u/Few-Advantage2538

Basically, some people talk about it as if it's merely a choice. If people just said "git gud/skill issue" it would be rude, but at least somehow honest.

However, some people act as if it's just about respecting women, not having crazy high standards and touching grass. Well, a lot of guys respect women, do not have crazy high standards, touch grass but are still lonely. It's not really as simple as some people make it out to be for everyone. A lot of this type of discourse and proposed "solutions" sounds too similar to "why are you poor? just get a better job".

I legit have no idea about what is the solution, if there even exists a solution in the first place, but I think being this type of talk only makes things worse.

Also to make it clear, it should be a given and basic fact that no one is entitled to companionship. But this doesn't really change or affect anything I said.

Just an opinion I have. I'm not gonna use these terms, and I totally understand how some people might find them offensive. However, I do find them to sound much cooler.

One can say that's some form of saudosim for an idealisation of a past that barely existed. Maybe it's just contrarianism. But I do find the old names cooler.

I know art is subjective and people can like or dislike something, find it relatable or not. However saying a show aged badly because a plot wouldnt happen with cellphones is nonsensical to me. Its like saying that, I dont know, the odyssey aged bad because Odysseus nowadays would be able to just take a plane and go home.

I don't care here whether you like or dislike diversity, that's not the focus on this thread so please don't derail with comments on whether you think it's a good thing or not. My point is about factual, that nowadays is a bit of a brain dead cliche to lump Friends and Seinfeld together as "the New York show where everyone is white", and that's just not true?

I'm not saying Seinfeld had a super diverse set of characters, but in comparison with Friends, they kind of did? You had Jack Chilles, Babu, Sugar Ray Leonard, Winona, Cheryl, the gay Puerto Rico thugs, Gladys Mayo, and others. It just feel like they are not really the same in this aspect, but people group them together either because they just didn't watch much or just because people keep regurgitating stuff. And I'm not even talking about LGBT stuff, in which Seinfeld is more progressive also

I don't care here whether you like or dislike diversity, that's not the focus on this thread so please don't derail with comments on whether you think it's a good thing or not. My point is about factual, that nowadays is a bit of a brain dead cliche to lump Friends and Seinfeld together as "the New York show where everyone is white", and that's just not true?

I'm not saying Seinfeld had a super diverse set of characters, but in comparison with Friends, they kind of did? You had Jack Chilles, Babu, Sugar Ray Leonard, Winona, Cheryl, the gay Puerto Rico thugs, Gladys Mayo, and others. It just feel like they are not really the same in this aspect, but people group them together either because they just didn't watch much or just because people keep regurgitating stuff. And I'm not even talking about LGBT stuff, in which Seinfeld is more progressive also

Maybe I'm wrong and seeing stuff where there isn't, but their names appear so British to me. Ratliff, Timothy, Victoria, Piper, Lochlan and specially Saxon (is that even a common name? I've never seen it before, but I guess you don't get more British than that). Also, I know Jason Isaacs is British, so I guess it could be just an internal joke with him, but I don't know, is there something I might be missing?

edit: I don't mean that they are actually common names in Britain, but they all imply a British connection, even if it's just Yankees trying to artificially be more British you know? Kind of like the transatlantic accent, it's not British, it's not an organic accent, just Yankees trying to be more Posh by being more British in a way

Bert and Dominic for example, if they had an open relationship, I think things could work pretty well, they werent horrible people, just horny.

Cameron would still be kind of a jerk even if it was a mutually agreed open relationship, which in a way, it was, but I think it would be better.

Ethan and Harper would probably be happier with some no attachment sex on the side also.

The rest, well, not much to be done perhaps.

edit: honest question, why the downvotes? what did I say that was so problematic?

Stuff like "I hate when people say I didn't understood what they said, when I was just arguing against their point", but like, very often people really argue against a point without understanding, so we the readers, just end up wondering "hmmm, I wonder if that guy did misunderstood something indeed". And then a bunch of comments end up being like "well, maybe you misunderstood something indeed" or "yeah, that's so annoying", but we can't really know. I think in these cases, people should mention more specific examples

The 4 who went to Azkaban are the most loyal and biggest fans (aka total lunatics) for sure, and Snape and Karkaroff are obviously at the bottom. From the the rest, I feel like there are many degrees.

People like Lucius, Mulciber, Yaxley, Avery, the Carrows, I feel like some of them were really done with Voldemort after he died, some were sad he died but didnt see much sense in looking for him, and some barely cared.

