author
stringlengths 3
20
| body
stringlengths 12
18.4k
| normalizedBody
stringlengths 13
17.9k
| subreddit
stringlengths 2
24
| subreddit_id
stringlengths 4
8
| id
stringlengths 3
7
| content
stringlengths 3
17.9k
| summary
stringlengths 1
7.54k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
eatshitgriz | It is a very weird thing. When I shared it with my ex (then gf) it was the best thing ever. Not only the pure sexual pleasure but also the comfort with she and I. Whenever we did it, I knew there was nothing else I would rather be doing and it felt perfect, meaningful, and safe. However, when I've done it as a one night hookup, it was fun sure but personally I just felt shitty afterwards. That's not me and I felt like I betrayed myself. I wasn't even in a relationship or anything I simply held myself to a higher standard.
TL/DR: When it's with someone you care for and feel confident with it can be the best time of your life. When it's a hookup, it isn't so special at all. | It is a very weird thing. When I shared it with my ex (then gf) it was the best thing ever. Not only the pure sexual pleasure but also the comfort with she and I. Whenever we did it, I knew there was nothing else I would rather be doing and it felt perfect, meaningful, and safe. However, when I've done it as a one night hookup, it was fun sure but personally I just felt shitty afterwards. That's not me and I felt like I betrayed myself. I wasn't even in a relationship or anything I simply held myself to a higher standard.
TL/DR: When it's with someone you care for and feel confident with it can be the best time of your life. When it's a hookup, it isn't so special at all.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ced4jzp | It is a very weird thing. When I shared it with my ex (then gf) it was the best thing ever. Not only the pure sexual pleasure but also the comfort with she and I. Whenever we did it, I knew there was nothing else I would rather be doing and it felt perfect, meaningful, and safe. However, when I've done it as a one night hookup, it was fun sure but personally I just felt shitty afterwards. That's not me and I felt like I betrayed myself. I wasn't even in a relationship or anything I simply held myself to a higher standard. | When it's with someone you care for and feel confident with it can be the best time of your life. When it's a hookup, it isn't so special at all. |
ronan88 | I think it's going to be tough to give informed advice on a decision between two removal spells in a vacuum. Both are quite different and have different functions in a deck. If I could see the full decklist including your full suite of removal, what kind of creatures you are running etc... it would be much easier to say which removal spell is better for your deck.
Generally though, Flashback is nice, although I would prefer one of the instant speed verdicts over Chainer's verdict unless you are running a lot of sacrifice related spells. Geth's Verdict allows you to force an opponent to sacrifice their first creature if you cast it in response to their second. that can be relevant.
Barter in Blood can be really strong in the right deck, and mental in multiplayer games. Again though, it can be situational and at times a dead card in your hand. I would see it as taking second fiddle to Damnation/Mutilate/Decree of Pain unless you are playing a sacrifice themed deck.
**TL;DR**
Both are good removal cards, but there are certainly better removal options available to mono black. That said, in the right deck they can be awesome.
| I think it's going to be tough to give informed advice on a decision between two removal spells in a vacuum. Both are quite different and have different functions in a deck. If I could see the full decklist including your full suite of removal, what kind of creatures you are running etc... it would be much easier to say which removal spell is better for your deck.
Generally though, Flashback is nice, although I would prefer one of the instant speed verdicts over Chainer's verdict unless you are running a lot of sacrifice related spells. Geth's Verdict allows you to force an opponent to sacrifice their first creature if you cast it in response to their second. that can be relevant.
Barter in Blood can be really strong in the right deck, and mental in multiplayer games. Again though, it can be situational and at times a dead card in your hand. I would see it as taking second fiddle to Damnation/Mutilate/Decree of Pain unless you are playing a sacrifice themed deck.
TL;DR
Both are good removal cards, but there are certainly better removal options available to mono black. That said, in the right deck they can be awesome.
| EDH | t5_2scee | cedaehz | I think it's going to be tough to give informed advice on a decision between two removal spells in a vacuum. Both are quite different and have different functions in a deck. If I could see the full decklist including your full suite of removal, what kind of creatures you are running etc... it would be much easier to say which removal spell is better for your deck.
Generally though, Flashback is nice, although I would prefer one of the instant speed verdicts over Chainer's verdict unless you are running a lot of sacrifice related spells. Geth's Verdict allows you to force an opponent to sacrifice their first creature if you cast it in response to their second. that can be relevant.
Barter in Blood can be really strong in the right deck, and mental in multiplayer games. Again though, it can be situational and at times a dead card in your hand. I would see it as taking second fiddle to Damnation/Mutilate/Decree of Pain unless you are playing a sacrifice themed deck. | Both are good removal cards, but there are certainly better removal options available to mono black. That said, in the right deck they can be awesome. |
GetHisWallet | I had a friend who called himself Cowboy. His boots were Nike, his trusty steed was a trailer, he had never seen a cattle anything that wasn't in a Playstation game, and his hat was a nothing (literally no hat owned at all) but hey... Cowboy.
Then, just to be so much cooler, he changed the spelling. He probably googles that other spelling so I won't do it here, but we tried to convince him that it would now be pronounced "Cah buoy" if said out loud, but he wouldn't have it. 15 fucking years of lonely sadness later he is still convinced that his personally assigned nickname with its overfucked spelling is what makes him the coolest dude in his trailer park.
--That all being said and TL;DR -- This could potentially be pronounced "Kiki" but she thinks she's exotic and refuses to listen to her friends when they point out the alternative on her license plate. | I had a friend who called himself Cowboy. His boots were Nike, his trusty steed was a trailer, he had never seen a cattle anything that wasn't in a Playstation game, and his hat was a nothing (literally no hat owned at all) but hey... Cowboy.
Then, just to be so much cooler, he changed the spelling. He probably googles that other spelling so I won't do it here, but we tried to convince him that it would now be pronounced "Cah buoy" if said out loud, but he wouldn't have it. 15 fucking years of lonely sadness later he is still convinced that his personally assigned nickname with its overfucked spelling is what makes him the coolest dude in his trailer park.
--That all being said and TL;DR -- This could potentially be pronounced "Kiki" but she thinks she's exotic and refuses to listen to her friends when they point out the alternative on her license plate.
| WTF | t5_2qh61 | cedhqw6 | I had a friend who called himself Cowboy. His boots were Nike, his trusty steed was a trailer, he had never seen a cattle anything that wasn't in a Playstation game, and his hat was a nothing (literally no hat owned at all) but hey... Cowboy.
Then, just to be so much cooler, he changed the spelling. He probably googles that other spelling so I won't do it here, but we tried to convince him that it would now be pronounced "Cah buoy" if said out loud, but he wouldn't have it. 15 fucking years of lonely sadness later he is still convinced that his personally assigned nickname with its overfucked spelling is what makes him the coolest dude in his trailer park.
--That all being said and | This could potentially be pronounced "Kiki" but she thinks she's exotic and refuses to listen to her friends when they point out the alternative on her license plate. |
HeyDontTouchThose | So you get a message on fb, someone from the past you have reconnected with, just chatting and catching up on life. But it seems they're going through a particularly shitty patch of life, and suddenly idle chit-chat turns to them saying, "I love you".
No, hon, you don't. You don't even really know me. You're in love with the idea of being in love. And I'm going to be that friend who tells it to you straight. A little awkward at first, but honest and all cards on the table.
TL;DR - No. But it's all good. | So you get a message on fb, someone from the past you have reconnected with, just chatting and catching up on life. But it seems they're going through a particularly shitty patch of life, and suddenly idle chit-chat turns to them saying, "I love you".
No, hon, you don't. You don't even really know me. You're in love with the idea of being in love. And I'm going to be that friend who tells it to you straight. A little awkward at first, but honest and all cards on the table.
TL;DR - No. But it's all good.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cedvure | So you get a message on fb, someone from the past you have reconnected with, just chatting and catching up on life. But it seems they're going through a particularly shitty patch of life, and suddenly idle chit-chat turns to them saying, "I love you".
No, hon, you don't. You don't even really know me. You're in love with the idea of being in love. And I'm going to be that friend who tells it to you straight. A little awkward at first, but honest and all cards on the table. | No. But it's all good. |
JL235 | I agree with you that Japan has owned up and apologised for a lot of their war crimes, and Redditers tend to play the incorrect *"Japan never apologised for WW2"* argument far too often. However Japan can still go further.
Specifically more of their conservative politics still needs to accept more responsibility for what they did during the war. Prominent members of Germany's political parties (and I'm not including their ultra far right parties here), would never dream of visiting memorials which enshrined Nazi war criminals.
The denazification in Europe went a lot further at denouncing the atrocities, and setting it up for future generations to also do the same. This wasn't done in Japan to the same extent; specifically there were many war criminals who got away with their crimes (whilst in Europe we had the Nuremberg trials).
tl;dr; Japan could still do a little more. | I agree with you that Japan has owned up and apologised for a lot of their war crimes, and Redditers tend to play the incorrect "Japan never apologised for WW2" argument far too often. However Japan can still go further.
Specifically more of their conservative politics still needs to accept more responsibility for what they did during the war. Prominent members of Germany's political parties (and I'm not including their ultra far right parties here), would never dream of visiting memorials which enshrined Nazi war criminals.
The denazification in Europe went a lot further at denouncing the atrocities, and setting it up for future generations to also do the same. This wasn't done in Japan to the same extent; specifically there were many war criminals who got away with their crimes (whilst in Europe we had the Nuremberg trials).
tl;dr; Japan could still do a little more.
| NorthKoreaNews | t5_2wlaq | cee8m0m | I agree with you that Japan has owned up and apologised for a lot of their war crimes, and Redditers tend to play the incorrect "Japan never apologised for WW2" argument far too often. However Japan can still go further.
Specifically more of their conservative politics still needs to accept more responsibility for what they did during the war. Prominent members of Germany's political parties (and I'm not including their ultra far right parties here), would never dream of visiting memorials which enshrined Nazi war criminals.
The denazification in Europe went a lot further at denouncing the atrocities, and setting it up for future generations to also do the same. This wasn't done in Japan to the same extent; specifically there were many war criminals who got away with their crimes (whilst in Europe we had the Nuremberg trials). | Japan could still do a little more. |
SlartiBartRelative | Brief explanation of the system used for 100% of the chords in 90% of all songs, examples are in C major.
The three functions of chords:
* I (C major) = tonic.
* IV (F major) = subdominant.
* V (G major 7) = dominant. Sounds like it wants to go back to I.
VI (A minor) can substitute I because it has two of the same notes. Same goes for II (D minor) substituting IV and III (E minor) in relation to V. VII is not used in most pop songs.
V goes to I in 70% of cases and to VI in the other 30%, which is essentially the same chord but with a different bass note.
Then there's the usage of a chord of the parallel minor scale, out of which the substitution of IV and V are the most commonly used. Those chords become F minor (as IV instead of F major) and G minor (as V instead of G major). Substitutes for those chords are Ab major for IV (because of the system mentioned earlier) and Bb major for V (again, same principle).
Lastly there's the idea of changing a chord to make it behave like a V in relation to a different chord than the I. For example:
1. Fact: V (G7) wants to go to I (C) (dominant function).
2. I want something to sound like it wants to go to IV (F).
3. If I look at F as if it was I (it's actually IV, but I still do this), the chord that has a dominant function for I is the V, and that would be.. C7.
Sooooo.. That's that. 90% of all music works like this (including 90% of jazz). Don't aim for your chord progression to be unique. Aim for your song to be good. What is a good song? No one knows. We all just listen to a song and think about whether or not we *feel* like it is a good song, which is perfectly fine. True creativity isn't writing a unique or 'interesting' song (god no), it's writing a *good song*.
TL;DR: There are essentially 3 different chord fuctions. Don't worry about finding one or six more. Work on writing good songs with those 3. | Brief explanation of the system used for 100% of the chords in 90% of all songs, examples are in C major.
The three functions of chords:
I (C major) = tonic.
IV (F major) = subdominant.
V (G major 7) = dominant. Sounds like it wants to go back to I.
VI (A minor) can substitute I because it has two of the same notes. Same goes for II (D minor) substituting IV and III (E minor) in relation to V. VII is not used in most pop songs.
V goes to I in 70% of cases and to VI in the other 30%, which is essentially the same chord but with a different bass note.
Then there's the usage of a chord of the parallel minor scale, out of which the substitution of IV and V are the most commonly used. Those chords become F minor (as IV instead of F major) and G minor (as V instead of G major). Substitutes for those chords are Ab major for IV (because of the system mentioned earlier) and Bb major for V (again, same principle).
Lastly there's the idea of changing a chord to make it behave like a V in relation to a different chord than the I. For example:
Fact: V (G7) wants to go to I (C) (dominant function).
I want something to sound like it wants to go to IV (F).
If I look at F as if it was I (it's actually IV, but I still do this), the chord that has a dominant function for I is the V, and that would be.. C7.
Sooooo.. That's that. 90% of all music works like this (including 90% of jazz). Don't aim for your chord progression to be unique. Aim for your song to be good. What is a good song? No one knows. We all just listen to a song and think about whether or not we feel like it is a good song, which is perfectly fine. True creativity isn't writing a unique or 'interesting' song (god no), it's writing a good song .
TL;DR: There are essentially 3 different chord fuctions. Don't worry about finding one or six more. Work on writing good songs with those 3.
| WeAreTheMusicMakers | t5_2qmah | ceevdmp | Brief explanation of the system used for 100% of the chords in 90% of all songs, examples are in C major.
The three functions of chords:
I (C major) = tonic.
IV (F major) = subdominant.
V (G major 7) = dominant. Sounds like it wants to go back to I.
VI (A minor) can substitute I because it has two of the same notes. Same goes for II (D minor) substituting IV and III (E minor) in relation to V. VII is not used in most pop songs.
V goes to I in 70% of cases and to VI in the other 30%, which is essentially the same chord but with a different bass note.
Then there's the usage of a chord of the parallel minor scale, out of which the substitution of IV and V are the most commonly used. Those chords become F minor (as IV instead of F major) and G minor (as V instead of G major). Substitutes for those chords are Ab major for IV (because of the system mentioned earlier) and Bb major for V (again, same principle).
Lastly there's the idea of changing a chord to make it behave like a V in relation to a different chord than the I. For example:
Fact: V (G7) wants to go to I (C) (dominant function).
I want something to sound like it wants to go to IV (F).
If I look at F as if it was I (it's actually IV, but I still do this), the chord that has a dominant function for I is the V, and that would be.. C7.
Sooooo.. That's that. 90% of all music works like this (including 90% of jazz). Don't aim for your chord progression to be unique. Aim for your song to be good. What is a good song? No one knows. We all just listen to a song and think about whether or not we feel like it is a good song, which is perfectly fine. True creativity isn't writing a unique or 'interesting' song (god no), it's writing a good song . | There are essentially 3 different chord fuctions. Don't worry about finding one or six more. Work on writing good songs with those 3. |
SPC_Patchless | >The claim is that a hypothetical, or inevitable, ultimate intelligence may punish those who fail to help it or help create it, with greater punishment given to those who knew the importance of the task in advance.
The real question is why we're attributing an arbitrarily negative emotional state to a hypothetical ultimate intelligence.
I assume the basis of this "punishment" is that singularity must be brought about as swiftly as possible so that as much growth as possible can be achieved in a given time period. A self-interested intelligence is sort of a stretch, but a more realistic assumption than merely a malicious one.
Given that goal, wasting resources on "torture" would be pointless, even if only in the context of providing a motivator in the basilisk. Unless we're also assuming time travel is possible, any failure to bring about singularity as quickly as possible can't be rectified in retrospect, even if everyone knows about the basilisk. In economic terms, it'd be a "sunk cost" and actually following through on the "torture" would be a pointless waste of resources.
tl;dr - The basilisk is a lie, but "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" is a heck of a video game/story. | >The claim is that a hypothetical, or inevitable, ultimate intelligence may punish those who fail to help it or help create it, with greater punishment given to those who knew the importance of the task in advance.
The real question is why we're attributing an arbitrarily negative emotional state to a hypothetical ultimate intelligence.
I assume the basis of this "punishment" is that singularity must be brought about as swiftly as possible so that as much growth as possible can be achieved in a given time period. A self-interested intelligence is sort of a stretch, but a more realistic assumption than merely a malicious one.
Given that goal, wasting resources on "torture" would be pointless, even if only in the context of providing a motivator in the basilisk. Unless we're also assuming time travel is possible, any failure to bring about singularity as quickly as possible can't be rectified in retrospect, even if everyone knows about the basilisk. In economic terms, it'd be a "sunk cost" and actually following through on the "torture" would be a pointless waste of resources.
tl;dr - The basilisk is a lie, but "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" is a heck of a video game/story.
| changemyview | t5_2w2s8 | cedy6py | The claim is that a hypothetical, or inevitable, ultimate intelligence may punish those who fail to help it or help create it, with greater punishment given to those who knew the importance of the task in advance.
The real question is why we're attributing an arbitrarily negative emotional state to a hypothetical ultimate intelligence.
I assume the basis of this "punishment" is that singularity must be brought about as swiftly as possible so that as much growth as possible can be achieved in a given time period. A self-interested intelligence is sort of a stretch, but a more realistic assumption than merely a malicious one.
Given that goal, wasting resources on "torture" would be pointless, even if only in the context of providing a motivator in the basilisk. Unless we're also assuming time travel is possible, any failure to bring about singularity as quickly as possible can't be rectified in retrospect, even if everyone knows about the basilisk. In economic terms, it'd be a "sunk cost" and actually following through on the "torture" would be a pointless waste of resources. | The basilisk is a lie, but "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" is a heck of a video game/story. |
The_Worst_Bassist | I was in the same boat. I'm right handed but i happen to be left handed when it comes to bass and guitar. My advice is, don't fight it. I know that it's easier finding deals for right handed ones and it can be frustrating finding as cheap, nice bass (thanks god for Squier VM Jazz bass), but it will be disencouraging if you try to fight your left-handiness. I had a "regular" guitar when I was 12 and I ever played because I wasn't comfortable with it. When I bought my first bass at 14, I bought a lef-handed one and I fell in love immediately.
TL;DR - It can be frustrating to learn how to play an instrument. It can be even more if you're not comfortable with it and it can lead you to quit. | I was in the same boat. I'm right handed but i happen to be left handed when it comes to bass and guitar. My advice is, don't fight it. I know that it's easier finding deals for right handed ones and it can be frustrating finding as cheap, nice bass (thanks god for Squier VM Jazz bass), but it will be disencouraging if you try to fight your left-handiness. I had a "regular" guitar when I was 12 and I ever played because I wasn't comfortable with it. When I bought my first bass at 14, I bought a lef-handed one and I fell in love immediately.
TL;DR - It can be frustrating to learn how to play an instrument. It can be even more if you're not comfortable with it and it can lead you to quit.
| Bass | t5_2qpc3 | cee2z9u | I was in the same boat. I'm right handed but i happen to be left handed when it comes to bass and guitar. My advice is, don't fight it. I know that it's easier finding deals for right handed ones and it can be frustrating finding as cheap, nice bass (thanks god for Squier VM Jazz bass), but it will be disencouraging if you try to fight your left-handiness. I had a "regular" guitar when I was 12 and I ever played because I wasn't comfortable with it. When I bought my first bass at 14, I bought a lef-handed one and I fell in love immediately. | It can be frustrating to learn how to play an instrument. It can be even more if you're not comfortable with it and it can lead you to quit. |
steelcitykid | That's possible. I've been gaming since the mid 90s on PC and since the 80s on consoles. I've also been a heavy PC user for well over 20 years.
A few years ago I started to develop a pain in my left wrist area (around the tendons), as well as stiff and sore joints in my hands, especially my index and middle finger. Between long office hours (programmer) and all the extra time gaming, I figured that it was between CTS and the early stages of rheumatoid arthritis which runs in my family.
Anyhow, around this time I had just gotten into weight training. I noticed within the first month that my hands didn't ache nearly as much, and that the joint stiffness was almost gone too. I decided to apply the training directly to my hands.
I bought my first set of Captains of Crush hand grips (.5) and used them every other day (the knurling is rather rough on the hands at first) but I can close the .5 (120lbs) like nothing else. After using these for a while, the pain is completely gone and my grip strength is far better. I was already deadlifting a lot more than that but it applies differently when you're directly closing just 1 hand on it. I also started using the hand bands they sell and I've been pain and stiffness free for a long time.
TL;DR: This may sound like a plug for Ironmind but their handgrips and bands really turned my hand pain around. They sell a variety of strength levels to get you started and I'm a firm believer in hand/grip strength as well as general hand health. I think it's foolish to think that playing games for a huge chunk of your life will not at some point involve repetitive stress injuries. You'll notice my links below are devoid of affiliate links, I just like their quality.
Bands:
Grips:
edit: formatting
| That's possible. I've been gaming since the mid 90s on PC and since the 80s on consoles. I've also been a heavy PC user for well over 20 years.
A few years ago I started to develop a pain in my left wrist area (around the tendons), as well as stiff and sore joints in my hands, especially my index and middle finger. Between long office hours (programmer) and all the extra time gaming, I figured that it was between CTS and the early stages of rheumatoid arthritis which runs in my family.
Anyhow, around this time I had just gotten into weight training. I noticed within the first month that my hands didn't ache nearly as much, and that the joint stiffness was almost gone too. I decided to apply the training directly to my hands.
I bought my first set of Captains of Crush hand grips (.5) and used them every other day (the knurling is rather rough on the hands at first) but I can close the .5 (120lbs) like nothing else. After using these for a while, the pain is completely gone and my grip strength is far better. I was already deadlifting a lot more than that but it applies differently when you're directly closing just 1 hand on it. I also started using the hand bands they sell and I've been pain and stiffness free for a long time.
TL;DR: This may sound like a plug for Ironmind but their handgrips and bands really turned my hand pain around. They sell a variety of strength levels to get you started and I'm a firm believer in hand/grip strength as well as general hand health. I think it's foolish to think that playing games for a huge chunk of your life will not at some point involve repetitive stress injuries. You'll notice my links below are devoid of affiliate links, I just like their quality.
Bands:
Grips:
edit: formatting
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cee5efl | That's possible. I've been gaming since the mid 90s on PC and since the 80s on consoles. I've also been a heavy PC user for well over 20 years.
A few years ago I started to develop a pain in my left wrist area (around the tendons), as well as stiff and sore joints in my hands, especially my index and middle finger. Between long office hours (programmer) and all the extra time gaming, I figured that it was between CTS and the early stages of rheumatoid arthritis which runs in my family.
Anyhow, around this time I had just gotten into weight training. I noticed within the first month that my hands didn't ache nearly as much, and that the joint stiffness was almost gone too. I decided to apply the training directly to my hands.
I bought my first set of Captains of Crush hand grips (.5) and used them every other day (the knurling is rather rough on the hands at first) but I can close the .5 (120lbs) like nothing else. After using these for a while, the pain is completely gone and my grip strength is far better. I was already deadlifting a lot more than that but it applies differently when you're directly closing just 1 hand on it. I also started using the hand bands they sell and I've been pain and stiffness free for a long time. | This may sound like a plug for Ironmind but their handgrips and bands really turned my hand pain around. They sell a variety of strength levels to get you started and I'm a firm believer in hand/grip strength as well as general hand health. I think it's foolish to think that playing games for a huge chunk of your life will not at some point involve repetitive stress injuries. You'll notice my links below are devoid of affiliate links, I just like their quality.
Bands:
Grips:
edit: formatting |
Hiddencamper | If you read the actual linked tepco reports you see the steam is at exactly 7 am every couple days. Also it's right after a section titled waste transfer. It really looks like they are doing some waste transfer.
No meltdown would only occur between the hours of 7 and 8 am, result in no change of observed parameters, and only occur every couple days. A radwaste transfer would.
Tldr some people used google translate on a daily plant log and took it out of context. | If you read the actual linked tepco reports you see the steam is at exactly 7 am every couple days. Also it's right after a section titled waste transfer. It really looks like they are doing some waste transfer.
No meltdown would only occur between the hours of 7 and 8 am, result in no change of observed parameters, and only occur every couple days. A radwaste transfer would.
Tldr some people used google translate on a daily plant log and took it out of context.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | cee9g5r | If you read the actual linked tepco reports you see the steam is at exactly 7 am every couple days. Also it's right after a section titled waste transfer. It really looks like they are doing some waste transfer.
No meltdown would only occur between the hours of 7 and 8 am, result in no change of observed parameters, and only occur every couple days. A radwaste transfer would. | some people used google translate on a daily plant log and took it out of context. |
blindtobeauty | As a female who had a child at an early age and placed her for adoption , I'm all for it. Not only have I had the opportunity to further my education and grow up myself, but i also gave my daughter a life I never would have been able to provide for her. She does all the things I always wanted to do as a child but couldn't afford to. She has a wonderful loving family that I hand picked for her and her family and I keep in touch regularly. So it was the best for everyone involved.
I, on the other hand, may not be able to have any more children and would feel weird adopting due to said situation above. I worry how my daughter would feel to meet me and find out I had adopted a child after I adopted her out. I wouldn't want her to feel like I traded her in or anything because she is the most perfect little girl. I just wanted her to grow up better than I did.
TL;DR: Placed a child for adoption, questions if should adopt in future. | As a female who had a child at an early age and placed her for adoption , I'm all for it. Not only have I had the opportunity to further my education and grow up myself, but i also gave my daughter a life I never would have been able to provide for her. She does all the things I always wanted to do as a child but couldn't afford to. She has a wonderful loving family that I hand picked for her and her family and I keep in touch regularly. So it was the best for everyone involved.
I, on the other hand, may not be able to have any more children and would feel weird adopting due to said situation above. I worry how my daughter would feel to meet me and find out I had adopted a child after I adopted her out. I wouldn't want her to feel like I traded her in or anything because she is the most perfect little girl. I just wanted her to grow up better than I did.
TL;DR: Placed a child for adoption, questions if should adopt in future.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cee34x3 | As a female who had a child at an early age and placed her for adoption , I'm all for it. Not only have I had the opportunity to further my education and grow up myself, but i also gave my daughter a life I never would have been able to provide for her. She does all the things I always wanted to do as a child but couldn't afford to. She has a wonderful loving family that I hand picked for her and her family and I keep in touch regularly. So it was the best for everyone involved.
I, on the other hand, may not be able to have any more children and would feel weird adopting due to said situation above. I worry how my daughter would feel to meet me and find out I had adopted a child after I adopted her out. I wouldn't want her to feel like I traded her in or anything because she is the most perfect little girl. I just wanted her to grow up better than I did. | Placed a child for adoption, questions if should adopt in future. |
MolassesKitty | Give her some earplugs. It makes more sense for her to have private noise and thus "concentrate better" than for you to get stressed out by uncontrollable background noise... even people without attention difficulties have been shown to get stressed out and even suffer health impacts from open-plan offices and the associated noise.
Also, talk to your boss/HR/whatever, because there's no workplace on the planet where it's appropriate to keep doing something that annoys your coworkers after they've asked you to stop. Not to mention that Youtube is pretty high on the list of things most employers don't really want people to be playing with while on the clock...
TL/DR: Your coworker's the one in the wrong, not you. | Give her some earplugs. It makes more sense for her to have private noise and thus "concentrate better" than for you to get stressed out by uncontrollable background noise... even people without attention difficulties have been shown to get stressed out and even suffer health impacts from open-plan offices and the associated noise.
Also, talk to your boss/HR/whatever, because there's no workplace on the planet where it's appropriate to keep doing something that annoys your coworkers after they've asked you to stop. Not to mention that Youtube is pretty high on the list of things most employers don't really want people to be playing with while on the clock...
TL/DR: Your coworker's the one in the wrong, not you.
| ADHD | t5_2qnwb | ceei3ps | Give her some earplugs. It makes more sense for her to have private noise and thus "concentrate better" than for you to get stressed out by uncontrollable background noise... even people without attention difficulties have been shown to get stressed out and even suffer health impacts from open-plan offices and the associated noise.
Also, talk to your boss/HR/whatever, because there's no workplace on the planet where it's appropriate to keep doing something that annoys your coworkers after they've asked you to stop. Not to mention that Youtube is pretty high on the list of things most employers don't really want people to be playing with while on the clock... | Your coworker's the one in the wrong, not you. |
ababyotter | Sadly I've tried talking with my boss about it, but it seems I work in the one place where they don't really care and I'm reluctant to rock the boat by going to HR.
I work in a residential treatment facility for people with mental illness, so wearing headphones/ear plugs isn't an option since our residents will come to the office asking for help and we're supposed to be listening to what's going on in the house even while we're in the office. I talked with my boss about the background noise and her solution was for me to go to her private office whenever I needed to concentrate and get work done. This might seem like a good solution, but by going there I would be isolating myself from the clients, therefore having fewer interactions with them and it would bring my therapeutic billing numbers down. It's kind of a political situation as my boss and this coworker are friends outside of work, so really the only solution would be going to HR.
What I've done instead is spend my time outside of the office in the common areas with our residents unless absolutely necessary and then getting my work done once this coworker has left for the day. It's really not ideal.
TL;DR: Work sucks :/ | Sadly I've tried talking with my boss about it, but it seems I work in the one place where they don't really care and I'm reluctant to rock the boat by going to HR.
I work in a residential treatment facility for people with mental illness, so wearing headphones/ear plugs isn't an option since our residents will come to the office asking for help and we're supposed to be listening to what's going on in the house even while we're in the office. I talked with my boss about the background noise and her solution was for me to go to her private office whenever I needed to concentrate and get work done. This might seem like a good solution, but by going there I would be isolating myself from the clients, therefore having fewer interactions with them and it would bring my therapeutic billing numbers down. It's kind of a political situation as my boss and this coworker are friends outside of work, so really the only solution would be going to HR.
What I've done instead is spend my time outside of the office in the common areas with our residents unless absolutely necessary and then getting my work done once this coworker has left for the day. It's really not ideal.
TL;DR: Work sucks :/
| ADHD | t5_2qnwb | ceeipmp | Sadly I've tried talking with my boss about it, but it seems I work in the one place where they don't really care and I'm reluctant to rock the boat by going to HR.
I work in a residential treatment facility for people with mental illness, so wearing headphones/ear plugs isn't an option since our residents will come to the office asking for help and we're supposed to be listening to what's going on in the house even while we're in the office. I talked with my boss about the background noise and her solution was for me to go to her private office whenever I needed to concentrate and get work done. This might seem like a good solution, but by going there I would be isolating myself from the clients, therefore having fewer interactions with them and it would bring my therapeutic billing numbers down. It's kind of a political situation as my boss and this coworker are friends outside of work, so really the only solution would be going to HR.
What I've done instead is spend my time outside of the office in the common areas with our residents unless absolutely necessary and then getting my work done once this coworker has left for the day. It's really not ideal. | Work sucks :/ |
Quinator | Not meaning to be a dick here but this is already Ro8 so...
Now on a serious note, I think the best solution would be merge both teams to make a really competitive one and another who could work as a nice sparring while developing new talent.
My best guess would be keeping Shy as top lane and Flame to mid (several times has been stated that he wrecks Ambition there) I've been liking Daydream so he should be in jungle. With both Madlife and Space on bot lane. While many show no respect for Space I find him to be the most consistent player on Frost (even more than our beloved GodLife). That team would wreck many teams, the thing is that SKT T1 K and KT Rolster Bullets are way beyond the other teams, the champion of Winter should be the winner of that semi, anything else would be an upset.
TL;DR: Blaze and Frost should merge rosters and make a competitive team. | Not meaning to be a dick here but this is already Ro8 so...
Now on a serious note, I think the best solution would be merge both teams to make a really competitive one and another who could work as a nice sparring while developing new talent.
My best guess would be keeping Shy as top lane and Flame to mid (several times has been stated that he wrecks Ambition there) I've been liking Daydream so he should be in jungle. With both Madlife and Space on bot lane. While many show no respect for Space I find him to be the most consistent player on Frost (even more than our beloved GodLife). That team would wreck many teams, the thing is that SKT T1 K and KT Rolster Bullets are way beyond the other teams, the champion of Winter should be the winner of that semi, anything else would be an upset.
TL;DR: Blaze and Frost should merge rosters and make a competitive team.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ceehdyr | Not meaning to be a dick here but this is already Ro8 so...
Now on a serious note, I think the best solution would be merge both teams to make a really competitive one and another who could work as a nice sparring while developing new talent.
My best guess would be keeping Shy as top lane and Flame to mid (several times has been stated that he wrecks Ambition there) I've been liking Daydream so he should be in jungle. With both Madlife and Space on bot lane. While many show no respect for Space I find him to be the most consistent player on Frost (even more than our beloved GodLife). That team would wreck many teams, the thing is that SKT T1 K and KT Rolster Bullets are way beyond the other teams, the champion of Winter should be the winner of that semi, anything else would be an upset. | Blaze and Frost should merge rosters and make a competitive team. |
NipplesForHire | The same thing I do when my house is populated: furiously work my blistering erection until it erupts in a glorious fountain of testicular fluids... oh shit besides masterbation.
In that case, I pretend like I'm an overpowered anime character, twisting around in the middle of the living room as I shoot balls of pure condensed energy out of my fingertips, every blast resulting in cataclysmic explosions capable of wiping out entire galaxies. There is no creature in existence that can come against my endless power. No weapon constructed will ever be powerful enough to bring me down. No man, animal, or God will ever be able to comprehend the fathomless abyss of annihilating force that rests within my soul being.
TLDR: I'm an expert virgin.
| The same thing I do when my house is populated: furiously work my blistering erection until it erupts in a glorious fountain of testicular fluids... oh shit besides masterbation.
In that case, I pretend like I'm an overpowered anime character, twisting around in the middle of the living room as I shoot balls of pure condensed energy out of my fingertips, every blast resulting in cataclysmic explosions capable of wiping out entire galaxies. There is no creature in existence that can come against my endless power. No weapon constructed will ever be powerful enough to bring me down. No man, animal, or God will ever be able to comprehend the fathomless abyss of annihilating force that rests within my soul being.
TLDR: I'm an expert virgin.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceep4xl | The same thing I do when my house is populated: furiously work my blistering erection until it erupts in a glorious fountain of testicular fluids... oh shit besides masterbation.
In that case, I pretend like I'm an overpowered anime character, twisting around in the middle of the living room as I shoot balls of pure condensed energy out of my fingertips, every blast resulting in cataclysmic explosions capable of wiping out entire galaxies. There is no creature in existence that can come against my endless power. No weapon constructed will ever be powerful enough to bring me down. No man, animal, or God will ever be able to comprehend the fathomless abyss of annihilating force that rests within my soul being. | I'm an expert virgin. |
Torque_Tonight | Excellent input there. I would have thought my comment fell into the category of stating the obvious, but here goes.
Let's consider renting versus buying a modest property worth £100,000. That could be a studio flat down south or basic house up north.
First, renting. A property worth £100k would probably rent for about £650 per month. That is £7800 per year giving a yield of 7.8% which is quite reasonable. Yields of over 10% are possible in some areas:
Over the course of 5 years you would pay £39k in rent. So in the rental case your position after 5 years is -£39000.
Now buying. Let's say you put down £5000 as a 5% deposit, borrow £20k 20% from the government help to buy scheme and take a mortgage for the remaining £75k 75%: You can get a 5 year fixed rate mortgage at less than 3%:
So you've borrowed £95k at a rate of 3%. We'll say it's on an interest only basis to keep it simple. (You'd be better off with a repayment mortgage as the size of the loan would decrease over time). Each year you will pay £95k * 3% = £2850 on the mortgage. Over 5 years that is £14250.
