I think that one of the reasons why this show is so watchable is because it's not puke-inducingly corny in the tastes like diabetes sense (like previous generation versions of this show, as well as other similar shows like the carebears), but instead it's cute in a charming and non-condescending way. Perhaps it awakens a big brother instinct, even though the characters aren't even humanoid. It's like having a cute and smart little sister.
Of course that alone wouldn't be even close to enough if the stories themselves weren't enjoyable and, in many cases, quite clever, while still being approachable by their main target audience. (Someone commented on this very thread how the cutie mark crusaders are an awesome depiction of the social problems that girls suffer during puberty. I think this was quite spot on.)
Or maybe they are celebrating having completed another year without death. It is a celebration of success, not of impending failure.
A celebration of having successfully delayed the inevitable? A way to cope with the dread of what is to come?
Ok, time for a mandatory inspirational quote:
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived. After all Number One, we're only mortal."
- Jean-Luc Picard
you didn't answer why you like it and neither did Warp,just dodged the subject altogether.
I did answer. I said I like the show. What other reason do I need to watch it? Could you please tell me?
not really about conformity,it's more about the stupidity of it having such a cult following
You are now changing the question. Apparently you don't dislike the show (probably you just don't care). You dislike the fandom. Why do you care about that either? If people are free to like and dislike whatever they want, then who are you to question it?
(this desire to be part of something stupid in a group sounds more like conformity to me)
Who exactly has expressed a desire to be part of a group here? Do you really think that people watch this show because they want to be part of some group (rather than because they... oh, I don't know... like the show)?
the reason why i question u guys is because i believe everything we do affect us in some way and that includes to some extent watching retarded cartoons.
You are free to think whatever you like.
Can you answer a question in turn? Why do you feel the need to use such derogatory adjectives and overall be so hostile?
I thought the finale could be a bit scary for little girls. Which got me thinking: I wonder how much background research is done for these types of shows so that the writers can know what is and isn't age-appropriate for the target audience eg. in terms of how scary the story can be.
Feminists just will not admit that perhaps most women don't want to be CEOs and have huge responsibilities at work (I'm not saying the women couldn't handle it, just that they might appreciate other things in life besides work).
It is indeed much more likely that women are underrepresented as CEOs because of personal choices than because men discriminate against women. Does that mean that discrimination in this sector never happens? Of course not. There are always individual men who are a**holes. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they were only a very small reason for the disparity and if they were the only reason, they would account for nearly no difference in CEO gender statistics.
Let's face it, most women want to be mothers, especially after a certain age (nearing 30 or the like). Not all of them, of course, but a quite significant portion. While being a mother and a CEO is not mutually exclusive, one would certainly take time from the other, and most women would prefer spending time with their children rather than with a corporation. (Also, this certain age probably coincides roughly with the average age of a new CEO, or happens earlier. In other words, most women become moms before they become CEOs, which kind of decides the life path they are going to take.)
Most men do not feel such a strong pressure to put family before work. On the contrary, many men work hard to sustain their families, which is why the aspire to better-paying jobs (such as being a CEO). The gender roles could be reversed in this, and a few couples do it exactly like that (daddy stays home with children, mommy leads big megacorporation all day long), but this is rare. And the rarity of this has nothing to do with discrimination. Women just want to be with their children instead of running a company. There's nothing wrong with that.
For some reason I cannot help but compare these two songs (perhaps because of bile fascination). There are some discernible similarities in overall structure. Of course there's also a very pronounced contrast because they lie at the extreme opposite ends of the quality spectrum.
I have to vote no on this one. Not because the game is unsuitable for TASing, but because I think the goal choice (iow. fastest completion) in this case produces a much more boring and repetitive run than a playaround would (or at least I'm assuming so).
Fighting games (especially those which are not also platformers) are seldom good choices for fastest completion. Instead, the best goal is usually doing fancy tricks and possibly exploiting game-breaking glitches, completely disregarding completion time (even though one shouldn't go overboard with that, or else the length of the TAS would be prohibitive).
