At the risk of being labeled "conceding defeat", I'm simply not going to reply to what I think is a lot of "I'm right, you're so very wrong" posturing and instead only look at the things that matter.
Why, of course! Go ahead and ignore the evidence that doesn't support your claim. Gloss over the instances where you have presented a bald-faced lie as "statistical evidence" and the link I used to debunk it.
It's typical of your entire approach to this subject. Whenever any argument or piece of evidence disagrees with you, you never address it directly.
Instead, you claim the writer either needs "more education (sic)" (ie "read books that agree with my point of view and ignore the ones that don't") or just ignore them entirely.
Dada wrote:
Yes, you provided me with one single data point. Given that you consider that to be valid evidence, I could now provide you with another tweet of someone making a rape joke who didn't make it to the news and didn't get fired.
Please go ahead and do so, then. I have been waiting a long time for you to offer legitimate evidence to support your ridiculous assertions.
So far, I have provided one very recent and salient data point about rape jokes, where someone was fired for a Twitter joke about rape in general (not women, specifically). You have provided ZERO data points.
Since YOU are the one that needs to prove his extravagant claim ("rape jokes are largely ignored"), you are the one who needs the evidence, not me. That's basic logic, by the way, although a lot of feminists disregard that as "paternalistic" and "promoting rape culture", too.
Amusingly, one famous feminist, Sandra Harding, noted Newton's theories on physics encourage men to rape women.
By the way, when I manage to find even a single, giant exception to a rule, and you can find none to support it, it's strong evidence that the rule is inaccurate.
Dada wrote:
My point is that linking to single data points is useless.
But you haven't linked to anything, period. All you have provided is either empty or blatantly false rhetoric.
Dada wrote:
So I provided you with a minor counterexample: the Dickwolves comic.
Since you willfully ignored my words on the subject, I will just copy and paste them.
This is not a "counterexample" of any kind; it's an Internet comic about MEN being raped in an MMO by WOLVES WITH DICKS FOR HANDS, and which STILL got its creators an incredible amount of controversy and backlash.
Dada wrote:
It said it lacked a systematic methodology. That's different from saying it didn't have a methodology at all.
Again, please explain to us how "only counting a report as fake if the women herself later admits it was a complete lie" is not a "systematic methodology".
I have asked you about this for several posts now, and you continue to ignore it.
Dada wrote:
They deferred to what the police decided to be a "false" report, and left it undefined. There was no scrutiny of the process used by the police to make this determination.
Please go ahead and actually read the research article. The police only considered a report "false" if the woman recanted her rape accusation and admitted it was all a lie.
Tell me what your quibble with this methodology is.
Dada wrote:
There's a very simple conclusion to draw: it wasn't a scientific study.
Using data obtained from police under a very clear criteria is not "scientific"? It's actually way moreso than virtually all other studies on the matter, which you would know if you happened to read any of them.
Dada wrote:
Actually, "friendzoning" is about being told you're "just a friend". That's true. But the reason why we're discussing this is because a lot of people can't accept that fact because they believe it's not right to be "just a friend".
Yeah, when you get down to the core definition, it's a pretty benign concept. Not in practice, however.
Get out of here with that nonsense.
I have asked you half a dozen times (as has moozooh, rog, and others) to provide an example of ANYONE in this topic blaming or being angry about women because of the "friend zone".
There hasn't been a single example.
Instead, you have multiple guys, myself included, stating that "friend zones" occur because of mistakes men make.
Dada wrote:
Remember that the world is bigger than this forum. If nobody here believes they're being mistreated by being friend zoned: great. But a lot of people do take that line.
If nobody on this forum was guilty of that, then why did you write a giant rant accusing most people here of being "stupid boys" that were "misogynist"?
Dada wrote:
The fact you're even alluding to the so-called "climategate" faux scandal shows you don't know what you're talking about, in spite of your appeal to authority. Those emails didn't contain any information that wasn't already either known or published.
Except for certain data being thrown out that doesn't support the anthropogenic global warming model, of course.
Dada wrote:
Furthermore, when you look at polls taken among actual climate scientists, you'll find that there's virtual unequivocal support on the general notions of anthropogenic climate change. The amount of support for it is just overwhelming.