To be conservative assume house prices are rising at 5% annually.
After year 1 the house is worth £105k, year 2 £110250, Y3 £115763, Y4 £121551, Y5 £127628. After 5 years the house is worth over £27k more than you paid for it.
By buying after 5 years you've gained £27k in value and made £14k in mortgage payments, so you are £13k up.
Renting, you were £39k down. That's £52,000 worse off than if you had bought. You might turn down £52k but I wouldn't.
TLDR. Renting 5 years: -39% = worse off. Buying 5 years: +13% = better off. Difference 52%. Proof!
| Excellent input there. I would have thought my comment fell into the category of stating the obvious, but here goes.
Let's consider renting versus buying a modest property worth £100,000. That could be a studio flat down south or basic house up north.
First, renting. A property worth £100k would probably rent for about £650 per month. That is £7800 per year giving a yield of 7.8% which is quite reasonable. Yields of over 10% are possible in some areas:
Over the course of 5 years you would pay £39k in rent. So in the rental case your position after 5 years is -£39000.
Now buying. Let's say you put down £5000 as a 5% deposit, borrow £20k 20% from the government help to buy scheme and take a mortgage for the remaining £75k 75%: You can get a 5 year fixed rate mortgage at less than 3%:
So you've borrowed £95k at a rate of 3%. We'll say it's on an interest only basis to keep it simple. (You'd be better off with a repayment mortgage as the size of the loan would decrease over time). Each year you will pay £95k * 3% = £2850 on the mortgage. Over 5 years that is £14250.
To be conservative assume house prices are rising at 5% annually.
After year 1 the house is worth £105k, year 2 £110250, Y3 £115763, Y4 £121551, Y5 £127628. After 5 years the house is worth over £27k more than you paid for it.
By buying after 5 years you've gained £27k in value and made £14k in mortgage payments, so you are £13k up.
Renting, you were £39k down. That's £52,000 worse off than if you had bought. You might turn down £52k but I wouldn't.
TLDR. Renting 5 years: -39% = worse off. Buying 5 years: +13% = better off. Difference 52%. Proof!
| UKPersonalFinance | t5_2wkka | ceiyv5w | Excellent input there. I would have thought my comment fell into the category of stating the obvious, but here goes.
Let's consider renting versus buying a modest property worth £100,000. That could be a studio flat down south or basic house up north.
First, renting. A property worth £100k would probably rent for about £650 per month. That is £7800 per year giving a yield of 7.8% which is quite reasonable. Yields of over 10% are possible in some areas:
Over the course of 5 years you would pay £39k in rent. So in the rental case your position after 5 years is -£39000.
Now buying. Let's say you put down £5000 as a 5% deposit, borrow £20k 20% from the government help to buy scheme and take a mortgage for the remaining £75k 75%: You can get a 5 year fixed rate mortgage at less than 3%:
So you've borrowed £95k at a rate of 3%. We'll say it's on an interest only basis to keep it simple. (You'd be better off with a repayment mortgage as the size of the loan would decrease over time). Each year you will pay £95k * 3% = £2850 on the mortgage. Over 5 years that is £14250.
To be conservative assume house prices are rising at 5% annually.
After year 1 the house is worth £105k, year 2 £110250, Y3 £115763, Y4 £121551, Y5 £127628. After 5 years the house is worth over £27k more than you paid for it.
By buying after 5 years you've gained £27k in value and made £14k in mortgage payments, so you are £13k up.
Renting, you were £39k down. That's £52,000 worse off than if you had bought. You might turn down £52k but I wouldn't. | Renting 5 years: -39% = worse off. Buying 5 years: +13% = better off. Difference 52%. Proof! |
Quickloot | > Control: In order to prevent the Subjugators from tearing the Pact a new one before they go down, players must coordinate with each other to quickly pick out the Subjugators from the crowd of mobs and lock them down with CCs before they can attack.
That is the problem of GW2 combat. Look at what you've wrote: *"players must coordinate with each other to quickly pick out the Subjugators"*
As you can guess, the control part you mentioned can easily be overwritten by DPS. DPSing the mobs so fast they can't get to their target. This is the main culprit in the creation of the zerker meta in PvE.
Subjugators should be redesigned to explode on a timer, they would be immune to damage, but not to CC, now opening up paths to enforce the Control part of the meta, instead of just DPS.
There are more ideas to redesign these kind of encounters to a DPS-Support-CC trinity but this would end up in a big wall of text that most people have seen anyways. What we need is a CDI on PvE difficulty or PvE Meta, so we can get our point across to the devs directly.
**TL;DR:** PvE meta isn't balanced, not for a slight chance. Defiant needs redesign, healing power is too weak, dodge/reflec is too good of a mitigation to require other aspects like going tankier/support, bosses mechanics are terrible, there are tons of sugestions, look at these at the Dungeon subforum for example: (ignore the obvious troll posts there) | > Control: In order to prevent the Subjugators from tearing the Pact a new one before they go down, players must coordinate with each other to quickly pick out the Subjugators from the crowd of mobs and lock them down with CCs before they can attack.
That is the problem of GW2 combat. Look at what you've wrote: "players must coordinate with each other to quickly pick out the Subjugators"
As you can guess, the control part you mentioned can easily be overwritten by DPS. DPSing the mobs so fast they can't get to their target. This is the main culprit in the creation of the zerker meta in PvE.
Subjugators should be redesigned to explode on a timer, they would be immune to damage, but not to CC, now opening up paths to enforce the Control part of the meta, instead of just DPS.
There are more ideas to redesign these kind of encounters to a DPS-Support-CC trinity but this would end up in a big wall of text that most people have seen anyways. What we need is a CDI on PvE difficulty or PvE Meta, so we can get our point across to the devs directly.
TL;DR: PvE meta isn't balanced, not for a slight chance. Defiant needs redesign, healing power is too weak, dodge/reflec is too good of a mitigation to require other aspects like going tankier/support, bosses mechanics are terrible, there are tons of sugestions, look at these at the Dungeon subforum for example: (ignore the obvious troll posts there)
| Guildwars2 | t5_2r9po | cefgkwg | Control: In order to prevent the Subjugators from tearing the Pact a new one before they go down, players must coordinate with each other to quickly pick out the Subjugators from the crowd of mobs and lock them down with CCs before they can attack.
That is the problem of GW2 combat. Look at what you've wrote: "players must coordinate with each other to quickly pick out the Subjugators"
As you can guess, the control part you mentioned can easily be overwritten by DPS. DPSing the mobs so fast they can't get to their target. This is the main culprit in the creation of the zerker meta in PvE.
Subjugators should be redesigned to explode on a timer, they would be immune to damage, but not to CC, now opening up paths to enforce the Control part of the meta, instead of just DPS.
There are more ideas to redesign these kind of encounters to a DPS-Support-CC trinity but this would end up in a big wall of text that most people have seen anyways. What we need is a CDI on PvE difficulty or PvE Meta, so we can get our point across to the devs directly. | PvE meta isn't balanced, not for a slight chance. Defiant needs redesign, healing power is too weak, dodge/reflec is too good of a mitigation to require other aspects like going tankier/support, bosses mechanics are terrible, there are tons of sugestions, look at these at the Dungeon subforum for example: (ignore the obvious troll posts there) |
carterjp3 | It felt like there was a shorter range than usual because I guess there has to be but there is a way to get around it. You can not shoot somebody with really good aim across a mountain range like you could in Skyrim, or someone that is even like 30 feet away, but also, archery in ESO has that aiming thing you can see in the gameplay videos they have put out. I wish the arrow would keep going towards people even if it is far away but the chance for hitting them goes down over distance.
TLDR; Archery has a lot shorter range, but the aimlock kind of makes up for it. | It felt like there was a shorter range than usual because I guess there has to be but there is a way to get around it. You can not shoot somebody with really good aim across a mountain range like you could in Skyrim, or someone that is even like 30 feet away, but also, archery in ESO has that aiming thing you can see in the gameplay videos they have put out. I wish the arrow would keep going towards people even if it is far away but the chance for hitting them goes down over distance.
TLDR; Archery has a lot shorter range, but the aimlock kind of makes up for it.
| elderscrollsonline | t5_2tqi0 | cei4yn6 | It felt like there was a shorter range than usual because I guess there has to be but there is a way to get around it. You can not shoot somebody with really good aim across a mountain range like you could in Skyrim, or someone that is even like 30 feet away, but also, archery in ESO has that aiming thing you can see in the gameplay videos they have put out. I wish the arrow would keep going towards people even if it is far away but the chance for hitting them goes down over distance. | Archery has a lot shorter range, but the aimlock kind of makes up for it. |
dogandcatinlove | I was super tired from a long run (training for a trail half) and I asked him to help me cut some carrots for roasting. I am not a great chef so I always follow recipes, and I have always seen carrots roasted in a 'french fry' cut instead of circles. He asked me how to cut them, and I said to cut them like fries, and he asked why he couldn't cut them in circles. I said I wasn't sure, but the recipes all say fry-shape. He had already decided that the shape wouldn't make a difference, but he still 'asked' if I thought it would, but his question came out a little snooty. It just escalated from there until he said he just wanted me to 'think' about why the carrots should be cut like that. I turned on major sarcasm mode. He said he thought I was acting like a jerk which really hurt my feelings because name-calling isn't allowed. So we went to separate rooms to cool off, and then he came and apologized for calling me a jerk and I apologized for the sarcasm.
TL;DR: Stupid fucking carrots! | I was super tired from a long run (training for a trail half) and I asked him to help me cut some carrots for roasting. I am not a great chef so I always follow recipes, and I have always seen carrots roasted in a 'french fry' cut instead of circles. He asked me how to cut them, and I said to cut them like fries, and he asked why he couldn't cut them in circles. I said I wasn't sure, but the recipes all say fry-shape. He had already decided that the shape wouldn't make a difference, but he still 'asked' if I thought it would, but his question came out a little snooty. It just escalated from there until he said he just wanted me to 'think' about why the carrots should be cut like that. I turned on major sarcasm mode. He said he thought I was acting like a jerk which really hurt my feelings because name-calling isn't allowed. So we went to separate rooms to cool off, and then he came and apologized for calling me a jerk and I apologized for the sarcasm.
TL;DR: Stupid fucking carrots!
| AskWomen | t5_2rxrw | cefses6 | I was super tired from a long run (training for a trail half) and I asked him to help me cut some carrots for roasting. I am not a great chef so I always follow recipes, and I have always seen carrots roasted in a 'french fry' cut instead of circles. He asked me how to cut them, and I said to cut them like fries, and he asked why he couldn't cut them in circles. I said I wasn't sure, but the recipes all say fry-shape. He had already decided that the shape wouldn't make a difference, but he still 'asked' if I thought it would, but his question came out a little snooty. It just escalated from there until he said he just wanted me to 'think' about why the carrots should be cut like that. I turned on major sarcasm mode. He said he thought I was acting like a jerk which really hurt my feelings because name-calling isn't allowed. So we went to separate rooms to cool off, and then he came and apologized for calling me a jerk and I apologized for the sarcasm. | Stupid fucking carrots! |
217to707 | I love that he TL;DR'ed it. | I love that he TL;DR'ed it.
| nfl | t5_2qmg3 | cefme1r | I love that he | ed it. |
Sv3den | It rarely happens but when it does it sucks. It happened to me at Paizocon. I own all physical copies of the hardcovers and got challenged on a spell from Ultimate Magic. Only my personal copy of the book would suffice even though there were two other copies on the table.
This needs to change. I used to be able to bring a photocopies of pages of my hardcover. That is no longer allowed.
tl;dr Its not a problem until it is. | It rarely happens but when it does it sucks. It happened to me at Paizocon. I own all physical copies of the hardcovers and got challenged on a spell from Ultimate Magic. Only my personal copy of the book would suffice even though there were two other copies on the table.
This needs to change. I used to be able to bring a photocopies of pages of my hardcover. That is no longer allowed.
tl;dr Its not a problem until it is.
| Pathfinder | t5_2qyq5 | cegdswa | It rarely happens but when it does it sucks. It happened to me at Paizocon. I own all physical copies of the hardcovers and got challenged on a spell from Ultimate Magic. Only my personal copy of the book would suffice even though there were two other copies on the table.
This needs to change. I used to be able to bring a photocopies of pages of my hardcover. That is no longer allowed. | Its not a problem until it is. |
Nerdcuse | No, my comprehension is just fine. But you seem to be operating under some faulty assumptions about how many books you need to cover all the available options.
Assuming that book ownership were an actual issue (it isn't), your subscription idea is a waste of money for a player who participates in Society games for more than a few months.
Nearly every ability and item you see on the Additional Resources page has been reprinted multiple times in multiple books. So even if, for some strange reason, you wanted to have every possible option available you would only need to buy a small handful of pdfs to cover all of your bases. So for the cost of a couple months of your subscription, you could have a pdf of all the major books (ultimate equipment, ultimate combat, etc) which would cover something like 2/3 of the non-core options on the list. And that 2/3 would constitute the bulk of the most interesting and popular options, since that is what tends to get reprinted in the core line.
Crossbow Mastery, for example, appears in three books. All of which are valid sources on the Additional Resources list.
And, like I've said elsewhere, the big reason why you're supposed to have a copy of the book handy is for the benefit of the DM and the other players. The campaign only expects familiarity with a small number of books. So if you have an ability or piece of equipment from the Additional Resources list that isn't in one of those books, you need to be able to show it is legit in case the total strangers you are playing with have any questions.
Which, like I said, is why this is so rarely enforced.
TL;DR: You created an overly complicated and expensive solution to an almost non-existent problem. | No, my comprehension is just fine. But you seem to be operating under some faulty assumptions about how many books you need to cover all the available options.
Assuming that book ownership were an actual issue (it isn't), your subscription idea is a waste of money for a player who participates in Society games for more than a few months.
Nearly every ability and item you see on the Additional Resources page has been reprinted multiple times in multiple books. So even if, for some strange reason, you wanted to have every possible option available you would only need to buy a small handful of pdfs to cover all of your bases. So for the cost of a couple months of your subscription, you could have a pdf of all the major books (ultimate equipment, ultimate combat, etc) which would cover something like 2/3 of the non-core options on the list. And that 2/3 would constitute the bulk of the most interesting and popular options, since that is what tends to get reprinted in the core line.
Crossbow Mastery, for example, appears in three books. All of which are valid sources on the Additional Resources list.
And, like I've said elsewhere, the big reason why you're supposed to have a copy of the book handy is for the benefit of the DM and the other players. The campaign only expects familiarity with a small number of books. So if you have an ability or piece of equipment from the Additional Resources list that isn't in one of those books, you need to be able to show it is legit in case the total strangers you are playing with have any questions.
Which, like I said, is why this is so rarely enforced.
TL;DR: You created an overly complicated and expensive solution to an almost non-existent problem.
| Pathfinder | t5_2qyq5 | cei718w | No, my comprehension is just fine. But you seem to be operating under some faulty assumptions about how many books you need to cover all the available options.
Assuming that book ownership were an actual issue (it isn't), your subscription idea is a waste of money for a player who participates in Society games for more than a few months.
Nearly every ability and item you see on the Additional Resources page has been reprinted multiple times in multiple books. So even if, for some strange reason, you wanted to have every possible option available you would only need to buy a small handful of pdfs to cover all of your bases. So for the cost of a couple months of your subscription, you could have a pdf of all the major books (ultimate equipment, ultimate combat, etc) which would cover something like 2/3 of the non-core options on the list. And that 2/3 would constitute the bulk of the most interesting and popular options, since that is what tends to get reprinted in the core line.
Crossbow Mastery, for example, appears in three books. All of which are valid sources on the Additional Resources list.
And, like I've said elsewhere, the big reason why you're supposed to have a copy of the book handy is for the benefit of the DM and the other players. The campaign only expects familiarity with a small number of books. So if you have an ability or piece of equipment from the Additional Resources list that isn't in one of those books, you need to be able to show it is legit in case the total strangers you are playing with have any questions.
Which, like I said, is why this is so rarely enforced. | You created an overly complicated and expensive solution to an almost non-existent problem. |
callmejay | I can relate somewhat. I work for a company and it seems like a majority of the time, the projects I work on don't end up even being used. What helps me is to focus on finding ways to get something for myself out of the work. A lot of times, it's learning a new language or new technology. A lot of times it's just the joy in making something, even if it won't be used.
Think of it like playing a game. You can play a complicated video game and spend all this time figuring out puzzles, and what do you get at the end of it? Nothing, it's not about that.
tl;dr: Just try to enjoy the work for its own sake. | I can relate somewhat. I work for a company and it seems like a majority of the time, the projects I work on don't end up even being used. What helps me is to focus on finding ways to get something for myself out of the work. A lot of times, it's learning a new language or new technology. A lot of times it's just the joy in making something, even if it won't be used.
Think of it like playing a game. You can play a complicated video game and spend all this time figuring out puzzles, and what do you get at the end of it? Nothing, it's not about that.
tl;dr: Just try to enjoy the work for its own sake.
| GetMotivated | t5_2rmfx | cegfmaj | I can relate somewhat. I work for a company and it seems like a majority of the time, the projects I work on don't end up even being used. What helps me is to focus on finding ways to get something for myself out of the work. A lot of times, it's learning a new language or new technology. A lot of times it's just the joy in making something, even if it won't be used.
Think of it like playing a game. You can play a complicated video game and spend all this time figuring out puzzles, and what do you get at the end of it? Nothing, it's not about that. | Just try to enjoy the work for its own sake. |
ISTRANGLEHOOKERSAMA | I haven't paintballed with a gopro, but I've go 4x4ing and snowmobiling with one on my helmet. When i got thrown over the bars of my snowmobile and smashed into a surprisingly strong oak, hitting directly on the lense of my dad's hero 2, hard enough that i was briefly knocked out, the thing was fine. I left a dent in the goddamm tree. And when they say waterproof to 5 meters, they mean it... had mine buried in a mud hole, covered in thrown snow after a nasty spill down a mountain, etc, and it was fine. not even a scratch.
the ONLY thing that ever damaged it was when I got run over by my own snowmobile - the frame handle on the front scratched the front and knocked the adjustment point backwards. It's worth noting this same hit had me bleeding from the mouth and back, mildly burned on my arm, and barely conscious, sliding down a mountain.
tl;dr: it'll do just fine. | I haven't paintballed with a gopro, but I've go 4x4ing and snowmobiling with one on my helmet. When i got thrown over the bars of my snowmobile and smashed into a surprisingly strong oak, hitting directly on the lense of my dad's hero 2, hard enough that i was briefly knocked out, the thing was fine. I left a dent in the goddamm tree. And when they say waterproof to 5 meters, they mean it... had mine buried in a mud hole, covered in thrown snow after a nasty spill down a mountain, etc, and it was fine. not even a scratch.
the ONLY thing that ever damaged it was when I got run over by my own snowmobile - the frame handle on the front scratched the front and knocked the adjustment point backwards. It's worth noting this same hit had me bleeding from the mouth and back, mildly burned on my arm, and barely conscious, sliding down a mountain.
tl;dr: it'll do just fine.
| paintball | t5_2qkm6 | cegoyo4 | I haven't paintballed with a gopro, but I've go 4x4ing and snowmobiling with one on my helmet. When i got thrown over the bars of my snowmobile and smashed into a surprisingly strong oak, hitting directly on the lense of my dad's hero 2, hard enough that i was briefly knocked out, the thing was fine. I left a dent in the goddamm tree. And when they say waterproof to 5 meters, they mean it... had mine buried in a mud hole, covered in thrown snow after a nasty spill down a mountain, etc, and it was fine. not even a scratch.
the ONLY thing that ever damaged it was when I got run over by my own snowmobile - the frame handle on the front scratched the front and knocked the adjustment point backwards. It's worth noting this same hit had me bleeding from the mouth and back, mildly burned on my arm, and barely conscious, sliding down a mountain. | it'll do just fine. |
cracktr0 | Yeah because the reason this kid didnt just make a new acc is because he has skins/champs etc that were bought with RP.
You are an idiot if you think that, because its a free game, that riot are not money hungry.
Let me ask you this then, If someone is permabanned, why are they not IP banned like EVERY other game on the face of the earth. Why? So you can create a new account, do the same shit, and spend more money.
TLDR: Riot doesnt IP ban permabans becuase they want you to create a new acc and then spend money on it on boosts, more skins etc. | Yeah because the reason this kid didnt just make a new acc is because he has skins/champs etc that were bought with RP.
You are an idiot if you think that, because its a free game, that riot are not money hungry.
Let me ask you this then, If someone is permabanned, why are they not IP banned like EVERY other game on the face of the earth. Why? So you can create a new account, do the same shit, and spend more money.
TLDR: Riot doesnt IP ban permabans becuase they want you to create a new acc and then spend money on it on boosts, more skins etc.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cegd5ur | Yeah because the reason this kid didnt just make a new acc is because he has skins/champs etc that were bought with RP.
You are an idiot if you think that, because its a free game, that riot are not money hungry.
Let me ask you this then, If someone is permabanned, why are they not IP banned like EVERY other game on the face of the earth. Why? So you can create a new account, do the same shit, and spend more money. | Riot doesnt IP ban permabans becuase they want you to create a new acc and then spend money on it on boosts, more skins etc. |
IBelieveInDrGonzo | My apologies for the hostile tone. It was a grouchy hangover comment, and not meant personally.
My point is, the 70 or so characters in the tweet convey significantly less information than the statement that he makes. Based on the tweet itself the issue could still be up in the air, but when coupled with the statements there is no ambiguity as to Briles' plans for the near future.
Twitter is incredibly useful, and in many situations (admittedly including this one) it is trustworthy. However I can think back to several times when that has not proven true. That's because Twitter has no gatekeepers, and a limited space to convey complex ideas. That's why we need to subject Twitter to a decent amount of scrutiny, and (in my opinion) defer to more detailed sources. Not doing that contributes to the sort of speculation and rampant misinformation that has unfortunately become the hallmark of modern journalism.
Once again, my apologies. Looking on this with more sober eyes this is how I would like twitter posts to be handled. You're probably the only person that is going to read this if you even bother to, but i would like you to know that I'm not a sophomoric asshole (which is what i sounded like), but a drunk journalist with a bone to pick with the sports media.
TL;DR: My bad bro. | My apologies for the hostile tone. It was a grouchy hangover comment, and not meant personally.
My point is, the 70 or so characters in the tweet convey significantly less information than the statement that he makes. Based on the tweet itself the issue could still be up in the air, but when coupled with the statements there is no ambiguity as to Briles' plans for the near future.
Twitter is incredibly useful, and in many situations (admittedly including this one) it is trustworthy. However I can think back to several times when that has not proven true. That's because Twitter has no gatekeepers, and a limited space to convey complex ideas. That's why we need to subject Twitter to a decent amount of scrutiny, and (in my opinion) defer to more detailed sources. Not doing that contributes to the sort of speculation and rampant misinformation that has unfortunately become the hallmark of modern journalism.
Once again, my apologies. Looking on this with more sober eyes this is how I would like twitter posts to be handled. You're probably the only person that is going to read this if you even bother to, but i would like you to know that I'm not a sophomoric asshole (which is what i sounded like), but a drunk journalist with a bone to pick with the sports media.
TL;DR: My bad bro.
| CFB | t5_2qm9d | cegj7i6 | My apologies for the hostile tone. It was a grouchy hangover comment, and not meant personally.
My point is, the 70 or so characters in the tweet convey significantly less information than the statement that he makes. Based on the tweet itself the issue could still be up in the air, but when coupled with the statements there is no ambiguity as to Briles' plans for the near future.
Twitter is incredibly useful, and in many situations (admittedly including this one) it is trustworthy. However I can think back to several times when that has not proven true. That's because Twitter has no gatekeepers, and a limited space to convey complex ideas. That's why we need to subject Twitter to a decent amount of scrutiny, and (in my opinion) defer to more detailed sources. Not doing that contributes to the sort of speculation and rampant misinformation that has unfortunately become the hallmark of modern journalism.
Once again, my apologies. Looking on this with more sober eyes this is how I would like twitter posts to be handled. You're probably the only person that is going to read this if you even bother to, but i would like you to know that I'm not a sophomoric asshole (which is what i sounded like), but a drunk journalist with a bone to pick with the sports media. | My bad bro. |
iamcomotose | This is great to hear. I spent 10 years in the Navy as a nuclear electrician on submarines undiagnosed. Like everyone else, I knew that something was "different" about the way I learned, looked at life and completed (or didn't complete tasks). When I reflect on my time in the Navy, I have no idea how I made it through Nuke school (one of the toughest schools in the military), and was never punished for insubordination. I definitely feel that my time in the Navy helped build up coping skills although not in the relationship parts of my life. You get so used to people coming and going in your life in the Navy, that it almost acts as an amplifier on that particular trait of ADHD.
I am glad that you were able to get the medication and that it is having a very positive effect on both your life and career.
I have looked back at my evals and they were very similar to my son's report cards and progress report (shows great potential, unable to focus). I think one of the other "saving graces" while in the Navy was that as an electrician on subs I was constantly busy and the job is all about troubleshooting. If there is something I am good at, it is thinking of solutions that no one else sees. This kept me out of the shitz more than once.
TL;DR: I too was in the Navy (untreated) and it was a very positive experience in regards to building up coping mechanisms | This is great to hear. I spent 10 years in the Navy as a nuclear electrician on submarines undiagnosed. Like everyone else, I knew that something was "different" about the way I learned, looked at life and completed (or didn't complete tasks). When I reflect on my time in the Navy, I have no idea how I made it through Nuke school (one of the toughest schools in the military), and was never punished for insubordination. I definitely feel that my time in the Navy helped build up coping skills although not in the relationship parts of my life. You get so used to people coming and going in your life in the Navy, that it almost acts as an amplifier on that particular trait of ADHD.
I am glad that you were able to get the medication and that it is having a very positive effect on both your life and career.
I have looked back at my evals and they were very similar to my son's report cards and progress report (shows great potential, unable to focus). I think one of the other "saving graces" while in the Navy was that as an electrician on subs I was constantly busy and the job is all about troubleshooting. If there is something I am good at, it is thinking of solutions that no one else sees. This kept me out of the shitz more than once.
TL;DR: I too was in the Navy (untreated) and it was a very positive experience in regards to building up coping mechanisms
| ADHD | t5_2qnwb | cegiauk | This is great to hear. I spent 10 years in the Navy as a nuclear electrician on submarines undiagnosed. Like everyone else, I knew that something was "different" about the way I learned, looked at life and completed (or didn't complete tasks). When I reflect on my time in the Navy, I have no idea how I made it through Nuke school (one of the toughest schools in the military), and was never punished for insubordination. I definitely feel that my time in the Navy helped build up coping skills although not in the relationship parts of my life. You get so used to people coming and going in your life in the Navy, that it almost acts as an amplifier on that particular trait of ADHD.
I am glad that you were able to get the medication and that it is having a very positive effect on both your life and career.
I have looked back at my evals and they were very similar to my son's report cards and progress report (shows great potential, unable to focus). I think one of the other "saving graces" while in the Navy was that as an electrician on subs I was constantly busy and the job is all about troubleshooting. If there is something I am good at, it is thinking of solutions that no one else sees. This kept me out of the shitz more than once. | I too was in the Navy (untreated) and it was a very positive experience in regards to building up coping mechanisms |
suninabox | >To put it plainly, and to not offend any baby boomers out there but they act like fucking teenagers at this stage in life. They do things you'd think were reserved for people new to relationships. I think they've been out of the game so long it really feels like it. They don't know how to process the new excitement of love and in turn do some pretty inconsiderate and selfish things.
How is this guys life not revolving around his (adult) daughter "inconsiderate and selfish"? Isn't it also selfish to want to have the mans time to herself without consideration for what the dad wants?
From the sounds of it the OP is pretty unpleasant to her dad and his SO at times, and does lots of stupid passive-aggressive bullshit instead of just directly addressing issues.
tl;dr - OP sounds like a spoiled brat who can't bear not to be the center of other peoples attention, and can't interact in a healthy manner with people when she's not.
Her problem isn't that she's not getting enough attention/validation from other people, its that she thinks that's her main problem and not the myriad of self defeating/self pitying attitudes and behaviors she's demonstrated in the OP. | >To put it plainly, and to not offend any baby boomers out there but they act like fucking teenagers at this stage in life. They do things you'd think were reserved for people new to relationships. I think they've been out of the game so long it really feels like it. They don't know how to process the new excitement of love and in turn do some pretty inconsiderate and selfish things.
How is this guys life not revolving around his (adult) daughter "inconsiderate and selfish"? Isn't it also selfish to want to have the mans time to herself without consideration for what the dad wants?
From the sounds of it the OP is pretty unpleasant to her dad and his SO at times, and does lots of stupid passive-aggressive bullshit instead of just directly addressing issues.
tl;dr - OP sounds like a spoiled brat who can't bear not to be the center of other peoples attention, and can't interact in a healthy manner with people when she's not.
Her problem isn't that she's not getting enough attention/validation from other people, its that she thinks that's her main problem and not the myriad of self defeating/self pitying attitudes and behaviors she's demonstrated in the OP.
| relationship_advice | t5_2r0cn | cegu16y | To put it plainly, and to not offend any baby boomers out there but they act like fucking teenagers at this stage in life. They do things you'd think were reserved for people new to relationships. I think they've been out of the game so long it really feels like it. They don't know how to process the new excitement of love and in turn do some pretty inconsiderate and selfish things.
How is this guys life not revolving around his (adult) daughter "inconsiderate and selfish"? Isn't it also selfish to want to have the mans time to herself without consideration for what the dad wants?
From the sounds of it the OP is pretty unpleasant to her dad and his SO at times, and does lots of stupid passive-aggressive bullshit instead of just directly addressing issues. | OP sounds like a spoiled brat who can't bear not to be the center of other peoples attention, and can't interact in a healthy manner with people when she's not.
Her problem isn't that she's not getting enough attention/validation from other people, its that she thinks that's her main problem and not the myriad of self defeating/self pitying attitudes and behaviors she's demonstrated in the OP. |
zap1000x | This will make your computer slower. The RAM tuns other processes in the meantime so you're basically telling it to go ahead and use the same space for two things.
You'll run fine when things are slow...but when it matters, like in the middle of a surprise fight you didn't save before, it'll crash. And THAT is known for causing corruption.
TL;DR: Play the game as it's optimized, or get more ram. | This will make your computer slower. The RAM tuns other processes in the meantime so you're basically telling it to go ahead and use the same space for two things.
You'll run fine when things are slow...but when it matters, like in the middle of a surprise fight you didn't save before, it'll crash. And THAT is known for causing corruption.
TL;DR: Play the game as it's optimized, or get more ram.
| Fallout | t5_2qnzu | cegsg7l | This will make your computer slower. The RAM tuns other processes in the meantime so you're basically telling it to go ahead and use the same space for two things.
You'll run fine when things are slow...but when it matters, like in the middle of a surprise fight you didn't save before, it'll crash. And THAT is known for causing corruption. | Play the game as it's optimized, or get more ram. |
constituent | Sexuality has little to play here but, rather, roommate dynamics and basic etiquette. Is your girlfriend and the couple just *roommates* or are they also friends? If they're merely roommates with very little interaction or involvement, then the situation is just a contractual living arrangement where people abide by the unwritten rules of the land (e.g. no sex in the common area, don't eat my food, wash your own dishes, shut the door when using the bathroom, etc.).
If they're friends living together, those 'rules' are much more flexible but still fall within reason of respect and good manners. The simple question people may ask themselves in what may be perceived as awkward: "Would I do this in front of my mother/grandmother?" If there is any hesitation, then it wouldn't be construed as 'publicly acceptable'.
Also, does the couple even interact with or know you? Do you folks hang out with one another? If there's hardly any interaction there, you're more liable to be seen as a guest and your actions are a reflection upon your girlfriend. Tolerance levels of roommates will differ based on personalities, hence the popularity of passive-aggressive behavior and housemates. Some people won't care, others would demand that people are covered from head to toe. And, just to throw this out here, physical appearance isn't even a guarantee. Fit or fat, some folks may be completely repulsed by a stranger walking around in boxers. It's just a matter of decency. [I personally wouldn't care, but please put some clothes on if you're going to be joining at the breakfast table.]
**TL;DR** If in doubt, just ask. They may not have any issue with it, but keeping silent will just be another trump card for the couple should the living arrangement ever go sour. | Sexuality has little to play here but, rather, roommate dynamics and basic etiquette. Is your girlfriend and the couple just roommates or are they also friends? If they're merely roommates with very little interaction or involvement, then the situation is just a contractual living arrangement where people abide by the unwritten rules of the land (e.g. no sex in the common area, don't eat my food, wash your own dishes, shut the door when using the bathroom, etc.).
If they're friends living together, those 'rules' are much more flexible but still fall within reason of respect and good manners. The simple question people may ask themselves in what may be perceived as awkward: "Would I do this in front of my mother/grandmother?" If there is any hesitation, then it wouldn't be construed as 'publicly acceptable'.
Also, does the couple even interact with or know you? Do you folks hang out with one another? If there's hardly any interaction there, you're more liable to be seen as a guest and your actions are a reflection upon your girlfriend. Tolerance levels of roommates will differ based on personalities, hence the popularity of passive-aggressive behavior and housemates. Some people won't care, others would demand that people are covered from head to toe. And, just to throw this out here, physical appearance isn't even a guarantee. Fit or fat, some folks may be completely repulsed by a stranger walking around in boxers. It's just a matter of decency. [I personally wouldn't care, but please put some clothes on if you're going to be joining at the breakfast table.]
TL;DR If in doubt, just ask. They may not have any issue with it, but keeping silent will just be another trump card for the couple should the living arrangement ever go sour.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh33qn | Sexuality has little to play here but, rather, roommate dynamics and basic etiquette. Is your girlfriend and the couple just roommates or are they also friends? If they're merely roommates with very little interaction or involvement, then the situation is just a contractual living arrangement where people abide by the unwritten rules of the land (e.g. no sex in the common area, don't eat my food, wash your own dishes, shut the door when using the bathroom, etc.).
If they're friends living together, those 'rules' are much more flexible but still fall within reason of respect and good manners. The simple question people may ask themselves in what may be perceived as awkward: "Would I do this in front of my mother/grandmother?" If there is any hesitation, then it wouldn't be construed as 'publicly acceptable'.
Also, does the couple even interact with or know you? Do you folks hang out with one another? If there's hardly any interaction there, you're more liable to be seen as a guest and your actions are a reflection upon your girlfriend. Tolerance levels of roommates will differ based on personalities, hence the popularity of passive-aggressive behavior and housemates. Some people won't care, others would demand that people are covered from head to toe. And, just to throw this out here, physical appearance isn't even a guarantee. Fit or fat, some folks may be completely repulsed by a stranger walking around in boxers. It's just a matter of decency. [I personally wouldn't care, but please put some clothes on if you're going to be joining at the breakfast table.] | If in doubt, just ask. They may not have any issue with it, but keeping silent will just be another trump card for the couple should the living arrangement ever go sour. |
jaeldi | I don't feel like the 'top' answers right now really answer your question deeply or accurately for many gay people. I'm a gay man. I had a tough time with it growing up because I wasn't and still am not feminine. For the longest time when I was young I thought I wasn't gay because I wasn't like the stereo type, which is what you are talking about: dressing similar to the gender you identify with. Eventually after wasting time trying to make sexual things work with girls unsuccessfully and a couple very intensely pleasurable instances with men it finally dawned on my stupid ass that my body is just never gonna respond to the female form the way it's supposed to.
