People joke that anything with animal characteristics is furry, but they’re not.

It’s not a joke, that’s just a definitional thing. In English, if it’s ambiguous enough to argue about it, it’s automatically furry.

In the english-speaking world, all of those categories are subcategories of “furry.”

And how is the joker on another level? He beats Robin up with a crowbar, so the martial arts cant be doing that well.

Joker is a better martial artist, therefore martial arts are worthless and also Joker can’t be unusual? what?

Keep in mind it’s capeshit, martial arts are super powers and the Robins get trained well. They’re more than capable of going toe to toe with most of what Batman deals with, Joker’s just on another level.

Also worth noting that “I should’ve had a gun” is certainly a lesson he took to heart when he was resurrected lmao

TES6 is doomed lmao

If they can look back at Starfield and think anything but “holy fuck we need to change up the way we run things around here immediately” then they’re already a walking corpse, this shit is gonna SUCK

I thought the distinction is that being bisexual involves attraction to the physicality of more than one specific gender, but that pan involves attraction to people primarily based on things about them other than their physicality

I don’t think so. I think that last part is usually called demisexual. The only distinction between bi and pan I’ve ever seen articulated is that pan explicitly includes all genders, while bi only implicitly includes all genders because you could imagine some bi chud being like “bi means 2 I’m only attracted to men and women get that woke agenda out of here” but I’ve never actually met such a person so

@Oreb@hexbear.net @Doubledee@hexbear.net @PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net I’ve been a bit busier than expected the last few days, I’ve poked around in the save file a bit but I haven’t done anything really yet except expel every single entertainer who dared to be unhappy. Are you guys cool if I update a couple days late or would you rather skip?

That might be a funny example because I’m pretty sure Ireland is one of those countries where if you can prove it they actually would give you citizenship for that

The thing is, though, this isn’t really like if Ireland gave you citizenship for an extremely distant familial tie. This is like if you claimed that distant familial tie gave you the right to invade Ireland, oust its government, install your own government, and establish an ethnostate for people like you in Ireland.

As a bi/pan person myself I’ve always seen them as meaning the same thing, the difference is maybe in connotation.

but then you have to get an alligator to deal with the cat, and you don’t even wanna know where it spirals after that

rights for people who werent rich white slave owning men, which was terrifying of course

tunnel snakes rule

Do what’s best for you, comrade, you’re not gonna do the revolution by yourself

This totally has worked on me before

I don’t care if it’s some shit I’m not that interested in, hearing people talk about what they’re passionate about is so sick

Common misconception. There are actually more people in the US but the ones in Luxembourg are bigger so it looks like there’s more of them. They’re like 12 feet tall over there.

Bottles is very hit or miss for me, extremely jank. When it works it’s awesome though.

Wine usually just works in my experience.

But I don’t use most of the common problem programs, like adobe products or whatever. It may be better to ask specifically about what programs you’re concerned about compatibility with.

Ok, but what does this have to do with the core theme of the fleeting beauty of impermanent life?

I don’t think every single scene in every show has to be a rehash of its core theme. Do you? Regardless, I’ll touch on this a little bit further down.

hy introduce a Talking Points USA counterpoint that empathy is a weakness, that we have to be selective in our empathy and only empathize with the right people?

I pretty clearly said I don’t think the author was trying to make any point like this at all. But on thinking on it more, I can answer this on its own terms, see below.

Ok, but why does it have to be a little girl demon specifically tho. Why can’t the challenge be a dragon or a magic plant.

I also pretty clearly addressed this. Neither of us needs to be told why a dragon or a giant maneating magic plant is a bad thing that you should kill. It’s not a challenge to us, to our feelings, to come to the conclusion that those things should be fought. There is an artistic difference between the choice to portray an antagonist no one will empathize with and an antagonist which most of us will empathize with on some level, especially when that is exactly the challenge the characters in the story are grappling with.

Why is Frieren killing a little girl demon framed as heroic?

There are a couple of reasons in my opinion. First of all, Frieren is exercising a lesson she learned from the person closest to her so long ago. Her determination to destroy demons wherever they are found is part of her connection to Flamme. On some level, she holds on tight to what she was taught by Flamme, because she loves Flamme and misses her and wouldn’t want to question whatever wisdom she taught her. On another level, part of her sense of self-worth is her effectiveness at fighting demons. She’s been training 24/7 for centuries for the sole purpose of making herself as effective as possible at killing demons. She has to see the extermination of demons as righteous and heroic, or she’s wasted a very long time even in elf time.