Funny how you're the one appealing to authority. I'm well aware that most climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming; so did the two very intelligent professors I had.
And back in the 1970s, the vast majority of leading climate scientists believed in global cooling.
I can get into this discussion with you as well and prove you every bit as foolish if you care to start a new topic.
Dada wrote:
In the same way, when you look at social scientists who focus on gender studies, you'll find that concepts like the patriarchy and rape culture, which you dismissed as "buzzwords", are overwhelmingly accepted there too.
Of course! It's an echo chamber for people like yourself who ignore any evidence that doesn't support their myopic views!
What a stupid topic.
Here's how it works: You meet a girl. You make a move. She allows or rejects the move. If she rejects it, you're likely going to be, at best, a friend. If she doesn't reject it, well...
Unless there's some compelling reason to behave otherwise, after a girl's rejected one of my advances, I don't tend to seek her company again. There are plenty of women out there.
The only reason the "friend zone" is even a topic of discussion is because some men get hung up on certain women and can't take "no" for an answer. Move on with your life. Get out and meet more women. It's really not that hard...
Exactly. Couldn't agree more with this. Don't waste your time pining away after a certain girl; go out and find someone even cooler and more amazing than her.
See Dada, you are not going to beat me in an argument on this matter, since I have read at least as much feminist literature as you have, can recite all the arguments even better than you, and am better versed on all the relevant statistical studies.
However, unlike you, I have also read the anti-feminist literature equally, so I am versed on both sides of the debate. You, however, read the feminist literature while blindly ignoring any fact or reasoning contradicting it.
It's thus delightfully ironic that the person shouting at everyone to "educate themselves" is the most desperately in need of education himself.
The funny thing is that I even agree with some feminist claims, and even believe discrimination against women occurs, even in Western society.
However, your statements specifically have been a mixture of falsehoods, exaggerations, bald-faced lies, and absolute bunk.
Dada wrote:
And that might happen on occasion, but it proves nothing about the big picture. I can match every tweet that got someone fired with a rape joke that people laughed about and didn't do anything about. Does that mean they occur in equal numbers? Of course not, you need statistical evidence.
Okay, please provide said "statistical evidence".
I provided you a clear example of someone who got fired for a single Twitter joke about rape, while not even referencing women directly.
Your sole counterargument was this Internet comic about MEN being raped in an MMO by WOLVES WITH DICKS FOR HANDS, and which STILL got its creators an incredible amount of controversy and backlash.
Dada wrote:
Yes. I actually got that from your link. I don't see why this is such a big revelation? It's pretty clear, when you look at the Wikipedia article, that some complaints were made about the methodology of the study. Your argument seems to be "the study had a methodology, therefore complaints about its methodology were false".
The basic premise here is that it's in general very difficult to make a good methodology for deciding what a false accusation is, which is why the conclusions are all over the place.
So you disagree that a good methodology is only counting a report as fake if the women herself later admits it was a complete lie? I think that's a methodology extremely generous to the women claiming rape, actually.
Please enlighten us on what makes this a bad methodology?
Dada wrote:
One has a 1.5% minimum,
No, we have already gone over why this is inaccurate. The study in question stated the minimum was 1.5% false reports of rape and the maximum was 10%.
Thus, they found the number to be 1.5-10%, not 1.5%.
Dada wrote:
another is 41%. If you want to take those studies seriously, feel free to do so, but I'm not going to, and I doubt a lot of people will. Particularly if you read the article I linked to that attempts to explain the problems.
Yes, I have read all of those links. I have also read the Lisak paper that claimed the number was 5.9%.
I also have read the US Justice Department report that claimed it was 8% in 1997, under the Clinton administration.
I have also read the four reports that thought it was between 40-50%, the report that thought it was 90%, and the countless reports that had it at 10-25%. (The mean/median of the link I cited, by the way)
However, I seriously doubt you even went through the Introduction of the Kalin paper.
That's what's known as "being extremely biased" and "self-delusion"; when you refuse to even consider the other side of the debate.