Once I admitted to myself how my body worked to myself, I eventually came out and then spent more time around other 'gay' folk. After listening to other people's story and finding out I don't have much in common with fem guys, It occurred to me there are two things happening in the world that both get called 'gay'.
First there is homosexuality, which is what I have, which is what I am, very simply my body responds sexually to the same sex rather than the opposite sex. Second, there is this gender flip flop, a biological male with will tend to behave like a female or a female behaving male. Sometimes these two conditions will go hand in hand, sometimes they don't. They are both sliding scales, in other words a gender flipped person might act a little extreme or lot extreme and a homosexual person might exclusively date the same sex or they might be more bisexual. The most extreme version of the gender flip flop are those that self identify as transexual/trangender people. I am using non-scientific language here; this is all just the way I see after 42 years of life. The way I sorted it out in my head.
And after thinking about it and observing life for a couple of decades, I don't think it's just homosexual people that the gender flip flop happens to in varying degrees. I have met many a straight man who feel more comfortable in their straight marriages being the nurturer, the cook, the creative one, the gentle one, the cleaner organizer, the tender one, a lot of those stereo typical traits we assign to females. But they still really really want to have sex with women. And definitely I can think of many many straight women who wanted to play physical sports, who were natural leaders, who wanted to build things, be rough, be boisterous, all those stereotypical male traits but they aren't lesbian.
I know there are some guys in the gay world that just go along with the fem 'act' and also for many it is NOT an act. At first I thought some guys acted that way because that is how they chose to cope with being gay. I was wrong. It takes sitting and really listening to people, really observing people when they don't really know you are watching to discover this. They were born that way. I have heard many times parents saying they could see the gender flip flop happening at a very very young age. I'm sure many elementary school teacher can attest that it manifests very very young in behavior. It does make it easier to find another gay man when he 'flames on'. So I'm sure there is also a legacy culture that has evolved with gay people and if you spend a lot of time in that culture, you adopt a lot of those outward traits. I have heard more than one story from a lesbian saying they cut their hair short and started wearing jeans to survive the lesbian dating world. Then after being settled into a steady monogamous relationship later returned to wearing dresses and letting their hair grow out.
So the real answer to your question is that the person you are observing as 'male acting' might have any number of real reasons why they are behaving that way. It would be best to ask them and not assume all 'gays' are like that. Or you could just come to the same realization I did:
(TL;DR:) It's a big wide world with many people in it, people act they way they do because it suits them.
Thanks for reading, and again this is all my perspective, my 2 cents.
;)
EDIT: oh, and one more thing, don't assume the fem acting person plays the passive or 'bottom' role in the bedroom or that the butch person is the 'man' or 'top'. Sometimes people want exactly the opposite in the bedroom. I don't participate in the S&M dominance world, but I have a female straight friend that does. Listening to her stories I always comment that the labels 'master/dom' and 'submissive' seem to be on the wrong people. She just laughs and says that is common. It seems in that crowd a lot of people get enough of one role in their daily lives, so in that scene they like to switch and either give up power or take power. But dominance is different from gender and would be a whole different conversation, but it's all related to sex and the way us human perceive one another. | I don't feel like the 'top' answers right now really answer your question deeply or accurately for many gay people. I'm a gay man. I had a tough time with it growing up because I wasn't and still am not feminine. For the longest time when I was young I thought I wasn't gay because I wasn't like the stereo type, which is what you are talking about: dressing similar to the gender you identify with. Eventually after wasting time trying to make sexual things work with girls unsuccessfully and a couple very intensely pleasurable instances with men it finally dawned on my stupid ass that my body is just never gonna respond to the female form the way it's supposed to.
Once I admitted to myself how my body worked to myself, I eventually came out and then spent more time around other 'gay' folk. After listening to other people's story and finding out I don't have much in common with fem guys, It occurred to me there are two things happening in the world that both get called 'gay'.
First there is homosexuality, which is what I have, which is what I am, very simply my body responds sexually to the same sex rather than the opposite sex. Second, there is this gender flip flop, a biological male with will tend to behave like a female or a female behaving male. Sometimes these two conditions will go hand in hand, sometimes they don't. They are both sliding scales, in other words a gender flipped person might act a little extreme or lot extreme and a homosexual person might exclusively date the same sex or they might be more bisexual. The most extreme version of the gender flip flop are those that self identify as transexual/trangender people. I am using non-scientific language here; this is all just the way I see after 42 years of life. The way I sorted it out in my head.
And after thinking about it and observing life for a couple of decades, I don't think it's just homosexual people that the gender flip flop happens to in varying degrees. I have met many a straight man who feel more comfortable in their straight marriages being the nurturer, the cook, the creative one, the gentle one, the cleaner organizer, the tender one, a lot of those stereo typical traits we assign to females. But they still really really want to have sex with women. And definitely I can think of many many straight women who wanted to play physical sports, who were natural leaders, who wanted to build things, be rough, be boisterous, all those stereotypical male traits but they aren't lesbian.
I know there are some guys in the gay world that just go along with the fem 'act' and also for many it is NOT an act. At first I thought some guys acted that way because that is how they chose to cope with being gay. I was wrong. It takes sitting and really listening to people, really observing people when they don't really know you are watching to discover this. They were born that way. I have heard many times parents saying they could see the gender flip flop happening at a very very young age. I'm sure many elementary school teacher can attest that it manifests very very young in behavior. It does make it easier to find another gay man when he 'flames on'. So I'm sure there is also a legacy culture that has evolved with gay people and if you spend a lot of time in that culture, you adopt a lot of those outward traits. I have heard more than one story from a lesbian saying they cut their hair short and started wearing jeans to survive the lesbian dating world. Then after being settled into a steady monogamous relationship later returned to wearing dresses and letting their hair grow out.
So the real answer to your question is that the person you are observing as 'male acting' might have any number of real reasons why they are behaving that way. It would be best to ask them and not assume all 'gays' are like that. Or you could just come to the same realization I did:
(TL;DR:) It's a big wide world with many people in it, people act they way they do because it suits them.
Thanks for reading, and again this is all my perspective, my 2 cents.
;)
EDIT: oh, and one more thing, don't assume the fem acting person plays the passive or 'bottom' role in the bedroom or that the butch person is the 'man' or 'top'. Sometimes people want exactly the opposite in the bedroom. I don't participate in the S&M dominance world, but I have a female straight friend that does. Listening to her stories I always comment that the labels 'master/dom' and 'submissive' seem to be on the wrong people. She just laughs and says that is common. It seems in that crowd a lot of people get enough of one role in their daily lives, so in that scene they like to switch and either give up power or take power. But dominance is different from gender and would be a whole different conversation, but it's all related to sex and the way us human perceive one another.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh3jxs | I don't feel like the 'top' answers right now really answer your question deeply or accurately for many gay people. I'm a gay man. I had a tough time with it growing up because I wasn't and still am not feminine. For the longest time when I was young I thought I wasn't gay because I wasn't like the stereo type, which is what you are talking about: dressing similar to the gender you identify with. Eventually after wasting time trying to make sexual things work with girls unsuccessfully and a couple very intensely pleasurable instances with men it finally dawned on my stupid ass that my body is just never gonna respond to the female form the way it's supposed to.
Once I admitted to myself how my body worked to myself, I eventually came out and then spent more time around other 'gay' folk. After listening to other people's story and finding out I don't have much in common with fem guys, It occurred to me there are two things happening in the world that both get called 'gay'.
First there is homosexuality, which is what I have, which is what I am, very simply my body responds sexually to the same sex rather than the opposite sex. Second, there is this gender flip flop, a biological male with will tend to behave like a female or a female behaving male. Sometimes these two conditions will go hand in hand, sometimes they don't. They are both sliding scales, in other words a gender flipped person might act a little extreme or lot extreme and a homosexual person might exclusively date the same sex or they might be more bisexual. The most extreme version of the gender flip flop are those that self identify as transexual/trangender people. I am using non-scientific language here; this is all just the way I see after 42 years of life. The way I sorted it out in my head.
And after thinking about it and observing life for a couple of decades, I don't think it's just homosexual people that the gender flip flop happens to in varying degrees. I have met many a straight man who feel more comfortable in their straight marriages being the nurturer, the cook, the creative one, the gentle one, the cleaner organizer, the tender one, a lot of those stereo typical traits we assign to females. But they still really really want to have sex with women. And definitely I can think of many many straight women who wanted to play physical sports, who were natural leaders, who wanted to build things, be rough, be boisterous, all those stereotypical male traits but they aren't lesbian.
I know there are some guys in the gay world that just go along with the fem 'act' and also for many it is NOT an act. At first I thought some guys acted that way because that is how they chose to cope with being gay. I was wrong. It takes sitting and really listening to people, really observing people when they don't really know you are watching to discover this. They were born that way. I have heard many times parents saying they could see the gender flip flop happening at a very very young age. I'm sure many elementary school teacher can attest that it manifests very very young in behavior. It does make it easier to find another gay man when he 'flames on'. So I'm sure there is also a legacy culture that has evolved with gay people and if you spend a lot of time in that culture, you adopt a lot of those outward traits. I have heard more than one story from a lesbian saying they cut their hair short and started wearing jeans to survive the lesbian dating world. Then after being settled into a steady monogamous relationship later returned to wearing dresses and letting their hair grow out.
So the real answer to your question is that the person you are observing as 'male acting' might have any number of real reasons why they are behaving that way. It would be best to ask them and not assume all 'gays' are like that. Or you could just come to the same realization I did:
( | It's a big wide world with many people in it, people act they way they do because it suits them.
Thanks for reading, and again this is all my perspective, my 2 cents.
;)
EDIT: oh, and one more thing, don't assume the fem acting person plays the passive or 'bottom' role in the bedroom or that the butch person is the 'man' or 'top'. Sometimes people want exactly the opposite in the bedroom. I don't participate in the S&M dominance world, but I have a female straight friend that does. Listening to her stories I always comment that the labels 'master/dom' and 'submissive' seem to be on the wrong people. She just laughs and says that is common. It seems in that crowd a lot of people get enough of one role in their daily lives, so in that scene they like to switch and either give up power or take power. But dominance is different from gender and would be a whole different conversation, but it's all related to sex and the way us human perceive one another. |
VoiceOfGosh | As a gay man, no, as a *human being*, I think everyone deserves the right to not be fondled unless they want to be fondled.
Another person's body is NEVER okay to freely touch, grab, comment on, etc. Too many gay guys don't get this and I think it still unfortunately stems from not treating women equally in our society. Women, and women's bodies, are not a playground for the public!
TL;DR: I'm a gay feminist!!! | As a gay man, no, as a human being , I think everyone deserves the right to not be fondled unless they want to be fondled.
Another person's body is NEVER okay to freely touch, grab, comment on, etc. Too many gay guys don't get this and I think it still unfortunately stems from not treating women equally in our society. Women, and women's bodies, are not a playground for the public!
TL;DR: I'm a gay feminist!!!
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceidbvr | As a gay man, no, as a human being , I think everyone deserves the right to not be fondled unless they want to be fondled.
Another person's body is NEVER okay to freely touch, grab, comment on, etc. Too many gay guys don't get this and I think it still unfortunately stems from not treating women equally in our society. Women, and women's bodies, are not a playground for the public! | I'm a gay feminist!!! |
lilsamurai | I feel like these are people who just don't know how to properly formulate a question. As I see this, I would ask more along the lines of how is the gay male dynamic different in the relationship from what I have traditionally seen with my own family. I don't think its that people believe one of you needs to be a "woman", I just don't think they know how to ask you more about your relationship without using "straight terms" their used to. Also for posterity sake there is a demand withdrawal pattern seen in relationships that shows women as demanding and men as withdrawling. This is far greater then the number of men demanding and women withdrawling so who really is the dominant one and who isn't has nothing to do with gender
Tl;dr people ask lots of offensive question out of nothing but ignorance
| I feel like these are people who just don't know how to properly formulate a question. As I see this, I would ask more along the lines of how is the gay male dynamic different in the relationship from what I have traditionally seen with my own family. I don't think its that people believe one of you needs to be a "woman", I just don't think they know how to ask you more about your relationship without using "straight terms" their used to. Also for posterity sake there is a demand withdrawal pattern seen in relationships that shows women as demanding and men as withdrawling. This is far greater then the number of men demanding and women withdrawling so who really is the dominant one and who isn't has nothing to do with gender
Tl;dr people ask lots of offensive question out of nothing but ignorance
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh8zy7 | I feel like these are people who just don't know how to properly formulate a question. As I see this, I would ask more along the lines of how is the gay male dynamic different in the relationship from what I have traditionally seen with my own family. I don't think its that people believe one of you needs to be a "woman", I just don't think they know how to ask you more about your relationship without using "straight terms" their used to. Also for posterity sake there is a demand withdrawal pattern seen in relationships that shows women as demanding and men as withdrawling. This is far greater then the number of men demanding and women withdrawling so who really is the dominant one and who isn't has nothing to do with gender | people ask lots of offensive question out of nothing but ignorance |
Alyssfreak884 | as a bisexual female i don't find myself as a whole attractive, I have nice boobs, not a fan of the way my vagina looks but can't complain I've seen worse, and I've been told enough times i have a great ass that i believe it. as for not sexual parts like my face i don't find my own face attractive but we are our own worst critics, an example i can give that might some this up is that i have a sister that is identical to me i'm not attracted to her and its not because she's my sister it's because she's not my type, i think it would be comparable to you if you had a sister that looked like a female version of you and not being attracted to her.
tldr I'm not my type. | as a bisexual female i don't find myself as a whole attractive, I have nice boobs, not a fan of the way my vagina looks but can't complain I've seen worse, and I've been told enough times i have a great ass that i believe it. as for not sexual parts like my face i don't find my own face attractive but we are our own worst critics, an example i can give that might some this up is that i have a sister that is identical to me i'm not attracted to her and its not because she's my sister it's because she's not my type, i think it would be comparable to you if you had a sister that looked like a female version of you and not being attracted to her.
tldr I'm not my type.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh0vpy | as a bisexual female i don't find myself as a whole attractive, I have nice boobs, not a fan of the way my vagina looks but can't complain I've seen worse, and I've been told enough times i have a great ass that i believe it. as for not sexual parts like my face i don't find my own face attractive but we are our own worst critics, an example i can give that might some this up is that i have a sister that is identical to me i'm not attracted to her and its not because she's my sister it's because she's not my type, i think it would be comparable to you if you had a sister that looked like a female version of you and not being attracted to her. | I'm not my type. |
Catnip_Pyromaniac | Ever since i started liking anyone in general I liked girls.
I didn't know the same sex could date though so i settled with dating a couple of guys that were sweet and funny (and pretty feminine)
until middle school where I found out gay couples exist *"Hey, ive always found chicks hot, and theres a guy in my school that dates other guys, so I guess I could date chicks"*
before that I just assumed people can be really attracted to the same sex but can't date them.
**TL;DR:** *Gay people exist?!*
| Ever since i started liking anyone in general I liked girls.
I didn't know the same sex could date though so i settled with dating a couple of guys that were sweet and funny (and pretty feminine)
until middle school where I found out gay couples exist "Hey, ive always found chicks hot, and theres a guy in my school that dates other guys, so I guess I could date chicks"
before that I just assumed people can be really attracted to the same sex but can't date them.
TL;DR: Gay people exist?!
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh1lgh | Ever since i started liking anyone in general I liked girls.
I didn't know the same sex could date though so i settled with dating a couple of guys that were sweet and funny (and pretty feminine)
until middle school where I found out gay couples exist "Hey, ive always found chicks hot, and theres a guy in my school that dates other guys, so I guess I could date chicks"
before that I just assumed people can be really attracted to the same sex but can't date them. | Gay people exist?! |
WorcestrianMancunian | During puberty yes, but being bisexual made things all kinds of confusing. When I was about 12 I started noticing guys and girls I liked and the thought did enter my head that maybe I was bi. But because that seemed like a huge, confusing, scary thing and because I did still like girls it was easy for me to convince myself that I was straight. It got even more confusing and I went into even more denial as my teen years went on because I started getting off to M/M porn and I also never had any luck with girls; basically I thought I might like guys but didn't want to admit it and I thought I liked girls but because I'd never gotten with a girl I was sure if this was just me trying to be 'normal'. Eventually at the age of 18 I got a girlfriend and lost my virginity to her, that made me feel a lot of comfortable because I realised that yes, I did like girls and once I was comfortable with that everything else finally fell into place in my head and I realised I was bi.
TL;DR I'm bi and I realised I liked guys and girls at the start of puberty but it was hella confusing. | During puberty yes, but being bisexual made things all kinds of confusing. When I was about 12 I started noticing guys and girls I liked and the thought did enter my head that maybe I was bi. But because that seemed like a huge, confusing, scary thing and because I did still like girls it was easy for me to convince myself that I was straight. It got even more confusing and I went into even more denial as my teen years went on because I started getting off to M/M porn and I also never had any luck with girls; basically I thought I might like guys but didn't want to admit it and I thought I liked girls but because I'd never gotten with a girl I was sure if this was just me trying to be 'normal'. Eventually at the age of 18 I got a girlfriend and lost my virginity to her, that made me feel a lot of comfortable because I realised that yes, I did like girls and once I was comfortable with that everything else finally fell into place in my head and I realised I was bi.
TL;DR I'm bi and I realised I liked guys and girls at the start of puberty but it was hella confusing.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh2rq2 | During puberty yes, but being bisexual made things all kinds of confusing. When I was about 12 I started noticing guys and girls I liked and the thought did enter my head that maybe I was bi. But because that seemed like a huge, confusing, scary thing and because I did still like girls it was easy for me to convince myself that I was straight. It got even more confusing and I went into even more denial as my teen years went on because I started getting off to M/M porn and I also never had any luck with girls; basically I thought I might like guys but didn't want to admit it and I thought I liked girls but because I'd never gotten with a girl I was sure if this was just me trying to be 'normal'. Eventually at the age of 18 I got a girlfriend and lost my virginity to her, that made me feel a lot of comfortable because I realised that yes, I did like girls and once I was comfortable with that everything else finally fell into place in my head and I realised I was bi. | I'm bi and I realised I liked guys and girls at the start of puberty but it was hella confusing. |
Smegead | Another bisexual guy here: Through friends, the internet, pretty much the same places as anyone else. The first few are the hardest, afterward you get pretty good at being able to tell which ones are likely candidates. Usually the ones who stick around after they find out you've been with a guy are more open to experimentation. If you have a friend you do these sorts of things with it's WAAAAY easier to pick up a third.
A good rule of thumb is if they try really hard to convince everyone they're a slutty freak, they're probably not a freak.
If you're looking for a stereotypically attractive girl, good luck. They're rarely just "down" for that sort of thing. If they really like you and aren't disgusted by it you might be able to soften them up to the idea, but if you try to push them or force it you're probably just going to ruin things between you.
tl;dr: Go for the loudmouthed girl with the dreadlocks and nose piercing drinking a rob roy at Hipster Bar's vinyl night over the one who calls her friends "slut" in the mini skirt grinding all over everyone at the club after one Long Island. | Another bisexual guy here: Through friends, the internet, pretty much the same places as anyone else. The first few are the hardest, afterward you get pretty good at being able to tell which ones are likely candidates. Usually the ones who stick around after they find out you've been with a guy are more open to experimentation. If you have a friend you do these sorts of things with it's WAAAAY easier to pick up a third.
A good rule of thumb is if they try really hard to convince everyone they're a slutty freak, they're probably not a freak.
If you're looking for a stereotypically attractive girl, good luck. They're rarely just "down" for that sort of thing. If they really like you and aren't disgusted by it you might be able to soften them up to the idea, but if you try to push them or force it you're probably just going to ruin things between you.
tl;dr: Go for the loudmouthed girl with the dreadlocks and nose piercing drinking a rob roy at Hipster Bar's vinyl night over the one who calls her friends "slut" in the mini skirt grinding all over everyone at the club after one Long Island.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh2z1x | Another bisexual guy here: Through friends, the internet, pretty much the same places as anyone else. The first few are the hardest, afterward you get pretty good at being able to tell which ones are likely candidates. Usually the ones who stick around after they find out you've been with a guy are more open to experimentation. If you have a friend you do these sorts of things with it's WAAAAY easier to pick up a third.
A good rule of thumb is if they try really hard to convince everyone they're a slutty freak, they're probably not a freak.
If you're looking for a stereotypically attractive girl, good luck. They're rarely just "down" for that sort of thing. If they really like you and aren't disgusted by it you might be able to soften them up to the idea, but if you try to push them or force it you're probably just going to ruin things between you. | Go for the loudmouthed girl with the dreadlocks and nose piercing drinking a rob roy at Hipster Bar's vinyl night over the one who calls her friends "slut" in the mini skirt grinding all over everyone at the club after one Long Island. |
ChiaLetranger | I think the important thing to bear in mind is that people define labels, and not vice-versa. It's not as though you have to pass some test to qualify as a certain sexuality. Look around, see what's out there, find some words that feel right. I call myself a straight man, but I still feel romantic attraction to other men, even to the point of enjoying making out - I just don't like dicks. Similarly, I identify as male, but there's no real strong feeling there - I wouldn't feel dysphoric if I woke up female, I don't think.
TL;DR: ~~I don't know if there's a word for "attracted to trans" - but if you want one, nobody should stop you from finding one.~~
EDIT: As /u/Kozyre points out, an "attraction to trans" or a "trans* fetish" is actually a form of transphobic behaviour. This is because you focus on the fact of the mismatch between their physical birth sex and their gender identity, thus erasing the more important fact of the gender identity itself. Don't do that. | I think the important thing to bear in mind is that people define labels, and not vice-versa. It's not as though you have to pass some test to qualify as a certain sexuality. Look around, see what's out there, find some words that feel right. I call myself a straight man, but I still feel romantic attraction to other men, even to the point of enjoying making out - I just don't like dicks. Similarly, I identify as male, but there's no real strong feeling there - I wouldn't feel dysphoric if I woke up female, I don't think.
TL;DR: I don't know if there's a word for "attracted to trans" - but if you want one, nobody should stop you from finding one.
EDIT: As /u/Kozyre points out, an "attraction to trans" or a "trans* fetish" is actually a form of transphobic behaviour. This is because you focus on the fact of the mismatch between their physical birth sex and their gender identity, thus erasing the more important fact of the gender identity itself. Don't do that.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh3sic | I think the important thing to bear in mind is that people define labels, and not vice-versa. It's not as though you have to pass some test to qualify as a certain sexuality. Look around, see what's out there, find some words that feel right. I call myself a straight man, but I still feel romantic attraction to other men, even to the point of enjoying making out - I just don't like dicks. Similarly, I identify as male, but there's no real strong feeling there - I wouldn't feel dysphoric if I woke up female, I don't think. | I don't know if there's a word for "attracted to trans" - but if you want one, nobody should stop you from finding one.
EDIT: As /u/Kozyre points out, an "attraction to trans" or a "trans* fetish" is actually a form of transphobic behaviour. This is because you focus on the fact of the mismatch between their physical birth sex and their gender identity, thus erasing the more important fact of the gender identity itself. Don't do that. |
ingmarsvenson | Many straight people think that being a man is equivalent to being the dominant one and being the woman as being submissive, so they think that it is the same in "reverse." That is based on the false assumption that one gender is naturally dominant over the other, though, so it's all one big symptom of our society's abundant ignorance about gender. They also apparently think that gay relationships are the reverse of straight relationships. Straight male here, but I don't play that shit.
TL;DR Because most people are ignorant | Many straight people think that being a man is equivalent to being the dominant one and being the woman as being submissive, so they think that it is the same in "reverse." That is based on the false assumption that one gender is naturally dominant over the other, though, so it's all one big symptom of our society's abundant ignorance about gender. They also apparently think that gay relationships are the reverse of straight relationships. Straight male here, but I don't play that shit.
TL;DR Because most people are ignorant
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh56d8 | Many straight people think that being a man is equivalent to being the dominant one and being the woman as being submissive, so they think that it is the same in "reverse." That is based on the false assumption that one gender is naturally dominant over the other, though, so it's all one big symptom of our society's abundant ignorance about gender. They also apparently think that gay relationships are the reverse of straight relationships. Straight male here, but I don't play that shit. | Because most people are ignorant |
yourgaybestfriend | It's more complicated than that. Vaginal orgaisms are kind of a myth - it's mostly stimulating the clit from behind that makes vaginal sex pleasurable for women (thus why foreplay is very important). For lesbian sex, penetration is unnecessary (although common from what I understand) and so external contact is all that's necessary. Lesbian sex practices are quite diverse and vary from couple to couple. One of the perks of sexual liberation is the confidence and ability to explore a variety of sexual interactions.
TL;DR Penetration isn't really all that great for women without everything else, so yeah - scissoring is kind of a thing. I think. It also just occurred to me you might just be making a South Park reference.
Either way. | It's more complicated than that. Vaginal orgaisms are kind of a myth - it's mostly stimulating the clit from behind that makes vaginal sex pleasurable for women (thus why foreplay is very important). For lesbian sex, penetration is unnecessary (although common from what I understand) and so external contact is all that's necessary. Lesbian sex practices are quite diverse and vary from couple to couple. One of the perks of sexual liberation is the confidence and ability to explore a variety of sexual interactions.
TL;DR Penetration isn't really all that great for women without everything else, so yeah - scissoring is kind of a thing. I think. It also just occurred to me you might just be making a South Park reference.
Either way.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh56w9 | It's more complicated than that. Vaginal orgaisms are kind of a myth - it's mostly stimulating the clit from behind that makes vaginal sex pleasurable for women (thus why foreplay is very important). For lesbian sex, penetration is unnecessary (although common from what I understand) and so external contact is all that's necessary. Lesbian sex practices are quite diverse and vary from couple to couple. One of the perks of sexual liberation is the confidence and ability to explore a variety of sexual interactions. | Penetration isn't really all that great for women without everything else, so yeah - scissoring is kind of a thing. I think. It also just occurred to me you might just be making a South Park reference.
Either way. |
greym84 | I could be wrong, but I think it's because of gay culture. Heterosexuals don't exactly have a common culture. They don't revolve their lifestyles around their sexual orientation like the LGBTQ community.
When society has shunned a certain people group for so long, that group is going to band together. It's already natural for people to congregate with others like them, but once any given group is ostracized, they have little choice but to form a community. On top of that, dating among the LGBTQ community is more difficult in a heterosexual-dominated society, so socializing with others with the same sexual orientation increases the chance of a partner.
In other words, unlike heterosexuals, LGBTQs have every reason to form a common culture around their sexual orientation.
All that to say, the gay community has developed its own culture, complete with its own accent. Not everyone in the South has a twang, and in the same way, not all gay guys share the same accent, but it is common to the culture.
On another note, our culture considers the accent feminine, but I'd love to hear a linguistics expert weigh in on that. I'd also love to hear the reasons for its origins.
TLDR: Unlike heterosexuals, gays share a common culture revolving around their sexual orientation and like many cultures have developed their own accent. | I could be wrong, but I think it's because of gay culture. Heterosexuals don't exactly have a common culture. They don't revolve their lifestyles around their sexual orientation like the LGBTQ community.
When society has shunned a certain people group for so long, that group is going to band together. It's already natural for people to congregate with others like them, but once any given group is ostracized, they have little choice but to form a community. On top of that, dating among the LGBTQ community is more difficult in a heterosexual-dominated society, so socializing with others with the same sexual orientation increases the chance of a partner.
In other words, unlike heterosexuals, LGBTQs have every reason to form a common culture around their sexual orientation.
All that to say, the gay community has developed its own culture, complete with its own accent. Not everyone in the South has a twang, and in the same way, not all gay guys share the same accent, but it is common to the culture.
On another note, our culture considers the accent feminine, but I'd love to hear a linguistics expert weigh in on that. I'd also love to hear the reasons for its origins.
TLDR: Unlike heterosexuals, gays share a common culture revolving around their sexual orientation and like many cultures have developed their own accent.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh5b6g | I could be wrong, but I think it's because of gay culture. Heterosexuals don't exactly have a common culture. They don't revolve their lifestyles around their sexual orientation like the LGBTQ community.
When society has shunned a certain people group for so long, that group is going to band together. It's already natural for people to congregate with others like them, but once any given group is ostracized, they have little choice but to form a community. On top of that, dating among the LGBTQ community is more difficult in a heterosexual-dominated society, so socializing with others with the same sexual orientation increases the chance of a partner.
In other words, unlike heterosexuals, LGBTQs have every reason to form a common culture around their sexual orientation.
All that to say, the gay community has developed its own culture, complete with its own accent. Not everyone in the South has a twang, and in the same way, not all gay guys share the same accent, but it is common to the culture.
On another note, our culture considers the accent feminine, but I'd love to hear a linguistics expert weigh in on that. I'd also love to hear the reasons for its origins. | Unlike heterosexuals, gays share a common culture revolving around their sexual orientation and like many cultures have developed their own accent. |
-atheos | I dont know that I would call it uncomfortable but you have to be OK that if they find you attractive that they are going to, well, find you attractive and want to look. I dont think thats necessarily a bad thing. Im bi so I really cant understand the otherside of not being attracted to a gender, but I have never felt uncomfortable if someone decides to leave some clothes off. I appreciate and enjoy, and move on. I would understand, though, if you wouldnt want someone you considered a friend to be contemplative in this manner, though.
TL;DR If you are comfortable, I think they would be as well but expect the possibility of miring. | I dont know that I would call it uncomfortable but you have to be OK that if they find you attractive that they are going to, well, find you attractive and want to look. I dont think thats necessarily a bad thing. Im bi so I really cant understand the otherside of not being attracted to a gender, but I have never felt uncomfortable if someone decides to leave some clothes off. I appreciate and enjoy, and move on. I would understand, though, if you wouldnt want someone you considered a friend to be contemplative in this manner, though.
TL;DR If you are comfortable, I think they would be as well but expect the possibility of miring.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh5bar | I dont know that I would call it uncomfortable but you have to be OK that if they find you attractive that they are going to, well, find you attractive and want to look. I dont think thats necessarily a bad thing. Im bi so I really cant understand the otherside of not being attracted to a gender, but I have never felt uncomfortable if someone decides to leave some clothes off. I appreciate and enjoy, and move on. I would understand, though, if you wouldnt want someone you considered a friend to be contemplative in this manner, though. | If you are comfortable, I think they would be as well but expect the possibility of miring. |
mludd | > My boyfriend learned what I liked from practice and from my moans of encouragement. And from watching my body react to what he's doing to me. But I'm easily pleased so he didn't have much to learn :P
On this note (and based on my own experience) I'd like to give a general tip to women for when a guy is doing something slightly wrong.
Don't just signal "Yes, that's great" or "Nah, not doing it for me", use body language and words to show him what he should be doing instead, that way he won't have to try a bunch of different things until he finds something that works (and you won't get frustrated that he doesn't just get it right already).
The communication between you (using both verbal and nonverbal communication) shouldn't be:
* "What about this?"
* "Nope"
* "This then?"
* "Nah"
* "This?"
* "Still nope"
* "Alright, this?"
* "Naah, don't think so"
* "Fine, this?"
* "Still nothing"
* "What if I do this as well?"
* "Oh yeah"
Try:
* "What about this?"
* "Try more like [...]"
* "Like so?"
* "Oh yeah"
And yes, I've experienced both scenarios a few times, the first one is incredibly frustrating for both involved parties.
**tl;dr:** If a guy is doing something wrong, don't just tell him he's doing it wrong, tell him what he's doing wrong and how to do it better. | > My boyfriend learned what I liked from practice and from my moans of encouragement. And from watching my body react to what he's doing to me. But I'm easily pleased so he didn't have much to learn :P
On this note (and based on my own experience) I'd like to give a general tip to women for when a guy is doing something slightly wrong.
Don't just signal "Yes, that's great" or "Nah, not doing it for me", use body language and words to show him what he should be doing instead, that way he won't have to try a bunch of different things until he finds something that works (and you won't get frustrated that he doesn't just get it right already).
The communication between you (using both verbal and nonverbal communication) shouldn't be:
"What about this?"
"Nope"
"This then?"
"Nah"
"This?"
"Still nope"
"Alright, this?"
"Naah, don't think so"
"Fine, this?"
"Still nothing"
"What if I do this as well?"
"Oh yeah"
Try:
"What about this?"
"Try more like [...]"
"Like so?"
"Oh yeah"
And yes, I've experienced both scenarios a few times, the first one is incredibly frustrating for both involved parties.
tl;dr: If a guy is doing something wrong, don't just tell him he's doing it wrong, tell him what he's doing wrong and how to do it better.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh6gq9 | My boyfriend learned what I liked from practice and from my moans of encouragement. And from watching my body react to what he's doing to me. But I'm easily pleased so he didn't have much to learn :P
On this note (and based on my own experience) I'd like to give a general tip to women for when a guy is doing something slightly wrong.
Don't just signal "Yes, that's great" or "Nah, not doing it for me", use body language and words to show him what he should be doing instead, that way he won't have to try a bunch of different things until he finds something that works (and you won't get frustrated that he doesn't just get it right already).
The communication between you (using both verbal and nonverbal communication) shouldn't be:
"What about this?"
"Nope"
"This then?"
"Nah"
"This?"
"Still nope"
"Alright, this?"
"Naah, don't think so"
"Fine, this?"
"Still nothing"
"What if I do this as well?"
"Oh yeah"
Try:
"What about this?"
"Try more like [...]"
"Like so?"
"Oh yeah"
And yes, I've experienced both scenarios a few times, the first one is incredibly frustrating for both involved parties. | If a guy is doing something wrong, don't just tell him he's doing it wrong, tell him what he's doing wrong and how to do it better. |
xeno211 | Is it possible for a gay to live a conservative or modest lifestyle? From what I've seen of gay pride parades and gay bars, there is a lot of behavior that would be considered vulgar or immoral if a modest hetero did it.
Tldr: is there any significant minority of gay men that don't have promiscuous sex or would wait for a while to get to know someone before having sex | Is it possible for a gay to live a conservative or modest lifestyle? From what I've seen of gay pride parades and gay bars, there is a lot of behavior that would be considered vulgar or immoral if a modest hetero did it.
Tldr: is there any significant minority of gay men that don't have promiscuous sex or would wait for a while to get to know someone before having sex
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh80d1 | Is it possible for a gay to live a conservative or modest lifestyle? From what I've seen of gay pride parades and gay bars, there is a lot of behavior that would be considered vulgar or immoral if a modest hetero did it. | is there any significant minority of gay men that don't have promiscuous sex or would wait for a while to get to know someone before having sex |
thecrimsontim | My very straight friend once gave a little to friendly of a reaction to a openly gay male giving him a look. He tried to buy my friend a drink and my friend accepted and we all looked at him and said "you gonna tell him you are straight or are you gonna try something new?" And he turned beet red and turned to see the guy giving him sexy eyes. The guy then sang a song for him since it was a karaoke bar and spent like 40 dollars on him refusing to believe he wasn't gay. I ended up breaking that poor guys heart and taking my friend home. But the dude had a new toy the next week, so I guess he knows what he's doing.
