u/StrikingMousse8279

I'm just on my first rewatch and it's making me really appreciate it. Don't get me wrong. I loved the show now just as much (and more) as I loved it on my first watch. But I was younger at the time, so I was more so watching for the hype moments and fighting.

Now on my rewtach, with a much mature outlook and I'm noticing their attention to detail, world building from their economics, poltics, history down to their fictional science.

I realized this appreciation especially at the episode when Falco and Gabi are taken in by Sasha's family, and one of them make a comment about her father's accent resembling a southern Marleyan's. And the explanation I found was that they were something of a remote community that were so secluded that they retained the accent.

It's honestly rare to find this much dedication and attention to detail in something as miniscule as the accent of a supporting character's parents. My favourite aspect of a piece of media is usually their fictional history. How much and how deep they can contextualize their world and still keep the disclosed history relevant to the present plot and AOT does that perfectly.

So there's this new argument front (maybe not new but it's picking up traction. Mostly on tiktok at least). Christians are saying "Why don't you pick on other gods?"

What grinds my gears is how obtuse/purposefully ignorant they're being (nothing new I guess). You think we don't criticise those deities because YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. You claim Jesus is the one true living god and so we will approach the conversation with that premise.

And I'm not one to believe that religious people are dumb or anything. They are entirely capable of being able to logically reason and engage in dedate. Which is why it's so fucking annoying when they bring this up like they don't understand the concept of isolated dedates.

I mean I guess it's bad faith debating, but it's just refreshing when you argue w/ someone that actually knows how to and will fairly acknowledge the logical prefaces despite their bias. I know it's nothing new I just needed to vent after engaging in a gruelingly stagnant argument stuck at this point.

Particularly the strict ones. I've been in some reddit subs where I'd have to retype the post 5+ fucking times just to get it past mod bots... most of which I just give up on. Sure I completely understand the reasons for them like avoiding trolling, low effort etc. But sometimes it just makes it harder to engage in any conversation w/o being flagged by a bot for merely using the word 'debate' or something.

Another thing that honestly does not make sense to me is the subs that have a specific flair for a kind of topic (especially questions), then the bot takes the post down and points you to a fuckass megathread that would give your comment a 0.00001% chance of even being seen so much for answered, because I guarantee you the average person is not typically scrolling the comments to answer each and every question they can answer in a given time. Isn't the whole point of posts for visibility (by recency). Your post would assuringly notify at least one person from the sub and they see it and read the title. Like if the question is that specific to source public opinion (because usually, that's the essence of reddit question, or at least the way I use it); you'd have lost interest in whatever you were asking about long before someone sees the question.

Let me start off by saying I'm not officially diagnosed yet, though I highly suspect. So I'll consider myself a shy introvert that has a considerable amount of experiences with anxiety. I just need to vent and maybe some tips would be nice.

The more independent I have to be the more apparent it is how deeply my anxiety is eating away at my very being and it's so frustrating. In retrospect the 'long time friends' I have now are just people I was inevitably forced to engage with given the circumstances of not having much liberty as a child (cramped up in the same classrooms and your only other friends typically being kids of your parent's friends). Bottom line is I've never really approached anybody to be friends as far as I can remember, I just always happened to conveniently have something to talk about (not with the aim of socialisation) then we talk enough times to establish a regular raport. And that's how I've regrettably navigated my social life from friendships to dating (which as you can imagine, already limited experiences as it is)

Now I'm in university. And while I still have a few people I talk to, I would not concider any of them close enough for my liking as they most certainly have one or more people that they'd prioritise their company over mine anytime. Anxiety is such cuck cause some nights I just think about moments where I really wanted to talk to someone I liked (be it for a friendship or romantic interest) and I'd never muster the courage to do so and so I look like a cuck waiting on the lucky coincidence that we had a group work, or they had notes I needed or something like that.

Don't get me started on lack of eye contact. For example, I vividly remember myself more or less socialising in a group and the conversation naturally veered towards books as a result of the group noticing the book I was holding at the time. Sure I said a few words, but just the idea of being observed especially when one of the people in the group being of interest to me, I couldn't offer anything more than 'Yeah I'm still reading this one'. Thinking back I can count more than ten times, my eyes constantly meeting their gaze on me as I spoke and immediately shifting away because I couldn't manage more than a five fucking second eye contact without getting anxious. (I love books and could discuss my affinity for the author extensively, but I didn't. If that wasn't an opportunity of a life time to spark up conversation with someone you're interested in for a shy introvert, idk what is.) I'm not saying it would've been some sort of meet cute by any means, but maybe I could have uttered anything of a word to that person's face to at least harbour a friendship. And ofcourse now I feel shitty because I can totally see how that may have come off as rude towards them (as it's more apparent to me that my glance aways and almost exclsuively not looking at them, were not as inconspicuous as I thought). Sometimes I just wish it was easy for me to say something along the lines of "I'm sorry if I come off as rude it's just my anxiety. I actually like you."