Dada wrote:
It's in the abstract of the article that I linked you to, which I advise you to read.
Kindly link me to an objective research article with standard methodology, not a feminist blog post with assumptions, buzzwords, and anecdotal (the true definition of that word, not "a major news story") evidence.
Dada wrote:
"Friend-zoning" is the concept that you're right to be angry when a woman says no to your sexual avances. That she's not "holding up her end of the bargain".
Uh...no, it isn't. You're redefining the term to suit your agenda, but no one in this entire topic has defined it as such. I don't see any posts mentioning a "right to be angry".
From my own post in the very first page of the topic,IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
Complaining about being "friend zoned" is pretty childish, I'd say.
I partially agree. However, if you get the "let's just be friends" speech a lot, chances are you're doing something wrong.
Humorously enough, I even partially agreed with you, before you went off the deep end with your twaddle. I stated that the "friend zone" could be avoided by a man who avoids making certain mistakes.
Where does anger towards women enter into ANY of that?
For clarification, the ACTUAL definition of a "friend zone" is a woman who sees you as just a friend when you want her to see you romantically.
Dada wrote:
There are also people who think that "global warming" is a buzzword designed to elicit an emotional response, and virtually the entirety of the climate science academic world disagrees with them.
Also not true.
As an actual scientist who has taken climate science classes from some world-class experts on the subject, there is far from unanimous agreement on this, and that was before the whole leaked e-mail fiasco about data fudging. For instance, one fact that you probably don't know is that the ice cores they take to determine CO2 levels are taken from Greenland, not from Antarctica, because "they don't like the data" from the latter.
It's besides the point, but it's funny that you can't even get a tangential analogy right.
Dada wrote:
Furthermore, telling people to read a book and make up their own minds has nothing to do with brainwashing, certainly nothing to do with discrimination.
You're telling people to read sources that advocate a certain viewpoint while completely ignoring sources that argue the opposite viewpoint.
That is the very definition of extreme bias and brainwashing.
It's not "anecdotal". It's not something that happened to a personal friend of mine that I'm reporting second-hand. (The definition of the term)
It was a major news story that happened to a well-known fighter who has been described as nothing but a class act. And he got fired for making a rape joke on Twitter, one that never even referenced women specifically.
Ergo, your statement that there is little consequence to rape jokes is bullshit.
Dada wrote:
When you look at the big picture, you find that there's quite a great deal of support for rape jokes in general. A good case study was the Penny Arcade "Dickwolves" comic. The vast majority of responses to it was in support of Penny Arcade, not in opposition to the fact that they made a joke about rape. There are numerous other cases.
Incidentally, "Dickwolves" was about MEN being raped. By wolves with dicks on their hands. In a fantasy MMO setting.
Yes, if you're getting incensed about that, instead of legitimate discrimination against women, your priorities are extremely fucked-up.
Dada wrote:
This study has been criticized for not having a good methodology, and not just by one person. Quote:
I'm well aware of the criticism and have read all of it, considering I noted as much in the post you quoted.
I will even tell you where the criticism is objectively bullshit.
Dada wrote:
According to Lisak, Kanin's study lacked any kind of systematic methodology and did not independently define a false report, instead recording as false any report which the police department classified as false.
An absolute lie. The methodology was defined at the very beginning of the study.
I will copy and paste it, since you didn't address it;
Their methodology was simple; a rape report was ONLY counted as "fake" if the woman herself ADMITTED it was all a lie. If she made an accusation, the police found zero evidence to support it, and the guy had a perfect alibi, but she never recanted, it was still not considered "fake".
Dada wrote:
And other studies have found a number of 1.5%.
Another bald-faced lie. Even your hero Lisak estimates the number to be 5.9%.
The 1.5% you're referring to is the "minimum" found by Theilade and Thomsen. They noted the "maximum" was 10% in the same paper, so it's intellectually dishonest to claim 1.5% was the number they found.
Every single other study ever published has found the figure to be higher than 1.5%.
Also, many studies have found false rape accusations to account for 40-50% of all reports. One report even found it to be 90%. I know it's antithetical to you, but why don't you post the ENTIRE list so people can make up their own minds?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney
Try not to blatantly ignore it this time, m'kay?