Another aspect is that Frieren is herself a victim of genocide. I don’t think the demons are especially effective parallels for fascists in most regards, but they certainly have elements of fascists that I think are intended. I think that the fact that Frieren, whose species was nearly successfully exterminated by demons (perhaps even successfully–since the population is likely never to stabilize) is one of the world’s staunchest and most powerful opponents of demons is intended as an anti-fascist allegory. She is heroic because she won’t allow fascism to take root under her nose. When she sees them, she gets rid of them. Because she has seen first hand the genocide they will commit unchecked. Is it not true that fascists ooze their way in under false pretenses and innocuous guises? Haven’t we all seen the baby-talking fascists spreading their fucking frog cartoons? There is an argument to be made that the “little girl” was precisely this disingenuous childish ruse fascists pull to covertly spread their agenda.

Sub-$100k amounts of money, wouldn’t push most of us to retirement here in

but yes it’s an absurdly expensive piece of cardboard. and the funniest part is that a whole lot of them have been legit destroyed like this and worse. back in the day people would just play with these cards unsleeved on concrete sidewalks and whatever the fuck, carry them to school rubber banded together, etc. a lot of them are in hilariously rough shape.

because they used to be fucking cardboard game pieces not goddamn PSEUDO-STOCKS YOU FUCKING DORKS

Very specific forms of Buu

Old Broly?

Pilaf back in the day???

Idk honestly no one really maps very well

Why is framing the antagonists in this way necessary?
What themes or aspects of the story does this explore, that is integral to the core theme of exploring the beauty of the fleeting nature of life?

I went into this a bit elsewhere in the thread, but I think the point is that this is a setting where the innate human desire to empathize, to form bonds with others, can be a weakness. I don’t think it’s trying to make a philosophical point about that though, it’s not saying that we should all be cold hardened killers who don’t trust. It’s just exploring what that would be like, the challenge and the conflict which emerge from humanity being part of a food chain which contains creatures that hunt us using our empathy as a weakness. The same way any of the antagonists challenge the protagonists. It’s an interesting issue for the characters to have to overcome.

What does the story gain from including a scene where our heroic protagonist implores her party to… kill a little girl demon? And then why does the story go out of its way to justify the protagonist’s point of view as ultimately the only correct one?

I think it’s there just to enhance the immersion in the challenge the characters are facing. When you or I look at that particular monster, we feel the same empathy all of the ignorant people in the story feel. You and I would definitely be killed, successfully hunted, by these demons if we existed in that world. That’s why they’re a dangerous challenge for the protagonists to face, that’s why they’re scary and believable as a problem. The world in which the story takes place is exceedingly dangerous and, even though the protagonists are practically gods, there are plenty of things which could conceivably kill them, and you and I can fully understand exactly why it would work because it would work on us. Is there no value in crafting a believably dangerous monster?

In all your other examples, the monsters are unthinking magical beasts,

As far as we’re told in the story, there is no difference between the chest mimics, and the random wolves, and the dragons, and the demons. They are all equally thinking or unthinking as you prefer to interpret their behavior. They are all merciless hunters who will kill you if you don’t kill them first. The difference is in their appearance and in their strategy, not in their internal experience.

If they’re just monsters, why does the author have to go out of their way to present them as civilized sentient beings? Can’t they just be monsters?

I would argue the author goes extremely far out of their way to prove them not to be civilized beings. They are just monsters. They just want to eat you. They literally do not know the meanings of the words they say, or have any concept of the empathy which those words exploit. They are no more civilized or more sentient than the mimics or the ghost-mimics or the wolves or the giant plant. They just evolved into the niche of looking like they are, because that makes people easier to hunt.

Comrade, do you not see the similarities with what you wrote here to what Israeli’s say about Palestinians?

We’ve all heard fascists compare various groups of people to animals. Is it therefore unacceptable to compare horses to donkeys? If I say horses are very much like donkeys, it’s equivalent to fascists saying certain groups of humans are like donkeys? I just don’t see it. Fascists say all kinds of shit that isn’t true. That doesn’t make it untrue when you say things that sound superficially similar but are fundamentally different because they regard completely different subjects. I don’t see how this logic can’t be used to negate all comparisons between any two things anywhere. The US can’t be like the Nazis, because that sounds awfully similar to how fascists say the USSR was like the Nazis. Is that not logically the same argument you’re making here? If not, what is the difference? Israelis can say shit about Palestinians that isn’t true and that same thing could be true if they were saying it of a different subject. If an Israeli said Palestinians are purple or green fruits often used to make wine, it wouldn’t suddenly be wrong to say that grapes are purple or green fruits often used to make wine. They’re different things. Palestinians aren’t demons, they aren’t a magical fantasy race that evolved to eat humans. Demons in Frieren are a magical fantasy race that evolved to eat humans. They’re not Palestinians. Where is the connection?