On another spectrum is always feeling like you don't even have the right to be in a presence. I could be talking to a someone I know and then someone I don't comes along and it's crickets from me. Don't get me wrong, I can keep a conversation going... when I am explicitly talked to. Otherwise, if they're just throwing a question in the air, to me it's like they're talking to the person they know and not this random. After the day ends, I'm in my bed at night replaying interactions in my head questioning why this person talked to me two sentences less than they talked to the other person... was I too open, was I too quiet, was I out of place. You know the gist.

TLDR; It's tiring being the loudest critique in your own mind. Feeling like an imposter in any situation. Can't even maintain eye contact without feeling this overwhelming dread of 'doing too much'.

The statement at first, usually comes from religious people defending their religion. But somewhere along the lines non-religious people started using it sometimes too. I get it's often in response to bigotry from a religion to another (like islamophobia). But overall it's just a generally false statement.

It's the religion. Always has been, always will be. I believed religion started as something genuine till it was perverted by man... Idk if I still think that, but for the Abrahamic religions at least, seem to prove that they always started as bigoted as they are now... they just eased into it. The way muslims parrot "It's not the religion it's the people" is the same way liberal christians say "Jesus would not do [insert bigotry]" and the same way atheists adopt those phrases to try and be tolerant of religious people in response to 'cross bigotry' as I'd like to call it. Religion as they put it is supposed to be an all in one guide to life: from your morality to education down to how you interact with non-believers. How they act and think, though often times still transgressory from their religion is almost always a direcy reflection of the religion.

Take the Afghanistan situation for example. Islam may or may not agree with the methods with which they're incorporating their laws, but it's not 'extremist' for a man to have complete authroity over the movements and dressing of his wife, as a lack of one would mean that the man is considered a 'Dayouth' -- a term meaning a man who is apathetic or unprotective of the 'modesty' of their female family members and are said to be denied heaven. Whether you want to view this control as manipulative or 'protective', what exactly do you think the implications would be of a law that says you will be denied heaven if you aren't 'in control' of 'your women's' behaviour?

Most of these cases labeled extremism are just usually people practicing the religion to the T. No, Allah would not punish them for 'making their women wear modest clothes' or 'passionately defending the prophet or the religion' (Peep "Salman Rushdie and Ayatollah Khomeini"). They would be exhaulted for their passion and faith. And I highly doubt Jesus would not be homophobic as it was supposedly written in HIS doctrine; or express that much contempt for grown men marrying young girls as the abrahamic religions are most notably ambiguous with consent parameters. I can see why some atheists may use the statement because I also believe it's important to discern the difference between genuine criticism and straight up bigotry. But the more you chop down the faults of a concept that insists on it's absolutism to believers (who cosign said absolutism) just misinterpreting it (which leads to harm), the more it becomes pointless to argue for it in any capacity. It's weird because they treat 'religion' as the people and 'people' as the doctrine. Yes religion usually intertwines with a culture but it can absolutely be distinguished from.

Religion survives ingeniously on epistomological disingenuity. The religion is intentionally vague in integral areas of commonly moral uncertainties (for the time it was created) and so the phrase is naturally born as a defense mechanism that places the blame on people for misunderstanding the verses. It could easily be refuted as a society if religious people didn't keep insisting on removing god from the equation (the equation HE fucking created). Who created the religion.... who sent down their angels and prophets... who is 'lord supreme of the cosmos'... who knows everying and can do everything there for unsusceptible to imperfection?? So Why tf is this perfect being so inexplicity that we 'imperfections' have to scale the heights to understand it's inanities when it is entirely capable of communicating unequivocal reason for it's moral doctrines.

TLDR; "It's not the religion it's the people" is a trap that preys on the guilt of mortality in people and I sometimes notice even atheists saying things like it in trying not to generalize their qualms. It's like The Paradox of Tolerance -- which basically says that for a society to be completely tolerant it has to be intolerant of intolerance (non-verbatim). The intolerance being religion.

