erin

What an insane take on a sailing expansion for Mount and Blade, of all games. Yeah, the medieval field battle and fiefdom game was super incomplete without *checks notes* ship to ship combat??

Intelligence is an inherited trait?

The law might not be equal, but it’s equitable. Women need specific protections that statistically, men don’t need. And thank you for engaging as well.

As the other commenter said, only one person needs the dlc to play the (non-character) DLC content. It also frequently goes on pretty big sales, though right now it’s probably full price since the newest (and imo, best) DLC just dropped. Each DLC is a significant content expansion to the game, and is absolutely worth the asking price (except maybe seekers, which fell a bit flat for me on release. It’s since been rebalanced).

If you wanted to weigh which DLC to consider getting, I would recommend Void if you like the idea of modified items that do cool shit, an alternate ending to the game, and some cool new mechanics. It comes with a dope sniper survivor and a void survivor that trades health for damage or vice versa.

Seekers comes with an alternate path of stages leading to an alternate (very challenging) boss. I find that the seekers boss is a severe difficulty check compared to the ease of reaching the boss, compared to the void boss which you only fight late in a run or after a different boss. Two of the survivors feel lackluster to me, but False Son is an absolute beast and the only melee character capable of truly tanking rather than using i-frames or mobility.

Alloyed Collective is the newest, and comes tons of new mechanics (free for everyone but expanded on in the DLC), a new path to follow, SEVERAL new super interesting boss fights, tons of new stages, and tons of new enemies. Overall, super worth it. The characters it adds are a drone controller (a previously unviable play style) and a loot gremlin that gets tons of really awesome interactions and A Cube.

My list would be Alloyed, Void, then Seekers. Alloyed and Void add the most to the base game, Seekers is mostly alternate stuff that won’t touch your runs, though the new shrines are pretty useful early game.

My only complaint is that “femcel” has largely been reclaimed and repurposed from the incel movement to an ironic label mostly used by queer women.

It would be sexist if they made a law that unfairly benefits one gender. This law does not. If women were killing men at nearly as high of a rate, then there should be a law for them as well.

It is not unreasonable to talk about “sexism against men.” It is unreasonable to go “well what about men?” in a circumstance where men are not being negatively affected to the same degree. It’s like going “well, ALL lives matter” in response to BLM. White people aren’t statistically targeted by the US justice system, where black people are. “All lives matter,” or the sentiment behind it, might not be technically incorrect, but it’s distracting from the present and current problem, which is systemic racism in the justice system.

It’s the same thing here. There is societal mistreatment of women and misogyny baked into our social systems and upbringings. Women are killed at a FAR higher rate than men are killed by women, and especially related to intimate partners, harassers, stalkers, etc. There is a significant population of men that see sex as a right and women as a means to an end, and rejection, denial, or unavailability makes them dangerously obsessive and/or violent. Until we spend the time to undo that societal conditioning through effective education, laws like this prevent violent misogynists from hurting more women.

Men commit murder far more than women do, but men kill women for the above reasons at an even higher rate. If women perpetuated this kind of violence at significant rates, then there should be another law for that case. In fact, I don’t think this law goes far enough, and has awkward implications when applied to those that don’t conform to gender norms and/or are transgender, let alone men. I think this law could’ve been written in a gender non-specific manner, which would undeniably be better, but they chose the wording they did as a strong stance against a rash of sexually motivated violence against women right now. Similar to outdated rape laws in some places, we can only hope that more inclusive laws are put into place in the future. A law for the vast majority of victims of a type of crime is better than nothing.

I am not suggesting that education shouldn’t happen. It’s the far more effective long term solution, part of addressing the underlying causes of hate-motivated crimes. Hate crime laws do not do nearly enough. However, in the short term, getting those that commit hate (or gender) related crimes off the street for longer is going to save lives, and maybe convince some offenders to change their mind. I think you misunderstood my meaning. Hate crime laws of any kind do not prevent hate crimes.

They do absolutely reduce hate crimes, as those that commit hate crimes are likely to reoffend. The benefits in proactive reduction are hard to prove and collect data on, as are all crime statistics, where there are simply too many variables to account for. However, reoffender rates are easily documented, and a law that takes those likely to reoffend off the street for longer than linked non-hate crimes would is absolutely reducing those types of crimes.

It’s not a redundant law any more than hate crime laws are redundant. You aren’t understanding the premise. It’s not a new crime entirely, it’s like hate crime charges. They can make sentences more severe or reduce the possibility of early release, among other reasons. By the same argument you’re making, hate crime enhancements for violent crime are unnecessary and performative, because those crimes were already illegal.

