a wealth of knowledge back into a stagnating europe. The spread of latin and arabic, the hold of the vatican, all helped to bridge the gap between cultures. Honestly, I'd wager it was the religious leaders who, through being liberated from work for their "job", brought humans out of prehistory by having the free time to invent things.
Then again a few people said that rome fell because it grew weaker in military ethic as it was christianized.
[QUOTE=The Jack;53024942]We'd be hundreds of years behind if not for the catholic church and several caliphates. Ecclesiastical scholars preserved and tenured to art and knowledge lost after rome fell, and their islamic counterparts did extremely well in their learning. The first crusade brought a wealth of knowledge back into a stagnating europe. The spread of latin and arabic, the hold of the vatican, all helped to bridge the gap between cultures. Honestly, I'd wager it was the religious leaders who, through being liberated from work for their "job", brought humans out of prehistory by having the free time to invent things.
Then again a few people said that rome fell because it grew weaker in military ethic as it was christianized.[/QUOTE]
I mean now, in the present day. Religion served its purpose. The world's largely outgrown it now.
Divinity Original Sin's main hub city is so so bad.
I'm not even sure if I ever want to finish the game.
It's pretty common for "this band doesn't sound like they used to and I don't like their new stuff" be considered crap criticism but I can understand it even if I don't agree with it a lot.
I think when a band evolves and changes its sound pretty radically it can be off-putting for people who have come to enjoy that sound. That's why they like the band. When they start going in a completely different direction from what you enjoy I think it's totally valid to express your dislike for it.
Obviously I'm not saying they're gonna convince a band to make music like they used to and I also don't think it's a smart idea to leave angry messages that they should. But if someone doesn't listen to a band's new work because they don't enjoy the stylistic difference that's totally fine. It's a matter of opinion.
Marie is the best girl in the Splatoon games
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;53025603]baseless assumptions here.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever actually met or hanged with a bunch of christians (not the guns'n jesus kind while we're at it. The puritans were a bunch of cunts, that's why they fled, so we're excluding a good bunch of the USA here.)
Deluded as they might be, they're super swell guys with a strong sense of comunity that often do things purely for the betterment of others. I knew a one-track jesus dude that admited he'd be a total asshole if it weren't for faith, but you'd rarely see those cracks. They were there, but he'd try really hard to be a nice person. Now if a delusion makes you a nicer person for life, is it a bad delusion? I wish for that kind of community. I've considered going to church despite having zero faith that they've got the correct religion, just for that close knit group. (Note, Jesus says something like "people probably need to see miracles to believe" so I think he'd understand)
The characature of the asshole for jesus is really overplayed in media. It exists, but it's a pretty localized thing. Most christians are better for it, even if those beliefs are very questionable.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;53027972]I didn't really like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2[/QUOTE]
Great concept for a villain, terrible execution.
body high > head high
The First World War was a just war fought to just ends. While the Western Democracies were certainly flawed, each in their own way, a Europe under the hegemony of Germany's [I]Mitteleuropa[/I] economic union would have been far worse - giving them near unilateral control of the continent.
In fact, Germany's War Aims in September 1914 called for the vassalization of Belgium (and partial annexation), France being crushed economically through high indemnities, and more.
[quote]1.France . To judge by the military authorities whether to demand the cession of Belfort, the western slope of the Vosges, the demolition of the fortresses and the cession of the coastline from Dunkirk to Boulogne. In any case, because of the ore extraction of our industry needed, the Briey ore basin.
Furthermore, a war indemnity payable in installments; it must be so high that France is unable to spend considerable resources on armaments in the next eighteen to twenty years.
Furthermore, a trade treaty that puts France in economic dependence on Germany, makes it our exporting country, and makes it possible to eliminate British trade in France. This trade agreement must give us financial and industrial freedom of movement in France - so that German enterprises can no longer be treated differently from French ones.
2. Belgium. Attachment of Liege and Verviers to Prussia, a frontier line of the Province of Luxembourg to Luxembourg.
It remains doubtful whether Antwerp can also be annexed with a connection to Liège.
In any case, at least Belgium, even if it remains outwardly as a state, must sink to a vassal state, grant a right of occupation in roughly militarily important harbor areas, provide its coast militarily, and economically become a German province. In such a solution, which has the advantages of annexation, but not their internal politically unrecoverable disadvantages, can franz. Flanders with Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne, with largely Flemish population annexed to this unaltered Belgium without danger. The military authorities will have to assess the military value of this position in England.
3. Luxembourg. Becomes German Federal State and receives a strip from the now Belgian province of Luxembourg and possibly the corner of Longwy.
4. It is possible to establish a Central European trade association through common customs arrangements, including France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Poland and possibly Italy, Sweden and Norway. This union, probably without a common constitutional leadership, under external equality of its members, but actually under German leadership, must stabilize the economic domination of Germany over Central Europe.
5. The question of colonial acquisitions, which is primarily concerned with the creation of a coherent Central African colonial empire, as well as the objectives to be achieved by Russia, will be examined later. [. , .]
6. Holland. It will have to be considered by what means and measures Holland can be brought into closer relationship with the German Reich. This closer relationship would have to free the Dutch from any sense of compulsion for them, to change nothing in the course of Dutch life, to give them no changed military duties, to leave Holland externally independent, but internally dependent on us. [/quote]
It's a rough translation, but you get the idea. So we have annexations of states that they invaded and declared war on, the absolute ruin of France, and pushing the UK aside. Yeah sure sounds pointless that the Allies were fighting against this, to preserve their own nationhood and preventing the militaristic and authoritarian Germany from conquiring Europe :thinking:
while the French and British did make missteps in their treatment of the middle east, that does not make their fight any less just tbh. A victorious Germany after WWI would not have been good. Brest-Litovsk gives us but a taste of what would have been to come if the Allies capitulated.
Humanz was a good album.
[QUOTE=Skyward;53029221]Humanz was a good album.[/QUOTE]It probably would've been received better if they trimmed the fat and included Sleeping Powder.
There were some great songs, but most of them are overshadowed by the stinkers.
Humanz is four 9/10 songs in a 4/10 package
[QUOTE=Clovis;53029656]its by gorillaz so it sucks by default[/QUOTE]
first post in this thread to make me audibly gasp
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;53027972]I didn't really like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2[/QUOTE]
GoG is easily one of the best marvel films
GoG 2 was easily one of the worst.
I guess it was too much studio interference or something. Producers going "do that like the first film, but do more of it" and it was just fucking horrible.
[editline]6th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;53029103]completely irrelevant[/QUOTE]
religion pre-dates agriculture and we can have a chicken and egg discussion about if the priest could plant the first seeds because he had free time, or the priest got free time because someone'd be planting seeds. Regardless, that I'm looking at this different points of view and you're looking at it from one really says we'll get nowhere with an argument.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Unpopular opinions V8 Flat IS NOTHING
