• 4 Posts
  • 1.54K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle


  • What’s hilarious to me is that you’d have to have a mod to make this work effectively in bg3. Or at least multiclass into monk, which makes little sense when you confused consider that fighters are kinda known for tactics like that, and there’s a lomg standing tradition of punching a motherfucker when a weapon attack fails, or even using a weapon attack to set up a punch (or kick) in many martial arts that have a weapon focus








  • Aight, you asked multiple questions, so you’re going to get some strange answers, possibly including this one.

    To your title question, the only time I’ve heard anyone say that, they were being a douche. My response online is mostly of the “down vote, report if appropriate, and move on” variety.

    In meat space, my response is usually either an eye roll and walking off, or a “fucking moron” and walking off.

    I have big dude privilege in meat space, and roll well armed, so have no need to pretend to be nice to douche nozzles spewing bullshit.

    The other questions are harder.

    1: for a given value of factual, sure, I guess. But it’s using imprecise language that’s been weaponized, so I would be dubious of someone stating it until there was more context. “Biological” isn’t as definitive and limited in usages as to be without question in that context.

    2: don’t matter. If a guy says he’s a guy, he’s a guy. If a gal says she’s a gal, she’s a gal. End of fucking story, and I will gladly tell anyone fucking with my trans homies that they’re a fucking moron and be willing to either walk off, or fuck them up if they insist. IDGAF about sometimes XY or XX status, or any of the other possible combinations (remember when I said “Biological” isn’t that useful or definitive? Yeah, biology ain’t a binary). I care about the person’s expressed self. It’s about basic human decency and respect.

    3: I wouldn’t respond logically. It doesn’t merit any effort on my part. I’m not in the business of convincing anyone that everyone has human rights, should have equal acces to all civil rights, or that someone else’s gender is none of their fucking business. It isn’t about logic. Anyone at this point trying to frame gender as some kind of science debate is a douche and can go fuck themselves. The debate at this point has nothing to do with “biology”. It’s about human rights. And yes, I will fight on that hill.

    4: it would only contradict if the person trying to bring “biology” into a conversation is being a douche instead of just missing the point. I don’t automatically assume a person trying to frame the subject in those terms is acting with malice. So they may not be contradicting the fact that trans women are women. They may just be exploring the language of transness in an attempt to better understand the matter. And that’s okay. It isn’t a built in part of language, so everyone has to absorb the concepts over time.

    Alas, assholes and morons use that language to denigrate trans people. So I also can’t assume someone isn’t doing so. I have to wait for context, or be proactive in stating that I ain’t putting up with bigotry, so if that’s where they’re going, it won’t end well.

    Me? The debate is over. What’s still in play is people finding their path to internalizing the subject. We don’t get to debate what is a fundamental human experience. Trans people exist. It isn’t imaginary on their part, it isn’t bad parenting, it isn’t trauma. They’re trans, and that’s it.



  • I mean, it is the alpha. D&d is the root of ttrpg. Didn’t have to be, there were other things that could have been. And it wasn’t the true first stage of that became ttrpg; it was built on other things.

    But you gotta be realistic and admit that d&d as a “thing” is the single best known, most successful system out there. It is what it is.





  • I don’t think there’s a single objective answer.

    The gist would be that it’s habitual due to long term cultural patterns, the same as what any given culture has in regards to food.

    At some point, the concept of big piles of food being the default crept in. I suspect that it originated between feast/celebration foods and the “working man’s meal” where early workers in agriculture and industry needed a shit ton of calories to keep doing their work. Once enough people see that kind of portions often enough, the mind decides that must be what everyone is supposed to get on their plate.

    Then, as things like machinery and eventually robots removed more and more of the physical labor from jobs, sizes never went back down because the outcome of eating beyond what you need isn’t immediate and obvious. So you follow the defaults, do what you have seen and internalized as the norm.

    But there are still plenty of jobs where loads of calories are necessary to get through a shift. So people still see that, and thus expect it on their plate even if it isn’t a healthy amount for the job they have.

    TV just follows society most of the time, so a show will most often mirror a norm without any effort to correct for what’s best for individuals.

    When it comes to restaurants, there’s an extra later though. Even if people know they don’t need that much, there’s an expectation that if you pay for a given order, you’ll get the same amount as anyone else that orders it. So restaurants have to scale to what at least a decent sized segment of the population expects to see. They won’t be happy if they get less return on their plate compared to another diner, despite that other diner being on a road crew busting their ass laying pavement in the sun all day and needing more.

    If a restaurant either changed sizes per customer needs, or charged an extra amount for people with higher needs, they’d go out of business fast


  • For humor, strokin’ by Clarence Carter. I’ve been known to say “ima put on some mood music”, then start that track and do a bump n grind to it. Surprisingly, it works often enough that I keep doing it.

    More seriously, I favor Barry White for background music for sex. The combination of solid rhythms and that sweet baritone get the job done when a partner doesn’t have their own preference, but wants music.

    That being said, Prince, during his symbol era, put out a song called 7. It’s not even a sexy song, per se. But the rolling rhythm and vaguely romantic lyrics work for me, and tend to work well for others, so it’s high on my list of songs for sex. As a single favorite, it takes the spot. https://youtu.be/9V-vcXOpG9g

    Depressing though? I am not depressed by music, even sad music. Sad music may make me somber, but not sad.

    However, if I need a good cry, the Dixie Chicks version of Travelin Soldier will do it damn near every time. Don’t even know why really, but I think it’s the voice tone and arrangement that push it into tear jerking rather than the lyrics, even though the lyrics are sad. That’s because there’s other versions, including by the original songwriter, that don’t make me cry at all. No other song comes close to the reliability of tears that one does.


  • Yeah, and Twiztid has a few decent tracks as well.

    Wouldn’t be able to name them without looking up though, not something I listen to a lot.

    One of the things about ICP is that I tend to appreciate parts of their lyrics, but the rest falls flat. I don’t dislike their music, it just doesn’t do it for me. It falls right under the threshold where I won’t change it if it’s playing and I can change it. I tend not to be able to listen long because I’d rather have something else, or even silence, rather than have them in the background for extended listening. But I can tolerate it for short and medium times.