Hate crime enhancements do work. Why wouldn’t this? In any case, it’s a clear statement being made by society at large that that behavior is unacceptable.

It isn’t sexism in law. Laws are written in blood. If women are frequently being killed because they refused sex or a relationship, then a law should exist as a deterrent. It isn’t just “killing a woman because they hate women,” it’s specifically in cases where women are stalked, harassed, or pursued non-consensually for sex or a relationship. If women were targeting men in the same way, a law should exist in that case as well. That isn’t the case, though. Women are VASTLY disproportionately killed by men for reasons pertaining to sex and relationships compared to the other way around.

Italy sees a problem: women are being frequently killed by intimate partners, stalkers, and harassers specifically because of their gender. They made a law to deter that. If the opposite problem presents itself they should do the same.

Some may. Others make art. Generalizing artists as a monolith is irresponsible.

I’m pretty certain that comic is edited and that isn’t what she said. She didn’t make it a fetish thing, and bringing up her leaked nudes for no reason is super weird.

Yeah if I pronounced this phonetically, it wouldn’t be a NY accent at all

Chiming in as another poly person, having been poly and monogamous in different parts of my life (currently poly). A lot of people that want to be in a poly situation do not fully comprehend the responsibility involved. It can be easy and casual, but I’ve seen multiple polycules fall apart (dramatically) due to insufficient communication and poor management of expectations. It’s totally possible to be poly, and in a serious, committed relationship. I was. It’s also very very difficult. It takes a lot of work, communication, and trust.

Like you said, I’ve been in relationships with people that truly believe they have infinite love to give, which even if that were true, no one has infinite time and emotional bandwidth. I’ve had a longstanding rule that I’ve set for myself, that any committed relationship I am in must have a rock solid foundation of communication and trust before polyamory is possible, and I always close off my poly relationships until I am at that point in a relationship (obviously assuming my partner is okay with that). People need to communicate their desires going in, and should regularly check in and discuss boundaries, expectations, and hopes for the future in any relationship, and much more so in poly ones.

Fucking talk to each other, people. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and extend the same level of honesty and trust that you wish to receive. If I and my past partners always approached relationships with a communication-first perspective, we would’ve avoided a lot of pain and heartbreak.

It’s a culture thing. A majority queer group hanging out vs a majority non-queer group is a totally different vibe, to the point that like the original post, it feels weird to me to hang out with a bunch of straight people, as the slang, mannerisms, and social code are just totally different. As the other commenter said, neurodivergent people are also more likely to question other aspects of their identity, so there is a lot of overlap between the two groups as well.

Could not disagree more. Nudes don’t have to be “jerk of material.” That’s not why my partners and I send them to each other. They’re more for mutual appreciation. We like looking at each other’s bodies because we’re attracted to each other, not because we’re expecting to rub one out. Also, sounds like you/the people you share nudes with need to take better nudes lol. We take excellent photos with excellent lighting (when the mood strikes us). Taking a “photo of your gooch” from the same angle is the woman equivalent of the right side of the meme. We all should know better.

Pose, angle, and lighting, people!

Good skincare and a tinted moisturizer would go a long way. All the hottest guys I know wear “makeup.” Don’t get hung up on a label.

That would be groupies. Groypers are people that feel up others without consent.

I would love to hear the argument for banning pitbulls despite being less risky than other commonly accepted risks.

What’s the margin? Where do we draw the line between breeds that are okay to allow to reproduce and which aren’t? Pitbulls are statistically very safe, as all dogs are, when treated and trained well. If we banned everything with similar levels of risk of injury or death as pitbulls, we’d have to ban a LOT. Let’s start with guns, cars, and hell, why not smoking and drinking for legal guardians of children, too. In-ground swimming pools can go, and let’s revamp electrical outlets.

Obviously, it’s a sliding scale of propensity, probability, and likelihood, as you said, but pitbulls are much lower on that scale. Just as with everything else on that list, the risk of harm to others, especially children, falls on the responsibility of the owner. This isn’t to say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” as obviously guns enable easily killing many people quickly, but rather to contrast the realistic risk to family and community. Pitbulls have been excessively demonized for their relative risk. I can’t take anyone calling for pitbull bans seriously unless they believe in authoritatively banning all the other aspects of our lives that pose similar levels of risk to ourselves and others.

My aunt has lived with two pitbulls for almost a decade now. Raised two small children in the same home. Nothing but sweethearts. Dogs are individuals, just like people. Just like having another person around your baby, you need to be responsible with any dog breed.