Aww, haha.
I guess I can’t really help, but I appreciate you. :p

Also, I was looking at your comment history because I was curious what kind of person you were. That guy activating his yugioh trap card and calling you a pedophile because you flippantly said 12-years and not 19 or whatever he wanted is so fucking funny. It didn’t even make sense. That was like watching a bird glide into a glass window.

Why did you post this twice? It was just that good?

I’m sorry that your favourite comedian is unlikeable. Better luck next time.

He said that he was on team terf, like JK Rowling, because trans people were too annoying not to be.

Look, I get it, Dave Chappelle was cool circa 2000, but he’s fucking lame now. I’m not going to pretend that this cowardly, always pissing and moaning about cancel culture, has-been comedian is worth spending any of my time on. If he wanted to come back and be as well liked as he used to be, he should have been funny.

I feel like this punching model is like Newtonian physics. We do have relativity now, but you gotta take a higher-level class for that one.

I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching.

I… don’t even know what to say to this. I’m just gonna roll past this one.

the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious,

It isn’t. It’s not a fallacy. Nor is it wrong.

I’m not picking on you because you disagree with the core intent of the person you responded to, I’m picking on you because you’re doing—I hope unintentionally—the reverse-racism bit. You are placating people who are abusing our cultural sympathy for bigotries to avoid acknowledging something that makes them uncomfortable.

I promise you, there were a lot of white people in 1960s US that would whine about how all this discussion of segregated schools and drinking fountains was just to make white people feel bad. They still do it today! Ron Desantis in Florida, schools there are not allowed to keep books on slavery. Why? Because those books are “racist.” To whom? Allegedly, white people. Men, as a category, do the same thing about rape.

You cannot talk about slavery in the US without talking about white people. You cannot talk about white people without making generalizations. Racism works through generalizations. The same is true for men and sexism. You cannot talk about rape culture without talking about men. There is no logical contradiction here; they’re intrinsically linked to the subject.

the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves

Safeguard themselves from what? I’m issuing this as a challenge to you: what do they have to be afraid of? Like, in a sentence, how do you explain it?

should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony

I want to disagree with you because you’re doing nerd shit, which is, generally speaking, really unapproachable for people. But I don’t even know what framing you’re suggesting, so I’m willing to hear it.

I get the impression you benefit from extra clarity, so to that end: I know what patriarchal hegemony is, I don’t understand the framing. If your explanation amounts to replacing the word ‘men’ with ‘patriarchy’, I’m going to be a little bit upset.

(making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group)

Okay, I’ll try asking this again: What assumptions do you think black people make of white people when they code switch? Are these assumptions correct?

I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere with this person, so, onlookers:

You cannot use racism as a defense of your hurt feelings that women would choose the bear because your class is not being meaningfully harmed by what’s being said. You are not slaves. You are not being forced to build a railroad. No one is holding you in a camp. You are not being refused at the grocery store.

People who do not want to be lynched do in fact make generalizations about other groups (*ahem*, white people) as a means of keeping themselves safe. It is simple risk aversion. You have learned the wrong lessons about what racism is and why it’s bad.

Okay, one, I am a different person. Two, it’s not a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies have names.

I thought about asking if you knew what code switching was, and I really should have. You don’t seem to understand why I brought that up.

There are lots of black people in the US who will talk to white people in a different way than they will talk to their friends and family. It’s usually more polite, more cordial, more deferential, and much, much less “crass”.

Now, think about this for a second: why would a black person in the US want to be seen as polite in front of white people? What assumptions do you think they’re making?

I’m sure black and gay people love being wielded as a weapon to defend you from mild criticism that wasn’t even fired in your direction.

I think I’m pretty good at not being racist. Do you think I spend a lot of time being upset with black people for code switching around me?

Not to mention, the meaning to Celeste in question is nearly identical to both Getting Over It and Dark Souls. All of these games are about, mechanically, I’m not even talking about their narratives, overcoming something difficult. But, only one of them is the author unable to understand.

Since I’m here anyway, it really bothered me that the author claims that Space Invaders has meaning because it has highscores, but never explains what that meaning is. I know what it is, of course, but if I’m being real, I don’t think the author does. Look at this quote about Space Invaders:

Even if you’re just playing against yourself, there is a tension of getting farther, doing better, honing your craft and seeing it reflected in concrete terms.

How does this not apply to almost all video games? How does this not apply to Celeste?

This article is not about anything, it is a diary where the author is trying to figure out in real time when it was they lost the spark.

That part was fine, that’s not what I’m talking about; you’re just rejecting the other person’s claims.