Dada wrote:
By contrast, the criminal justice system has overreacted to infamous anecdotes of men falsely accused.
Care to provide any evidence for this, or is this just another invention/lie of the many you're so fond of repeating?
Also, feel free to respond to my edit above, that you ignored exactly as I predicted. I'll even copy and paste it for you;
Enterim started this whole idiocy by stating that a man inquiring on how to make a woman see him romantically instead of just as a Platonic friend is asking something "incredibly misogynistic".
Personally, I think you have to be brainwashed from an early age to feel this way, but I will give you a chance to explain the reasoning going on here.
Try not to ignore this either, and not answer by linking to a bunch of tangentially related feminist blog entries.
Dada wrote:
You don't consider "misandrist" to be an MRA buzzword?
No. I don't consider "misogyny" to be a buzzword, either. But things like "rape culture" and "sexual negativism" are. Because they're poorly-defined, nebulous terms meant to evoke an emotional instead of an intellectual response.
Dada wrote:
See, I can play this game too. Rather than making an intelligent argument about any of the arguments I've made so far, in addition to telling people to pick up a book because they might find it illuminating to read an actual feminist argument, you're telling people that educating themselves and making up their own mind is somehow "brainwashing" and "discrimination".
Except YOU NEVER DID THIS.
I will just copy and paste again, since you're so fond of ignoring the arguments of others;
Now, it would be fine if you told people merely to educate themselves on the matter and read both sides, but you specifically tell them to only read YOUR LITERATURE that supports YOUR IDEAS, all while demonizing the opposing point of view. That's brain-washing and discrimination in its purest form.
Actually, women don't report rapes because of the massive cultural suspicion that they probably are to blame for it themselves. That's why there's such a thing as the SlutWalk protests. And you should read this UK government report on the matter, it's very illuminating (it also notes that between 75% and 95% of rape cases go unreported). This is about a cultural bias towards the assailant's side of the story.
The other thing that you mentioned about how you can't even make jokes anymore is because sometimes jokes can offend people. You have to suspend judgment and use empathy when that happens. In reality, things like rape jokes are really quite commonplace and the backlash against it is really minor.
Bullshit.
The backlash is not at all minor; people, even in un-PC occupations like "mixed martial arts fighter", and even when not specifically making the joke about women, lose their jobs over rape jokes.
Also, if we're going to cite random numbers about rape, how about a study that found at LEAST 41% of reported rapes in a college town were fake?
Their methodology was simple; a rape report was ONLY counted as "fake" if the woman herself ADMITTED it was all a lie. If she made an accusation, the police found zero evidence to support it, and the guy had a perfect alibi, but she never recanted, it was still not considered "fake".
And yes, I'm aware that feminnists have criticized and attacked this study, even though the methodology is simple and straightforward. For a comprehensive list of estimates from all studies, check this link out;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney
By the way, I'm sure that there are many rapes which are in fact unreported, especially in developing, third world countries.
However, my point is that rape allegations work both ways (some rapes are not reported, while some reported rapes are blatant lies). This sense of "balance" is something feminism sorely lacks in its scholarship.
Edit-
Dada wrote:
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada and Enterim, throwing out shitty, intellectually dishonest buzzwords and phrases like "rape culture" and "sexual negativism", and linking to a brain-dead, extremely biased, and misandrist (hatred towards men) feminist blog isn't going to convince people of anything.
How aren't you doing the same thing, using buzzwords to accuse us of using buzzwords?
What buzzwords did I use, exactly?
Dada wrote:
Furthermore, as I've stated before, when you actually start reading the theorists in the relevant fields of social science, terms like rape culture aren't controversial. They're virtually unequivocally supported by the people who have spent all their lives theorizing about this.
Then there are people like the men's rights activists (which the Southern Poverty Law Center added to their list of hate groups not too long ago) who claim that feminists are really misandrists whose only goal is to bring men down. You can believe those, or you can start reading real social theorists like bell hooks.
I very strongly recommend that the people reading this topic actually pick up a book by a respected author in the field of gender studies like bell hooks and read it and then make up their mind, based on a full understanding of the argument that feminism tries to make. Or if you don't have the time, read a few articles.