Tl;Dr gaydar isn't perfect, especially to oblivious nice people. But I do have a question. I know a couple guys who were curious and got super drunk and experimented and some liked it and others didn't, but I always wondered, does the other person ever feel awkward knowing this person may not enjoy it at all when experimenting with a someone who ISNT sure? Especially if drunk? I'd feel weird if a lesbian was using me to experiment, but I also don't have as much trouble picking people up. | My very straight friend once gave a little to friendly of a reaction to a openly gay male giving him a look. He tried to buy my friend a drink and my friend accepted and we all looked at him and said "you gonna tell him you are straight or are you gonna try something new?" And he turned beet red and turned to see the guy giving him sexy eyes. The guy then sang a song for him since it was a karaoke bar and spent like 40 dollars on him refusing to believe he wasn't gay. I ended up breaking that poor guys heart and taking my friend home. But the dude had a new toy the next week, so I guess he knows what he's doing.
Tl;Dr gaydar isn't perfect, especially to oblivious nice people. But I do have a question. I know a couple guys who were curious and got super drunk and experimented and some liked it and others didn't, but I always wondered, does the other person ever feel awkward knowing this person may not enjoy it at all when experimenting with a someone who ISNT sure? Especially if drunk? I'd feel weird if a lesbian was using me to experiment, but I also don't have as much trouble picking people up.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh83pk | My very straight friend once gave a little to friendly of a reaction to a openly gay male giving him a look. He tried to buy my friend a drink and my friend accepted and we all looked at him and said "you gonna tell him you are straight or are you gonna try something new?" And he turned beet red and turned to see the guy giving him sexy eyes. The guy then sang a song for him since it was a karaoke bar and spent like 40 dollars on him refusing to believe he wasn't gay. I ended up breaking that poor guys heart and taking my friend home. But the dude had a new toy the next week, so I guess he knows what he's doing. | gaydar isn't perfect, especially to oblivious nice people. But I do have a question. I know a couple guys who were curious and got super drunk and experimented and some liked it and others didn't, but I always wondered, does the other person ever feel awkward knowing this person may not enjoy it at all when experimenting with a someone who ISNT sure? Especially if drunk? I'd feel weird if a lesbian was using me to experiment, but I also don't have as much trouble picking people up. |
jermdizzle | I think this is a preference thing too. I worked with a gay man for about 4 years before I was honored enough for him to discuss his personal life and the struggles he had before he finally admitted to himself that he was indeed gay. I asked him if he made himself scarce around the showers when we all shared the bathroom at work because he was gay and didn't want to feel disrespectful towards us, his friends and coworkers. He just laughed at me and said "None of you guys have the qualities I'm looking for. I'm not even attracted a little bit to any of you. I just don't like standing around in a bathroom when I can just wait my turn for the shower while I eat breakfast". Turns out he was into, as he described: twinks. He liked smaller thinner and slighter fellows with more feminine features. Everyone at work was kinda muscle-bound and stocky.
TL;DR - So I'd imagine tastes are different for everyone and the answer to your question might be yes or no. | I think this is a preference thing too. I worked with a gay man for about 4 years before I was honored enough for him to discuss his personal life and the struggles he had before he finally admitted to himself that he was indeed gay. I asked him if he made himself scarce around the showers when we all shared the bathroom at work because he was gay and didn't want to feel disrespectful towards us, his friends and coworkers. He just laughed at me and said "None of you guys have the qualities I'm looking for. I'm not even attracted a little bit to any of you. I just don't like standing around in a bathroom when I can just wait my turn for the shower while I eat breakfast". Turns out he was into, as he described: twinks. He liked smaller thinner and slighter fellows with more feminine features. Everyone at work was kinda muscle-bound and stocky.
TL;DR - So I'd imagine tastes are different for everyone and the answer to your question might be yes or no.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh8h4f | I think this is a preference thing too. I worked with a gay man for about 4 years before I was honored enough for him to discuss his personal life and the struggles he had before he finally admitted to himself that he was indeed gay. I asked him if he made himself scarce around the showers when we all shared the bathroom at work because he was gay and didn't want to feel disrespectful towards us, his friends and coworkers. He just laughed at me and said "None of you guys have the qualities I'm looking for. I'm not even attracted a little bit to any of you. I just don't like standing around in a bathroom when I can just wait my turn for the shower while I eat breakfast". Turns out he was into, as he described: twinks. He liked smaller thinner and slighter fellows with more feminine features. Everyone at work was kinda muscle-bound and stocky. | So I'd imagine tastes are different for everyone and the answer to your question might be yes or no. |
synonimical | Being a gay person doesn't mean adopting an entirely different lifestyle and personality along with it.
Due to the amount of hatred received by many gay people in the past, it became more common for us to stick together as a separate group within society. (For friendships, safety, etc.) This would have involved acting in the same way (e.g. the flamboyant accent you mentioned.)
Now a days being gay is simply understood as 'a person fancying someone else of the same sex', it doesn't necessarily have to change anything else.
For example: after coming out to myself as a lesbian there were a few things which I did which felt right for me to do just for myself (like cutting my hair short.) But there are a whole host of other things which I have felt no need to do, e.g. dressing 'butch', becoming a vegetarian, or getting a cat :p these are stereotypes which some lesbians fall under and some don't.
TL;DR We're all individual human beings! :)
I hope that helps | Being a gay person doesn't mean adopting an entirely different lifestyle and personality along with it.
Due to the amount of hatred received by many gay people in the past, it became more common for us to stick together as a separate group within society. (For friendships, safety, etc.) This would have involved acting in the same way (e.g. the flamboyant accent you mentioned.)
Now a days being gay is simply understood as 'a person fancying someone else of the same sex', it doesn't necessarily have to change anything else.
For example: after coming out to myself as a lesbian there were a few things which I did which felt right for me to do just for myself (like cutting my hair short.) But there are a whole host of other things which I have felt no need to do, e.g. dressing 'butch', becoming a vegetarian, or getting a cat :p these are stereotypes which some lesbians fall under and some don't.
TL;DR We're all individual human beings! :)
I hope that helps
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh8no1 | Being a gay person doesn't mean adopting an entirely different lifestyle and personality along with it.
Due to the amount of hatred received by many gay people in the past, it became more common for us to stick together as a separate group within society. (For friendships, safety, etc.) This would have involved acting in the same way (e.g. the flamboyant accent you mentioned.)
Now a days being gay is simply understood as 'a person fancying someone else of the same sex', it doesn't necessarily have to change anything else.
For example: after coming out to myself as a lesbian there were a few things which I did which felt right for me to do just for myself (like cutting my hair short.) But there are a whole host of other things which I have felt no need to do, e.g. dressing 'butch', becoming a vegetarian, or getting a cat :p these are stereotypes which some lesbians fall under and some don't. | We're all individual human beings! :)
I hope that helps |
McBeth1704 | I've always wondered how gay people feel that it is there at birth. Not being a jerk or degrading. If you like the same sex you do, but there is no scientific reason to be gay. As an animal our purpose is to procreate. Personally I believe to be gay is a choice. Not in a bad way, we all like different things. Why do gay people get so defensive when people say this? I mean, I see you feel that way but I have never seen a 4 yr old check out a guy but I've seen alot fascinated with boobs. Just a question. No offense meant.
TLDR: Why do gay people get so offensive when ppl don't think you were born gay. Some ppl believe it is a choice. There is no biological reasoning behind that. Not in a jerk way put I really have always wondered. And also why do gay people feel like you're insulting them? Sexual preference is different for each person. Nothing wrong with choosing to be with the same sex. If you believe that it is right, why automatically assume it is meant in a negative way? | I've always wondered how gay people feel that it is there at birth. Not being a jerk or degrading. If you like the same sex you do, but there is no scientific reason to be gay. As an animal our purpose is to procreate. Personally I believe to be gay is a choice. Not in a bad way, we all like different things. Why do gay people get so defensive when people say this? I mean, I see you feel that way but I have never seen a 4 yr old check out a guy but I've seen alot fascinated with boobs. Just a question. No offense meant.
TLDR: Why do gay people get so offensive when ppl don't think you were born gay. Some ppl believe it is a choice. There is no biological reasoning behind that. Not in a jerk way put I really have always wondered. And also why do gay people feel like you're insulting them? Sexual preference is different for each person. Nothing wrong with choosing to be with the same sex. If you believe that it is right, why automatically assume it is meant in a negative way?
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh96hy | I've always wondered how gay people feel that it is there at birth. Not being a jerk or degrading. If you like the same sex you do, but there is no scientific reason to be gay. As an animal our purpose is to procreate. Personally I believe to be gay is a choice. Not in a bad way, we all like different things. Why do gay people get so defensive when people say this? I mean, I see you feel that way but I have never seen a 4 yr old check out a guy but I've seen alot fascinated with boobs. Just a question. No offense meant. | Why do gay people get so offensive when ppl don't think you were born gay. Some ppl believe it is a choice. There is no biological reasoning behind that. Not in a jerk way put I really have always wondered. And also why do gay people feel like you're insulting them? Sexual preference is different for each person. Nothing wrong with choosing to be with the same sex. If you believe that it is right, why automatically assume it is meant in a negative way? |
ynwestrope | spellcheck is your friend.
And I think the 4 year old fascination with boobs has to do with boobs being fascinating. You see little girls and boys fascinated with them, and I've never seen a four year old check out anyone sexually. ever.
Additionally, many gay people *can* have sex with people of the opposite gender. It's just they don't like it. People don't *choose* to enjoy unhealthy foods, but some people just can't stand the taste of broccoli.
Also, who the FUCK would choose to like the same sex, when gays are discriminated against in ways your average straight person can't even wrap his/her mind around.
TL;DR: you're dumb. | spellcheck is your friend.
And I think the 4 year old fascination with boobs has to do with boobs being fascinating. You see little girls and boys fascinated with them, and I've never seen a four year old check out anyone sexually. ever.
Additionally, many gay people can have sex with people of the opposite gender. It's just they don't like it. People don't choose to enjoy unhealthy foods, but some people just can't stand the taste of broccoli.
Also, who the FUCK would choose to like the same sex, when gays are discriminated against in ways your average straight person can't even wrap his/her mind around.
TL;DR: you're dumb.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh9bzi | spellcheck is your friend.
And I think the 4 year old fascination with boobs has to do with boobs being fascinating. You see little girls and boys fascinated with them, and I've never seen a four year old check out anyone sexually. ever.
Additionally, many gay people can have sex with people of the opposite gender. It's just they don't like it. People don't choose to enjoy unhealthy foods, but some people just can't stand the taste of broccoli.
Also, who the FUCK would choose to like the same sex, when gays are discriminated against in ways your average straight person can't even wrap his/her mind around. | you're dumb. |
arcticaurora | When I realized I liked girls as a 10th grader, I was so excited that I finally figured it out and became obsessed with lesbian culture as portrayed in the media. I had always been a bit of a tomboy, but I thought that because I didn't have a girlfriend, I had to fit in by wearing flannel, cargo shorts, and doc martens. I thought it would help me attract other lesbians because I was too shy to approach anyone. I also had a bunch of lesbian friends who were in college and that's what they wore, so I figured it was just the norm. I toned down the dyke wear after about a year or so, but I am still very much a jeans and sneakers gal to the point where people shit their pants with excitement if I wear a dress. And that reaction makes me feel like a circus act, so I associate super-feminine clothes with feeling out of place. Plus, I tend to get hit on more (by girls) if I have my hair in an alternative lifestyle cut and wear something plaid.
tldr; seeing shane get laid on the l word made me think I had to dress that way to get a girlfriend
| When I realized I liked girls as a 10th grader, I was so excited that I finally figured it out and became obsessed with lesbian culture as portrayed in the media. I had always been a bit of a tomboy, but I thought that because I didn't have a girlfriend, I had to fit in by wearing flannel, cargo shorts, and doc martens. I thought it would help me attract other lesbians because I was too shy to approach anyone. I also had a bunch of lesbian friends who were in college and that's what they wore, so I figured it was just the norm. I toned down the dyke wear after about a year or so, but I am still very much a jeans and sneakers gal to the point where people shit their pants with excitement if I wear a dress. And that reaction makes me feel like a circus act, so I associate super-feminine clothes with feeling out of place. Plus, I tend to get hit on more (by girls) if I have my hair in an alternative lifestyle cut and wear something plaid.
tldr; seeing shane get laid on the l word made me think I had to dress that way to get a girlfriend
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh9kvt | When I realized I liked girls as a 10th grader, I was so excited that I finally figured it out and became obsessed with lesbian culture as portrayed in the media. I had always been a bit of a tomboy, but I thought that because I didn't have a girlfriend, I had to fit in by wearing flannel, cargo shorts, and doc martens. I thought it would help me attract other lesbians because I was too shy to approach anyone. I also had a bunch of lesbian friends who were in college and that's what they wore, so I figured it was just the norm. I toned down the dyke wear after about a year or so, but I am still very much a jeans and sneakers gal to the point where people shit their pants with excitement if I wear a dress. And that reaction makes me feel like a circus act, so I associate super-feminine clothes with feeling out of place. Plus, I tend to get hit on more (by girls) if I have my hair in an alternative lifestyle cut and wear something plaid. | seeing shane get laid on the l word made me think I had to dress that way to get a girlfriend |
waldrop02 | I'm not particularly interested in seeing a vagina, and if one were to pop up out of nowhere, I'd probably try to cover my eyes from it yeah. But the same thing goes for a penis, or a butthole, or even someone's bare chest usually. I have no interest in seeing the parts of someone that are usually reserved for sex unless I'm having sex with them.
Tl;dr: it's not so much vaginas that are icky as any genitals I haven't intentionally decided to see. | I'm not particularly interested in seeing a vagina, and if one were to pop up out of nowhere, I'd probably try to cover my eyes from it yeah. But the same thing goes for a penis, or a butthole, or even someone's bare chest usually. I have no interest in seeing the parts of someone that are usually reserved for sex unless I'm having sex with them.
Tl;dr: it's not so much vaginas that are icky as any genitals I haven't intentionally decided to see.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh9yfp | I'm not particularly interested in seeing a vagina, and if one were to pop up out of nowhere, I'd probably try to cover my eyes from it yeah. But the same thing goes for a penis, or a butthole, or even someone's bare chest usually. I have no interest in seeing the parts of someone that are usually reserved for sex unless I'm having sex with them. | it's not so much vaginas that are icky as any genitals I haven't intentionally decided to see. |
raceover | Honestly I don't blame you. Another annoying thing is often someone finds out I'm queer or that I have to correct them about my assumed orientation, it's like micro-coming-out-of-the-closet. I'll know someone years before it's mentioned for the first time, and it can be treated like I've been hiding something from them all the time. No, it's because I never needed to explain to them where I put my genitals. Sexuality isn't a culture to all of us; it's a sex thing, funny enough. Identifiers *can* be convenient--I think some LGBT folks would rather get it out of the way at first meetings--but I choose not to adopt mannerisms or force a topic to identify myself out of principle.
tl;dr: I shouldn't feel guilty someone's surprised to find I'm not straight, they should feel guilty for assuming there's a default sexuality. | Honestly I don't blame you. Another annoying thing is often someone finds out I'm queer or that I have to correct them about my assumed orientation, it's like micro-coming-out-of-the-closet. I'll know someone years before it's mentioned for the first time, and it can be treated like I've been hiding something from them all the time. No, it's because I never needed to explain to them where I put my genitals. Sexuality isn't a culture to all of us; it's a sex thing, funny enough. Identifiers can be convenient--I think some LGBT folks would rather get it out of the way at first meetings--but I choose not to adopt mannerisms or force a topic to identify myself out of principle.
tl;dr: I shouldn't feel guilty someone's surprised to find I'm not straight, they should feel guilty for assuming there's a default sexuality.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh9ygp | Honestly I don't blame you. Another annoying thing is often someone finds out I'm queer or that I have to correct them about my assumed orientation, it's like micro-coming-out-of-the-closet. I'll know someone years before it's mentioned for the first time, and it can be treated like I've been hiding something from them all the time. No, it's because I never needed to explain to them where I put my genitals. Sexuality isn't a culture to all of us; it's a sex thing, funny enough. Identifiers can be convenient--I think some LGBT folks would rather get it out of the way at first meetings--but I choose not to adopt mannerisms or force a topic to identify myself out of principle. | I shouldn't feel guilty someone's surprised to find I'm not straight, they should feel guilty for assuming there's a default sexuality. |
ricecracker420 | You would be surprised at how many gay people you've met and you would never know it. I worked at a place where I found out later that 90% of the staff were gay, never would have guessed.
TL;DR everyone's gaydar is unreliable | You would be surprised at how many gay people you've met and you would never know it. I worked at a place where I found out later that 90% of the staff were gay, never would have guessed.
TL;DR everyone's gaydar is unreliable
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceha0ej | You would be surprised at how many gay people you've met and you would never know it. I worked at a place where I found out later that 90% of the staff were gay, never would have guessed. | everyone's gaydar is unreliable |
tileo | Not gay, but I can just reply as well...If he says so, he is wrong. Although it's right that probably more men would be gay if the society in which we live wouldn't be "gay-unfriendly", all the men who are maybe feeling some kind of attraction to other men(as well as women obviously, but women usually don't have this big of a problem with being lesbian, I think, because men are like, supposed to be father's, strong, have a wife) would maybe try it.
TLDR
No. Not every man is bisexual, as well as not every woman wants to have Sex with other women, but in an other society there could be more actual gays and less closet gays. | Not gay, but I can just reply as well...If he says so, he is wrong. Although it's right that probably more men would be gay if the society in which we live wouldn't be "gay-unfriendly", all the men who are maybe feeling some kind of attraction to other men(as well as women obviously, but women usually don't have this big of a problem with being lesbian, I think, because men are like, supposed to be father's, strong, have a wife) would maybe try it.
TLDR
No. Not every man is bisexual, as well as not every woman wants to have Sex with other women, but in an other society there could be more actual gays and less closet gays.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehbb3k | Not gay, but I can just reply as well...If he says so, he is wrong. Although it's right that probably more men would be gay if the society in which we live wouldn't be "gay-unfriendly", all the men who are maybe feeling some kind of attraction to other men(as well as women obviously, but women usually don't have this big of a problem with being lesbian, I think, because men are like, supposed to be father's, strong, have a wife) would maybe try it. | No. Not every man is bisexual, as well as not every woman wants to have Sex with other women, but in an other society there could be more actual gays and less closet gays. |
closetfixture | For me, it is purely about states' rights. Throughout the history of our nation (USA), we have seen the rights and responsibilities of the states dwindle. Marriage has always been up to the states, and the federal government always recognized the marriages of the states. DOMA took away states' rights, because it said that the federal government would not recognize certain (gay) marriages performed by the states. This was new, because throughout the history of the nation, marriage had been practically untouched by the federal government. I support(ed) the repeal of DOMA for this reason, it gave power back to the states. If there were to be a federal bill which mandated that all states allow same-sex marriage, this would, once again, be an example of the federal government interfering with marriage, and I would oppose it. Now, on the state level, hell yeah, gay marriage. I just want each state to make that decision individually, in order to stay truer to our system of federalism.
TL;DR: The south will rise again. | For me, it is purely about states' rights. Throughout the history of our nation (USA), we have seen the rights and responsibilities of the states dwindle. Marriage has always been up to the states, and the federal government always recognized the marriages of the states. DOMA took away states' rights, because it said that the federal government would not recognize certain (gay) marriages performed by the states. This was new, because throughout the history of the nation, marriage had been practically untouched by the federal government. I support(ed) the repeal of DOMA for this reason, it gave power back to the states. If there were to be a federal bill which mandated that all states allow same-sex marriage, this would, once again, be an example of the federal government interfering with marriage, and I would oppose it. Now, on the state level, hell yeah, gay marriage. I just want each state to make that decision individually, in order to stay truer to our system of federalism.
TL;DR: The south will rise again.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehe95h | For me, it is purely about states' rights. Throughout the history of our nation (USA), we have seen the rights and responsibilities of the states dwindle. Marriage has always been up to the states, and the federal government always recognized the marriages of the states. DOMA took away states' rights, because it said that the federal government would not recognize certain (gay) marriages performed by the states. This was new, because throughout the history of the nation, marriage had been practically untouched by the federal government. I support(ed) the repeal of DOMA for this reason, it gave power back to the states. If there were to be a federal bill which mandated that all states allow same-sex marriage, this would, once again, be an example of the federal government interfering with marriage, and I would oppose it. Now, on the state level, hell yeah, gay marriage. I just want each state to make that decision individually, in order to stay truer to our system of federalism. | The south will rise again. |
FNU__LNU | I'm bi, so no. It's like living in a world where everyone else is colorblind. Half can't see the color red. The other half can't see green. But I see both red and green and my world is more beautiful because of it.
TL;DR: When you're bi, every day is Christmas. | I'm bi, so no. It's like living in a world where everyone else is colorblind. Half can't see the color red. The other half can't see green. But I see both red and green and my world is more beautiful because of it.
TL;DR: When you're bi, every day is Christmas.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehh7sc | I'm bi, so no. It's like living in a world where everyone else is colorblind. Half can't see the color red. The other half can't see green. But I see both red and green and my world is more beautiful because of it. | When you're bi, every day is Christmas. |
suckmyleft1 | Oh, sure it did... but I seriously never recognized it for what it was. Looking back, my first memory of something being sexually captivating was that scene where Jabba the Hutt has Princess Leia chained up in that outfit (you know the one)... I was like 5 or 6. Unable to put words to what I felt, I just remember being captivated by Leia in that outfit...
See, I *thought* I had crushes on boys. I thought it was normal to prefer the company of girls... but as I got older, I was sort of left behind by my friends who were girls because they all became interested in boys. I emulated that behavior because that's what my friends did, I just never realized that the way *I* felt about boys was less intense than the way *other girls* felt about boys. I never hated boys... I had boys who were my friends and actually, my first ever boyfriend was my best friend from 5th grade. We had so much fun playing together, but then my two girl friends were all, "You should date!" and so, we dated throughout the summer and into 6th grade... but I just felt the same as I always had, totally oblivious. We still had fun together and the only difference is that we held hands and wrote each other stupid notes (playing at love, as they say) but all of that was fine because it was so innocent. (As a side note, we're still really good friends and he is so very proud to admit to everyone that he dated me first and was therefore the guy to turn me gay, haha.)
So, time went on and I just kept feeling like I liked boys because I didn't hate them, but all I ever really felt was friendship towards them. Every time we made out, I was just like, "Ugh, this again?" but thought *all* girls felt that way. You have to remember that I literally thought that gay people chose to be gay. As a kid, I'd always been a huge tomboy and I remember my sister calling me a dyke before, but still, I had *no idea* that it could actually be true because I certainly would *never* choose to be such a thing. I also hid behind the whole "sexually pure" thing so that I never really had to encounter going any further with guys. I saw a penis exactly one time and was very repulsed but just hid behind wanting to stay a "virgin." To quote the movie *But I'm A Cheerleader*(which is essentially the same as my own oblivious story): "It's really easy to be a prude when you're not attracted to him, isn't it?"
Seriously, never underestimate a person's capacity for self denial. Before I really started to suspect I was gay, my biggest problem was actually that I was semi-popular and semi-attractive and for that reason, didn't seem to have trouble finding boyfriends. But their attention always felt bothersome to me. It took me far too long to realize that the reason they were all "boring" or "unattractive" or "bad kissers" had absolutely nothing to do with them... it was all *me*. Facepalm.
I did grow up in a really small country town though and this was quite a while ago. We never had any gay people and the first one I met was through the internet. One of my closest friends once said to me, "People *like that*(gay) don't come from places like this." And that was what people really believed... gay people only came from those "perverted" big cities, not from good God fearing people like we were.
But then... I had my first wet dream and my world felt apart. I honestly can't remember ever having a sexual dream before that, so either I didn't have them about boys or they just weren't noteworthy because that was supposed to be normal. Kissing maybe, but never *that* explicit. But the shocking thing about that dream wasn't what was happening, it was how I *felt* about it. I was so turned on and I had honestly never felt *that way* about anyone before. Even worse, my dream was about a friend of mine and I started to look at her in *that way* all of the time, so this horrible feeling didn't stay confined to what was happening in my dreams when I had no control. I found it disgusting and tried so hard to change it. Honestly, this is a long dark story so I'll just make it brief... Basically, I became extremely depressed and prayed to God fervently to change me. I tried to maintain faith, but after a few years, I began to feel hopeless and started contemplating suicide. I just thought, "If I can't make myself stop feeling this way and I'm going to go to Hell because of it anyways, why not just get it over with?" It got so bad that I even tried fasting (anorexia) and self mutilation as punishment, but surprise surprise... Nothing helped! But somewhere around the end of my Junior year/beginning of my Senior year... I just said, "Fuck all that!" and decided to just live. If I was going to Hell, I was going to make sure I had a damn good time getting there! Some of this had to do with my first ever girlfriend later in high school (she went to a different school, met her via the internet). The first time I ever kissed a girl was such a completely different experience... I was so nervous I thought I was going to die... But then it happened and it was just so... overwhelming... in a really exciting way. It made me blush so badly that I hid under a pillow for several minutes afterwards. I think we messed around that same weekend and I finally learned what it meant to not be able to stop yourself. God, guys had never made me feel like that...
**TL;DR:**Basically, yes, I do think that there were signs all along... and maybe I did suspect that I might be different... but pretending was much easier than facing my inner demons. It wasn't until they reared their ugly heads in a way that I couldn't ignore (wet dreams) that it really forced me to confront them.
*edit:* words. | Oh, sure it did... but I seriously never recognized it for what it was. Looking back, my first memory of something being sexually captivating was that scene where Jabba the Hutt has Princess Leia chained up in that outfit (you know the one)... I was like 5 or 6. Unable to put words to what I felt, I just remember being captivated by Leia in that outfit...
See, I thought I had crushes on boys. I thought it was normal to prefer the company of girls... but as I got older, I was sort of left behind by my friends who were girls because they all became interested in boys. I emulated that behavior because that's what my friends did, I just never realized that the way I felt about boys was less intense than the way other girls felt about boys. I never hated boys... I had boys who were my friends and actually, my first ever boyfriend was my best friend from 5th grade. We had so much fun playing together, but then my two girl friends were all, "You should date!" and so, we dated throughout the summer and into 6th grade... but I just felt the same as I always had, totally oblivious. We still had fun together and the only difference is that we held hands and wrote each other stupid notes (playing at love, as they say) but all of that was fine because it was so innocent. (As a side note, we're still really good friends and he is so very proud to admit to everyone that he dated me first and was therefore the guy to turn me gay, haha.)
So, time went on and I just kept feeling like I liked boys because I didn't hate them, but all I ever really felt was friendship towards them. Every time we made out, I was just like, "Ugh, this again?" but thought all girls felt that way. You have to remember that I literally thought that gay people chose to be gay. As a kid, I'd always been a huge tomboy and I remember my sister calling me a dyke before, but still, I had no idea that it could actually be true because I certainly would never choose to be such a thing. I also hid behind the whole "sexually pure" thing so that I never really had to encounter going any further with guys. I saw a penis exactly one time and was very repulsed but just hid behind wanting to stay a "virgin." To quote the movie But I'm A Cheerleader (which is essentially the same as my own oblivious story): "It's really easy to be a prude when you're not attracted to him, isn't it?"
Seriously, never underestimate a person's capacity for self denial. Before I really started to suspect I was gay, my biggest problem was actually that I was semi-popular and semi-attractive and for that reason, didn't seem to have trouble finding boyfriends. But their attention always felt bothersome to me. It took me far too long to realize that the reason they were all "boring" or "unattractive" or "bad kissers" had absolutely nothing to do with them... it was all me . Facepalm.
I did grow up in a really small country town though and this was quite a while ago. We never had any gay people and the first one I met was through the internet. One of my closest friends once said to me, "People like that (gay) don't come from places like this." And that was what people really believed... gay people only came from those "perverted" big cities, not from good God fearing people like we were.
But then... I had my first wet dream and my world felt apart. I honestly can't remember ever having a sexual dream before that, so either I didn't have them about boys or they just weren't noteworthy because that was supposed to be normal. Kissing maybe, but never that explicit. But the shocking thing about that dream wasn't what was happening, it was how I felt about it. I was so turned on and I had honestly never felt that way about anyone before. Even worse, my dream was about a friend of mine and I started to look at her in that way all of the time, so this horrible feeling didn't stay confined to what was happening in my dreams when I had no control. I found it disgusting and tried so hard to change it. Honestly, this is a long dark story so I'll just make it brief... Basically, I became extremely depressed and prayed to God fervently to change me. I tried to maintain faith, but after a few years, I began to feel hopeless and started contemplating suicide. I just thought, "If I can't make myself stop feeling this way and I'm going to go to Hell because of it anyways, why not just get it over with?" It got so bad that I even tried fasting (anorexia) and self mutilation as punishment, but surprise surprise... Nothing helped! But somewhere around the end of my Junior year/beginning of my Senior year... I just said, "Fuck all that!" and decided to just live. If I was going to Hell, I was going to make sure I had a damn good time getting there! Some of this had to do with my first ever girlfriend later in high school (she went to a different school, met her via the internet). The first time I ever kissed a girl was such a completely different experience... I was so nervous I thought I was going to die... But then it happened and it was just so... overwhelming... in a really exciting way. It made me blush so badly that I hid under a pillow for several minutes afterwards. I think we messed around that same weekend and I finally learned what it meant to not be able to stop yourself. God, guys had never made me feel like that...
TL;DR: Basically, yes, I do think that there were signs all along... and maybe I did suspect that I might be different... but pretending was much easier than facing my inner demons. It wasn't until they reared their ugly heads in a way that I couldn't ignore (wet dreams) that it really forced me to confront them.
edit: words.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehhwif | Oh, sure it did... but I seriously never recognized it for what it was. Looking back, my first memory of something being sexually captivating was that scene where Jabba the Hutt has Princess Leia chained up in that outfit (you know the one)... I was like 5 or 6. Unable to put words to what I felt, I just remember being captivated by Leia in that outfit...
See, I thought I had crushes on boys. I thought it was normal to prefer the company of girls... but as I got older, I was sort of left behind by my friends who were girls because they all became interested in boys. I emulated that behavior because that's what my friends did, I just never realized that the way I felt about boys was less intense than the way other girls felt about boys. I never hated boys... I had boys who were my friends and actually, my first ever boyfriend was my best friend from 5th grade. We had so much fun playing together, but then my two girl friends were all, "You should date!" and so, we dated throughout the summer and into 6th grade... but I just felt the same as I always had, totally oblivious. We still had fun together and the only difference is that we held hands and wrote each other stupid notes (playing at love, as they say) but all of that was fine because it was so innocent. (As a side note, we're still really good friends and he is so very proud to admit to everyone that he dated me first and was therefore the guy to turn me gay, haha.)
So, time went on and I just kept feeling like I liked boys because I didn't hate them, but all I ever really felt was friendship towards them. Every time we made out, I was just like, "Ugh, this again?" but thought all girls felt that way. You have to remember that I literally thought that gay people chose to be gay. As a kid, I'd always been a huge tomboy and I remember my sister calling me a dyke before, but still, I had no idea that it could actually be true because I certainly would never choose to be such a thing. I also hid behind the whole "sexually pure" thing so that I never really had to encounter going any further with guys. I saw a penis exactly one time and was very repulsed but just hid behind wanting to stay a "virgin." To quote the movie But I'm A Cheerleader (which is essentially the same as my own oblivious story): "It's really easy to be a prude when you're not attracted to him, isn't it?"
Seriously, never underestimate a person's capacity for self denial. Before I really started to suspect I was gay, my biggest problem was actually that I was semi-popular and semi-attractive and for that reason, didn't seem to have trouble finding boyfriends. But their attention always felt bothersome to me. It took me far too long to realize that the reason they were all "boring" or "unattractive" or "bad kissers" had absolutely nothing to do with them... it was all me . Facepalm.
I did grow up in a really small country town though and this was quite a while ago. We never had any gay people and the first one I met was through the internet. One of my closest friends once said to me, "People like that (gay) don't come from places like this." And that was what people really believed... gay people only came from those "perverted" big cities, not from good God fearing people like we were.
But then... I had my first wet dream and my world felt apart. I honestly can't remember ever having a sexual dream before that, so either I didn't have them about boys or they just weren't noteworthy because that was supposed to be normal. Kissing maybe, but never that explicit. But the shocking thing about that dream wasn't what was happening, it was how I felt about it. I was so turned on and I had honestly never felt that way about anyone before. Even worse, my dream was about a friend of mine and I started to look at her in that way all of the time, so this horrible feeling didn't stay confined to what was happening in my dreams when I had no control. I found it disgusting and tried so hard to change it. Honestly, this is a long dark story so I'll just make it brief... Basically, I became extremely depressed and prayed to God fervently to change me. I tried to maintain faith, but after a few years, I began to feel hopeless and started contemplating suicide. I just thought, "If I can't make myself stop feeling this way and I'm going to go to Hell because of it anyways, why not just get it over with?" It got so bad that I even tried fasting (anorexia) and self mutilation as punishment, but surprise surprise... Nothing helped! But somewhere around the end of my Junior year/beginning of my Senior year... I just said, "Fuck all that!" and decided to just live. If I was going to Hell, I was going to make sure I had a damn good time getting there! Some of this had to do with my first ever girlfriend later in high school (she went to a different school, met her via the internet). The first time I ever kissed a girl was such a completely different experience... I was so nervous I thought I was going to die... But then it happened and it was just so... overwhelming... in a really exciting way. It made me blush so badly that I hid under a pillow for several minutes afterwards. I think we messed around that same weekend and I finally learned what it meant to not be able to stop yourself. God, guys had never made me feel like that... | Basically, yes, I do think that there were signs all along... and maybe I did suspect that I might be different... but pretending was much easier than facing my inner demons. It wasn't until they reared their ugly heads in a way that I couldn't ignore (wet dreams) that it really forced me to confront them.
edit: words. |
Always-a-noob | No, being gay does not make you more promiscuous. Straight people are just as likely to be raging sluts as gay people and also just as likely to be faithfully committed. Sexual orientation has no bearing on a person's moral compas or relationship preferences (commitment vs. dating/sleeping around).
Your question is phrased in such a way that I am curious if you are trying to ask if being gay makes one more likely to have sex at all, but I answered the part I fully understood.
Note: I am straight, but I have many gay friends in committed relationships who are just as -and often more- faithful to one another than friends in heterosexual relationships.
TL/DR: No. Gay or straight, we're all just people. | No, being gay does not make you more promiscuous. Straight people are just as likely to be raging sluts as gay people and also just as likely to be faithfully committed. Sexual orientation has no bearing on a person's moral compas or relationship preferences (commitment vs. dating/sleeping around).
Your question is phrased in such a way that I am curious if you are trying to ask if being gay makes one more likely to have sex at all, but I answered the part I fully understood.
Note: I am straight, but I have many gay friends in committed relationships who are just as -and often more- faithful to one another than friends in heterosexual relationships.
TL/DR: No. Gay or straight, we're all just people.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehlqc3 | No, being gay does not make you more promiscuous. Straight people are just as likely to be raging sluts as gay people and also just as likely to be faithfully committed. Sexual orientation has no bearing on a person's moral compas or relationship preferences (commitment vs. dating/sleeping around).
Your question is phrased in such a way that I am curious if you are trying to ask if being gay makes one more likely to have sex at all, but I answered the part I fully understood.