It’s this part: “Polyamory can be difficult to do”, sure, but “polyamory is difficult to do ethically” is much harder to defend because it puts you in an anti-polyamory position. Now you’re talking about whether it’s morally justifiable instead of, simply, the reasons why it’s so uncommon.

If you look at IAmNorReal’s next reply, it reads as if they’re defending polyamory generally, and that’s because they are. There’s no reason to talk about how friendships can be complicated too unless they’re trying to defend the concept of polyamory in its entirety. In other words, the two of you end up walking away from the initial conversation and into an entirely different one.

Anyway, I’m sorry for interjecting. I promise I’m not trying to bully you or lecture. I gotta go make dinner.

Okay, this is just a rhetoric critique:

You gotta stop using the word ethically here. Whether something works out or not isn’t an ethics problem, and so is of course the very first thing IAmNorReal latches onto.

Just to be clear, I do agree with you. More people does get more complicated.

In this particular case, he has no audience except a banana and a time traveler, so you could also just ignore him. Nothing worse for him than a day of nothing happening.

Do you think the sat/blue sun/red thing comes from calendars? I don’t think about it often, but I do think there is a “redness” to sunday.

You know what fucks me up is that 21 has a “nine-ness” quality to it now that sometimes makes me mess up real math.

Not according to this guy.

Yeah, yeah. You too.

Hey! Stop unvegetarianing the beans! 😡

I don’t know what you mean by more descriptive. The only meanings here that are necessary are “by chance” and “unexpected”.

The word ‘uninentional’ would convey a similar meaning, it’d be fine, but there are situations out there where it doesn’t work.

“Their meeting was entirely unintentional.”

By whose intent? If we’re speaking from the perspective of fate, then this is actually a bad choice.

“Their meeting was entirely inadvertent.”

I’m… not sure what this would even mean. I would probably assume this came from a 17-year-old who got their hands on a thesaurus.

“Their meeting was entirely by chance.”

This obviously works. I think it lacks a bit of whimsy. Maybe it trades one whimsy for another. Accidental means “by chance,” though, you’d only be trading the word for its definition.

but sometimes it becomes ambiguous, as in this case (1-b is, too, applicable),

1-b is not applicable. The outcome of this accident is a fortunate one, so a misfortunate interpretation would be incorrect. I mean, this is why it feels odd to you, is it not?

I can only assume that what happened is you read the sentence and thought it would end “They accidentally shit their pants,” or something, and were surprised it didn’t. That didn’t happen to me. And even if it had, I could have recovered.

I’m also on your side regarding “literally” […] I don’t use it as an intensifier. It’s stupid.

Eh heh~ This is not the side that I’m on.

Knowing different sides of a word, or in this case adding new ones, allows you to affect your speech in different ways to say different things about yourself. If you’re being formal, then you wouldn’t use the intensifier variant of literally, or at least you would be more precise about it, but if you wanted to seem more street, or maybe youthful, then literally might be a great choice. Think about the power this gives you when writing dialogue for characters, or when speaking to certain demographics.

In my view, ‘literally’ getting another definition only increases the number of toys in my toybox.

I did say earlier that I defend slang.

I don’t know, is it?

Seriously, is it? Fear & Hunger is really scary.

What would swapping 1-a and 1-b’s places do? I’m not ignoring 1-b because it’s lower in rank or something. In the context of the given sentence, it just doesn’t apply.

I’ll share an anecdote, okay. This is an excerpt from Dickens’ Bleak House, the beginning of chapter 1:

Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill.

The word ‘wonderful’ there is not being used to mean ‘good’ or ‘exciting’, it’s leaning on an archaic definition that means ‘strange’. It might have positive connotations; I sort of feel like it does. It’s kind of hard to understand, though, unless you have that piece of information.

When I learned this information, let’s say about a month ago, my initial thoughts were “Oh wow. I didn’t know wonderful could mean that. That’s cool. I learned something.” And now, Bleak House, which is before my time, will be slightly less challenging to read. I’m sure I won’t, but it will be.

I’m not being nitpicky for no reason, I’m arguing in favor of literacy. Knowing that ‘accidental’ can be used in ways you don’t expect should be interesting, and not just flatly refused.

Further, I don’t see people who agree that the word is used incorrectly, I see people who are mildly confused by it. All of them understand what’s being said just fine. And all I’m saying is that they don’t need to be confused.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the word ‘literally’? About how it’s often used as an intensifier now and has lost some of its significance as an antonym to figurative. I’ll share my answer after yours.