Typical feminist. Rather than making an intelligent argument yourself, you tell people to read feminist literature.
Now, it would be fine if you told people merely to educate themselves on the matter and read both sides, but you specifically tell them to only read YOUR LITERATURE that supports YOUR IDEAS, all while demonizing the opposing point of view. That's brain-washing and discrimination in its purest form.
Also, you didn't answer the main point I made.
Enterim started this whole idiocy by stating that a man inquiring on how to make a woman see him romantically instead of just as a Platonic friend is asking something "incredibly misogynistic".
Personally, I think you have to be brainwashed from an early age to feel this way, but I will give you a chance to explain the reasoning going on here.
Try not to ignore this either, and not answer by linking to a bunch of tangentially related feminist blog entries.
That's not really proof of any kind.
I also wonder how the mean, median, and outliers for both men and women compare. Personally, I have a huge sex drive, but my girlfriend will absolutely wear me out if I let her. We've had weeks where we were together and do little except have sex. At the end, we each have orgasmed between 25-30 times, and I need to recover a bit sexually. Meanwhile, she wishes we had had even more sex.
Enterim wrote:
The friend zone is an incredibly misogynistic concept. Women have no obligation to have sex with you and it's incredibly disingenuous and deceitful to try to trick them into it. I know it sucks to not have someone feel the same way you do, but you don't have to be so sexist and pathetically sex-starved that you have to blame women for not wanting to have sex with you.
Plus, think of it from the woman's perspective: you meet someone whom you think you can really trust and count on as a friend and it turns out he isn't even interested in you as a person but only wants to have sex with you? I think that's a lot lot worse than being friendzoned.
And don't give me crap about the "bro-zone", I'm talking here about the internalized misogyny that demonizes women for having the ability to discern when and with whom she has sex.
If you think women owe you sex, then perhaps the fact that you're a sexist creep is why they won't talk to you and not that you're a "nice guy?"
I actually just feel sorry for this dude.
While myself and others have happy and fulfilling relationships with affectionate, cool girls, this guy thinks that asking a question on how to be viewed by woman romantically instead of as just a friend is "incredibly misogynistic". (Nevermind that women often ask the same question with regards to guys they're interested in)
With an attitude like that, I wouldn't be surprised if his relationships with women have been incredibly unfulfilling. He is probably too afraid to ever mention his own personal desires within the relationship, whether they be sexual or intellectual, and suffers accordingly.
Edit-
Dada and Enterim, throwing out shitty, intellectually dishonest buzzwords and phrases like "rape culture" and "sexual negativism", and linking to a brain-dead, extremely biased, and misandrist (hatred towards men) feminist blog isn't going to convince people of anything.
It's only going to show us that you want to avoid an intellectually honest discussion at any cost.
Arflech got it right by saying that the friend zone theory denies the agency of women. Remember that women are people, not vending machines with "insert flirtation, receive sex". The idea that they're foreign entities, to be dealt with through beep-boop instructions rather than talking to women like people, is ultimately sexist and goes to bad places.
Have you been reading the same topic everyone else has? Seriously; where has anyone remotely implied any of the garbage you spewed above? It's obvious that you have some deep-seated emotional issues about the topic, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.
Chamale wrote:
The sad but true fact is that nerds are a sexist bunch.
This hasn't at all been true in my experience. In fact, I challenge you to find anything remotely "sexist" in this topic. (Joke replies included)
Chamale wrote:
Has a woman published a TAS here in the last five years?
Way to be a sexist dick, Chamale. Firstly, what the fuck does a speedrunner's gender have to do with anything? Who cares?
Secondly, yes, member "GoddessMaria" has authored several published runs in the last few months. For all we know, there could be other speedrunners who are female but have chosen not to disclose their gender.
I always find it ironic that the people crying and bitching about something like "sexism" are sexists themselves. We have a wonderful case in point here.
Chamale wrote:
The stereotype that video games are for guys has become more true over the years, as sexism against women pushes them away from our hobbies.