Note: I am straight, but I have many gay friends in committed relationships who are just as -and often more- faithful to one another than friends in heterosexual relationships. | No. Gay or straight, we're all just people. |
Zeryx | Yeah, for sure dude. I mean I can appreciate someone like Jensen Ackles or Ryan Kesler or my SO ;) as works of art. I can also love someone as a friend. Usually one feeling is more dominant than the other.
When it comes to relationships, my partner becomes better looking over time, because the more I love them, the more beautiful they are to me.
I guess as with any other human being, a personality match can lead to a steadily deepening sexual attraction, but if someone is ugly enough inside it doesn't matter how aesthetically pleasing they are, I'm just no longer sexually interested.
tl;dr: can sexually objectify like any other asshole, romantic attraction is something that takes time. | Yeah, for sure dude. I mean I can appreciate someone like Jensen Ackles or Ryan Kesler or my SO ;) as works of art. I can also love someone as a friend. Usually one feeling is more dominant than the other.
When it comes to relationships, my partner becomes better looking over time, because the more I love them, the more beautiful they are to me.
I guess as with any other human being, a personality match can lead to a steadily deepening sexual attraction, but if someone is ugly enough inside it doesn't matter how aesthetically pleasing they are, I'm just no longer sexually interested.
tl;dr: can sexually objectify like any other asshole, romantic attraction is something that takes time.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehlt5q | Yeah, for sure dude. I mean I can appreciate someone like Jensen Ackles or Ryan Kesler or my SO ;) as works of art. I can also love someone as a friend. Usually one feeling is more dominant than the other.
When it comes to relationships, my partner becomes better looking over time, because the more I love them, the more beautiful they are to me.
I guess as with any other human being, a personality match can lead to a steadily deepening sexual attraction, but if someone is ugly enough inside it doesn't matter how aesthetically pleasing they are, I'm just no longer sexually interested. | can sexually objectify like any other asshole, romantic attraction is something that takes time. |
An-English-Major | Just my general opinion on this situation:
Showing acceptance and appreciation for the person are two great ways of positive reactions towards someone who just came out. It shows that you are there for them and their identity has become accepted by you. Both can truly show that you accept their differences and that you are a close friend that they will trust you with their personal information.
I recommend not showing indifference that much, mostly because it seems that their identity really is not all that important. In some aspects, I can respect that idea, especially if it's a friend you've grown close to or have known for a while and nothing can truly separate you two. But, if it's a case where that their identity is not open to other people (ESPECIALLY if it's someone who is young or has just recently come to terms with their sexual orientation), their world is probably turned upside down and they need someone to confine in.
In some cases, people who come out to you are not just saying this just so they can get that weight off their chest, but they also may be asking for someone who they can rely on to share their concerns and ideas and problems with that most heterosexual people will never have to go through. They want you to be a person that they can trust and talk to whenever the world may seem to be getting them down. I'm not trying to imply that all people who are not out in the open are somehow weak (I'm not), but for many people, finding out this aspect of their lives can truly change how they perceive the world. By coming out to you, they want you not only to become accepting of their identity, they want you to be someone who they can talk to about these sort of discussion, many of which they may not be comfortable to be shared in the public, their own group of friends, or even their family.
**TL;DR:** Acceptance and appreciation are both great aspects to have when a person comes out. I warn against indifference since many people who come out want to have a person to talk to and confine in. If you are accepting, tell them that you are a person they can talk to about these topics. | Just my general opinion on this situation:
Showing acceptance and appreciation for the person are two great ways of positive reactions towards someone who just came out. It shows that you are there for them and their identity has become accepted by you. Both can truly show that you accept their differences and that you are a close friend that they will trust you with their personal information.
I recommend not showing indifference that much, mostly because it seems that their identity really is not all that important. In some aspects, I can respect that idea, especially if it's a friend you've grown close to or have known for a while and nothing can truly separate you two. But, if it's a case where that their identity is not open to other people (ESPECIALLY if it's someone who is young or has just recently come to terms with their sexual orientation), their world is probably turned upside down and they need someone to confine in.
In some cases, people who come out to you are not just saying this just so they can get that weight off their chest, but they also may be asking for someone who they can rely on to share their concerns and ideas and problems with that most heterosexual people will never have to go through. They want you to be a person that they can trust and talk to whenever the world may seem to be getting them down. I'm not trying to imply that all people who are not out in the open are somehow weak (I'm not), but for many people, finding out this aspect of their lives can truly change how they perceive the world. By coming out to you, they want you not only to become accepting of their identity, they want you to be someone who they can talk to about these sort of discussion, many of which they may not be comfortable to be shared in the public, their own group of friends, or even their family.
TL;DR: Acceptance and appreciation are both great aspects to have when a person comes out. I warn against indifference since many people who come out want to have a person to talk to and confine in. If you are accepting, tell them that you are a person they can talk to about these topics.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehms3r | Just my general opinion on this situation:
Showing acceptance and appreciation for the person are two great ways of positive reactions towards someone who just came out. It shows that you are there for them and their identity has become accepted by you. Both can truly show that you accept their differences and that you are a close friend that they will trust you with their personal information.
I recommend not showing indifference that much, mostly because it seems that their identity really is not all that important. In some aspects, I can respect that idea, especially if it's a friend you've grown close to or have known for a while and nothing can truly separate you two. But, if it's a case where that their identity is not open to other people (ESPECIALLY if it's someone who is young or has just recently come to terms with their sexual orientation), their world is probably turned upside down and they need someone to confine in.
In some cases, people who come out to you are not just saying this just so they can get that weight off their chest, but they also may be asking for someone who they can rely on to share their concerns and ideas and problems with that most heterosexual people will never have to go through. They want you to be a person that they can trust and talk to whenever the world may seem to be getting them down. I'm not trying to imply that all people who are not out in the open are somehow weak (I'm not), but for many people, finding out this aspect of their lives can truly change how they perceive the world. By coming out to you, they want you not only to become accepting of their identity, they want you to be someone who they can talk to about these sort of discussion, many of which they may not be comfortable to be shared in the public, their own group of friends, or even their family. | Acceptance and appreciation are both great aspects to have when a person comes out. I warn against indifference since many people who come out want to have a person to talk to and confine in. If you are accepting, tell them that you are a person they can talk to about these topics. |
An-English-Major | This is perhaps one of the biggest hurdles I have gone through when I found out I was gay.
By the time I found out I was gay (13), I was not exactly the best example of a Roman Catholic follower. After fourth grade, my family stopped going to Church and rarely attended (even though I still attended Catholic elementary school) and when I did go to the services, I tuned out the homily, looked at all the glittering pictures of the saints above and eagerly awaited the bread and wine for a quick snack before leaving. Strangely enough, I felt like I had broken a relationship with God at the point, especially when the news highlights about gay marriage were about the increasing bans and sermons against gay people. For a while, I believed them and became utterly depressed about how I was an 'sin' against the world, to the point where I did contemplate suicide on a daily basis.
About the time high school came around, I found a great group of friends who came from different religious backgrounds, whether it be Baptists, Neo-Paganism, Jewish and so on, that really opened my eyes to how many religions there were in the world praying to different or the same God, despite differences in rules and customs. At that point, I came to the conclusion that God would not judge someone based on the religious affiliation if they life were filled with good works that helped , not hurt, the cause of humanity. That rule alone eventually grew into bigger questions of religion and the philosophy of God, to which I am still trying to understand today.
Fast forward to today, where I recently graduated from college. I learned plenty of information regarding Catholic history and queer studies that really helped me understand what the Bible said about homosexuality (Short answer: very little to none/uncertain). My education of religion and philosophy has shown plenty of weaknesses of the ideology of religion, but this has only strengthen my spirituality. There comes times where I will fundamentally disagree on several tenants of the Catholic faith, to the point where I believe that I might as well ascribe to being a non-denominational Christian. That said, my faith is one of the biggest factors and constantly thought about topics I think about almost on a daily basis.
From this whole discovery, it is not so much that I have to come to terms as an 'abomination' within the eyes of the Lord, but rather to discover what my relationship with God will be with this new information. I have moved passed the phase that my sexual orientation is a one-way ticket to Hell, mostly because I think it greatly interferes with God being seen as an all-loving, all merciful, greater being (as well as the 'good jobs' intention I mentioned earlier). The struggle now is moving towards an ideal and system of faith I feel comfortable with that firmly establishes my relationship with Him, regardless of who I am today and with emphasis of what good will I do for the world.
**TL;DR:** I once became depressed when I found out I was gay and an 'abomination' towards God, but have moved passed this phase with the help of friends and education of faith and philosophy. The struggle has moved from me being seen as a 'sin' to a system of faith that I find myself comfortable that truly establishes the relationship between me and God. | This is perhaps one of the biggest hurdles I have gone through when I found out I was gay.
By the time I found out I was gay (13), I was not exactly the best example of a Roman Catholic follower. After fourth grade, my family stopped going to Church and rarely attended (even though I still attended Catholic elementary school) and when I did go to the services, I tuned out the homily, looked at all the glittering pictures of the saints above and eagerly awaited the bread and wine for a quick snack before leaving. Strangely enough, I felt like I had broken a relationship with God at the point, especially when the news highlights about gay marriage were about the increasing bans and sermons against gay people. For a while, I believed them and became utterly depressed about how I was an 'sin' against the world, to the point where I did contemplate suicide on a daily basis.
About the time high school came around, I found a great group of friends who came from different religious backgrounds, whether it be Baptists, Neo-Paganism, Jewish and so on, that really opened my eyes to how many religions there were in the world praying to different or the same God, despite differences in rules and customs. At that point, I came to the conclusion that God would not judge someone based on the religious affiliation if they life were filled with good works that helped , not hurt, the cause of humanity. That rule alone eventually grew into bigger questions of religion and the philosophy of God, to which I am still trying to understand today.
Fast forward to today, where I recently graduated from college. I learned plenty of information regarding Catholic history and queer studies that really helped me understand what the Bible said about homosexuality (Short answer: very little to none/uncertain). My education of religion and philosophy has shown plenty of weaknesses of the ideology of religion, but this has only strengthen my spirituality. There comes times where I will fundamentally disagree on several tenants of the Catholic faith, to the point where I believe that I might as well ascribe to being a non-denominational Christian. That said, my faith is one of the biggest factors and constantly thought about topics I think about almost on a daily basis.
From this whole discovery, it is not so much that I have to come to terms as an 'abomination' within the eyes of the Lord, but rather to discover what my relationship with God will be with this new information. I have moved passed the phase that my sexual orientation is a one-way ticket to Hell, mostly because I think it greatly interferes with God being seen as an all-loving, all merciful, greater being (as well as the 'good jobs' intention I mentioned earlier). The struggle now is moving towards an ideal and system of faith I feel comfortable with that firmly establishes my relationship with Him, regardless of who I am today and with emphasis of what good will I do for the world.
TL;DR: I once became depressed when I found out I was gay and an 'abomination' towards God, but have moved passed this phase with the help of friends and education of faith and philosophy. The struggle has moved from me being seen as a 'sin' to a system of faith that I find myself comfortable that truly establishes the relationship between me and God.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehne40 | This is perhaps one of the biggest hurdles I have gone through when I found out I was gay.
By the time I found out I was gay (13), I was not exactly the best example of a Roman Catholic follower. After fourth grade, my family stopped going to Church and rarely attended (even though I still attended Catholic elementary school) and when I did go to the services, I tuned out the homily, looked at all the glittering pictures of the saints above and eagerly awaited the bread and wine for a quick snack before leaving. Strangely enough, I felt like I had broken a relationship with God at the point, especially when the news highlights about gay marriage were about the increasing bans and sermons against gay people. For a while, I believed them and became utterly depressed about how I was an 'sin' against the world, to the point where I did contemplate suicide on a daily basis.
About the time high school came around, I found a great group of friends who came from different religious backgrounds, whether it be Baptists, Neo-Paganism, Jewish and so on, that really opened my eyes to how many religions there were in the world praying to different or the same God, despite differences in rules and customs. At that point, I came to the conclusion that God would not judge someone based on the religious affiliation if they life were filled with good works that helped , not hurt, the cause of humanity. That rule alone eventually grew into bigger questions of religion and the philosophy of God, to which I am still trying to understand today.
Fast forward to today, where I recently graduated from college. I learned plenty of information regarding Catholic history and queer studies that really helped me understand what the Bible said about homosexuality (Short answer: very little to none/uncertain). My education of religion and philosophy has shown plenty of weaknesses of the ideology of religion, but this has only strengthen my spirituality. There comes times where I will fundamentally disagree on several tenants of the Catholic faith, to the point where I believe that I might as well ascribe to being a non-denominational Christian. That said, my faith is one of the biggest factors and constantly thought about topics I think about almost on a daily basis.
From this whole discovery, it is not so much that I have to come to terms as an 'abomination' within the eyes of the Lord, but rather to discover what my relationship with God will be with this new information. I have moved passed the phase that my sexual orientation is a one-way ticket to Hell, mostly because I think it greatly interferes with God being seen as an all-loving, all merciful, greater being (as well as the 'good jobs' intention I mentioned earlier). The struggle now is moving towards an ideal and system of faith I feel comfortable with that firmly establishes my relationship with Him, regardless of who I am today and with emphasis of what good will I do for the world. | I once became depressed when I found out I was gay and an 'abomination' towards God, but have moved passed this phase with the help of friends and education of faith and philosophy. The struggle has moved from me being seen as a 'sin' to a system of faith that I find myself comfortable that truly establishes the relationship between me and God. |
GeminiK | 14, I was hanging out with some people and realized it wasn't admiration, but attraction. Then I looked at a person of a different gender and I was attracted to them too, TLDR realized I was bi. | 14, I was hanging out with some people and realized it wasn't admiration, but attraction. Then I looked at a person of a different gender and I was attracted to them too, TLDR realized I was bi.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ceh7rgy | 14, I was hanging out with some people and realized it wasn't admiration, but attraction. Then I looked at a person of a different gender and I was attracted to them too, | realized I was bi. |
aerbo | i'm not attracted to people who have similar physical characteristics to me. not to say i don't think im a (relatively) attractive dude, i just don't seek out the physical characteristics i have when looking for sexual satisfaction. so tldr: no | i'm not attracted to people who have similar physical characteristics to me. not to say i don't think im a (relatively) attractive dude, i just don't seek out the physical characteristics i have when looking for sexual satisfaction. so tldr: no
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehcdh7 | i'm not attracted to people who have similar physical characteristics to me. not to say i don't think im a (relatively) attractive dude, i just don't seek out the physical characteristics i have when looking for sexual satisfaction. so | no |
MICOTINATE | I think they should let this go but just to explain my view I don't think anyone is suggesting this is a grievous insult.
The issue is that referees are supposed to be impartial, and supposed to consider each incident in terms of the context of the match. Referees are absolutely not supposed to referee according to their opinion on a club or player. In the last month or so Suarez has had multiple decisions go against him, every time people have speculated that it could be his reputation going against him which if true is a failure of the referee. Everyone knows referees benefit from having a rapport with players but what clattenberg said crossed the line between rapport and personal chastising.
Southampton's don't want Clattenberg reffing a game until a review because what he said suggests he is making decisions based on individuals and things they've done outside the match he is refereeing.
TL;DR this is not about hurt feelings it's about impartiality. | I think they should let this go but just to explain my view I don't think anyone is suggesting this is a grievous insult.
The issue is that referees are supposed to be impartial, and supposed to consider each incident in terms of the context of the match. Referees are absolutely not supposed to referee according to their opinion on a club or player. In the last month or so Suarez has had multiple decisions go against him, every time people have speculated that it could be his reputation going against him which if true is a failure of the referee. Everyone knows referees benefit from having a rapport with players but what clattenberg said crossed the line between rapport and personal chastising.
Southampton's don't want Clattenberg reffing a game until a review because what he said suggests he is making decisions based on individuals and things they've done outside the match he is refereeing.
TL;DR this is not about hurt feelings it's about impartiality.
| soccer | t5_2qi58 | ceh9jj8 | I think they should let this go but just to explain my view I don't think anyone is suggesting this is a grievous insult.
The issue is that referees are supposed to be impartial, and supposed to consider each incident in terms of the context of the match. Referees are absolutely not supposed to referee according to their opinion on a club or player. In the last month or so Suarez has had multiple decisions go against him, every time people have speculated that it could be his reputation going against him which if true is a failure of the referee. Everyone knows referees benefit from having a rapport with players but what clattenberg said crossed the line between rapport and personal chastising.
Southampton's don't want Clattenberg reffing a game until a review because what he said suggests he is making decisions based on individuals and things they've done outside the match he is refereeing. | this is not about hurt feelings it's about impartiality. |
gatermag | I get where you're coming from. I'm currently having a big religious inner turmoil but for the most part I'm agnostic and really big into science so that makes that truth even harder to cope with. I'm not gonna try to change your view in the traditional sense but show you why you shouldn't worry. I think this is all the occupational hazard of being this species that we have become so *conscious* that we see and perceive the beginning and end of our lives but the beginning and end of time. However, from an early age the smallest things around us seemed so big so the idea of our lives being obsolete is like being suffocated in a way. But here's why it doesn't depress me. It makes me hopeful that humans will never run out of things to do. Technology will keep progressing, there will always be a new frontier and so life will always have some sort of conquest, a thing to desire. (I even have this idea of heaven where you become privy to knowledge you never had. To the extent of being able to see what one Eskimo man was doing the day after the Battle of the Bulge. All information you can see). And so that makes me happy. On top of that, I think the depression we feel at feeling pointless in this world is not alleviated through war, love, and jobs etc. because of a conspiracy, I think it's because of our biology. Humans are fundamentally social creatures and lack of society gives us anxiety but being in the thick of it calms us. I don't think it's conspiracy; it's natural to react like that. I hope that helped!
TL;DR: The vastness of the universe yields never-ending discovery (it's like that Futurama episode when Professor discovered everything and got sad.). And we get distracted from these thoughts around people because humans are naturally social. | I get where you're coming from. I'm currently having a big religious inner turmoil but for the most part I'm agnostic and really big into science so that makes that truth even harder to cope with. I'm not gonna try to change your view in the traditional sense but show you why you shouldn't worry. I think this is all the occupational hazard of being this species that we have become so conscious that we see and perceive the beginning and end of our lives but the beginning and end of time. However, from an early age the smallest things around us seemed so big so the idea of our lives being obsolete is like being suffocated in a way. But here's why it doesn't depress me. It makes me hopeful that humans will never run out of things to do. Technology will keep progressing, there will always be a new frontier and so life will always have some sort of conquest, a thing to desire. (I even have this idea of heaven where you become privy to knowledge you never had. To the extent of being able to see what one Eskimo man was doing the day after the Battle of the Bulge. All information you can see). And so that makes me happy. On top of that, I think the depression we feel at feeling pointless in this world is not alleviated through war, love, and jobs etc. because of a conspiracy, I think it's because of our biology. Humans are fundamentally social creatures and lack of society gives us anxiety but being in the thick of it calms us. I don't think it's conspiracy; it's natural to react like that. I hope that helped!
TL;DR: The vastness of the universe yields never-ending discovery (it's like that Futurama episode when Professor discovered everything and got sad.). And we get distracted from these thoughts around people because humans are naturally social.
| changemyview | t5_2w2s8 | cehsr6a | I get where you're coming from. I'm currently having a big religious inner turmoil but for the most part I'm agnostic and really big into science so that makes that truth even harder to cope with. I'm not gonna try to change your view in the traditional sense but show you why you shouldn't worry. I think this is all the occupational hazard of being this species that we have become so conscious that we see and perceive the beginning and end of our lives but the beginning and end of time. However, from an early age the smallest things around us seemed so big so the idea of our lives being obsolete is like being suffocated in a way. But here's why it doesn't depress me. It makes me hopeful that humans will never run out of things to do. Technology will keep progressing, there will always be a new frontier and so life will always have some sort of conquest, a thing to desire. (I even have this idea of heaven where you become privy to knowledge you never had. To the extent of being able to see what one Eskimo man was doing the day after the Battle of the Bulge. All information you can see). And so that makes me happy. On top of that, I think the depression we feel at feeling pointless in this world is not alleviated through war, love, and jobs etc. because of a conspiracy, I think it's because of our biology. Humans are fundamentally social creatures and lack of society gives us anxiety but being in the thick of it calms us. I don't think it's conspiracy; it's natural to react like that. I hope that helped! | The vastness of the universe yields never-ending discovery (it's like that Futurama episode when Professor discovered everything and got sad.). And we get distracted from these thoughts around people because humans are naturally social. |
microseconds | You look for a job in the field in which you're trained. If you don't find one in a reasonable amount of time, you find a job you can do. Meanwhile, in the background, you keep looking for a better job. In the field you hold a degree? Great. Not? Fine as well.
I graduated in 1994 with a degree in Mathematics, and a teaching certificate. It was slated to be a huge early retirement year. Early retirement package got shot down. So, the dearth of jobs that was to be, never was. We're talking about the mid 90s, so affirmative action quotas were still used quite a bit. White males had it toughest, as a result.
So, having finished "second" (quota checkboxes, as I was informed on the DL by hiring managers) on a couple of occasions, and having made it to October, without a job, I took a job at Computer City. Think CompUSA, but run by the Tandy Corp. The ad I answered was for sales and customer service. The manager looked at a big strong 22 year old kid, and decided the warehouse was the place for me.
4 weeks, and 2 store managers later, I got called into see the latest manager. He wanted to know why his sales people kept going to the warehouse to get stuff explained to them by the guy who unloads trucks. A week later, I was working the sales floor. A month later, I was salesman of the month. Knowing it wasn't going to happen for that year, I decided to just find a better job.
I answered an ad for a help desk position, supporting MS Office, making about $20k a year. I got the job, and over the course of the next several years, upgraded jobs a handful of times. Did some time working in data security, eventually settled in networking.
These days, I pull down above 6 figures, and greatly enjoy my work, for which I have zero formal schooling to do.
**TLDR**: You are not entitled to the job of your choice, just because you graduated. Get a job and work your way up. Either you'll find you like what you're doing, or you'll end up eventually making it happen in the field you wanted to work in. | You look for a job in the field in which you're trained. If you don't find one in a reasonable amount of time, you find a job you can do. Meanwhile, in the background, you keep looking for a better job. In the field you hold a degree? Great. Not? Fine as well.
I graduated in 1994 with a degree in Mathematics, and a teaching certificate. It was slated to be a huge early retirement year. Early retirement package got shot down. So, the dearth of jobs that was to be, never was. We're talking about the mid 90s, so affirmative action quotas were still used quite a bit. White males had it toughest, as a result.
So, having finished "second" (quota checkboxes, as I was informed on the DL by hiring managers) on a couple of occasions, and having made it to October, without a job, I took a job at Computer City. Think CompUSA, but run by the Tandy Corp. The ad I answered was for sales and customer service. The manager looked at a big strong 22 year old kid, and decided the warehouse was the place for me.
4 weeks, and 2 store managers later, I got called into see the latest manager. He wanted to know why his sales people kept going to the warehouse to get stuff explained to them by the guy who unloads trucks. A week later, I was working the sales floor. A month later, I was salesman of the month. Knowing it wasn't going to happen for that year, I decided to just find a better job.
I answered an ad for a help desk position, supporting MS Office, making about $20k a year. I got the job, and over the course of the next several years, upgraded jobs a handful of times. Did some time working in data security, eventually settled in networking.
These days, I pull down above 6 figures, and greatly enjoy my work, for which I have zero formal schooling to do.
TLDR : You are not entitled to the job of your choice, just because you graduated. Get a job and work your way up. Either you'll find you like what you're doing, or you'll end up eventually making it happen in the field you wanted to work in.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehjhy0 | You look for a job in the field in which you're trained. If you don't find one in a reasonable amount of time, you find a job you can do. Meanwhile, in the background, you keep looking for a better job. In the field you hold a degree? Great. Not? Fine as well.
I graduated in 1994 with a degree in Mathematics, and a teaching certificate. It was slated to be a huge early retirement year. Early retirement package got shot down. So, the dearth of jobs that was to be, never was. We're talking about the mid 90s, so affirmative action quotas were still used quite a bit. White males had it toughest, as a result.
So, having finished "second" (quota checkboxes, as I was informed on the DL by hiring managers) on a couple of occasions, and having made it to October, without a job, I took a job at Computer City. Think CompUSA, but run by the Tandy Corp. The ad I answered was for sales and customer service. The manager looked at a big strong 22 year old kid, and decided the warehouse was the place for me.
4 weeks, and 2 store managers later, I got called into see the latest manager. He wanted to know why his sales people kept going to the warehouse to get stuff explained to them by the guy who unloads trucks. A week later, I was working the sales floor. A month later, I was salesman of the month. Knowing it wasn't going to happen for that year, I decided to just find a better job.
I answered an ad for a help desk position, supporting MS Office, making about $20k a year. I got the job, and over the course of the next several years, upgraded jobs a handful of times. Did some time working in data security, eventually settled in networking.
These days, I pull down above 6 figures, and greatly enjoy my work, for which I have zero formal schooling to do. | You are not entitled to the job of your choice, just because you graduated. Get a job and work your way up. Either you'll find you like what you're doing, or you'll end up eventually making it happen in the field you wanted to work in. |
EvanYork | I don't think the first one is really all that ridiculous. There are plenty of sources to back up the idea that Jews around Jesus' time had eschatological ideas consistent with some of what Jesus did (the Son of God/Messiah thing is attested to at least a century before Christ). I'm not saying there is nothing in Jesus that was inconsistent with the eschatology of the time (the second coming thing is the big one), but a quick glance at apocryphal Jewish apocalyptic literature shows a lot of ideas that were eventually used by Christianity but abandoned by orthodox Judaism (Fallen angels, for example). The normative Jewish understanding of prophecies isn't the only one ever, its just the one that beat out the other ones, and Jesus wasn't nearly as inconsistent with some of these dead views as he is with the now dominant view.
To stray a little outside of facts and into my own interpretation of things, I believe one reason the current Jewish eschatology (and several other doctrines) developed was specifically in opposition to Christianity. We developed the trinity to explain why Arians and Modalists were heretics. Jews developed a coherent understanding of their prophecies to explain exactly why Christians were heretics.
**TL;DR: The normative Jewish understanding is not the only historical understanding of Jewish eschatology, and the Christian understanding is to some degree rooted in these unorthodox Jewish beliefs.** | I don't think the first one is really all that ridiculous. There are plenty of sources to back up the idea that Jews around Jesus' time had eschatological ideas consistent with some of what Jesus did (the Son of God/Messiah thing is attested to at least a century before Christ). I'm not saying there is nothing in Jesus that was inconsistent with the eschatology of the time (the second coming thing is the big one), but a quick glance at apocryphal Jewish apocalyptic literature shows a lot of ideas that were eventually used by Christianity but abandoned by orthodox Judaism (Fallen angels, for example). The normative Jewish understanding of prophecies isn't the only one ever, its just the one that beat out the other ones, and Jesus wasn't nearly as inconsistent with some of these dead views as he is with the now dominant view.
To stray a little outside of facts and into my own interpretation of things, I believe one reason the current Jewish eschatology (and several other doctrines) developed was specifically in opposition to Christianity. We developed the trinity to explain why Arians and Modalists were heretics. Jews developed a coherent understanding of their prophecies to explain exactly why Christians were heretics.
TL;DR: The normative Jewish understanding is not the only historical understanding of Jewish eschatology, and the Christian understanding is to some degree rooted in these unorthodox Jewish beliefs.
| Christianity | t5_2qh6c | cehwz2p | I don't think the first one is really all that ridiculous. There are plenty of sources to back up the idea that Jews around Jesus' time had eschatological ideas consistent with some of what Jesus did (the Son of God/Messiah thing is attested to at least a century before Christ). I'm not saying there is nothing in Jesus that was inconsistent with the eschatology of the time (the second coming thing is the big one), but a quick glance at apocryphal Jewish apocalyptic literature shows a lot of ideas that were eventually used by Christianity but abandoned by orthodox Judaism (Fallen angels, for example). The normative Jewish understanding of prophecies isn't the only one ever, its just the one that beat out the other ones, and Jesus wasn't nearly as inconsistent with some of these dead views as he is with the now dominant view.
To stray a little outside of facts and into my own interpretation of things, I believe one reason the current Jewish eschatology (and several other doctrines) developed was specifically in opposition to Christianity. We developed the trinity to explain why Arians and Modalists were heretics. Jews developed a coherent understanding of their prophecies to explain exactly why Christians were heretics. | The normative Jewish understanding is not the only historical understanding of Jewish eschatology, and the Christian understanding is to some degree rooted in these unorthodox Jewish beliefs. |
Zifnab25 | > Anyone who seeks God with all their heart will find that Jesus is the Messiah.
So I guess we're just going to "TL;DR;" the Bible and go with our guts on this one? | > Anyone who seeks God with all their heart will find that Jesus is the Messiah.
So I guess we're just going to "TL;DR;" the Bible and go with our guts on this one?
| Christianity | t5_2qh6c | cehtmlp | Anyone who seeks God with all their heart will find that Jesus is the Messiah.
So I guess we're just going to " | the Bible and go with our guts on this one? |
bravo_charlie_22 | I'm getting my degree in Law Enforcement at Rasmussen College. I'm in MN, and my school is POST certified, which means the skills portion of my degree is included. I'll be working with patrol, narcotics, k-9, and SWAT team members as well as state troopers and deputies from surrounding cities and counties, so hopefully I can network a bit while I'm doing that. I'll be doing Reserves when my academics are up to get my foot in the door, and to get some experience in the field before I start applying. No debt (besides current FAFSA loans), spotless record (was involved in two accidents, both were 100% other persons fault, 6 years apart), and pretty physically fit. What else can I do to improve my chances and stand out from the other applicants?
**TL;DR:** Clean record, no debt, fit, good school. What else can help me stand out from the rest? | I'm getting my degree in Law Enforcement at Rasmussen College. I'm in MN, and my school is POST certified, which means the skills portion of my degree is included. I'll be working with patrol, narcotics, k-9, and SWAT team members as well as state troopers and deputies from surrounding cities and counties, so hopefully I can network a bit while I'm doing that. I'll be doing Reserves when my academics are up to get my foot in the door, and to get some experience in the field before I start applying. No debt (besides current FAFSA loans), spotless record (was involved in two accidents, both were 100% other persons fault, 6 years apart), and pretty physically fit. What else can I do to improve my chances and stand out from the other applicants?
TL;DR: Clean record, no debt, fit, good school. What else can help me stand out from the rest?
| ProtectAndServe | t5_2ug10 | cehpm31 | I'm getting my degree in Law Enforcement at Rasmussen College. I'm in MN, and my school is POST certified, which means the skills portion of my degree is included. I'll be working with patrol, narcotics, k-9, and SWAT team members as well as state troopers and deputies from surrounding cities and counties, so hopefully I can network a bit while I'm doing that. I'll be doing Reserves when my academics are up to get my foot in the door, and to get some experience in the field before I start applying. No debt (besides current FAFSA loans), spotless record (was involved in two accidents, both were 100% other persons fault, 6 years apart), and pretty physically fit. What else can I do to improve my chances and stand out from the other applicants? | Clean record, no debt, fit, good school. What else can help me stand out from the rest? |
Zilla- | You need to have hardcore mode turned on, PN will modify it and in the MCM menu you can see some of the settings it tweaks but its more of a hardcore mode overhaul that something else.
tl;dr Hardcore mode needs to be turned on for eat/drink/sleep things | You need to have hardcore mode turned on, PN will modify it and in the MCM menu you can see some of the settings it tweaks but its more of a hardcore mode overhaul that something else.
tl;dr Hardcore mode needs to be turned on for eat/drink/sleep things
| fnv | t5_2rzr5 | cehrdys | You need to have hardcore mode turned on, PN will modify it and in the MCM menu you can see some of the settings it tweaks but its more of a hardcore mode overhaul that something else. | Hardcore mode needs to be turned on for eat/drink/sleep things |
mywan | Asking that question here indicates a fairly serious misunderstanding of what the legal meaning of what an unlawful arrest is. It takes significantly more than the arrest of an innocent person to make it unlawful.
Simply detaining a person who has committed no crime is not enough to constitute false arrest. The bar for a detention to be unlawful is 'reasonable suspicion', which is a very low bar with a significant likelihood the detained person is innocent. The guilt or innocents has no bearing on the lawfulness, only the 'reasonable suspicion'.
Likewise, the guilt or innocents of someone under arrest plays no role in the lawfulness of the arrest. What determines its lawfulness is 'probable cause'.
Even in cases were you can legitimately claim the officer should have known the person was almost certainly innocent, or that no articulable 'probable cause' existed, you still can't necessarily define it as an unlawful arrest. So long as the officer can articulate why they reasonable believed 'probable cause' existed, even if legally wrong, it still doesn't legally constitute an unlawful arrest.
This is why so many lawsuits gets paid out without any admission of wrongdoing. It's also why many settlements are sealed. It helps to maintain an argument that a reasonable belief 'probable cause' existed if there is no publicly available case law, as a result of lawsuits.
It's reasonable that police should have some level of protection from these grey areas of law. The fact that you asked this question the way you did puts you at risk in the opposite manner that police are at risk, in terms of trying to understand these grey areas of the law. Unfortunately, these same grey areas gets gamed by officers to facilitate their job. Thus increasing the risk they shouldn't have been subjected to. These policies tends to come from above their head, from superiors and such. Lots of politics in law enforcement, in which the officers on the street are mere pawns.
---
This particular area of law, and the divide between what is understood by the public to be unlawful, and what the officers understand to be unlawful, and how the courts can differ from both points of view, is a particular bone of contention between officers and the cop watch crowd.
By failing to fully appreciate this grey area on what constitutes an unlawful arrest in legal terms, for which the officers needs some level of liability protection, your question has implied a misunderstanding of law that would land an officer in serious hot water for essentially the same or lesser misunderstanding. This scares many LEOs very much, and is responsible for the sometimes very upside down attitudes toward oath watchers and such.
Bottom line is that until you can fully grasp the risk imposed on cops by a miscalculation of grey areas in the law, that are no more flawed than the understanding implied by your question, there will be no consensus between cop watchers and cops. Police, as a whole, can be just as stubborn as as the fan base of cop watchers in refusing to get a grip on the other sides point of view. And the miscomprehension of this question only intensifies that divide.
I fall more in the cop watch group in my attitudes and beliefs. Yet it simply wouldn't be fair, or intellectually honest, if I didn't take the time to understand the challenges and risk, legal and otherwise, that cops are subject to. Yet, just like I don't lose sleep over the (real) criminals cops put in jail, I wouldn't lose sleep over cops that cross the line off the street. But, crossing the line does not mean I get to play a game of gotcha with my interpretation of grey areas in the law. Some of the legal issues I would be willing to go to jail to have addressed have nothing whatsoever to do with the arresting officer who, in such a case, will have done absolutely nothing wrong.
TL;DR: The question, and its implied meaning, however legitimate it is, is counterproductive and demonstrates a failure to fully comprehend what the law is. | Asking that question here indicates a fairly serious misunderstanding of what the legal meaning of what an unlawful arrest is. It takes significantly more than the arrest of an innocent person to make it unlawful.