From the little we know, Id rank them like this, from most devoted to leasg devoted

The 4 of Azkaban

-these seem the mkst loyal outside of the Azkaban 4

Rosier

Carrows

Dolohov

Gibbon

Yaxley

- I barely know anything about them, so I just grouped them based on vibes

Mulciber

Avery

Nott

Selwyn

Rowley

Travers

- I feel like these were not very loyal

Malfoy

Crab and Goyle

Jugson

- I dont trust spies and double agents in HP that much

Rookwood

- He didnt seem to care much

Macnair

- Clearly not loyal

Pettigrew

Karkaroff

Regulus Black

Snape

Ive spoken with quite a few Russians and they always tell me that whether youre from Moscow or Vladvostok, most people barely have any accent. Unless you are from Dagestan or something, its pretty hard to notice any difference. Why is that so?

British English (and before someone is pedantic I mean the typical RP London accent), is overall seem as classier and many people prefer it. In the US there was a period that rich people even invented an artificial accent that sounded a bit more British, the famous Transatlantic accent that you can see in old movies.

French Ive always hear people making fun of the Quebecoi accent and saying some pretty negative things about it

Spanish although people dont trash the Latij American accents, people still often view the European one, specially Castilla as more sophisticated.

But with Portuguese, thats not the case at all. Ive never seen the European version being described as classier or people liking it more.

I think the book presents it as them being crazy and unfair to Harry, but I really think they had valid reasons and I strongly believe that Harry would probably behave similarly or even worse than them.

Basically they hear the guy speaking to Snakes, they know he hates the muggles who raised him, and everyone attacked by that point had some drama with Harry.

Okay, but then, Harry hears them thinking hes the heir of Slythering on the look for Justin Fletchey. What does he do? Barks in angry demanding them to tell where to find Justin. What the hell did he expect then to do? I have no doubt that Harry in their position would also try to not reveal where a friend is. I meam, he drugged and impersonated people based purely on suspicion, all they did was talk about and try to protect a friend.

And to their credit, after Hermione was attacked, they realise they were wrong and apologise to them.

Okay, this one is a bit convoluted, so Ill have to give multiple examples, Im sure some will be obvious and agreeable to most people, but others might not be.

1. Words with multiple meanings

"America is a country, not a continent/Yankee is only someone from the North/New England"

America can refer to the continent or to the country. Yankee can refer to someone from the region, to a baseball team or someone from the US as a whole. Both are words with multiple meanings, and both usage cases are valid. We can have our preferences of course, and I guess sometimes we might have to clarify and try to use the most appropriate vocabulary for a given situation, but none is really wrong per se.

2. Theories that explain a few things but still have holes in other areas being called wrong.

I remember sometimes seeing overtly enthusiastic people saying "Newtonian physics is wrong". But its not. Newtonian physics has the goal of explaining certain phenomena, and it explains them perfectly well. Other phenomena are not explained by it, but this doesnt make Newtonian physics wrong, just a bit restricted and not as precise. If we were coherently talking like that, everything would be "wrong".

3. Different classification systems

"A tomato is a fruit man, dont be ignorant"

There aee different classifications that use the term tomato. In the casual, culinary sense, a tomato is not a fruit. In the botanical classification, a tomato is a fruit, just like nuts and corn kernels. Its not wrong to say a tomato or a nut are not a fruits. They are just different classifications, and unless youre really obtuse, you should understand that well.

"You saying Poland/Czechia are in Eastern Europe shows your ignorance and bigotry"

Saw a lot of that sadly. There are many different geopolitical and geographical classifications. In some definitions, Czechia and Poland are part of Eastern Europe, in others, they are part of another entity called Central Europe. None is wrong or right, they are just different classifications.

Sorry for the long ramble, but I just had that in mind ans wanted to complain a bit. Im sure there are multiple other examples

This is a thing that I notice more from people from the US, and some parte of Northern Europe, that there are a few words that they consider to be inherently evil regardless of context. Now, I understand that some words are used a lot to offended and should be avoided. However, when I cannot say them even to say they are bad, I think weve got to bizarre problematic levels. For example, let's say tomato was one of those words. People don't even feel comfortable saying "tomato is an offensive word, you should not use it", they have to say "the T word is a bad word that should not be said in any context". Sometimes it's even detrimental to communication, I once saw someone talking about the g-slur and I had no idea what the hell they were talking about.

For real, I find this beyond stupid. Words don't exist by themselves, they exist in a context. For me it's such a puritan thing, don't say the name of the devia or he'll appear. Harry Potter Voldemort that who shall not be named kind of stuff. It's a social convention that I find really nonsensical.

I see a lot of people complain about stuff like unalive or grape, and I think most agree that it's a stupid thing. But I don't get why some words being such inherent taboos, even if I'm just reporting about their existence, or maybe reporting that someone said that, is such a default and well accepted view.