Edit: idky this needs to be pointed out in an atheist sub. Yes I am wholey aware the religion cannot act or 'do anything'. I am also aware that people are the ones who enact the religion. I believe no where in this post implies absolving people of their own bad. I am not dicussing the people because it is not the topic I intend to dicuss.

While this is a critique, I'm also just looking for a genuine theological answer as to why they did this. Why exactly did churches employ monstrous sculpture in their architecture.

Maybe simplified, but the general enemy of christianity is usually things that are not anthropomorphic or things that have macarbre defects (usually associated to serpantine characteristics) I mean I understand intentionally creating them to depict the apparent turmoil between good and bad so they aren't necessarily exalted. But the grotesque statues are usually placed in menacing, praiseworthyesque, and protective positions as if the church cosigns their proximity to holiness. When in reality anything with a wing and a horn is immediately a demon in christianity.

I know the explanations maybe that they use monsters to ward off other monsters. As sort of like symbolically taming this evil to servitude to defend against other evil. Seems a little hypocritical (maybe even transgressory) doesn't it?

Unless they explicitly mention any exception for proximity to evil they're usually all or nothing. The textbook law is that you call on no one but your god for protection and deliverance. So whether or not you tamed this evil to servitude you still invoked a higher power that is not god for support. I mean sure god may have the executive priviledge to tame whatever evil, but this directive by the oh so sinful, mortal and lesser beings (or so religious people like to refer to themselves lol) is more or less claiming that privildege and conflicts with one of the most important rules being to stay away from evil.

I guess I may be coming from a different background seeing as how Islam is more strict and clear in this regard. But even so, I believe Chritianity and Judaism are more or less sister religions with Islam (and as they also derive from other older religions) So I don't think they're that disimilar when it comes to mandating their followers not to use evil, period.

So one of the prominent moral inconsistencies of Islam; the 'obligation' of a woman to her husband regarding sex. The spew being that she'll be cursed by angels if she denies him for no 'valid' reason.

I was wondering if there were any obligations on the man too. I wanted to check if there's any slither of benefit of the doubt in the gender bias with regards to the marital obligation. I thought "Maybe the men also have the same obligation." Y'know, one of those things that has a rule of equal quotient but is just ignored. Then it could be chopped down to Islam's twisted take on relationships. Of course expectations were met: there is none.

Well at least none that is in any magnitude close to the responsibility placed on the woman. Apparently the husband is obligated to offer at least one of four nights to his wife to prevent loneliness. While the woman's desires are only satified at the man's liberty within four nights, the man's desires are satified indefnitetely. (Unless she has a valid reason ofcourse. Straight bs lol.)

It may not seem like that big of a distinction to some people because I guess the average couple may not be having sex as frequently to notice a four day abstainance. But it will be noticeble when you realise urges don't just predictably occur in a way that allows you to establish a fair frequency of satifaction for both parties. Islam tries to force a collinear relationship between urges and the satisfaction actually happening. And even at that it is still disproportionate with the 'rights' each spouse has over each other.

As commonly known, they justify it by saying men naturally have a more intense sex drive than women. They COULD have compensated this stupidity if they weren't so puritanical that they immoralised self pleasure lmfao. It's things like this that make it clearer that Islam was truly a bunch of hypocritical insecure men who couldn't get some but also depreciated their own self worth because of whatever they thought being self sufficient implied (weakness probably).

I'm sure there's been a post like this but I genuinely cannot find it so if anyone can tag it here that would be nice.

That said. Anyone else find it exhausting navigating the dating scene as a relatively new aetheist. Especially as an ex muslim (It's haram to date). I deconstructed last year so I believe I freed myself of any biases or doctrines and opened my mind to things that I previously denounced (at least things I wasn't already questioning)

On my end I realized I have this nurtured shyness (as a consequence of the religion) that often disuades me from pursuing romantic interests. I genuinely cringe thinking back to moments I rejected occurences that remotely related to a decent love life all to now realise non of that bs matters lmao.

On the recieving end, my social climate is still very much full of religious people who I'll say for conversation sake are decent people. It's weird cause there are some people of the religion that don't care about the dating restriction but at the same time they still like to maintian some semblance of integrity to it by not dating outside the religion, so I don't pursue them (it feels shitty dating under the pretence of still being a believer), and as for other surrounding religions it's sort of the same thing + they also have their own bigoted qualms.