Simply detaining a person who has committed no crime is not enough to constitute false arrest. The bar for a detention to be unlawful is 'reasonable suspicion', which is a very low bar with a significant likelihood the detained person is innocent. The guilt or innocents has no bearing on the lawfulness, only the 'reasonable suspicion'.
Likewise, the guilt or innocents of someone under arrest plays no role in the lawfulness of the arrest. What determines its lawfulness is 'probable cause'.
Even in cases were you can legitimately claim the officer should have known the person was almost certainly innocent, or that no articulable 'probable cause' existed, you still can't necessarily define it as an unlawful arrest. So long as the officer can articulate why they reasonable believed 'probable cause' existed, even if legally wrong, it still doesn't legally constitute an unlawful arrest.
This is why so many lawsuits gets paid out without any admission of wrongdoing. It's also why many settlements are sealed. It helps to maintain an argument that a reasonable belief 'probable cause' existed if there is no publicly available case law, as a result of lawsuits.
It's reasonable that police should have some level of protection from these grey areas of law. The fact that you asked this question the way you did puts you at risk in the opposite manner that police are at risk, in terms of trying to understand these grey areas of the law. Unfortunately, these same grey areas gets gamed by officers to facilitate their job. Thus increasing the risk they shouldn't have been subjected to. These policies tends to come from above their head, from superiors and such. Lots of politics in law enforcement, in which the officers on the street are mere pawns.
This particular area of law, and the divide between what is understood by the public to be unlawful, and what the officers understand to be unlawful, and how the courts can differ from both points of view, is a particular bone of contention between officers and the cop watch crowd.
By failing to fully appreciate this grey area on what constitutes an unlawful arrest in legal terms, for which the officers needs some level of liability protection, your question has implied a misunderstanding of law that would land an officer in serious hot water for essentially the same or lesser misunderstanding. This scares many LEOs very much, and is responsible for the sometimes very upside down attitudes toward oath watchers and such.
Bottom line is that until you can fully grasp the risk imposed on cops by a miscalculation of grey areas in the law, that are no more flawed than the understanding implied by your question, there will be no consensus between cop watchers and cops. Police, as a whole, can be just as stubborn as as the fan base of cop watchers in refusing to get a grip on the other sides point of view. And the miscomprehension of this question only intensifies that divide.
I fall more in the cop watch group in my attitudes and beliefs. Yet it simply wouldn't be fair, or intellectually honest, if I didn't take the time to understand the challenges and risk, legal and otherwise, that cops are subject to. Yet, just like I don't lose sleep over the (real) criminals cops put in jail, I wouldn't lose sleep over cops that cross the line off the street. But, crossing the line does not mean I get to play a game of gotcha with my interpretation of grey areas in the law. Some of the legal issues I would be willing to go to jail to have addressed have nothing whatsoever to do with the arresting officer who, in such a case, will have done absolutely nothing wrong.
TL;DR: The question, and its implied meaning, however legitimate it is, is counterproductive and demonstrates a failure to fully comprehend what the law is.
| ProtectAndServe | t5_2ug10 | cehvkw2 | Asking that question here indicates a fairly serious misunderstanding of what the legal meaning of what an unlawful arrest is. It takes significantly more than the arrest of an innocent person to make it unlawful.
Simply detaining a person who has committed no crime is not enough to constitute false arrest. The bar for a detention to be unlawful is 'reasonable suspicion', which is a very low bar with a significant likelihood the detained person is innocent. The guilt or innocents has no bearing on the lawfulness, only the 'reasonable suspicion'.
Likewise, the guilt or innocents of someone under arrest plays no role in the lawfulness of the arrest. What determines its lawfulness is 'probable cause'.
Even in cases were you can legitimately claim the officer should have known the person was almost certainly innocent, or that no articulable 'probable cause' existed, you still can't necessarily define it as an unlawful arrest. So long as the officer can articulate why they reasonable believed 'probable cause' existed, even if legally wrong, it still doesn't legally constitute an unlawful arrest.
This is why so many lawsuits gets paid out without any admission of wrongdoing. It's also why many settlements are sealed. It helps to maintain an argument that a reasonable belief 'probable cause' existed if there is no publicly available case law, as a result of lawsuits.
It's reasonable that police should have some level of protection from these grey areas of law. The fact that you asked this question the way you did puts you at risk in the opposite manner that police are at risk, in terms of trying to understand these grey areas of the law. Unfortunately, these same grey areas gets gamed by officers to facilitate their job. Thus increasing the risk they shouldn't have been subjected to. These policies tends to come from above their head, from superiors and such. Lots of politics in law enforcement, in which the officers on the street are mere pawns.
This particular area of law, and the divide between what is understood by the public to be unlawful, and what the officers understand to be unlawful, and how the courts can differ from both points of view, is a particular bone of contention between officers and the cop watch crowd.
By failing to fully appreciate this grey area on what constitutes an unlawful arrest in legal terms, for which the officers needs some level of liability protection, your question has implied a misunderstanding of law that would land an officer in serious hot water for essentially the same or lesser misunderstanding. This scares many LEOs very much, and is responsible for the sometimes very upside down attitudes toward oath watchers and such.
Bottom line is that until you can fully grasp the risk imposed on cops by a miscalculation of grey areas in the law, that are no more flawed than the understanding implied by your question, there will be no consensus between cop watchers and cops. Police, as a whole, can be just as stubborn as as the fan base of cop watchers in refusing to get a grip on the other sides point of view. And the miscomprehension of this question only intensifies that divide.
I fall more in the cop watch group in my attitudes and beliefs. Yet it simply wouldn't be fair, or intellectually honest, if I didn't take the time to understand the challenges and risk, legal and otherwise, that cops are subject to. Yet, just like I don't lose sleep over the (real) criminals cops put in jail, I wouldn't lose sleep over cops that cross the line off the street. But, crossing the line does not mean I get to play a game of gotcha with my interpretation of grey areas in the law. Some of the legal issues I would be willing to go to jail to have addressed have nothing whatsoever to do with the arresting officer who, in such a case, will have done absolutely nothing wrong. | The question, and its implied meaning, however legitimate it is, is counterproductive and demonstrates a failure to fully comprehend what the law is. |
lowkeyoh | Yeah, but he's an interesting character. [He has his moments of introspeciton]( he has [some badass training]( and more importantly, especially in the hands of Matt Fraction, [there are moments when he's hilarious] (
Also, the Avengers have had some really bad memebers. Jack of Hearts? Black Knight? Swordsman?
Also, bows and arrows aren't as cool as Iron Man's suit or Thor's Lightning, Hawkeye is WAY more effective for espionage and street level dealings.
tl;dr Hawkeye is cool and interesting and there are worse Avengers | Yeah, but he's an interesting character. [He has his moments of introspeciton]( he has [some badass training]( and more importantly, especially in the hands of Matt Fraction, [there are moments when he's hilarious] (
Also, the Avengers have had some really bad memebers. Jack of Hearts? Black Knight? Swordsman?
Also, bows and arrows aren't as cool as Iron Man's suit or Thor's Lightning, Hawkeye is WAY more effective for espionage and street level dealings.
tl;dr Hawkeye is cool and interesting and there are worse Avengers
| funny | t5_2qh33 | ceia9b9 | Yeah, but he's an interesting character. [He has his moments of introspeciton]( he has [some badass training]( and more importantly, especially in the hands of Matt Fraction, [there are moments when he's hilarious] (
Also, the Avengers have had some really bad memebers. Jack of Hearts? Black Knight? Swordsman?
Also, bows and arrows aren't as cool as Iron Man's suit or Thor's Lightning, Hawkeye is WAY more effective for espionage and street level dealings. | Hawkeye is cool and interesting and there are worse Avengers |
NuclearPeon | I agree with your rationale. I like the idea of eloping as marriages are expensive and stressful, just for one day of our lives.
But I also understand that getting married involves becoming family with the other side so it is respectful to invite them.
I've thought about getting married in Vegas seriously, bit am going traditional. If you do, at least throw a small party for the immediate family of both of you. It will lessen tensions later on.
Tl;dr : not a bad decision if you are respectful to families | I agree with your rationale. I like the idea of eloping as marriages are expensive and stressful, just for one day of our lives.
But I also understand that getting married involves becoming family with the other side so it is respectful to invite them.
I've thought about getting married in Vegas seriously, bit am going traditional. If you do, at least throw a small party for the immediate family of both of you. It will lessen tensions later on.
Tl;dr : not a bad decision if you are respectful to families
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cehwupz | I agree with your rationale. I like the idea of eloping as marriages are expensive and stressful, just for one day of our lives.
But I also understand that getting married involves becoming family with the other side so it is respectful to invite them.
I've thought about getting married in Vegas seriously, bit am going traditional. If you do, at least throw a small party for the immediate family of both of you. It will lessen tensions later on. | not a bad decision if you are respectful to families |
itsmig | There was this one where a guy went out clubbing and tied a giant, and I mean giant, stick of salami to his leg under his pants. All these girls were taking pictures next to his big salami stick and touching it and grinding on it. At one point he goes to the bathroom to pee or readjust big meat stick and then passes out. He died because he lost circulation in his leg. from tying a giant salami dick to his leg.
tl;dr salami dicks can kill you | There was this one where a guy went out clubbing and tied a giant, and I mean giant, stick of salami to his leg under his pants. All these girls were taking pictures next to his big salami stick and touching it and grinding on it. At one point he goes to the bathroom to pee or readjust big meat stick and then passes out. He died because he lost circulation in his leg. from tying a giant salami dick to his leg.
tl;dr salami dicks can kill you
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cei5z2g | There was this one where a guy went out clubbing and tied a giant, and I mean giant, stick of salami to his leg under his pants. All these girls were taking pictures next to his big salami stick and touching it and grinding on it. At one point he goes to the bathroom to pee or readjust big meat stick and then passes out. He died because he lost circulation in his leg. from tying a giant salami dick to his leg. | salami dicks can kill you |
Rootkit9208 | He actually did due to prolonged lack of circulation, which caused the blood to clot and, eventually, travel to his brain.
TL;DR: Dick too big, might kill someone. | He actually did due to prolonged lack of circulation, which caused the blood to clot and, eventually, travel to his brain.
TL;DR: Dick too big, might kill someone.
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cei9nik | He actually did due to prolonged lack of circulation, which caused the blood to clot and, eventually, travel to his brain. | Dick too big, might kill someone. |
rabbidbunni | Laning phase he is very strong, I will agree with you on that with his ability to gank, and his strong poke, but during team fights he can't really do much except poke with his Q. Most likely late game he won't be tanky so he can't initiate as well.
TL;DR Pantheon early game> Pantheon late game | Laning phase he is very strong, I will agree with you on that with his ability to gank, and his strong poke, but during team fights he can't really do much except poke with his Q. Most likely late game he won't be tanky so he can't initiate as well.
TL;DR Pantheon early game> Pantheon late game
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ceiacug | Laning phase he is very strong, I will agree with you on that with his ability to gank, and his strong poke, but during team fights he can't really do much except poke with his Q. Most likely late game he won't be tanky so he can't initiate as well. | Pantheon early game> Pantheon late game |
xmagusx | I disagree. If you accept payment in more than one currency, you need to be prepared to offer refunds in more than one currency. If they accepted €50 for a miner and then tried to pay you back $55 when they failed to deliver because that was the exchange rate on the day you pre-ordered, what use would that be to you if you're in the EU? The same way they couldn't just claim that they "accept all currencies" and then pick whichever one tanked most in value since the pre-order date and give the refunds based on the pre-order date's exchange rate. If you paid in USD, you don't want pesos. If you paid in BTC, you don't want USD.
It also doesn't matter how much cash HashFast has if a judge finds that they have to pay people back in BTC, at that point they either have to pay out, liquidate assets, or declare bankrupcy. If they accepted 55BTC as payment and then failed to meet their obligation, they owe the purchaser his 55BTC back.
TL;DR: Yes, failing to give people what they paid for and then refusing to give them their payment back can in fact cause your business to fail and get you sued. | I disagree. If you accept payment in more than one currency, you need to be prepared to offer refunds in more than one currency. If they accepted €50 for a miner and then tried to pay you back $55 when they failed to deliver because that was the exchange rate on the day you pre-ordered, what use would that be to you if you're in the EU? The same way they couldn't just claim that they "accept all currencies" and then pick whichever one tanked most in value since the pre-order date and give the refunds based on the pre-order date's exchange rate. If you paid in USD, you don't want pesos. If you paid in BTC, you don't want USD.
It also doesn't matter how much cash HashFast has if a judge finds that they have to pay people back in BTC, at that point they either have to pay out, liquidate assets, or declare bankrupcy. If they accepted 55BTC as payment and then failed to meet their obligation, they owe the purchaser his 55BTC back.
TL;DR: Yes, failing to give people what they paid for and then refusing to give them their payment back can in fact cause your business to fail and get you sued.
| Bitcoin | t5_2s3qj | ceisisu | I disagree. If you accept payment in more than one currency, you need to be prepared to offer refunds in more than one currency. If they accepted €50 for a miner and then tried to pay you back $55 when they failed to deliver because that was the exchange rate on the day you pre-ordered, what use would that be to you if you're in the EU? The same way they couldn't just claim that they "accept all currencies" and then pick whichever one tanked most in value since the pre-order date and give the refunds based on the pre-order date's exchange rate. If you paid in USD, you don't want pesos. If you paid in BTC, you don't want USD.
It also doesn't matter how much cash HashFast has if a judge finds that they have to pay people back in BTC, at that point they either have to pay out, liquidate assets, or declare bankrupcy. If they accepted 55BTC as payment and then failed to meet their obligation, they owe the purchaser his 55BTC back. | Yes, failing to give people what they paid for and then refusing to give them their payment back can in fact cause your business to fail and get you sued. |
Archont2012 | >The whole "men get raped, too" argument isn't helping anyone
Sure, how about that:
Since the vocal minority of your gender called feminists, which emerged as a bunch of too self-conscious women who thought women of early to-mid 1900s were informed enough to have the right to vote and should've been gone by now, but for some reason continues striving completely discredits the fact that male rape is somehow important (but not female rape), we, males, have to play passive aggressive because of the stereotype-based patriarchal society you have been helping us to build throughout the millennia?
TL;DR: We have established a society in which males are completely disregarded as someone who can be hurt and is considered a workhorse to take care of our weaker gender. Fun thing is, we are disregarded even by our own kin and some of you take advantage of that being unhindered by the rest because again, silent majority can't do shit. | >The whole "men get raped, too" argument isn't helping anyone
Sure, how about that:
Since the vocal minority of your gender called feminists, which emerged as a bunch of too self-conscious women who thought women of early to-mid 1900s were informed enough to have the right to vote and should've been gone by now, but for some reason continues striving completely discredits the fact that male rape is somehow important (but not female rape), we, males, have to play passive aggressive because of the stereotype-based patriarchal society you have been helping us to build throughout the millennia?
TL;DR: We have established a society in which males are completely disregarded as someone who can be hurt and is considered a workhorse to take care of our weaker gender. Fun thing is, we are disregarded even by our own kin and some of you take advantage of that being unhindered by the rest because again, silent majority can't do shit.
| AdviceAnimals | t5_2s7tt | cejhb4d | The whole "men get raped, too" argument isn't helping anyone
Sure, how about that:
Since the vocal minority of your gender called feminists, which emerged as a bunch of too self-conscious women who thought women of early to-mid 1900s were informed enough to have the right to vote and should've been gone by now, but for some reason continues striving completely discredits the fact that male rape is somehow important (but not female rape), we, males, have to play passive aggressive because of the stereotype-based patriarchal society you have been helping us to build throughout the millennia? | We have established a society in which males are completely disregarded as someone who can be hurt and is considered a workhorse to take care of our weaker gender. Fun thing is, we are disregarded even by our own kin and some of you take advantage of that being unhindered by the rest because again, silent majority can't do shit. |
only_one_catch | I also agree with the jist of her post, or at least can understand her emotions. Especially because she's obviously young and maybe hasn't been outside of her comfort zone in the world very often.
I've travelled with people who have said and done offensive, douchey things, and I know that in my travels I've surely said and done offensive, douchey things. I've had the good fortune to be able to get myself around in the world a little bit, and when I look back I definitely see some blunders I've made, whether they arose from being too gung ho about something or too careful. Because until you know any better, you don't know any better.
Her frustration with her travel group is real and understandable, and it's part projection and part insecurity. "Oh my god, look at all of these ignorant Americans who don't know what they're doing!" She's distancing herself because she realizes, ok, so maybe I am also an ignorant American who doesn't always know what I'm doing, but now I see this and I know that I don't want to be like that. Wanting to disassociate from your privilege spotlight but realizing that you are on a study abroad sponsored tour...being invited to move to the front of the line by local people but knowing what goes through your head when you see those fuckers with their "Move To The Front Of The Line" Passes at six flags get on the roller coaster for the third time when you haven't even made it up the steps of the line yet...a lot of hypocrisy and conflict to deal with.
Coming from a place of relative privilege and doing most of my travelling in developing countries as a young adult during and post college, it was hard to come face to face with the special treatment I got. Was it because I'm white and therefore everyone must do what I say because I'm all-powerful? No. Was it because my white skin made me an obvious guest in a foreign land where people take pride in how they treat visitors? Almost without exception, yes. Day one of my time in [insert fancy travel destination here], it felt pretty horrifying to have the biggest chunk of meat put in my dish while the little old lady who spent all day preparing my food got none of it...but I hazard to say she was just as horrified when I tried to give it back. With time and practice and exposure and mistakes and laughter and learning, I got better at being a good guest and better at asserting myself appropriately as a member of the community. Towards the end of my stay in [I'm so well traveled], I served mama the best chunk of meat **and** I washed the damn dishes afterwards.
TL;DR -- Confronting discomfort means you are learning about yourself and about the world, and about how to make the best choices as you move about interacting with other humans at home and in different places. I don't begrudge her her reactions to her experience. | I also agree with the jist of her post, or at least can understand her emotions. Especially because she's obviously young and maybe hasn't been outside of her comfort zone in the world very often.
I've travelled with people who have said and done offensive, douchey things, and I know that in my travels I've surely said and done offensive, douchey things. I've had the good fortune to be able to get myself around in the world a little bit, and when I look back I definitely see some blunders I've made, whether they arose from being too gung ho about something or too careful. Because until you know any better, you don't know any better.
Her frustration with her travel group is real and understandable, and it's part projection and part insecurity. "Oh my god, look at all of these ignorant Americans who don't know what they're doing!" She's distancing herself because she realizes, ok, so maybe I am also an ignorant American who doesn't always know what I'm doing, but now I see this and I know that I don't want to be like that. Wanting to disassociate from your privilege spotlight but realizing that you are on a study abroad sponsored tour...being invited to move to the front of the line by local people but knowing what goes through your head when you see those fuckers with their "Move To The Front Of The Line" Passes at six flags get on the roller coaster for the third time when you haven't even made it up the steps of the line yet...a lot of hypocrisy and conflict to deal with.
Coming from a place of relative privilege and doing most of my travelling in developing countries as a young adult during and post college, it was hard to come face to face with the special treatment I got. Was it because I'm white and therefore everyone must do what I say because I'm all-powerful? No. Was it because my white skin made me an obvious guest in a foreign land where people take pride in how they treat visitors? Almost without exception, yes. Day one of my time in [insert fancy travel destination here], it felt pretty horrifying to have the biggest chunk of meat put in my dish while the little old lady who spent all day preparing my food got none of it...but I hazard to say she was just as horrified when I tried to give it back. With time and practice and exposure and mistakes and laughter and learning, I got better at being a good guest and better at asserting myself appropriately as a member of the community. Towards the end of my stay in [I'm so well traveled], I served mama the best chunk of meat and I washed the damn dishes afterwards.
TL;DR -- Confronting discomfort means you are learning about yourself and about the world, and about how to make the best choices as you move about interacting with other humans at home and in different places. I don't begrudge her her reactions to her experience.
| TumblrInAction | t5_2vizz | cej6oof | I also agree with the jist of her post, or at least can understand her emotions. Especially because she's obviously young and maybe hasn't been outside of her comfort zone in the world very often.
I've travelled with people who have said and done offensive, douchey things, and I know that in my travels I've surely said and done offensive, douchey things. I've had the good fortune to be able to get myself around in the world a little bit, and when I look back I definitely see some blunders I've made, whether they arose from being too gung ho about something or too careful. Because until you know any better, you don't know any better.
Her frustration with her travel group is real and understandable, and it's part projection and part insecurity. "Oh my god, look at all of these ignorant Americans who don't know what they're doing!" She's distancing herself because she realizes, ok, so maybe I am also an ignorant American who doesn't always know what I'm doing, but now I see this and I know that I don't want to be like that. Wanting to disassociate from your privilege spotlight but realizing that you are on a study abroad sponsored tour...being invited to move to the front of the line by local people but knowing what goes through your head when you see those fuckers with their "Move To The Front Of The Line" Passes at six flags get on the roller coaster for the third time when you haven't even made it up the steps of the line yet...a lot of hypocrisy and conflict to deal with.
Coming from a place of relative privilege and doing most of my travelling in developing countries as a young adult during and post college, it was hard to come face to face with the special treatment I got. Was it because I'm white and therefore everyone must do what I say because I'm all-powerful? No. Was it because my white skin made me an obvious guest in a foreign land where people take pride in how they treat visitors? Almost without exception, yes. Day one of my time in [insert fancy travel destination here], it felt pretty horrifying to have the biggest chunk of meat put in my dish while the little old lady who spent all day preparing my food got none of it...but I hazard to say she was just as horrified when I tried to give it back. With time and practice and exposure and mistakes and laughter and learning, I got better at being a good guest and better at asserting myself appropriately as a member of the community. Towards the end of my stay in [I'm so well traveled], I served mama the best chunk of meat and I washed the damn dishes afterwards. | Confronting discomfort means you are learning about yourself and about the world, and about how to make the best choices as you move about interacting with other humans at home and in different places. I don't begrudge her her reactions to her experience. |
Abomonog | >I do not view a college degree the same. You have the opportunity to study other subjects, history, math, psychology, etc.
In many cases aside from the math, there is no point. In fact history and psychology would be a distraction to someone studying to become an electrician. The one conservative argument against colleges that I do agree with is that they tend to waste time on academics with people who are seeking applied training. I need an electrician, not someone who knows the finer points of why the Civil War happened. The opportunity is not a bad thing, but only when it is not a requirement.
>You would like a guy I have been involved with lately.
Guys like me used to be the bread and butter of most construction firms. We were always the ones called to solve the design problem, to correct the error. It was our job to make sure the crews were able to keep moving and to solve whatever work issues happened. One week a brick layer, the next a plumber or framer. It was about being the extra hand for whatever crew needed me while I was on site. Sad that there is little to no market for that kind of talent anymore. Today we are temp service fodder for all anyone cares.
> The trades now protect each other, big trouble if you are found doing plumbing, electric with out a license.
That is in union states and is actually a result of infighting in the unions or over regulation of the trades. It can be beneficial but it can lead to a bizarre situation where all work on a site stops just so someone with a license can show up to replace a single wire nut that fell of a connection (something that would have fallen squarely into my job description). In a right to work state the only requirement is that someone in the company be licensed (and that is almost never enforced). So long as the work passes the final inspection no one cares who did it. The advantage is that work never stops due to a small screw up, but labor quality in union controlled states is typically far better than where unions have been outlawed or limited just because the unions are better regulated. Companies actually go out of their way to sabotage others work in this state. Electricians will fire nails into plumbing, plumbers will cut essential supports out of house frames, wood floor layers will smash tiled flooring. Tilers will cover everything with thin set. All SOP in good ole Virginia where you can be called in to carpet a house that does not yet have a roof on it, or actual walls.
Were I to actually build a house in Virginia where I live, I would import a crew from a unionized state over using one that is licensed within this state. All because there is no authority to answer to aside from the contractor, and all he cares about is that everything appears to be OK to the inspectors.
>Not sure but I think you learn both in the HVAC business.
You learn how to braze copper piping, but get nothing else about plumbing in HVAC. You don't get taught about pipe falls, flow direction handling methods, and other plumbing intricacies. That trade's big issue is the handling of the freon, a potentially injurious aspect of the work.
Being an electrician, plumber, and auto mechanic makes me more than qualified to do HVAC work, but I still can't legally do it. At least not to a house. I can legally do auto HVAC all day long (and the base designs of both types of system are identical).
TLDR; The trend of specialization is a huge detriment to the trades and has left an army of well qualified people out of work due to requirements that have gotten out of hand. | >I do not view a college degree the same. You have the opportunity to study other subjects, history, math, psychology, etc.
In many cases aside from the math, there is no point. In fact history and psychology would be a distraction to someone studying to become an electrician. The one conservative argument against colleges that I do agree with is that they tend to waste time on academics with people who are seeking applied training. I need an electrician, not someone who knows the finer points of why the Civil War happened. The opportunity is not a bad thing, but only when it is not a requirement.
>You would like a guy I have been involved with lately.
Guys like me used to be the bread and butter of most construction firms. We were always the ones called to solve the design problem, to correct the error. It was our job to make sure the crews were able to keep moving and to solve whatever work issues happened. One week a brick layer, the next a plumber or framer. It was about being the extra hand for whatever crew needed me while I was on site. Sad that there is little to no market for that kind of talent anymore. Today we are temp service fodder for all anyone cares.
> The trades now protect each other, big trouble if you are found doing plumbing, electric with out a license.
That is in union states and is actually a result of infighting in the unions or over regulation of the trades. It can be beneficial but it can lead to a bizarre situation where all work on a site stops just so someone with a license can show up to replace a single wire nut that fell of a connection (something that would have fallen squarely into my job description). In a right to work state the only requirement is that someone in the company be licensed (and that is almost never enforced). So long as the work passes the final inspection no one cares who did it. The advantage is that work never stops due to a small screw up, but labor quality in union controlled states is typically far better than where unions have been outlawed or limited just because the unions are better regulated. Companies actually go out of their way to sabotage others work in this state. Electricians will fire nails into plumbing, plumbers will cut essential supports out of house frames, wood floor layers will smash tiled flooring. Tilers will cover everything with thin set. All SOP in good ole Virginia where you can be called in to carpet a house that does not yet have a roof on it, or actual walls.
Were I to actually build a house in Virginia where I live, I would import a crew from a unionized state over using one that is licensed within this state. All because there is no authority to answer to aside from the contractor, and all he cares about is that everything appears to be OK to the inspectors.
>Not sure but I think you learn both in the HVAC business.
You learn how to braze copper piping, but get nothing else about plumbing in HVAC. You don't get taught about pipe falls, flow direction handling methods, and other plumbing intricacies. That trade's big issue is the handling of the freon, a potentially injurious aspect of the work.
Being an electrician, plumber, and auto mechanic makes me more than qualified to do HVAC work, but I still can't legally do it. At least not to a house. I can legally do auto HVAC all day long (and the base designs of both types of system are identical).
TLDR; The trend of specialization is a huge detriment to the trades and has left an army of well qualified people out of work due to requirements that have gotten out of hand.
| politics | t5_2cneq | cekofdi | I do not view a college degree the same. You have the opportunity to study other subjects, history, math, psychology, etc.
In many cases aside from the math, there is no point. In fact history and psychology would be a distraction to someone studying to become an electrician. The one conservative argument against colleges that I do agree with is that they tend to waste time on academics with people who are seeking applied training. I need an electrician, not someone who knows the finer points of why the Civil War happened. The opportunity is not a bad thing, but only when it is not a requirement.
>You would like a guy I have been involved with lately.
Guys like me used to be the bread and butter of most construction firms. We were always the ones called to solve the design problem, to correct the error. It was our job to make sure the crews were able to keep moving and to solve whatever work issues happened. One week a brick layer, the next a plumber or framer. It was about being the extra hand for whatever crew needed me while I was on site. Sad that there is little to no market for that kind of talent anymore. Today we are temp service fodder for all anyone cares.
> The trades now protect each other, big trouble if you are found doing plumbing, electric with out a license.
That is in union states and is actually a result of infighting in the unions or over regulation of the trades. It can be beneficial but it can lead to a bizarre situation where all work on a site stops just so someone with a license can show up to replace a single wire nut that fell of a connection (something that would have fallen squarely into my job description). In a right to work state the only requirement is that someone in the company be licensed (and that is almost never enforced). So long as the work passes the final inspection no one cares who did it. The advantage is that work never stops due to a small screw up, but labor quality in union controlled states is typically far better than where unions have been outlawed or limited just because the unions are better regulated. Companies actually go out of their way to sabotage others work in this state. Electricians will fire nails into plumbing, plumbers will cut essential supports out of house frames, wood floor layers will smash tiled flooring. Tilers will cover everything with thin set. All SOP in good ole Virginia where you can be called in to carpet a house that does not yet have a roof on it, or actual walls.
Were I to actually build a house in Virginia where I live, I would import a crew from a unionized state over using one that is licensed within this state. All because there is no authority to answer to aside from the contractor, and all he cares about is that everything appears to be OK to the inspectors.
>Not sure but I think you learn both in the HVAC business.
You learn how to braze copper piping, but get nothing else about plumbing in HVAC. You don't get taught about pipe falls, flow direction handling methods, and other plumbing intricacies. That trade's big issue is the handling of the freon, a potentially injurious aspect of the work.
Being an electrician, plumber, and auto mechanic makes me more than qualified to do HVAC work, but I still can't legally do it. At least not to a house. I can legally do auto HVAC all day long (and the base designs of both types of system are identical). | The trend of specialization is a huge detriment to the trades and has left an army of well qualified people out of work due to requirements that have gotten out of hand. |
Tiredofnotbeingright | So I hope this isn't a bad place to ask this, but I don't want to make another thread, this subreddit already gets a huge amount of traffic and content.
Would Doge have to have the same value as BTC, and BTC to have a value of around 5,000.00 USD, for Doge to have a value of 1 USD?
Isn't that attempting to shoot past the moon and hit, I don't know, Alpha Centarui?
Don't get me wrong, I love this community, I'm mining as we speak and I am seriously considering buying a Slumdoge outright, I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
TL;DR
Wouldn't Doge have to be five times more valuable than peak Bitcoin to reach 1 USD per Doge? | So I hope this isn't a bad place to ask this, but I don't want to make another thread, this subreddit already gets a huge amount of traffic and content.
Would Doge have to have the same value as BTC, and BTC to have a value of around 5,000.00 USD, for Doge to have a value of 1 USD?
Isn't that attempting to shoot past the moon and hit, I don't know, Alpha Centarui?
Don't get me wrong, I love this community, I'm mining as we speak and I am seriously considering buying a Slumdoge outright, I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
TL;DR
Wouldn't Doge have to be five times more valuable than peak Bitcoin to reach 1 USD per Doge?
| dogecoin | t5_2zcp2 | cejvzo0 | So I hope this isn't a bad place to ask this, but I don't want to make another thread, this subreddit already gets a huge amount of traffic and content.
Would Doge have to have the same value as BTC, and BTC to have a value of around 5,000.00 USD, for Doge to have a value of 1 USD?
Isn't that attempting to shoot past the moon and hit, I don't know, Alpha Centarui?
Don't get me wrong, I love this community, I'm mining as we speak and I am seriously considering buying a Slumdoge outright, I just want to make sure I'm not missing something. | Wouldn't Doge have to be five times more valuable than peak Bitcoin to reach 1 USD per Doge? |
friegy | I dont understand why this comment isnt higher? A very important factor in classic cars is authenticity. A real 1960 Ferrari can go for 1mil$ easily (depending on the model ofcourse), but a repro almost never costs more then 100k. People don't want 'fake' classic cars, like they don't want fake Van Goghs. The point is not that theyre not good enough, but the fact that what you're buying when you buy a classic car is way more than just "the car" as a piece of metal with an engine. You buy a nostalgic feeling, heritage, racing-history, engineering brilliance and a certain feeling and style belonging to the time the car was made.
When you buy a Van Gogh you dont buy "paint stuck on canvas", because you can get that for 20$ at a hardware store. You buy into the story of Van Gogh, the technique pioneered in the specific painting, the subject of the painting (his lover? his house? 19th century Holland?) etc etc.
Take for example a Ferrari 250 SWB. This car is worth millions these days.
To understand this car, you have to go back to when it was released to the public, back to 1959.
At the time, the car cost about 20.000$, this would be about 200.000$ by todays standards, a year salary for the average worker back then. I think this estimation is even low, seeing a high-end car from back in the day, like a Caddilac, was less than half that number.
This car was like a space ship back then, I think a good comparison would be something like a Bugatti Veyron. There was no internet in that day and age and these kind of cars wouldnt get a lot of attention from mainstream press, because they've probably never heard about them.
So we're back in 1959. [Imagine just walking down the street in your USA city on a sunny spring afternoon.]( You're just out and about, whistling some Neill Young or Beatles song, seeing big gas-guzzling american ships on leafsprings in boring colors like grey, white and black rolling by, seeing girls in skirts that are just a tad to short to be modest, when all of a sudden you hear a roar...
Not a Lion's roar, but just a roar. A kind of sound that resembles an airplane or some kind of machinery. It's nothing youve ever heard before, thats for sure.
You look around, your eyes a searching for the sound your ears caught but you cant see anything. Still the noise is getting increasingly louder, [its harsh and high pitched with intermediate short pauzes]( and lots of rumbles and tingles en dingles. All kinds of stuff going on in this sound. You would hear the noise reflect against the buildings it passed and the more closer it got, the louder it got as the city got denser and the noise reflected more and more against the houses, shops and pavements of the city.
You see in those days normal cars had a really low, slow, rumble. Lots of displacement (litre engine capacity), but not a lot of cilinders and a quite low RPM. Reliable but slow and inefficient. This was a V12 engine revving easily to 9000 rpm, its like a scream getting louder and louder as you go faster and faster. It's so exiting.
Then you would see it. The thing. The saucer. The spaceship. It was tiny, low, in a bright red color with a really long bonnet and a small cabin at the back. It looked extremely out of place in this modern america where everything was big, wide and comfortable. It looked small, cramped and a bit weird. [The styling was really subtle with just a few creases and curves]( distinguishing an otherwise in-5-seconds-drawn-on-toilet-paper looking car. Although it was not. American cars back then were ostentatious with big wings, and peaces of metal sticking out everywhere. This thing looked like the complete opposite.
As it drew nearer you could distinguish more and more details. You could hear the Weber-carburators sucking in air with a really expressed hissing/whistling noise. You could hear the unexploded gasoline rumble and mumble as it hit the really hot exhaust pipe, it sounded almost like gunfire.
The thing drove past you and you noticed how everyone in the street would just stop everything they were doing and gave a long hard glance at this thing, invading their city. "It must be some kind of prince, or king" would everyone think. There was a good chance they were right, as most of these cars were sold to Enzo Ferrari's rich clientele of automobile lovers from all the higher circles of Europe and America. Famous Ferrari owners were for example Prince Bernhard from the Netherlands.
It had stopped, and everyone was looking at the man driving this thing. He got out with a flair of pride as he nonchalantly walked away, leaving the eyes of the people on the street affixed to his automobile.
You walked towards it, to take a closer look at this machine. You immediatly saw the characteristic [Borrani wheels that were always fasted with a nut]( (using a lead hammer, if im correct) instead of screws. You would see the[ tiny emblems om the side]( revealing the designer of the chassis, Pininfarina, and the creator of the car, Ferrari. The fit and finish of the body panels was exquisite, it was all hand made and tailored to be perfect, no plastic to be seen anywhere.
