erin

joined 1 month ago
[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (7 children)

What on earth are you on about? I have no interest in being your friend or influencing you. I'm having a good time making fun of a troll acting ridiculous.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 days ago (9 children)

You seem like an insane person. Imagine a hypothetical community that has a bunch of positive and uplifting content, but about 10% of posts are just making fun of trans people, or immigrants, or supporting Nazis, or what have you. Someone calls the community moderator on that content, and they go, "Read again. Slowly. Look at all these positive posts you're IGNORING."

Do you not understand how online communication works? This person was not referring to those other posts, so you bringing them up and acting all self-righteous about it just seems kinda silly and ridiculous. It's like pure rage bait behavior, but it seems like you actually believe it. They don't have any issue with those posts, didn't bring them up, and they don't excuse the harmful content you're hosting. I don't understand why you think the existence of positive posts makes the negative ones okay, or why you have a bizarre expectation that they have to weigh in the non-hateful content when judging the hateful.

"This user just posted Nazi apologia, but they have a different post supporting gay marriage so it must be okay!" This is what you sound like.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Try using a bigger screen, or moving your screen further from your face. When moving your focus off the dot, move it to the closest part of the image and then move from there. It can help to align a feature in your periphery before moving to it.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago

That wouldn't be crossing. Crossing is when you focus your eyes in front of the image. Wall-eyed is where you unfocus your eyes behind the image. Trying to look at your nose is crossing. The way you look at most magic eye images is wall-eyed.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't think so. When I cross my eyes, it looks correct. Wall-eyed viewing makes it look like a hole. Crossing your eyes makes them go inward. Wall-eyed makes them go parallel. They're created specifically for crossing eyes.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Oh, I wasn't complaining about any of those things. I think they're awesome. X-Wings and TIE fighters are definitely not using their S-foils for reentry gliding though. I'm a huge Star Wars fan. I think it requires a level of suspension of belief to engage in the storytelling, because it's not supposed to be at all realistic. There is also plenty of Star Wars media that is definitely not for kids or fits closer into sci-fi, but even Andor, the most sci-fi of the Star Wars media I've watched, was definitely still leaning on its fantasy roots.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago

I don't think a defense of the most-hated parts of the prequels is a great argument. This comes across as George Lucas misreading his audience and trying to defend a product that missed the mark for most of his serious fans.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 31 points 3 days ago (6 children)

SW is for children is not a great take. It's just not sci-fi, and shouldn't be judged as such. It's a space fantasy, and it leans into the camp and the suspension of disbelief. They use wings and aerodynamics in space. Destroyed ships "sink." The good guys never get hit and the bad guys die in one shot. Now, the new movies were absolutely disappointing, but Star Wars was never sci-fi, at least not in the ways this discussion is defining the genre.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It doesn't sound like this is a relationship that makes you happy, and you've just entered into an adult world of options and exploration. Personally, I wouldn't waste time. How likely do you see this being long term and happy?

Additionally, while 18-24 isn't necessarily a "problematic" age gap, you are in different parts of your life entirely. The amount your personality, interests, goals, social network, etc change between 18 and 24 is huge. If I had a friend that was dating an 18 year old at 24, I'd be very confused and a little concerned. When I was 18, I was still figuring out who I was, worrying about paying for college, trying and failing at relationships until I had made the mistakes and learned the lessons I needed to. When I turned 24, I was engaged, friends of mine were all graduated, some with kids, some married, and we were all well into a developing adult life. You should really take advantage of the time you have. I wouldn't waste it on someone that isn't willing to do the legwork to take care of themselves, much less you. You aren't responsible for their depression, much less so at the cost of important years of your young adulthood.

Edit: I just saw your update, I'm glad you're taking care of yourself

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

I use the lowest setting on every machine gun, intentionally. It conserves the most ammo and allows me to use the HMG almost like a DMR that has a ton of ammo. I'm tap firing, only hitting headshots, and clearing hordes way faster than just spraying and sending 50% of shots into the dirt. The only time I switch to high firerate is to delete heavies, which have much larger hitboxes.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago

It was a hypothetical. Pretending those two statements are the same is willful ignorance. You're continuing to pearl-clutch over a statement that doesn't mean what you're claiming it does. You're putting words and intent I people's mouths and then making moral judgements based off your misinformation. You're making ad hominem attacks against a hypothetical. How are you still trying to justify an untenable position?

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You continue to change the narrative. The did not say "Death to every [blank]." You said that. They said "death to the IDF." If I say "death to capitalism," I'm not saying "kill all capitalists." They're calling for the downfall of an evil organization. You are choosing to misunderstand them and put words in their mouth. You keep walking back your initial exaggeration. They clearly do not mean kill all Israeli adults. This is the same willful misinterpretation that the rest of the neoliberal media does.

view more: ‹ prev next ›