In case you have been living in a cave, and keeping this on-topic with the thread title, here's one of the latest viral videos circulating the internets:
Link to video
can anybody tell me y do u guys watch this cartoon
Is there a reason we shouldn't?
If I like a show, I watch it. Why shouldn't I? Screw any artificial preconceived notions of what kind of hobbies an "adult" should or shouldn't have. Screw conformity.
I'm claiming the concept of the friend zone is misogynistic because it revolves around men feeling let down because their sense of entitlement over women. The friend zone is based on the idea that women are investments that you put time into in exchange for dividends (sex). This is demeaning, objectifying, and misogynistic.
I really think you are over-analyzing this. When the majority of people talk about the "friend zone", it's humorous. No ill intention is meant.
What would you call it when a girl you are interested in rejects you? (Or is it "too politically incorrect" to call that situation anything? Are we resorting to newspeak now?)
Finally, as icing on the cake, we get a response from our own William F. Buckley, Warp. The same person who also believes Islamophobia is a hoax has come out of the woodworks not only to dismiss the patriarchy as propaganda (even though the evidence for it is overwhelming and unequivocally supported as very real by the social sciences), but also to redefine feminism. Not based on any evidence, mind you, but based on his personal reading of the term itself. In other words, forget about all of feminist theory and the tons of authors that have written on the topic and the nature of the movement itself; the term itself sounds like females and therefore it can't possibly be about gender equality, according to Warp.
At this point I'm not at all surprised that ad hominems, personal attacks, lies and straw men are being hurled. You see, when someone with a strong dogmatic view gets cornered and doesn't have any actual arguments, the most usual response is to attack the other person (rather than his arguments), distort his position, lie about what he has said and call him names. Actual rational discussion and understanding what the other person is saying is thrown out of the window. I think it's sad.
You see, it's exactly because of this kind of dogmatic attitude why so many people detest feminism. If they try to discuss it, and do not immediately agree with the most extreme views, they get attacked and insulted with almost religious fervor. Do you really think that you are putting feminism in a positive light by acting like this?
You did not provide evidence that this is caused by discrimination and not other reasons. Two people can earn a different amount of income, but that doesn't mean the one who earns less is being discriminated against. (More likely it just means that they have different jobs, one paying more than the other.) Also, are these incomes proportional to work hours, or are they just absolute income? (It is, after all, possible that women work 16% less hours in average than men, hence explaining the difference in total income.)
If it's caused by discrimination, in other words, employers paying smaller salaries to women for the exact same type and amount of work, then that's illegal in most countries (because it would be discrimination). How are these companies able to bypass the law? Why aren't the women suing?
(I'm not saying there isn't discrimination. I just can't understand how it can legally exist.)
Is this because of discrimination, or is it because women on average commit more severe forms of spousal homicide (eg. in terms of premeditation), or some other causes?
If it's because of discrimination, how can that be legal?
Women aren't allowed in military combat because they are perceived as being too emotionally fragile, physically weak, distracting to men, or something equally baseless and ridiculous.
Is that claim based on actual psychological studies, or is it just emotional wishful thinking?
Big news, males and females are on average different, both physiologically and psychologically. Also, big news, people of one gender behave differently in stressful situations when members of the opposite gender are present than when there aren't (in both good and bad). That's just human psychology. (Sure, instinctual attitudes can be changed through education and training, but that's a different story.)
I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to join the military (and in fact, forcing men to do so can be considered discrimination), but that "or something equally baseless and ridiculous" just sounds like "this must be so because I don't like the idea of it not being so".
Women have their reproductive rights consistently challenged by men and are charged more for healthcare than men.
Women are perceived as too stupid to make decisions about their own healthcare and must have men decide what is right for them.
???