As you peeled your eyes to look into the car you would notice the[ lucious leather finish of the interior]( The beautifull big wooden steering wheel and the shiny metal ball of the gear leaver. All the different gauges that all had their specific task, all with italian instructions. You would see "giri", "olio", "agua" and so on, right next to the "Jaeger" branding, that has now become a famous watch-maker, but also produced the gauges for sportscars back then.
The car sat low on the ground, with its racing deduced coil-springs, the subtle chrome-work was beautifull and not "trashy" like a lot of American "chromed-out" automobiles tended to be.
This is it, you would think. This is the pinnacle of automotive engineering, they cant make anything better than this. Evolution from this is impossible. The rest of your day your mind would be occupied by just 1 thing: Ferrari.
These kinds of cars only had really limited production runs, often maxing out at 100-200 pieces worldwide. They were mostly owned by rich playboys, princes and celebrities.
TL;DR: old cars are awesome. | I dont understand why this comment isnt higher? A very important factor in classic cars is authenticity. A real 1960 Ferrari can go for 1mil$ easily (depending on the model ofcourse), but a repro almost never costs more then 100k. People don't want 'fake' classic cars, like they don't want fake Van Goghs. The point is not that theyre not good enough, but the fact that what you're buying when you buy a classic car is way more than just "the car" as a piece of metal with an engine. You buy a nostalgic feeling, heritage, racing-history, engineering brilliance and a certain feeling and style belonging to the time the car was made.
When you buy a Van Gogh you dont buy "paint stuck on canvas", because you can get that for 20$ at a hardware store. You buy into the story of Van Gogh, the technique pioneered in the specific painting, the subject of the painting (his lover? his house? 19th century Holland?) etc etc.
Take for example a Ferrari 250 SWB. This car is worth millions these days.
To understand this car, you have to go back to when it was released to the public, back to 1959.
At the time, the car cost about 20.000$, this would be about 200.000$ by todays standards, a year salary for the average worker back then. I think this estimation is even low, seeing a high-end car from back in the day, like a Caddilac, was less than half that number.
This car was like a space ship back then, I think a good comparison would be something like a Bugatti Veyron. There was no internet in that day and age and these kind of cars wouldnt get a lot of attention from mainstream press, because they've probably never heard about them.
So we're back in 1959. [Imagine just walking down the street in your USA city on a sunny spring afternoon.]( You're just out and about, whistling some Neill Young or Beatles song, seeing big gas-guzzling american ships on leafsprings in boring colors like grey, white and black rolling by, seeing girls in skirts that are just a tad to short to be modest, when all of a sudden you hear a roar...
Not a Lion's roar, but just a roar. A kind of sound that resembles an airplane or some kind of machinery. It's nothing youve ever heard before, thats for sure.
You look around, your eyes a searching for the sound your ears caught but you cant see anything. Still the noise is getting increasingly louder, its harsh and high pitched with intermediate short pauzes , but not a lot of cilinders and a quite low RPM. Reliable but slow and inefficient. This was a V12 engine revving easily to 9000 rpm, its like a scream getting louder and louder as you go faster and faster. It's so exiting.
Then you would see it. The thing. The saucer. The spaceship. It was tiny, low, in a bright red color with a really long bonnet and a small cabin at the back. It looked extremely out of place in this modern america where everything was big, wide and comfortable. It looked small, cramped and a bit weird. [The styling was really subtle with just a few creases and curves]( distinguishing an otherwise in-5-seconds-drawn-on-toilet-paper looking car. Although it was not. American cars back then were ostentatious with big wings, and peaces of metal sticking out everywhere. This thing looked like the complete opposite.
As it drew nearer you could distinguish more and more details. You could hear the Weber-carburators sucking in air with a really expressed hissing/whistling noise. You could hear the unexploded gasoline rumble and mumble as it hit the really hot exhaust pipe, it sounded almost like gunfire.
The thing drove past you and you noticed how everyone in the street would just stop everything they were doing and gave a long hard glance at this thing, invading their city. "It must be some kind of prince, or king" would everyone think. There was a good chance they were right, as most of these cars were sold to Enzo Ferrari's rich clientele of automobile lovers from all the higher circles of Europe and America. Famous Ferrari owners were for example Prince Bernhard from the Netherlands.
It had stopped, and everyone was looking at the man driving this thing. He got out with a flair of pride as he nonchalantly walked away, leaving the eyes of the people on the street affixed to his automobile.
You walked towards it, to take a closer look at this machine. You immediatly saw the characteristic Borrani wheels that were always fasted with a nut instead of screws. You would see the[ tiny emblems om the side]( revealing the designer of the chassis, Pininfarina, and the creator of the car, Ferrari. The fit and finish of the body panels was exquisite, it was all hand made and tailored to be perfect, no plastic to be seen anywhere.
As you peeled your eyes to look into the car you would notice the[ lucious leather finish of the interior]( The beautifull big wooden steering wheel and the shiny metal ball of the gear leaver. All the different gauges that all had their specific task, all with italian instructions. You would see "giri", "olio", "agua" and so on, right next to the "Jaeger" branding, that has now become a famous watch-maker, but also produced the gauges for sportscars back then.
The car sat low on the ground, with its racing deduced coil-springs, the subtle chrome-work was beautifull and not "trashy" like a lot of American "chromed-out" automobiles tended to be.
This is it, you would think. This is the pinnacle of automotive engineering, they cant make anything better than this. Evolution from this is impossible. The rest of your day your mind would be occupied by just 1 thing: Ferrari.
These kinds of cars only had really limited production runs, often maxing out at 100-200 pieces worldwide. They were mostly owned by rich playboys, princes and celebrities.
TL;DR: old cars are awesome.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cekeq4e | I dont understand why this comment isnt higher? A very important factor in classic cars is authenticity. A real 1960 Ferrari can go for 1mil$ easily (depending on the model ofcourse), but a repro almost never costs more then 100k. People don't want 'fake' classic cars, like they don't want fake Van Goghs. The point is not that theyre not good enough, but the fact that what you're buying when you buy a classic car is way more than just "the car" as a piece of metal with an engine. You buy a nostalgic feeling, heritage, racing-history, engineering brilliance and a certain feeling and style belonging to the time the car was made.
When you buy a Van Gogh you dont buy "paint stuck on canvas", because you can get that for 20$ at a hardware store. You buy into the story of Van Gogh, the technique pioneered in the specific painting, the subject of the painting (his lover? his house? 19th century Holland?) etc etc.
Take for example a Ferrari 250 SWB. This car is worth millions these days.
To understand this car, you have to go back to when it was released to the public, back to 1959.
At the time, the car cost about 20.000$, this would be about 200.000$ by todays standards, a year salary for the average worker back then. I think this estimation is even low, seeing a high-end car from back in the day, like a Caddilac, was less than half that number.
This car was like a space ship back then, I think a good comparison would be something like a Bugatti Veyron. There was no internet in that day and age and these kind of cars wouldnt get a lot of attention from mainstream press, because they've probably never heard about them.
So we're back in 1959. [Imagine just walking down the street in your USA city on a sunny spring afternoon.]( You're just out and about, whistling some Neill Young or Beatles song, seeing big gas-guzzling american ships on leafsprings in boring colors like grey, white and black rolling by, seeing girls in skirts that are just a tad to short to be modest, when all of a sudden you hear a roar...
Not a Lion's roar, but just a roar. A kind of sound that resembles an airplane or some kind of machinery. It's nothing youve ever heard before, thats for sure.
You look around, your eyes a searching for the sound your ears caught but you cant see anything. Still the noise is getting increasingly louder, its harsh and high pitched with intermediate short pauzes , but not a lot of cilinders and a quite low RPM. Reliable but slow and inefficient. This was a V12 engine revving easily to 9000 rpm, its like a scream getting louder and louder as you go faster and faster. It's so exiting.
Then you would see it. The thing. The saucer. The spaceship. It was tiny, low, in a bright red color with a really long bonnet and a small cabin at the back. It looked extremely out of place in this modern america where everything was big, wide and comfortable. It looked small, cramped and a bit weird. [The styling was really subtle with just a few creases and curves]( distinguishing an otherwise in-5-seconds-drawn-on-toilet-paper looking car. Although it was not. American cars back then were ostentatious with big wings, and peaces of metal sticking out everywhere. This thing looked like the complete opposite.
As it drew nearer you could distinguish more and more details. You could hear the Weber-carburators sucking in air with a really expressed hissing/whistling noise. You could hear the unexploded gasoline rumble and mumble as it hit the really hot exhaust pipe, it sounded almost like gunfire.
The thing drove past you and you noticed how everyone in the street would just stop everything they were doing and gave a long hard glance at this thing, invading their city. "It must be some kind of prince, or king" would everyone think. There was a good chance they were right, as most of these cars were sold to Enzo Ferrari's rich clientele of automobile lovers from all the higher circles of Europe and America. Famous Ferrari owners were for example Prince Bernhard from the Netherlands.
It had stopped, and everyone was looking at the man driving this thing. He got out with a flair of pride as he nonchalantly walked away, leaving the eyes of the people on the street affixed to his automobile.
You walked towards it, to take a closer look at this machine. You immediatly saw the characteristic Borrani wheels that were always fasted with a nut instead of screws. You would see the[ tiny emblems om the side]( revealing the designer of the chassis, Pininfarina, and the creator of the car, Ferrari. The fit and finish of the body panels was exquisite, it was all hand made and tailored to be perfect, no plastic to be seen anywhere.
As you peeled your eyes to look into the car you would notice the[ lucious leather finish of the interior]( The beautifull big wooden steering wheel and the shiny metal ball of the gear leaver. All the different gauges that all had their specific task, all with italian instructions. You would see "giri", "olio", "agua" and so on, right next to the "Jaeger" branding, that has now become a famous watch-maker, but also produced the gauges for sportscars back then.
The car sat low on the ground, with its racing deduced coil-springs, the subtle chrome-work was beautifull and not "trashy" like a lot of American "chromed-out" automobiles tended to be.
This is it, you would think. This is the pinnacle of automotive engineering, they cant make anything better than this. Evolution from this is impossible. The rest of your day your mind would be occupied by just 1 thing: Ferrari.
These kinds of cars only had really limited production runs, often maxing out at 100-200 pieces worldwide. They were mostly owned by rich playboys, princes and celebrities. | old cars are awesome. |
Hawkonthehill | Wow... this just explained so much. Since I bought my first car, I've been buying classics as my primary car. My first car was a [1965 mustang]( which I eventually sold because it needed body work (rust bubbles starting) and I didn't the time or money to fix it. I ended up avoiding that problem by going fiberglass with my [1977 Corvette]( . I've been driving the vette for 3 years now, and it still works great. Keep in mind, these were my only cars. I also have a motorcycle to save on gas in the summer. Sure there are some drawbacks, but I never understood why ANYONE would buy a brand new car. My mustang was purchased for about $9,000 and years later I sold it for about $6,500. The Corvette I purchased for $6,500. Sure, there are drawbacks to owning a classic car, but you can't really find anything to compare to the character/price. people are paying $15,000 MINIMUM for a brand new bottom-of-the-line car. I realize that there are some drawbacks to buying classic cars. My mustang didn't have A.C. My corvette is not as safe as a modern car. Still, when it comes time to sell them, they won't depreciate much (especially in contrast to the price I originally paid).
Not to mention my insurance. You'd think it'd be insanely high, but my insurance is under $100... FOR 6 MONTHS! (yes, under $20/month.) I'm sure it varies on your area, record, how far/often you drive, etc.
Just my 2 cents.
**TL;DR: Buy classic cars** | Wow... this just explained so much. Since I bought my first car, I've been buying classics as my primary car. My first car was a 1965 mustang and I didn't the time or money to fix it. I ended up avoiding that problem by going fiberglass with my 1977 Corvette .
Not to mention my insurance. You'd think it'd be insanely high, but my insurance is under $100... FOR 6 MONTHS! (yes, under $20/month.) I'm sure it varies on your area, record, how far/often you drive, etc.
Just my 2 cents.
TL;DR: Buy classic cars
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cekeuxp | Wow... this just explained so much. Since I bought my first car, I've been buying classics as my primary car. My first car was a 1965 mustang and I didn't the time or money to fix it. I ended up avoiding that problem by going fiberglass with my 1977 Corvette .
Not to mention my insurance. You'd think it'd be insanely high, but my insurance is under $100... FOR 6 MONTHS! (yes, under $20/month.) I'm sure it varies on your area, record, how far/often you drive, etc.
Just my 2 cents. | Buy classic cars |
Also_Can_Confirm | CAFE standards, DOT safety regulations, competition, popularity and general styling trends all have a huge effect. There are companies that make replica's and "kit cars" of classic designs but as far as a global automotive manufacturer it simply isn't possible anymore.
* CAFE standards require companies to up fuel efficiency. Unfortunately classic cars are not very aerodynamic and create much more drag than modern vehicles, greatly impacting fuel efficiency.
* DOT safety standards have changed not only how well a car adsorbs the energy from an impact, but also the styling due to pedestrian safety. That is why you no longer see raised hood ornaments or sharp protruding edges on the fronts of cars. They actually have to be safe for hitting people at low speeds. Also bumpers have a low speed impact rating (less than 5mph) that they can absorb without damage.
So performance requirements, government regulations and popular styling all greatly dictate the design. In the future you will see further effects from this. Smaller grill and radiator openings, softer edges and smoother bodies will all be required to continue meeting the CAFE standard increases.
**TL;DR** CAFE, DOT Safety and modern performance standards all have priority over styling. Making it legally impossible for manufactures to reproduce classic designs. | CAFE standards, DOT safety regulations, competition, popularity and general styling trends all have a huge effect. There are companies that make replica's and "kit cars" of classic designs but as far as a global automotive manufacturer it simply isn't possible anymore.
CAFE standards require companies to up fuel efficiency. Unfortunately classic cars are not very aerodynamic and create much more drag than modern vehicles, greatly impacting fuel efficiency.
DOT safety standards have changed not only how well a car adsorbs the energy from an impact, but also the styling due to pedestrian safety. That is why you no longer see raised hood ornaments or sharp protruding edges on the fronts of cars. They actually have to be safe for hitting people at low speeds. Also bumpers have a low speed impact rating (less than 5mph) that they can absorb without damage.
So performance requirements, government regulations and popular styling all greatly dictate the design. In the future you will see further effects from this. Smaller grill and radiator openings, softer edges and smoother bodies will all be required to continue meeting the CAFE standard increases.
TL;DR CAFE, DOT Safety and modern performance standards all have priority over styling. Making it legally impossible for manufactures to reproduce classic designs.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cekgjpj | CAFE standards, DOT safety regulations, competition, popularity and general styling trends all have a huge effect. There are companies that make replica's and "kit cars" of classic designs but as far as a global automotive manufacturer it simply isn't possible anymore.
CAFE standards require companies to up fuel efficiency. Unfortunately classic cars are not very aerodynamic and create much more drag than modern vehicles, greatly impacting fuel efficiency.
DOT safety standards have changed not only how well a car adsorbs the energy from an impact, but also the styling due to pedestrian safety. That is why you no longer see raised hood ornaments or sharp protruding edges on the fronts of cars. They actually have to be safe for hitting people at low speeds. Also bumpers have a low speed impact rating (less than 5mph) that they can absorb without damage.
So performance requirements, government regulations and popular styling all greatly dictate the design. In the future you will see further effects from this. Smaller grill and radiator openings, softer edges and smoother bodies will all be required to continue meeting the CAFE standard increases. | CAFE, DOT Safety and modern performance standards all have priority over styling. Making it legally impossible for manufactures to reproduce classic designs. |
BoBoZoBo | Because, in the 21st C, we have lost ability o make awesome things that last more than 2 years.
TL; DR - Profit margins | Because, in the 21st C, we have lost ability o make awesome things that last more than 2 years.
TL; DR - Profit margins
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cekgvvh | Because, in the 21st C, we have lost ability o make awesome things that last more than 2 years. | Profit margins |
MultiAREE | Ladas were designed as middle class vehicles to be driven throughout the Soviet Union. They were very rugged and simple. Almost all repairs could be done manually and very cheaply. Their engines (around 70hp) used carburetors up until 2000's and also rugged, and were therefore able to use very low quality gasoline without breaking or sufferiing any damage. The low price of the car, low maintenance price, and high ground clearance allows the LADA to drive on the horrible Russian roads, something that many Western/Japanese cars simply wouldn't be able to do.
TL;DR: The LADA is the car version of the AK47. | Ladas were designed as middle class vehicles to be driven throughout the Soviet Union. They were very rugged and simple. Almost all repairs could be done manually and very cheaply. Their engines (around 70hp) used carburetors up until 2000's and also rugged, and were therefore able to use very low quality gasoline without breaking or sufferiing any damage. The low price of the car, low maintenance price, and high ground clearance allows the LADA to drive on the horrible Russian roads, something that many Western/Japanese cars simply wouldn't be able to do.
TL;DR: The LADA is the car version of the AK47.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cekkia6 | Ladas were designed as middle class vehicles to be driven throughout the Soviet Union. They were very rugged and simple. Almost all repairs could be done manually and very cheaply. Their engines (around 70hp) used carburetors up until 2000's and also rugged, and were therefore able to use very low quality gasoline without breaking or sufferiing any damage. The low price of the car, low maintenance price, and high ground clearance allows the LADA to drive on the horrible Russian roads, something that many Western/Japanese cars simply wouldn't be able to do. | The LADA is the car version of the AK47. |
fnordfnordfnordfnord | **This is all wrong.**
> *Styling of Cars*
> Because it simply isn't possible anymore,
Sure it is, except in a few specific cases where the styling contributes to a recognized safety problem.
>there is a lot of red tape.
What is this? We can't have "x" because we invented a shitty business process? That's not a reason.
>crash tests...
We don't have to use the same materials / construction to get some styling effect.
> a car must have a crumple zone...
[Here]( two Lithuanians demonstrate one technique (of many possible techniques) for adding styling effects to a vehicle without removing crumple zones or safety equipment.
>This therefore limits the way cars can be styled as well as it adds a lot of weight to cars.
While it is strictly true that safety standards place limits on design, it is not necessarily true that this adds weight to cars; nor is it usually the case that safer cars weigh more, unless you're talking about the Model T Ford, or something like that.
> crash tests for pedestrian safety.
So, pointy things are out, in this case it follows that safety excludes certain design patterns, but it still doesn't follow that safety (for pedestrians, or anyone else) requires some specific design. There are many possible designs that may meet requirements.
> 1 million different little regulations different governments ...
This has almost nothing to do with what a car *must* look like.
> the headlight must be a minimum height for road safety.
This requirement only excludes a small number of designs (from the set of old car designs).
>As well as the rear hazard lights must be able to still flash if the trunk/hatch/boot of the car is open.
This is no impediment to aesthetic design. Additional lights could even be added.
> There are many different laws in many different countries...
Almost every carmaker follows a unified set of standards which cover most compliance issues
> *Sports Cars*
> The modern car buyer want comfort, technology, safety, ease of use,
When did anyone ever **not** want those things? They might have different preferences, but none of those things were ever undesirable.
> and the government wants higher emission & safety standards in every car.
Gov't wants what people want (by people, I mean industry lobbyists).
> While sports cars of old have little to none of those qualities.
Since you have not specified some bounds to your statement, I will. Comfort, technology, safety, and ease of use are all relative to the state of the art at the time.
> Sport cars (generally) used to be a lot lighter because of the lack of these features.
Not true. Despite being stronger, safer, more powerful, faster, and more efficient, cars today tend to be lighter, or approximately the same weight. Compare the Mercedes SL from [1971-1989]( to the SL from [2001-2011]( for one example.
>No comfort features,
Often, this was due to an end-run around stock car racing rules which required competitor's cars to be "production" cars. So, a limited number of stripped down cars would be produced to comply with the rules; also, some individuals with limited budgets preferred speed to comfort, and, another good reason to omit the A/C is that it adds weight. Finally, in the past, A/C and many other accessories were normally additional features, whereas today, those things are often standard equipment.
>at the maximum you'd get air con, and a radio. Or safety, lack of airbags and crumple zones etc. That's it. Everything thing else adds weight.
A/C adds weight!
> Lower weight means the car handles better
Which is why newer car design goals are to produce lighter cars than older ones.
> fun Cars that weight less feel much more fun than heavy cars...
Have you really driven one of these older cars? They were horrible.
> Another benefit of the lack of technology in older cars is the way the steering feels.
No, seriously, go and drive a car with no power steering. I don't think that you ever have.
> Modern cars lack most sensations because they're not necessary anymore,
No, one does not follow from the other. Kids, never believe anything a car salesman tells you.
> *The everyday car/driver*
>Think about this for a second, all points that make classic sports cars so desirable, decrease comfort, or safety,
No, this is not true, it is a consequence of the progress of engineering and technology, and of gov't regulation.
> or they aren't necessary anymore because of computer systems.
What?
>There aren't as many people who want to buy sports cars like that anymore, so the people who do, buy old ones.
I'm not aware of anyone who has studied the ratio of sports car sales to regular cars over time, but I would expect the opposite to be true, since there are many more carmakers today (including botiques like Koenigsegg, TVR, Noble), and the fact that many people own more than one car now, enabling people to buy special-purpose cars.
> Other reasons for desirability
> Older cars are simpler to work on
> Older cars are generally cool
> Lots of old cars have something in explainable, something that cannot be proven on paper, the have character, they have a soul
> TL,DR: "Classic" cars are much more fun to drive because they weigh much less due to safety, it isn't possible to style modern cars like classic ones due to safety.
You are wrong about almost everything. | This is all wrong.
> Styling of Cars
> Because it simply isn't possible anymore,
Sure it is, except in a few specific cases where the styling contributes to a recognized safety problem.
>there is a lot of red tape.
What is this? We can't have "x" because we invented a shitty business process? That's not a reason.
>crash tests...
We don't have to use the same materials / construction to get some styling effect.
> a car must have a crumple zone...
Here for adding styling effects to a vehicle without removing crumple zones or safety equipment.
>This therefore limits the way cars can be styled as well as it adds a lot of weight to cars.
While it is strictly true that safety standards place limits on design, it is not necessarily true that this adds weight to cars; nor is it usually the case that safer cars weigh more, unless you're talking about the Model T Ford, or something like that.
> crash tests for pedestrian safety.
So, pointy things are out, in this case it follows that safety excludes certain design patterns, but it still doesn't follow that safety (for pedestrians, or anyone else) requires some specific design. There are many possible designs that may meet requirements.
> 1 million different little regulations different governments ...
This has almost nothing to do with what a car must look like.
> the headlight must be a minimum height for road safety.
This requirement only excludes a small number of designs (from the set of old car designs).
>As well as the rear hazard lights must be able to still flash if the trunk/hatch/boot of the car is open.
This is no impediment to aesthetic design. Additional lights could even be added.
> There are many different laws in many different countries...
Almost every carmaker follows a unified set of standards which cover most compliance issues
> Sports Cars
> The modern car buyer want comfort, technology, safety, ease of use,
When did anyone ever not want those things? They might have different preferences, but none of those things were ever undesirable.
> and the government wants higher emission & safety standards in every car.
Gov't wants what people want (by people, I mean industry lobbyists).
> While sports cars of old have little to none of those qualities.
Since you have not specified some bounds to your statement, I will. Comfort, technology, safety, and ease of use are all relative to the state of the art at the time.
> Sport cars (generally) used to be a lot lighter because of the lack of these features.
Not true. Despite being stronger, safer, more powerful, faster, and more efficient, cars today tend to be lighter, or approximately the same weight. Compare the Mercedes SL from [1971-1989]( to the SL from [2001-2011]( for one example.
>No comfort features,
Often, this was due to an end-run around stock car racing rules which required competitor's cars to be "production" cars. So, a limited number of stripped down cars would be produced to comply with the rules; also, some individuals with limited budgets preferred speed to comfort, and, another good reason to omit the A/C is that it adds weight. Finally, in the past, A/C and many other accessories were normally additional features, whereas today, those things are often standard equipment.
>at the maximum you'd get air con, and a radio. Or safety, lack of airbags and crumple zones etc. That's it. Everything thing else adds weight.
A/C adds weight!
> Lower weight means the car handles better
Which is why newer car design goals are to produce lighter cars than older ones.
> fun Cars that weight less feel much more fun than heavy cars...
Have you really driven one of these older cars? They were horrible.
> Another benefit of the lack of technology in older cars is the way the steering feels.
No, seriously, go and drive a car with no power steering. I don't think that you ever have.
> Modern cars lack most sensations because they're not necessary anymore,
No, one does not follow from the other. Kids, never believe anything a car salesman tells you.
> The everyday car/driver
>Think about this for a second, all points that make classic sports cars so desirable, decrease comfort, or safety,
No, this is not true, it is a consequence of the progress of engineering and technology, and of gov't regulation.
> or they aren't necessary anymore because of computer systems.
What?
>There aren't as many people who want to buy sports cars like that anymore, so the people who do, buy old ones.
I'm not aware of anyone who has studied the ratio of sports car sales to regular cars over time, but I would expect the opposite to be true, since there are many more carmakers today (including botiques like Koenigsegg, TVR, Noble), and the fact that many people own more than one car now, enabling people to buy special-purpose cars.
> Other reasons for desirability
> Older cars are simpler to work on
> Older cars are generally cool
> Lots of old cars have something in explainable, something that cannot be proven on paper, the have character, they have a soul
> TL,DR: "Classic" cars are much more fun to drive because they weigh much less due to safety, it isn't possible to style modern cars like classic ones due to safety.
You are wrong about almost everything.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cekh553 | This is all wrong.
> Styling of Cars
> Because it simply isn't possible anymore,
Sure it is, except in a few specific cases where the styling contributes to a recognized safety problem.
>there is a lot of red tape.
What is this? We can't have "x" because we invented a shitty business process? That's not a reason.
>crash tests...
We don't have to use the same materials / construction to get some styling effect.
> a car must have a crumple zone...
Here for adding styling effects to a vehicle without removing crumple zones or safety equipment.
>This therefore limits the way cars can be styled as well as it adds a lot of weight to cars.
While it is strictly true that safety standards place limits on design, it is not necessarily true that this adds weight to cars; nor is it usually the case that safer cars weigh more, unless you're talking about the Model T Ford, or something like that.
> crash tests for pedestrian safety.
So, pointy things are out, in this case it follows that safety excludes certain design patterns, but it still doesn't follow that safety (for pedestrians, or anyone else) requires some specific design. There are many possible designs that may meet requirements.
> 1 million different little regulations different governments ...
This has almost nothing to do with what a car must look like.
> the headlight must be a minimum height for road safety.
This requirement only excludes a small number of designs (from the set of old car designs).
>As well as the rear hazard lights must be able to still flash if the trunk/hatch/boot of the car is open.
This is no impediment to aesthetic design. Additional lights could even be added.
> There are many different laws in many different countries...
Almost every carmaker follows a unified set of standards which cover most compliance issues
> Sports Cars
> The modern car buyer want comfort, technology, safety, ease of use,
When did anyone ever not want those things? They might have different preferences, but none of those things were ever undesirable.
> and the government wants higher emission & safety standards in every car.
Gov't wants what people want (by people, I mean industry lobbyists).
> While sports cars of old have little to none of those qualities.
Since you have not specified some bounds to your statement, I will. Comfort, technology, safety, and ease of use are all relative to the state of the art at the time.
> Sport cars (generally) used to be a lot lighter because of the lack of these features.
Not true. Despite being stronger, safer, more powerful, faster, and more efficient, cars today tend to be lighter, or approximately the same weight. Compare the Mercedes SL from [1971-1989]( to the SL from [2001-2011]( for one example.
>No comfort features,
Often, this was due to an end-run around stock car racing rules which required competitor's cars to be "production" cars. So, a limited number of stripped down cars would be produced to comply with the rules; also, some individuals with limited budgets preferred speed to comfort, and, another good reason to omit the A/C is that it adds weight. Finally, in the past, A/C and many other accessories were normally additional features, whereas today, those things are often standard equipment.
>at the maximum you'd get air con, and a radio. Or safety, lack of airbags and crumple zones etc. That's it. Everything thing else adds weight.
A/C adds weight!
> Lower weight means the car handles better
Which is why newer car design goals are to produce lighter cars than older ones.
> fun Cars that weight less feel much more fun than heavy cars...
Have you really driven one of these older cars? They were horrible.
> Another benefit of the lack of technology in older cars is the way the steering feels.
No, seriously, go and drive a car with no power steering. I don't think that you ever have.
> Modern cars lack most sensations because they're not necessary anymore,
No, one does not follow from the other. Kids, never believe anything a car salesman tells you.
> The everyday car/driver
>Think about this for a second, all points that make classic sports cars so desirable, decrease comfort, or safety,
No, this is not true, it is a consequence of the progress of engineering and technology, and of gov't regulation.
> or they aren't necessary anymore because of computer systems.
What?
>There aren't as many people who want to buy sports cars like that anymore, so the people who do, buy old ones.
I'm not aware of anyone who has studied the ratio of sports car sales to regular cars over time, but I would expect the opposite to be true, since there are many more carmakers today (including botiques like Koenigsegg, TVR, Noble), and the fact that many people own more than one car now, enabling people to buy special-purpose cars.
> Other reasons for desirability
> Older cars are simpler to work on
> Older cars are generally cool
> Lots of old cars have something in explainable, something that cannot be proven on paper, the have character, they have a soul
> | Classic" cars are much more fun to drive because they weigh much less due to safety, it isn't possible to style modern cars like classic ones due to safety.
You are wrong about almost everything. |
YippyKayYay | Supply and demand. You can buy a kit to make a modern chassis look like an old car, but it won't be worth as much as an authentic piece
TLDR: up the supply, you lower the demand | Supply and demand. You can buy a kit to make a modern chassis look like an old car, but it won't be worth as much as an authentic piece
TLDR: up the supply, you lower the demand
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cekoitm | Supply and demand. You can buy a kit to make a modern chassis look like an old car, but it won't be worth as much as an authentic piece | up the supply, you lower the demand |
ExitedWalrus | For two a couple of reasons:
**Styling of Cars**
Because it simply isn't possible anymore, there is a lot of red tape. As well crash tests modern cars have to pass.
For example in order to pass the frontal crash test of today, the front of a car must have a crumple zone - metal in the car that is designed to be crushed in a crash to absorb energy so that the force of a crash does not deform the passenger compartment and crush the occupants. This therefore limits the way cars can be styled as well as it adds a lot of weight to cars. I'll talk about weight later. As well as this, there is side crash test small overlap crash test, and crash tests for pedestrian safety. All with their own indirect sets of restrictions on styling because of the way the metal must be shaped to accommodate the shape of the crumple zones and stronger side pillars etc. You can read more about the American tests [here.](
There are also 1 million different little regulations different governments set on cars sold in their country. For example cars cannot car from factory as low anymore, the headlight must be a minimum height for road safety. As well as the rear hazard lights must be able to still flash if the trunk/hatch/boot of the car is open. This is so that if the car is stopped on the side of the road and the trunk is open to access a spare tire or something, drivers can still see the lights flashing.
There are many different laws in many different countries covering different subject like this one, each imposing little restrictions on styling that add up.
**Sports Cars**
With regards of older sports car, other than the aforementioned styling, the reason why they are so much more sought after is because they have certain qualities that modern cars lack because of changes in technology and what the modern car buyer wants.
The modern car buyer want comfort, technology, safety, ease of use, and the government wants higher emission & safety standards in every car. While sports cars of old have little to none of those qualities.
Weight is a big factor here. Sport cars (generally) used to be a lot lighter because of the lack of these features. No comfort features, at the maximum you'd get air con, and a radio. Or safety, lack of airbags and crumple zones etc. That's it. Everything thing else adds weight. As well as the lack of computers, and electronic systems.
Lower weight means the car handles better (can get around a corner quicker), can accelerate faster, and brake faster as well with the same power and the same brakes, because there less weight to move or slowdown.
Lower weight also helps with another factor: fun
Cars that weight less feel much more fun than heavy cars because of certain handling characteristics, they turn in fast, and feel more responsive to your inputs, a lighter objects changes direction easier, people who drive "enthusiastically", notice these characteristics. A car that's fun to drive feels like it's immediately responding to you and is communicating to you though the steering and pedals which is explained bellow.
Another benefit of the lack of technology in older cars is the way the steering feels. Not all cars have this, especially brand new cars, but most cars older than 3-4 have something referred to in the auto industry called steering feel. When you turn the wheel of your car, you can feel little vibrations coming through the wheel and can tell what the front wheels are doing, and you can feel the road beneath you when driving "enthusiastically" or turning normally depending on the car. If you've driven a car with it you know what I mean, most people know what I'm talking about.
Feeling these sensations as well as the feeling of the car going over the road in a sports car with a harder ride, makes the driver feel as if s/he is connected with the car and not just there driving it from point A to B it can be quite a lot of fun.
Steering feel usually increases with speed, so the faster you go the more you feel, but with a car with good steering feel you feel more sensations at slower speeds.
Older sports cars especially, this was a key focus, back in the day, to have a lot of steering feel.
There was no traction & stability control, the feel of the steering wheel would tell you what the front wheels were doing as the feeling of the entire car in general would tell you the limits of the car (what's the fastest speed I can go around this corner without spinning out?)
Modern cars lack this almost totally. Modern steering systems (electric power steering) kill feel totally almost across the board, older cars have either hydraulic power steering (some cars have hydraulic power steering but with little feel), or no power steering at all which would make steering very heavy, but make the sensations coming through the wheel fantastic.
It's difficult to describe, but the difference is massive, the steering feels crisp and clear you can feel the road though the wheel. (Toyota has used electric power steering in there cars exclusively for a while now, all there cars had power steering in the 90's which is why a lot of there cars are seen as very boring in the enthusiasts eyes.)
Modern cars lack most sensations because they're not necessary anymore, with stability control and traction control, unless you have no idea what you're doing you won't crash, and its almost impossible to spin out unless you're driving on ice. While you can drive fast, however it doesn't as feel fun because the feeling is too refined, it feels like you're just sitting here telling the car what to do. To get more feeling from a modern sports car, one must drive faster. Which is illegal and dangerous in different ways compared to a old car with no traction/stability control.
In fact these systems are better for an asshat who has no idea what they're doing because its much harder for them to crash, but in the process of this, it kills fun for the person who has the common sense to learn the limits of there car while driving fast.
**The everyday car/driver**
However for the average modern car buyer, like the one mom or dad drives to soccer practice and takes to work, modern cars are infinetly better, there much safer, and are much less harmful to the environment and people around us. They are loaded with tech and comfort features But for the enthusiastic driver, there's nothing like an older car. Think about this for a second, all points that make classic sports cars so desirable, decrease comfort, or safety, or they aren't necessary anymore because of computer systems. There aren't as many people who want to buy sports cars like that anymore, so the people who do, buy old ones.
**Other reasons for desirability**
* Older cars are simpler to work on
* Older cars are generally cool
* Lots of old cars have something in explainable, something that cannot be proven on paper, the have character, they have a soul
**TL,DR: "Classic" cars are much more fun to drive because they weigh much less due to safety, it isn't possible to style modern cars like classic ones due to safety.**
Edit: American cars are a big exemption to the weight factor. All of there older cars were almost always significantly heavier than cars made by the competition for no real reason other than they were too lazy to care about weight. They have never made sports cars though, things like the mustang and camaro are called muscle cars: big engines, big attitude, too heavy, and crappy handling lol
Edit: People are getting caught up in numbers. Old cars are so desirable because of that light weight and good steering feel, it feels as if you are connected with the car, not like with a modern car it feels like you are simply telling the car what to do. In an old car you feel as if you are part of the car.