Total bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Female_gamers_as_a_demographic
(Includes links to studies, plus the ESA handbook)
There are more women than ever playing video games, and they are an increasingly larger percentage of the market. I know you had an axe to grind and were typing so furiously that the last sentence in your post makes no grammatical sense, but try to avoid citing "facts" that you clearly just pulled out of your ass.
If what I said before is wrong then great. I've been out of college for a few years now and hopefully things have gotten better. One school I went to had very poor coverage on account of being in a small town and having no medical campus. There was a small, limited service student health center with a limit on the number of free clinic visits you got.
I completed undergrad myself a few years ago. It was a small, private technical school in SoCal with a very big reputation in subjects like physics, chemistry, etc.It didn't have a lot of the student amenities that many other schools did, but was very good on the medical coverage/free health services front. I'm sure it differs from school to school, but most colleges do address these issues.
TheAxeMan wrote:
I also hope you are right about the mental health stigma going away. I think things are definitely better among younger people. Unfortunately we have a lot of stubborn older folks who are less accepting yet control many of our institutions. I am probably a bit jaded because my parents are in that group.
We definitely have health resources in the US but accessing them is not as easy as it should be. Ease of access is also not very equal at all. Dealing with something like this is never easy but can be much harder in some situations.
Well, it's hard to speak in pure generalities about the subject.
I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, lived in Los Angeles County for 5 years for undergrad and work, and then moved back to the Bay Area. I can't speak to older generations in other parts of the US, but the people I came across (young and old) were very accepting and often encouraging towards seeing a psychiatrist, mental health counselor, etc.
TheAxeMan wrote:
Anyway, glad you like my runs! One of my motivations in TASing is to stick with a big project to prove to myself that I have my disorder under control. I also want to prove that us moody people can do amazing things. Not just to earn the respect of deniers but also to inspire other moody people to work harder at managing their disorders.
Yeah, one thing that impressed me about your FF1 runs is how much "juice" you manage to squeeze out of a game that at first, seems like a very straightforward and dull choice for an RPG run. Instead, you manage to find a lot of creative and neat tricks, even in such an old game with such limited mechanics.
It was quite inspirational, in fact.
Yeah, light therapy takes me from severe depression to functional depression. It helps but it's no substitute for real sunlight. Apparently it works for most people though.
Higher latitude does affect things but in the Pacific Northwest US cloud cover is really the killer (literally in some unfortunate cases). Unless you are a vampire you probably don't like cloudy days. But if you have SAD then it becomes a serious health issue!
There are also some extra challenges in the US. We don't have universal health insurance yet, so college students like Zidanax are often uninsured or underinsured. Americans assume that the early 20s are a healthy age but it happens to be when disorders like this often begin or pick up. Check out 'A Beautiful Mind' for a well-known example.
Another American problem is that there is a huge stigma associated with mental health issues. So if you have depression you not only need to overcome your lack of motivation but also figure out how your health insurance works and decide who you can trust with your secret. You end up either hiding a big part of yourself or distancing yourself from everyone. Everyone rushes to help out the guy in a wheelchair but we look the other way and avoid those with mental issues.
As a fellow also living in the US, I have to disagree with all of this.
First of all, health insurance is a non-issue, especially for American college students, as all of them are insured under their school's coverage. In addition to that, just about every college has a free health clinic on-campus AND mental health counselors available 24/7.
Also, I would highly dispute the idea that there is a "huge stigma associated with mental health issues".
I have multiple friends who have seen psychiatrists for issues such as depression and various mental disorders, and not once has any of them gotten anything but support for it. If anything, seeing a psychiatrist is considered a very normal and healthy way to tackle one's mental health problems here.
My point is that the resources are out there in US society. If you're struggling with mental health issues, go and see a psychiatrist and see if they can help.
On a totally unrelated note, love your FF1 runs, TheAxeMan!
I totally agree with KennyMan666's excellent critique.
I would only add that when it comes to ranking video games, it really makes the most sense to go by genres. Ranking a great FPS game against a great turn-based strategy title is even more difficult/meaningless than ranking a great comedy against a great horror film.