Overcoming this shyness, approaching somebody, getting rejected or just finding out you can't keep up with their religiousity; I'm tired. I mean it's not like I don't know any aethesits but it's also not like aetheists are automatically attracted to each other lol.

PS: This is not some dating call or anything lmao, I'm just curious to hear other experiences!

I loved this show. I'm not giving any serious criticism on any element of it. I just have to say I love how they really balanced horror-comedy.

When movies/shows try horror-comdey it usually falls flat on to comdey (especially campy trope montages) which I guess doesn't necessarily make it bad, just deficienct in the horror aspect.

But this show knows exactly when and how to be funny, and when and how to be horror (personally I don't scare easily since I enjoy the horror genre casually, so I take it as the seriousness of the narrative.)

That said, I'm curious as to if there's any other show/movie that had this balance. Because as far as I can think of this is genuinely the first one I've watched with a good balance. I'm not really asking for watch rec's just curious.

I trust that anyone who is capable of forming opinions about the show on this sub is not part of the people I'm about to mention.

​

I'm talking about the people who can't get over their weird head cannon of them kissing. It's genuinely disgusting, rape culture adjacent and homophobic (edit: homophobic may not be the word. But it's essentially fetishizing a gay couple)

​

Even before the show was released nothing about it insinuated a dark romance or anything of that sort. And the producer and actor is well known to touch on queer identity topics.

​

People may justify it by pointing out the homoeroticism. IT'S INTENTIONAL. It's suppsoed to convey Nial's bicuriousness in relation to his unhealthy relationship with his stepbrother (who might I add was SA'd as well). By no means is it supposed to be fantasised.

​

I'll probably take this down later. I just needed an angry rant after looking for half man discussions on social media and it's just vids and comments romanticising Ruben or suggesting they kiss.

Edit: This is precicely why I kept this up (and also why I'll take it down) lmfao. They're still here arguing it, it's crazy. Without giving any argument other than 'It's not real.'

For context, it's a collection of individual stories that may or may not lead to a grand plot. The book is written in multiple POVs per chapter in first person. I have like 5 to 6 main protagonists that'll have repeating entries, but there will be more one-time appearance entries to serve as a buffer or filler for the story.

​

That said. I want the neutrality of the book to be realitic. While it's going to be predominantly English and set in mostly English speaking places (as that's what I'm fluent in), I still don't want it to seem as if all this is only ever happening in or to those places, so I sprinkle in people that speak different languages.

​

I know the common way I can convey it is sprinkling phrases here and there within the English narration. But the problem is these entries are supposed to be written by the participant of the event. From their experience down to hand writing it themselves. I can by pass this problem by having them know English and decide to write in English because they notice every other entry is in English but I feel like that still doesn't do justice to their identity.

​

For example; how I differentiate British from American is obviously the writing and spelling conventions, the dialoguing and some cultural relevances. But for example, a French speaking person has an entrirely different dialoguing convention. I want them to write in English but you just know they're french by their writing habits (ie, the use of the guillemetes and em dash inseatd of quotation) I'm just wondering how I'd retrofit that structure with English. And likewise for other languages in general.

​

​

I'm sure there's a bunch of posts about this fuckahh app but I haven't seen one on any sub talking about this specific thing. State persistency or Ui State or App state. Etc

It feels like evee since the prosecution and ban threat (I don't live in America btw) the app quality has deteriorated magnificently.

Save for the obvious issues like cencsorhsips, rise in toxicity etc, I believe it has gotten worst in terms of genuine app functionality and interface. The settings is a mess with a guide book that I find sometimes isn't even accurate to the interface I have. Or the inconsistency in notifications etc.

The issue I find most obnoxious (my reason for this rant) is it's state persistency.

For context: The tasks you carry out, like clicking on a profile, that changes the state (what displays on your screen) of an app is managed by what may be called state persistency. It's basically the mechanism that retains the information of what was displaying on your screen before you left the app (or did any display altering tasks.)

So what I mean is that the state persistency has been begrudingly inconsistent. Before I'd be so shocked as to how I'd leave the app in the comment section of a video I clicked from the search and then come back half an hour later and still find myself in that same comment section. And the back navigation with resepect to the path of previous states was on point. Now it can barely manage my fucking fyp. I click off the app for two seconds (after like two scrolls mind you) and then come back to it reloading my fyp. And it's back navigation is ass too.

TLDR; the app sucks. I still attach to it cause I reminisce on it's once better glory and it's pros, for me, still outweigh it's cons compared to the alternatives.