Thanks for the gold!
uwataif | For two a couple of reasons:
Styling of Cars
Because it simply isn't possible anymore, there is a lot of red tape. As well crash tests modern cars have to pass.
For example in order to pass the frontal crash test of today, the front of a car must have a crumple zone - metal in the car that is designed to be crushed in a crash to absorb energy so that the force of a crash does not deform the passenger compartment and crush the occupants. This therefore limits the way cars can be styled as well as it adds a lot of weight to cars. I'll talk about weight later. As well as this, there is side crash test small overlap crash test, and crash tests for pedestrian safety. All with their own indirect sets of restrictions on styling because of the way the metal must be shaped to accommodate the shape of the crumple zones and stronger side pillars etc. You can read more about the American tests [here.](
There are also 1 million different little regulations different governments set on cars sold in their country. For example cars cannot car from factory as low anymore, the headlight must be a minimum height for road safety. As well as the rear hazard lights must be able to still flash if the trunk/hatch/boot of the car is open. This is so that if the car is stopped on the side of the road and the trunk is open to access a spare tire or something, drivers can still see the lights flashing.
There are many different laws in many different countries covering different subject like this one, each imposing little restrictions on styling that add up.
Sports Cars
With regards of older sports car, other than the aforementioned styling, the reason why they are so much more sought after is because they have certain qualities that modern cars lack because of changes in technology and what the modern car buyer wants.
The modern car buyer want comfort, technology, safety, ease of use, and the government wants higher emission & safety standards in every car. While sports cars of old have little to none of those qualities.
Weight is a big factor here. Sport cars (generally) used to be a lot lighter because of the lack of these features. No comfort features, at the maximum you'd get air con, and a radio. Or safety, lack of airbags and crumple zones etc. That's it. Everything thing else adds weight. As well as the lack of computers, and electronic systems.
Lower weight means the car handles better (can get around a corner quicker), can accelerate faster, and brake faster as well with the same power and the same brakes, because there less weight to move or slowdown.
Lower weight also helps with another factor: fun
Cars that weight less feel much more fun than heavy cars because of certain handling characteristics, they turn in fast, and feel more responsive to your inputs, a lighter objects changes direction easier, people who drive "enthusiastically", notice these characteristics. A car that's fun to drive feels like it's immediately responding to you and is communicating to you though the steering and pedals which is explained bellow.
Another benefit of the lack of technology in older cars is the way the steering feels. Not all cars have this, especially brand new cars, but most cars older than 3-4 have something referred to in the auto industry called steering feel. When you turn the wheel of your car, you can feel little vibrations coming through the wheel and can tell what the front wheels are doing, and you can feel the road beneath you when driving "enthusiastically" or turning normally depending on the car. If you've driven a car with it you know what I mean, most people know what I'm talking about.
Feeling these sensations as well as the feeling of the car going over the road in a sports car with a harder ride, makes the driver feel as if s/he is connected with the car and not just there driving it from point A to B it can be quite a lot of fun.
Steering feel usually increases with speed, so the faster you go the more you feel, but with a car with good steering feel you feel more sensations at slower speeds.
Older sports cars especially, this was a key focus, back in the day, to have a lot of steering feel.
There was no traction & stability control, the feel of the steering wheel would tell you what the front wheels were doing as the feeling of the entire car in general would tell you the limits of the car (what's the fastest speed I can go around this corner without spinning out?)
Modern cars lack this almost totally. Modern steering systems (electric power steering) kill feel totally almost across the board, older cars have either hydraulic power steering (some cars have hydraulic power steering but with little feel), or no power steering at all which would make steering very heavy, but make the sensations coming through the wheel fantastic.
It's difficult to describe, but the difference is massive, the steering feels crisp and clear you can feel the road though the wheel. (Toyota has used electric power steering in there cars exclusively for a while now, all there cars had power steering in the 90's which is why a lot of there cars are seen as very boring in the enthusiasts eyes.)
Modern cars lack most sensations because they're not necessary anymore, with stability control and traction control, unless you have no idea what you're doing you won't crash, and its almost impossible to spin out unless you're driving on ice. While you can drive fast, however it doesn't as feel fun because the feeling is too refined, it feels like you're just sitting here telling the car what to do. To get more feeling from a modern sports car, one must drive faster. Which is illegal and dangerous in different ways compared to a old car with no traction/stability control.
In fact these systems are better for an asshat who has no idea what they're doing because its much harder for them to crash, but in the process of this, it kills fun for the person who has the common sense to learn the limits of there car while driving fast.
The everyday car/driver
However for the average modern car buyer, like the one mom or dad drives to soccer practice and takes to work, modern cars are infinetly better, there much safer, and are much less harmful to the environment and people around us. They are loaded with tech and comfort features But for the enthusiastic driver, there's nothing like an older car. Think about this for a second, all points that make classic sports cars so desirable, decrease comfort, or safety, or they aren't necessary anymore because of computer systems. There aren't as many people who want to buy sports cars like that anymore, so the people who do, buy old ones.
Other reasons for desirability
Older cars are simpler to work on
Older cars are generally cool
Lots of old cars have something in explainable, something that cannot be proven on paper, the have character, they have a soul
TL,DR: "Classic" cars are much more fun to drive because they weigh much less due to safety, it isn't possible to style modern cars like classic ones due to safety.
Edit: American cars are a big exemption to the weight factor. All of there older cars were almost always significantly heavier than cars made by the competition for no real reason other than they were too lazy to care about weight. They have never made sports cars though, things like the mustang and camaro are called muscle cars: big engines, big attitude, too heavy, and crappy handling lol
Edit: People are getting caught up in numbers. Old cars are so desirable because of that light weight and good steering feel, it feels as if you are connected with the car, not like with a modern car it feels like you are simply telling the car what to do. In an old car you feel as if you are part of the car.
Thanks for the gold!
uwataif
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cek5fzj | For two a couple of reasons:
Styling of Cars
Because it simply isn't possible anymore, there is a lot of red tape. As well crash tests modern cars have to pass.
For example in order to pass the frontal crash test of today, the front of a car must have a crumple zone - metal in the car that is designed to be crushed in a crash to absorb energy so that the force of a crash does not deform the passenger compartment and crush the occupants. This therefore limits the way cars can be styled as well as it adds a lot of weight to cars. I'll talk about weight later. As well as this, there is side crash test small overlap crash test, and crash tests for pedestrian safety. All with their own indirect sets of restrictions on styling because of the way the metal must be shaped to accommodate the shape of the crumple zones and stronger side pillars etc. You can read more about the American tests [here.](
There are also 1 million different little regulations different governments set on cars sold in their country. For example cars cannot car from factory as low anymore, the headlight must be a minimum height for road safety. As well as the rear hazard lights must be able to still flash if the trunk/hatch/boot of the car is open. This is so that if the car is stopped on the side of the road and the trunk is open to access a spare tire or something, drivers can still see the lights flashing.
There are many different laws in many different countries covering different subject like this one, each imposing little restrictions on styling that add up.
Sports Cars
With regards of older sports car, other than the aforementioned styling, the reason why they are so much more sought after is because they have certain qualities that modern cars lack because of changes in technology and what the modern car buyer wants.
The modern car buyer want comfort, technology, safety, ease of use, and the government wants higher emission & safety standards in every car. While sports cars of old have little to none of those qualities.
Weight is a big factor here. Sport cars (generally) used to be a lot lighter because of the lack of these features. No comfort features, at the maximum you'd get air con, and a radio. Or safety, lack of airbags and crumple zones etc. That's it. Everything thing else adds weight. As well as the lack of computers, and electronic systems.
Lower weight means the car handles better (can get around a corner quicker), can accelerate faster, and brake faster as well with the same power and the same brakes, because there less weight to move or slowdown.
Lower weight also helps with another factor: fun
Cars that weight less feel much more fun than heavy cars because of certain handling characteristics, they turn in fast, and feel more responsive to your inputs, a lighter objects changes direction easier, people who drive "enthusiastically", notice these characteristics. A car that's fun to drive feels like it's immediately responding to you and is communicating to you though the steering and pedals which is explained bellow.
Another benefit of the lack of technology in older cars is the way the steering feels. Not all cars have this, especially brand new cars, but most cars older than 3-4 have something referred to in the auto industry called steering feel. When you turn the wheel of your car, you can feel little vibrations coming through the wheel and can tell what the front wheels are doing, and you can feel the road beneath you when driving "enthusiastically" or turning normally depending on the car. If you've driven a car with it you know what I mean, most people know what I'm talking about.
Feeling these sensations as well as the feeling of the car going over the road in a sports car with a harder ride, makes the driver feel as if s/he is connected with the car and not just there driving it from point A to B it can be quite a lot of fun.
Steering feel usually increases with speed, so the faster you go the more you feel, but with a car with good steering feel you feel more sensations at slower speeds.
Older sports cars especially, this was a key focus, back in the day, to have a lot of steering feel.
There was no traction & stability control, the feel of the steering wheel would tell you what the front wheels were doing as the feeling of the entire car in general would tell you the limits of the car (what's the fastest speed I can go around this corner without spinning out?)
Modern cars lack this almost totally. Modern steering systems (electric power steering) kill feel totally almost across the board, older cars have either hydraulic power steering (some cars have hydraulic power steering but with little feel), or no power steering at all which would make steering very heavy, but make the sensations coming through the wheel fantastic.
It's difficult to describe, but the difference is massive, the steering feels crisp and clear you can feel the road though the wheel. (Toyota has used electric power steering in there cars exclusively for a while now, all there cars had power steering in the 90's which is why a lot of there cars are seen as very boring in the enthusiasts eyes.)
Modern cars lack most sensations because they're not necessary anymore, with stability control and traction control, unless you have no idea what you're doing you won't crash, and its almost impossible to spin out unless you're driving on ice. While you can drive fast, however it doesn't as feel fun because the feeling is too refined, it feels like you're just sitting here telling the car what to do. To get more feeling from a modern sports car, one must drive faster. Which is illegal and dangerous in different ways compared to a old car with no traction/stability control.
In fact these systems are better for an asshat who has no idea what they're doing because its much harder for them to crash, but in the process of this, it kills fun for the person who has the common sense to learn the limits of there car while driving fast.
The everyday car/driver
However for the average modern car buyer, like the one mom or dad drives to soccer practice and takes to work, modern cars are infinetly better, there much safer, and are much less harmful to the environment and people around us. They are loaded with tech and comfort features But for the enthusiastic driver, there's nothing like an older car. Think about this for a second, all points that make classic sports cars so desirable, decrease comfort, or safety, or they aren't necessary anymore because of computer systems. There aren't as many people who want to buy sports cars like that anymore, so the people who do, buy old ones.
Other reasons for desirability
Older cars are simpler to work on
Older cars are generally cool
Lots of old cars have something in explainable, something that cannot be proven on paper, the have character, they have a soul | Classic" cars are much more fun to drive because they weigh much less due to safety, it isn't possible to style modern cars like classic ones due to safety.
Edit: American cars are a big exemption to the weight factor. All of there older cars were almost always significantly heavier than cars made by the competition for no real reason other than they were too lazy to care about weight. They have never made sports cars though, things like the mustang and camaro are called muscle cars: big engines, big attitude, too heavy, and crappy handling lol
Edit: People are getting caught up in numbers. Old cars are so desirable because of that light weight and good steering feel, it feels as if you are connected with the car, not like with a modern car it feels like you are simply telling the car what to do. In an old car you feel as if you are part of the car.
Thanks for the gold!
uwataif |
Special-Kwest | I used it once last week. I plan on doing it tomorrow, since I used it last Wednesday.
Directions say to do it once a week and to keep using the cleanser/toner/moisturizer, but it breaks me out horribly so I don't do that. It says you're supposed to cleanse with it beforehand, but I just used a wet microfiber towel and patted it on my face to clean it gently.
If you plan on using something like this, please, follow the directions in it. Seriously, you could hurt yourself or be allergic to the product. At least do it how it says the first time, then fiddle around with it. Patch test it. It says that in there too.
Also, you will need to stay out of the sun if you use this. At least for the rest of the day. So you could try it at night if you want. Or on a day you weren't going to go out. The next day, you MUST use sun screen. Your skin will be pretty sensitive to it, even if it doesn't feel like it.
You might feel tingly or slightly itchy after you wash the peel off. This is normal, but if it gets to be too much, I'd call a health clinic or a doctor. Your face might be slightly red right after, but that's also normal. Any serious pain isn't.
TL;DR: Follow the directions for any and every peel you might do. Wear sunscreen all the time anyways.
Any more questions? I'd be happy to help if you do. | I used it once last week. I plan on doing it tomorrow, since I used it last Wednesday.
Directions say to do it once a week and to keep using the cleanser/toner/moisturizer, but it breaks me out horribly so I don't do that. It says you're supposed to cleanse with it beforehand, but I just used a wet microfiber towel and patted it on my face to clean it gently.
If you plan on using something like this, please, follow the directions in it. Seriously, you could hurt yourself or be allergic to the product. At least do it how it says the first time, then fiddle around with it. Patch test it. It says that in there too.
Also, you will need to stay out of the sun if you use this. At least for the rest of the day. So you could try it at night if you want. Or on a day you weren't going to go out. The next day, you MUST use sun screen. Your skin will be pretty sensitive to it, even if it doesn't feel like it.
You might feel tingly or slightly itchy after you wash the peel off. This is normal, but if it gets to be too much, I'd call a health clinic or a doctor. Your face might be slightly red right after, but that's also normal. Any serious pain isn't.
TL;DR: Follow the directions for any and every peel you might do. Wear sunscreen all the time anyways.
Any more questions? I'd be happy to help if you do.
| SkincareAddiction | t5_2tbbg | cek8vfe | I used it once last week. I plan on doing it tomorrow, since I used it last Wednesday.
Directions say to do it once a week and to keep using the cleanser/toner/moisturizer, but it breaks me out horribly so I don't do that. It says you're supposed to cleanse with it beforehand, but I just used a wet microfiber towel and patted it on my face to clean it gently.
If you plan on using something like this, please, follow the directions in it. Seriously, you could hurt yourself or be allergic to the product. At least do it how it says the first time, then fiddle around with it. Patch test it. It says that in there too.
Also, you will need to stay out of the sun if you use this. At least for the rest of the day. So you could try it at night if you want. Or on a day you weren't going to go out. The next day, you MUST use sun screen. Your skin will be pretty sensitive to it, even if it doesn't feel like it.
You might feel tingly or slightly itchy after you wash the peel off. This is normal, but if it gets to be too much, I'd call a health clinic or a doctor. Your face might be slightly red right after, but that's also normal. Any serious pain isn't. | Follow the directions for any and every peel you might do. Wear sunscreen all the time anyways.
Any more questions? I'd be happy to help if you do. |
squeeshka | Trade in nicotine (which is not really that harmful by itself) in for hallucinogenic drugs. Okay...
Edit: Also, try reading the article. He used a sample size of 15 people. Statistically, a sample size of 15 is pretty much worthless and he states: "He also has no way of proving that it wasn’t the cognitive-behavioral therapy that did the trick." As people in his study started quitting and cutting down during their therapy sessions that took place before the test subjects were even given the psilocybin.
If you want an excuse to go out and do drugs then just fucking do them. Don't go about showing some bullshit study that took 6 years to get a result on 15 people (with a 20% failure rate mind you) because you want to trip on some shrooms.
TL:DR Take your sensationalized article and either read it and realize it doesn't say anything or shove it up your ass. | Trade in nicotine (which is not really that harmful by itself) in for hallucinogenic drugs. Okay...
Edit: Also, try reading the article. He used a sample size of 15 people. Statistically, a sample size of 15 is pretty much worthless and he states: "He also has no way of proving that it wasn’t the cognitive-behavioral therapy that did the trick." As people in his study started quitting and cutting down during their therapy sessions that took place before the test subjects were even given the psilocybin.
If you want an excuse to go out and do drugs then just fucking do them. Don't go about showing some bullshit study that took 6 years to get a result on 15 people (with a 20% failure rate mind you) because you want to trip on some shrooms.
TL:DR Take your sensationalized article and either read it and realize it doesn't say anything or shove it up your ass.
| electronic_cigarette | t5_2qmlu | cek8o0d | Trade in nicotine (which is not really that harmful by itself) in for hallucinogenic drugs. Okay...
Edit: Also, try reading the article. He used a sample size of 15 people. Statistically, a sample size of 15 is pretty much worthless and he states: "He also has no way of proving that it wasn’t the cognitive-behavioral therapy that did the trick." As people in his study started quitting and cutting down during their therapy sessions that took place before the test subjects were even given the psilocybin.
If you want an excuse to go out and do drugs then just fucking do them. Don't go about showing some bullshit study that took 6 years to get a result on 15 people (with a 20% failure rate mind you) because you want to trip on some shrooms. | Take your sensationalized article and either read it and realize it doesn't say anything or shove it up your ass. |
hookedonreddit | Slimes are a mechanic in a sense, but at the same time. Bad play would be not managing your stacks. By not managing slimes and stacks of caduceus guilds have to zerg the fight and create a harder fight for themselves. It's a decision for a trade off.
Things like allagan rot, ballast, etc are mechanics that can't be bypassed on a fight for means of making the fight harder in general on the raid, and that is why it's lazy game design by allowing this to not be considered an exploit. I'm perfectly fine with more people being able to get loot it's more of I'm just afraid Yoshi P and the team are going to apply this to end game raid content that hasn't been killed when something the raiding community would deem to be an exploit. It's like dropping saronite bombs on LK to rebuild the platform it was obviously a bug in the fight that broke the coding on valkyrs and made it a non issue on the fight. Ensidia was banned for that.
TL:DR I don't have a problem with Enrage strat except the fact that it is bad and lazy game design, and I fear the reprocussion of later on for the raiding community. To clarify by the raiding community I mean the people who push hardcore progression. | Slimes are a mechanic in a sense, but at the same time. Bad play would be not managing your stacks. By not managing slimes and stacks of caduceus guilds have to zerg the fight and create a harder fight for themselves. It's a decision for a trade off.
Things like allagan rot, ballast, etc are mechanics that can't be bypassed on a fight for means of making the fight harder in general on the raid, and that is why it's lazy game design by allowing this to not be considered an exploit. I'm perfectly fine with more people being able to get loot it's more of I'm just afraid Yoshi P and the team are going to apply this to end game raid content that hasn't been killed when something the raiding community would deem to be an exploit. It's like dropping saronite bombs on LK to rebuild the platform it was obviously a bug in the fight that broke the coding on valkyrs and made it a non issue on the fight. Ensidia was banned for that.
TL:DR I don't have a problem with Enrage strat except the fact that it is bad and lazy game design, and I fear the reprocussion of later on for the raiding community. To clarify by the raiding community I mean the people who push hardcore progression.
| ffxiv | t5_2rgs7 | cekt4en | Slimes are a mechanic in a sense, but at the same time. Bad play would be not managing your stacks. By not managing slimes and stacks of caduceus guilds have to zerg the fight and create a harder fight for themselves. It's a decision for a trade off.
Things like allagan rot, ballast, etc are mechanics that can't be bypassed on a fight for means of making the fight harder in general on the raid, and that is why it's lazy game design by allowing this to not be considered an exploit. I'm perfectly fine with more people being able to get loot it's more of I'm just afraid Yoshi P and the team are going to apply this to end game raid content that hasn't been killed when something the raiding community would deem to be an exploit. It's like dropping saronite bombs on LK to rebuild the platform it was obviously a bug in the fight that broke the coding on valkyrs and made it a non issue on the fight. Ensidia was banned for that. | I don't have a problem with Enrage strat except the fact that it is bad and lazy game design, and I fear the reprocussion of later on for the raiding community. To clarify by the raiding community I mean the people who push hardcore progression. |
CLGbyBirth | I'll be doing like why team x picks champs a b c e f and team y picks 1 2 3 4 5. then how team x is playing their comp against team y then, team decision making like vision, objective and map pressure, over all somewhat like why team x is doing this against team y and team y should this when team x is doing this.
TL;DR player and team prospective. | I'll be doing like why team x picks champs a b c e f and team y picks 1 2 3 4 5. then how team x is playing their comp against team y then, team decision making like vision, objective and map pressure, over all somewhat like why team x is doing this against team y and team y should this when team x is doing this.
TL;DR player and team prospective.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cekcsrj | I'll be doing like why team x picks champs a b c e f and team y picks 1 2 3 4 5. then how team x is playing their comp against team y then, team decision making like vision, objective and map pressure, over all somewhat like why team x is doing this against team y and team y should this when team x is doing this. | player and team prospective. |
Moophius | Sounds more like multi-boxing than anything else. Bots tend to run around solo with their own set of logic (not dependent on assisting another character). Think of it this way, someone has to create a program for their character to run around and do any set of actions. Normally it's on a loop where the run on a set path killing things (or mining). If someone were to create that program, they would then need to create another one for the alt classes to follow and assist the main character. Alternately, a player can run around with 4 characters all logged in at the same time and use a program to simulate key strokes across all the alt characters (macro's to assist the main character and perform an action). Depending on the program they use, I want to say that SE has gone on record saying that this is not against the rules.
TL;DR: It's not impossible for a group of bots to run around together, it's just more likely that it is a multi box operation. | Sounds more like multi-boxing than anything else. Bots tend to run around solo with their own set of logic (not dependent on assisting another character). Think of it this way, someone has to create a program for their character to run around and do any set of actions. Normally it's on a loop where the run on a set path killing things (or mining). If someone were to create that program, they would then need to create another one for the alt classes to follow and assist the main character. Alternately, a player can run around with 4 characters all logged in at the same time and use a program to simulate key strokes across all the alt characters (macro's to assist the main character and perform an action). Depending on the program they use, I want to say that SE has gone on record saying that this is not against the rules.
TL;DR: It's not impossible for a group of bots to run around together, it's just more likely that it is a multi box operation.
| ffxiv | t5_2rgs7 | cekf5yd | Sounds more like multi-boxing than anything else. Bots tend to run around solo with their own set of logic (not dependent on assisting another character). Think of it this way, someone has to create a program for their character to run around and do any set of actions. Normally it's on a loop where the run on a set path killing things (or mining). If someone were to create that program, they would then need to create another one for the alt classes to follow and assist the main character. Alternately, a player can run around with 4 characters all logged in at the same time and use a program to simulate key strokes across all the alt characters (macro's to assist the main character and perform an action). Depending on the program they use, I want to say that SE has gone on record saying that this is not against the rules. | It's not impossible for a group of bots to run around together, it's just more likely that it is a multi box operation. |
PT2JSQGHVaHWd24aCdCF | I'm a developer so I begun with Android since it's the cheapest phones and you don't need a dev account to write applications (it's $99 or something with Apple).
I hated all the preinstalled crapware from both the phone makers and the carriers. I rooted my phone, installed Cyanogen, and bricked it after a few iterations.
It was a bit like Windows 98 and the "themes" at the time, you spend so much time tweaking the phone but you don't have a simple UI like iOS. I compared with my Android with the iPhone and saw that I could get real regular updates from Apple instead of waiting for the phone maker and the carrier to install the crapware that loads on boot.
I waited for the money and replaced my Android by an iPhone. I can't use themes or scripts or weird stuff, but I can actually... use my phone! And it's very useful with all the apps that I can use on both the iPad and iPhone.
TL;DR:
Android pissed me off because:
* can't update
* preloaded crap
* always tweaking (good when I was a teenager, bad when I have to work)
* last but not least: iOS has real-time audio features to use with my electric guitar and a lot of music applications | I'm a developer so I begun with Android since it's the cheapest phones and you don't need a dev account to write applications (it's $99 or something with Apple).
I hated all the preinstalled crapware from both the phone makers and the carriers. I rooted my phone, installed Cyanogen, and bricked it after a few iterations.
It was a bit like Windows 98 and the "themes" at the time, you spend so much time tweaking the phone but you don't have a simple UI like iOS. I compared with my Android with the iPhone and saw that I could get real regular updates from Apple instead of waiting for the phone maker and the carrier to install the crapware that loads on boot.
I waited for the money and replaced my Android by an iPhone. I can't use themes or scripts or weird stuff, but I can actually... use my phone! And it's very useful with all the apps that I can use on both the iPad and iPhone.
TL;DR:
Android pissed me off because:
can't update
preloaded crap
always tweaking (good when I was a teenager, bad when I have to work)
last but not least: iOS has real-time audio features to use with my electric guitar and a lot of music applications
| iphone | t5_2qh2b | cekg8q3 | I'm a developer so I begun with Android since it's the cheapest phones and you don't need a dev account to write applications (it's $99 or something with Apple).
I hated all the preinstalled crapware from both the phone makers and the carriers. I rooted my phone, installed Cyanogen, and bricked it after a few iterations.
It was a bit like Windows 98 and the "themes" at the time, you spend so much time tweaking the phone but you don't have a simple UI like iOS. I compared with my Android with the iPhone and saw that I could get real regular updates from Apple instead of waiting for the phone maker and the carrier to install the crapware that loads on boot.
I waited for the money and replaced my Android by an iPhone. I can't use themes or scripts or weird stuff, but I can actually... use my phone! And it's very useful with all the apps that I can use on both the iPad and iPhone. | Android pissed me off because:
can't update
preloaded crap
always tweaking (good when I was a teenager, bad when I have to work)
last but not least: iOS has real-time audio features to use with my electric guitar and a lot of music applications |
pkruger82 | i know this is always a debate. i would like some form of NM/RAID/quest/area with some real insane gear with RNG drop status of FFXI.....i know i know the insane amount of sleep lost waiting on leaping lizzy or spiny spipi or the damn dragonfly at selbina beach.....but honestly nothing in this game is overly grinding (good and bad) yes we have lockouts but every pc of gear or mat is attainable by anyone.....no luck no waiting no breaking keyboards when you kill the damn dragonfly for the 25th time with no drop ...sorry it still drives me crazy......but thats what the game is missing.....there is nothing (YET) that you see on someone and go "hey i saw someone with X ring" its just a matter of "yeah i like the allagan head piece....CANT WAIT TIL I GET IT" <--- that last part is what the game is currently...you will get it. i know i know the game is young it has (hopefully) long years ahead of it. i just want one day the satisfaction of getting that item that your FC mates look at you and makes them drool.
TL;DR - difficult gear/mats to obtain from even harder to find nm/area
| i know this is always a debate. i would like some form of NM/RAID/quest/area with some real insane gear with RNG drop status of FFXI.....i know i know the insane amount of sleep lost waiting on leaping lizzy or spiny spipi or the damn dragonfly at selbina beach.....but honestly nothing in this game is overly grinding (good and bad) yes we have lockouts but every pc of gear or mat is attainable by anyone.....no luck no waiting no breaking keyboards when you kill the damn dragonfly for the 25th time with no drop ...sorry it still drives me crazy......but thats what the game is missing.....there is nothing (YET) that you see on someone and go "hey i saw someone with X ring" its just a matter of "yeah i like the allagan head piece....CANT WAIT TIL I GET IT" <--- that last part is what the game is currently...you will get it. i know i know the game is young it has (hopefully) long years ahead of it. i just want one day the satisfaction of getting that item that your FC mates look at you and makes them drool.
TL;DR - difficult gear/mats to obtain from even harder to find nm/area
| ffxiv | t5_2rgs7 | cekpwje | i know this is always a debate. i would like some form of NM/RAID/quest/area with some real insane gear with RNG drop status of FFXI.....i know i know the insane amount of sleep lost waiting on leaping lizzy or spiny spipi or the damn dragonfly at selbina beach.....but honestly nothing in this game is overly grinding (good and bad) yes we have lockouts but every pc of gear or mat is attainable by anyone.....no luck no waiting no breaking keyboards when you kill the damn dragonfly for the 25th time with no drop ...sorry it still drives me crazy......but thats what the game is missing.....there is nothing (YET) that you see on someone and go "hey i saw someone with X ring" its just a matter of "yeah i like the allagan head piece....CANT WAIT TIL I GET IT" <--- that last part is what the game is currently...you will get it. i know i know the game is young it has (hopefully) long years ahead of it. i just want one day the satisfaction of getting that item that your FC mates look at you and makes them drool. | difficult gear/mats to obtain from even harder to find nm/area |
jakomyte | Chocobo Breeding.... make it attached to housing (chocobo stable?) and have it be time consuming and gil/labour intensive. Give you the ability to breed different variety/colours of chocobo, each with its own unique traits in battle and/or as a mount.
With this, expand the role of companions in battle... maybe add a companion-specific dungeon for 4 party members + 4 companions. Have areas on the world map that can only be accessed by specific chocobo mounts that must be bred.
So yeah, tl;dr, chocobo breeding attached to housing that is long/tedious/expensive but with payoffs both in terms of content and vanity. | Chocobo Breeding.... make it attached to housing (chocobo stable?) and have it be time consuming and gil/labour intensive. Give you the ability to breed different variety/colours of chocobo, each with its own unique traits in battle and/or as a mount.
With this, expand the role of companions in battle... maybe add a companion-specific dungeon for 4 party members + 4 companions. Have areas on the world map that can only be accessed by specific chocobo mounts that must be bred.
So yeah, tl;dr, chocobo breeding attached to housing that is long/tedious/expensive but with payoffs both in terms of content and vanity.
| ffxiv | t5_2rgs7 | cekmnu1 | Chocobo Breeding.... make it attached to housing (chocobo stable?) and have it be time consuming and gil/labour intensive. Give you the ability to breed different variety/colours of chocobo, each with its own unique traits in battle and/or as a mount.
With this, expand the role of companions in battle... maybe add a companion-specific dungeon for 4 party members + 4 companions. Have areas on the world map that can only be accessed by specific chocobo mounts that must be bred.
So yeah, | chocobo breeding attached to housing that is long/tedious/expensive but with payoffs both in terms of content and vanity. |
RelaxedChap | On a unfunny related note, a study done in 2011 by professors at the University of Colorado and the University of Montana found that traffic fatalities decreased by an average of 9% in states that allowed medical marijuana. [Abstract on page 3](
TL;DR: Where possible, some people substituted drinking and driving for smoking and driving. Stoners are safer drivers. | On a unfunny related note, a study done in 2011 by professors at the University of Colorado and the University of Montana found that traffic fatalities decreased by an average of 9% in states that allowed medical marijuana. [Abstract on page 3](
TL;DR: Where possible, some people substituted drinking and driving for smoking and driving. Stoners are safer drivers.
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cel0ti5 | On a unfunny related note, a study done in 2011 by professors at the University of Colorado and the University of Montana found that traffic fatalities decreased by an average of 9% in states that allowed medical marijuana. [Abstract on page 3]( | Where possible, some people substituted drinking and driving for smoking and driving. Stoners are safer drivers. |
Qwutie | This talk reminds me of a glass bottom boat story I heard from a teacher. What happens is there's a moment when we become entranced looking at all the sea life and wonder of the world below the boat...until suddenly someone drops something onto the glass and we snap back to reality. This talk was that thing dropping onto the glass. I like listening to TED talks, but I realize it's more for the entertainment and giddiness that comes from a novel idea.
tl;dr: don't drop shit on glass bottom boats, yo. | This talk reminds me of a glass bottom boat story I heard from a teacher. What happens is there's a moment when we become entranced looking at all the sea life and wonder of the world below the boat...until suddenly someone drops something onto the glass and we snap back to reality. This talk was that thing dropping onto the glass. I like listening to TED talks, but I realize it's more for the entertainment and giddiness that comes from a novel idea.
tl;dr: don't drop shit on glass bottom boats, yo.
| asmr | t5_2sbyc | cel6o1r | This talk reminds me of a glass bottom boat story I heard from a teacher. What happens is there's a moment when we become entranced looking at all the sea life and wonder of the world below the boat...until suddenly someone drops something onto the glass and we snap back to reality. This talk was that thing dropping onto the glass. I like listening to TED talks, but I realize it's more for the entertainment and giddiness that comes from a novel idea. | don't drop shit on glass bottom boats, yo. |
reigningmagnificent | I didn't go to Apex, but I did quite a few online classes when I was in high school (10+). I think the two biggest things that determine whether or not online classes will work for you are 1) how social you are and 2) how motivated you are. If you're really social, you're going to have to put more effort into seeing your friends because you won't be seeing them at school everyday. Then you have to consider if you're motivated enough for online school. Will you force yourself to spend time on your work everyday if you're home (assuming you'll be doing your online classes from home)? Can you get school work done with reddit a click away? Before switching to online school, talk to you school guidance counselor; find out if the online credits can transfer to your high school if you decide online school doesn't work out for you and you want to switch back; you might even want to find out if your school will let you do half-online, half at-school classes so you still can take electives like auto, wood, or welding or other classes not offered online.
In my case, I really liked online classes because I could get my work done faster than I did at school (I could get a week of work done in two days) but I also missed the social aspects of school and ended up doing half-online, half at-school, then switching back to being a full time student the next year (mostly full time, away; still took some online classes because I found them easier and they sometimes worked better with my schedule).
TL;DR: I love online classes, but it depends on the student. Also, talk to your school's guidance counselor. | I didn't go to Apex, but I did quite a few online classes when I was in high school (10+). I think the two biggest things that determine whether or not online classes will work for you are 1) how social you are and 2) how motivated you are. If you're really social, you're going to have to put more effort into seeing your friends because you won't be seeing them at school everyday. Then you have to consider if you're motivated enough for online school. Will you force yourself to spend time on your work everyday if you're home (assuming you'll be doing your online classes from home)? Can you get school work done with reddit a click away? Before switching to online school, talk to you school guidance counselor; find out if the online credits can transfer to your high school if you decide online school doesn't work out for you and you want to switch back; you might even want to find out if your school will let you do half-online, half at-school classes so you still can take electives like auto, wood, or welding or other classes not offered online.
In my case, I really liked online classes because I could get my work done faster than I did at school (I could get a week of work done in two days) but I also missed the social aspects of school and ended up doing half-online, half at-school, then switching back to being a full time student the next year (mostly full time, away; still took some online classes because I found them easier and they sometimes worked better with my schedule).
TL;DR: I love online classes, but it depends on the student. Also, talk to your school's guidance counselor.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cekzt14 | I didn't go to Apex, but I did quite a few online classes when I was in high school (10+). I think the two biggest things that determine whether or not online classes will work for you are 1) how social you are and 2) how motivated you are. If you're really social, you're going to have to put more effort into seeing your friends because you won't be seeing them at school everyday. Then you have to consider if you're motivated enough for online school. Will you force yourself to spend time on your work everyday if you're home (assuming you'll be doing your online classes from home)? Can you get school work done with reddit a click away? Before switching to online school, talk to you school guidance counselor; find out if the online credits can transfer to your high school if you decide online school doesn't work out for you and you want to switch back; you might even want to find out if your school will let you do half-online, half at-school classes so you still can take electives like auto, wood, or welding or other classes not offered online.
In my case, I really liked online classes because I could get my work done faster than I did at school (I could get a week of work done in two days) but I also missed the social aspects of school and ended up doing half-online, half at-school, then switching back to being a full time student the next year (mostly full time, away; still took some online classes because I found them easier and they sometimes worked better with my schedule). | I love online classes, but it depends on the student. Also, talk to your school's guidance counselor. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.