1 in 6 college-age women are victims of attempted or successful sexual assault. More than two-thirds of rapes are unreported because our culture shames women for being assaulted and tries to tell them it is their fault because they're such darn slutty sluts.
Which is, of course, illegal. How is this an example of "institutionalized discrimination"?
Some men are scum, but we are talking about discrimination at the societal level, something that needs to be corrected by law.
And culturally speaking, there's the whole slut/prude dichotomy where women are not allowed to be their own sexual beings.
How exactly is this an example of "institutionalized discrimination"? How is this away from women's legal rights? Some men have shitty attitudes, which sucks, but it's hard to criminalize thought crime.
I'm sorry if you object to "patriarchy". Would you prefer the somewhat more accurate "kyriarchy"? Patriarchal systems are universally accepted as omnipresent in nearly all cultures, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Women occupy less than 20% of national-level governmental offices worldwide.
A patriarchy is a form of society where males have more rights (even legal ones) than females, and where fathers and husbands basically own their daughters and wives respectively as property, and where fathers have the ultimate word on who their daughter will marry. Typically women are in a lesser position before the law compared to a man, and crimes committed by a man towards a woman (especially if the woman is a daughter or wife, hence "property") is punished significantly more leniently (if at all) than the equivalent crime committed by a woman against a man.
(I find it a bit amusing how feminists seldom object to the custom of a man asking a woman's father for her hand, given that this custom is directly inherited from past patriarchal societies.)
While men may face discrimination on the basis of their sex from time to time, there is no institutionalized discrimination against men.
Care to give examples of institutionalized discrimination against women? In all modern western (and western-like) countries discriminating against women is illegal, which is exactly what feminists wanted. There may be some minority of men who have a sexist attitude left and who discriminate against women (at least as long as it's not outright illegal), but that's a far shot from saying that it's "institutionalized". While those people might need some revision of attitude, the major goal of the feminist movement has already been reached (iow. having both genders be equal under the law, and discrimination being illegal), making it more or less obsolete.
Now, there are still entire countries where women truly are considered second-class citizens, barely above house pets (for example women may not have the right to vote, allowed to drive a car, be punished significantly more severely for "crimes" such as adultery than men, where their eyewitness testimony is less valuable in court than that of a man's, and so on), and those are problems worth fighting for. If you argue that men complaining about being discriminated is focusing on a minor problem while a major one still exists, then the exact same argument can be used for feminism in western countries and those countries where women are second-class citizens.
The patriarchy
Uh, please try not to use such a propagandist word. This mythical "patriarchy" has not existed in the western world for decades. (It still exists in those other countries, so if anything, you should concentrate on those.)
I don't know if there is anything as narrow minded and condescending as this point of view.
It seems that feminism is one of those hot topics that cannot be discussed without the thread becoming a pissing contest on who denigrates the opposite view the most.
Just please don't let it plummet into outright ad hominems, which is the next logical step. Let's try to keep this even minimally civilized.
for example, it is the cause of the factor of 2 difference in the gravitational lensing between Newtonian gravity and GR.
Btw, that's another thing I have been wondering for long. I have read in several places, now including also here, that also according to Newtonian mechanics light would bend when close to massive objects (but, as you say, significantly less than it does according to GR and reality).
I do not understand this. Photons are massless (which is the reason why they travel at c in the first place), so according to Newtonian mechanics the force of gravity on them would be zero, which would mean they are not affected by gravity at all, and thus should always travel straight in vacuum.
(AFAIK photons are considered to have relativistic mass, which is different from rest mass, which is still zero, according to SR/GR. However, there's no such a thing as relativistic mass in Newtonian mechanics, where velocity does not affect the mass of an object. Hence a massless particle would still be massless even if traveling at c, or at any other velocity.)
The men who claim they're being oppressed, also known as "men's rights activists", are completely deluded.
There's a lot of (often deliberate) misinformation circulated around about this, and it mostly amounts to pure propaganda.