I'm not seeing Fantastic Mr Fox on the list, did I read it too fast? ... I'm not seeing Inglorious Basterds too ... ohmy, I'm seeing Back to the Future on the Top 30 ... not on the Top 1 .. +_+ where is Terminator 2? Where is Scott Pilgrim?? @__@
Relax, dude. It's a shitty list by a random guy who has seen very few movies and hasn't provided a work of explanation for any of his choices. Who cares?
Although I can't help noting that I thought Scott Pilgrim was completely awful. I think the rest of the films you mentioned are pretty awesome, although only Terminator 2 cracks my personal top 100.
Sadly, this parody has more character and story than most anime these days;
The trailer
Link to video
And the actual anime, in two parts;
Link to videoLink to video
I think what Warp was trying to say is that no matter how you feel about the list, you don't have to be a dick about it.
Well, not to get into Netiquette, but I wasn't. I called the list shitty, not the person making it. Had I done the latter, you might have had a point. But I didn't. Also, it's my completely honest opinion that the list is so foul it's barely fit to wipe one's ass with. And I hope that if I ever make a list this bad, someone will inform me of the same. :)
I'm surprised you guys are actually responding to this guy and his shitty list.
I really think you should refrain from insulting people and their hobbies. If you don't like someone's posts, then don't read them, it's that simple.
So what you're trying to tell me is...that it's only a crappy list, not shitty one?
Also, I'm kind of jealous of you now. I wish I had your superpower of being able to tell whether posts sucked or not before I read them.
Yes, if there's one thing we know more than movies, it's video games, heck, that's what this entire website is all about!
Now for this, I am not counting Atari or Arcade games, other than that, every system counts. Unfortunately for me, the Genesis is the only Sega system I've ever played, and I've only played like 2 PC games my entire life, I'm a pure-bred console gamer.
After reading the two parts in bold, I believe we can safely ignore your top video games list as being (almost) as ignorant and irrelevant as your top movies list.
By the way, for me, top lists are most interesting for recommending works I haven't experienced yet or even heard of. If a list is only full of works that everyone and their mothers have experienced, it's mostly worthless in my eyes, even if I agree with the ordering.
A few comic books I've thought were worth my while:
* Sandman, naturally.
* Maus. This is pretty heavy stuff (Holocaust), so it's not for the squeamish, but it's well done.
* Usagi Yojimbo. On the opposite end of the scale. Basically semi-fantasy feudal Japan with anthropomorphic animals (I'd say furries but then people would assume that it's pornographic, which it assuredly isn't).
* Blacksad. Film-noir, again with the anthropomorphism. And some bloody amazing art.
How could I forget Maus? I would definitely second that recommendation.
Derakon wrote:
I have to admit that I've yet to read an interesting superhero comic. I'm sure they exist, but...
I agree. However, I do enjoy "The Boys" because it's a parody of superheros; virtually every superhero in that work is an insane, mass-murdering, raping, fucked-up degenerate.
Yes. That's why you should always use protection.
Oh, and returning to my previous question about comic books: I tried, I really tried but everything I read seemed to have been written by a 12-year-old. Seriously, it felt like I was watching Batman from the 1960s. So I guess that's it for that then.
Wait, what was your question about comic books? I despise most comics (manga as well as Western works), but have also found some stuff I really like, and even some I consider incredible masterpieces.
Edit-
Sticking solely to Western stuff, I have enjoyed Garth Ennis's work, especially the "Preacher" series, and his current series "The Boys". Don't expect great writing; think of it more as a compelling action film with insane violence, wild sex, and sophomoric/dark humor.
With regards to excellent writing worthy of a book, there are a few manga I could recommend.
And any topic with that video deserves this link: http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/
Like always you should try to do some research into a charity before you give too much to it.
Some of the criticism in that article is just plain stupid; "white man's burden" sounds bad, but "saving innocent lives" not so much...even though the former often leads to the latter. I would call that criticism typical "white man liberal guilt".
However, some of the criticism is very germane and relevant. In real life, (not a movie), there are usually no "good guys" when two militia groups fight against another. There is mass murder and rape by both sides. It's troubling that Invisible Children is supporting one of these sides directly with their money.