It's enough for a man to mention some discrimination issue against males in current society (such as for example having less rights in child custody cases) for this man to be immediately labeled with lots of derogatory terms such as "sexist" and "men's rights activist", and for his position to be distorted into a total straw man.
This distortion is quite often also hypocritical because if a woman raises the exact same issue (eg. men being discriminated in child custody cases) it's usually seen as a virtue of said woman (ie. that she is aware and acknowledges some of the social discrimination that men have to endure.) The woman would most certainly not be called "sexist" and "men's rights activist", but the exact opposite (ie. someone who fights for true equality).
This is a double standard, which goes exactly against the whole concept of equality.
And feminism is, as you pointed out, about gender equality--nothing more and nothing less.
Even disregarding the oxymoronic nature of that proposition (because the term "feminism" does not indicate that on its own), theory and practice can be quite different things. Even if in theory "feminism" is about gender equality, in practice many such "feminists" engage in quite many double standards, completely against the whole idea.
For example, if a woman cuts off her husband's privates (eg. because of infidelity), many "feminists" will rejoice and cheer, and do it in public, and even on the media, With complete impunity. (Yes, it has happened, if you haven't seen it.) If the crime had had the genders reversed and then it had been men who had rejoiced and cheered, they would get a huge social backlash and furor (and, depending on the country, perhaps even sued to court).
(And even in this case the same hypocritical attitude holds: If a man complains about this hideous example, he's labeled as sexist, but if a woman, especially a known feminist, condemns these women who laughed at the situation, she is praised for doing so. Yes, that has happened as well.)
Enterim wrote:
I don't know why "feminist" is treated like a dirty word. If you believe in equality, you are a feminist. Deal with it.
Many people have a problem with the term "feminism". The term does not convey the meaning of "equality", which is why many people who truly seek gender equality abhor the term. (It doesn't help that, as I said above, theory and practice do not always meet, and many women who call themselves "feminists" act like real jerks.)
I'm all for gender equality, but I do not appreciate being called "feminist". I do not like the word.
«The fundamental difference between men and women is that men have an unlimited reproductive potential while women's reproductive potential is very limited. When a man has sex, he is giving away nothing of value. But when a woman has sex, she is potentially giving away a large aspect of her life if she gets pregnant. Today we have birth control to eliminate the practical side of this, but this doesn't change the feelings in us that were produced by evolution before birth control. This is why men still greatly value virginity in women, as can be seen in the cases where women auction off their virginity. But women place no value in the virginity of a man because there is no evolutionary basis for this feeling.»
It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view: A man can maximize his amount of offspring by having sex with lots of women, but not vice-versa (ie. one woman cannot have more children by having sex with lots of men, as compared to one). Hence the woman's "resources" are much more limited (and thus valuable) than a man's, and thus "wasting" those "resources" on random partners is frowned upon.
But of course evolution doesn't always lead to the best possible outcomes in the long run, especially when the purpose of a selected trait has already been pretty much fulfilled and has become almost obsolete. However, eradicating such naturally selected psychological traits from modern societies can be quite difficult.
"There's a dog paw print in the snow, so it must have been a dog that stepped on that part of the snow! By Occam's Razor we can deduce that no other animal has stepped onto that part of the snow because everything can already be explained by only assuming the dog as the cause.
No, that's not what Occam's Razor is about. Applying Occam's razor in this case would be assuming it was a dog (or an animal with a very similar paw shape) unless valid evidence is presented of the contrary, especially if the alternative hypotheses presented are extraordinary and require significantly more assumptions to be made.
Suppose that two hypotheses are presented:
1) It was a dog (or another animal with a very similar paw shape).
2) It was a bird that created the footprint using its beak in order to fool us.
Until actual valid evidence of hypothesis #2 is presented, Occam's Razor chooses #1 because it makes the least amount of extra assumptions.
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.
How, exactly, are people eg. here sexist, and exactly how is this alleged sexism pushing women away?
If you are going to call people sexist, you'd better back up your claims.