Anyways, I agree with his conclusion; ideally, people will research this issue more, really look into where their money will be going to, and then make an informed decision on whether to do so or not.
I myself don't know whether I would give 10 bucks to Invisible Children or not. But I do know I will spend quite a bit of time reading both sides of the issue before doing so.
I'm surprised you guys are actually responding to this guy and his shitty list. Don't encourage him.
And honestly, I don't care if someone fills up a lot of Top 100 movies with exclusively Italian giallo (their version of slashers) films from the 70s and 80s, so long as there is a clear rubric, and it's obvious the person has seen a lot of the genre and has some unexpected choices and recommendations.
His list, however, without even a word of explanation, is infinitely worse than the IMDB Top 100 list, which I don't think highly of, either.
And now we have this. Further personal evidence that canonizing Derpy was an all around bad move.
I'm not very familiar with the series (I've only seen the first 7 episodes), so I have to ask; why is there so much insane anger (and even death threats) in response to that innocent little clip?
Is there a rigorous definition of "macrostate", or would you just pick any macrostate you like?
For example, with the card deck we might also observe "cards angled slightly to the right when dealt" and "cards angled slightly to the left when dealt". We can use your formulas on that to get an entropy value, but it doesn't tell us anything about red/black any more, but about the dealer's hands. Can both be the entropy of the system, despite being different?
For the gas, you're naming pressure, temperature and volume. Do you observe them separately? Are they a combined macrostate?
Also, how would you determine the entropy of a card deck dealt inside an ideal gas?
Well, the macrostate itself is a measurable quantity. (99 red cards, 1 black card, in the example) However, the way in which you define and measure macrostates is indeed a definable quantity. ("the number of red and black cards) That's why there's an "entropy of information" and other similar applications. Your definition for the entropy of a card deck is equally valid to counting the number of reds and blacks.
Tub wrote:
Can we even say "The entropy of this system is X", or do we have to add "..with respect to macrostate A" every time? And if so, how do we avoid comparing apples with oranges when dealing with entropy?
You don't have to add the qualifier every time, since it's usually understood what you're talking about. Also, I can't think of an example where one would be manipulating entropies of macrostates calculated through two different approaches. If you did, you would just calculate one of them through the same approach as the other macrostate.
Then I outrank you because I have a master's degree, so my authority is bigger than yours, ha! ;)
Seriously, though (and honestly not to attack or belittle you), arguing that you object to someone's definition of entropy "as a scientist" is not very honest if what you have is an education and minor degree in math. (That's not to say that you are not competent in physics. It's just that using the label "scientist" is dishonest if you are not really a scientist in the correct field of science.)
Dude, I've humored you and and answered your (irrelevant) questions. At the end of the day, your definition of entropy was wrong, quantitatively AND conceptually. That's the only thing that matters.
The stuff about degrees, "experts", and accusing me of caring about you personally is all meaningless BS. Besides the point. And as Bobo noted, I've humored your silly ramblings long enough.
Then perhaps Mr Scientist would be so nice and go and fix the Wikipedia page on entropy because it's so plain wrong.
I mentioned I was a scientist in the context of being interested in the definition of entropy, not because it means you should believe me. In fact, I would hope everyone here is persuaded by logical arguments, not sheer authority.
As for Wikipedia, heh, don't remind me. I'm an editor there (I mainly concentrate on chess articles) and forcing through some of the edits can be excruciating...
Warp wrote:
May I ask in which field of science you have a degree, and which degree?
I have a bachelor's degree in math and I do research in mathematical economics. However, I seriously considered majoring in physics instead and have taken a number of advanced classes in it, including statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics. (The topics being discussed)
Warp wrote:
Personally I have a degree in computing science, but that doesn't make me an expert on physics (much less thermodynamics), nor do I pretend to have such expertise (I have clearly stated that the definition I quoted is an informal one, most probably not the most accurate and exact one). Saying "I'm a scientist, hence you should believe me" isn't a very convincing argument in itself.
I'm not an "expert" on physics though, but it's a subject I enjoy. Once again, you accused me of caring about you, and I merely replied why it is that I care about physics, not random forum members.