Doug [he/him] @ Doug @midwest.social

Posts

1

Comments

292

Joined

2 yr. ago

Seems like it's a bit of a sensitive spot for you...

It's like the "would of" people. They don't hear it in speech so they type it how it sounds to them.

Or it's autocorrect

Not really. The Doctor wasn't really as advanced as chat gpt. Just an emergency tool. Voyager was stranded without a doctor so they used it full time and he grew sentience along the way.

Or X(Twitter) or Reddit or Facebook or.............

Tumblr is an offender but let's not pretend it's the only one

It's definitely one of the more common ones. I see that alot

Little bothered that Tim Russ said "bias" instead of "biased"

"centerists" too, but then they're alright included in "both sides" because they're by and large on the right

Have you considered that plenty of people probably find your advice stupid and condescending regardless of saying the word "airpod"?

Or that the word airpod was also unnecessary since you already said headphones?

Apple defaultism is pretty dumb on its own, but it's hardly the biggest problem with your comment.

Why a man whose counterpart grew a beard recently in comparison has also done the same in very different circumstances.

It's been a long time since I watched this one. Do they explain why Thomas has a beard?

I'm very much with you there. The other option was rooted in the idea of being invested in improvement for their constituants. As long as you crack down on "contributions" you'd probably also see a lot less PAC money in a whole lot of areas too.

But there should be more motivation for them to see the people succeed. The job itself clearly isn't enough for a lot of them.

There are a few things that should be tied to other things imo.

Congressional salary? Median income for your district might be a good one. Something related to minimum wage could also work.

Sure, we're told that, but we're not shown it. I've heard that a given person is the only one that can do a thing and it's rarely true. While these are not ordinary circumstances by any means, just being told such is just that. And if we want to get very technical we would need to acknowledge Tom Bombadil.

Sam was tempted, sure, but Frodo was already being tempted before they left the Shire. Hiding behind a tree with a Nazgûl leaning over I don't believe for a moment it was Frodo wanting the ring on and I think the way he snaps back supports that. The Ring grew stronger as they grew closer. It's like chronic pain. If you deal with a certain kind of pain every day it's tiring but you get accustomed to it. If someone just going about their life gets sudden pain to the same level it might bring them to their knees. It doesn't mean anything accept that you've had time to adapt and they have not.

Do you honestly believe that Frodo's sense of sense of goodness, humility, and self-sacrifice is greater than that of Sam or really most of the fellowship? If that's what it comes down to then he would need to be far more advanced in those than everybody else. I think Sam easily demonstrates as much if not more of most if not all of those. If you think about it Frodo isn't shown to have much holding him to the Shire apart from Bag End. Sam has a life, hopes, and dreams. He left all that to go with Frodo, and was prepared to drown to continue to do so when Frodo was going to set off on his own. If there's not mountains of goodness and self sacrifice there I don't know where there is. And I really don't think I need to give examples of humility in Sam.

If goodness and self sacrifice are such a huge part of it too then how was Gandalf so readily susceptible? He may not be as humble as a Hobbit but he was clearly prepared to give his life for the fellowship.

I think we are to accept that there's a quality to Hobbits and the lives they choose to lead. I think, in fiction, the biggest part of Frodo entering the journey is the fact that he inherited the ring. As we know the ring chooses who carries it I think it's not unreasonable that it could have had some influence on moving to Frodo. Bilbo having second thoughts doesn't change that. Bearers from Isildur to Gollum didn't want to give it up. If anything the fact that he could may demonstrate the ring's influence. Surely it wouldn't choose someone it thought could destroy it. Without Sam I think it's pretty clear to say that's accurate. Frodo nearly fails more than once but Sam gets him back on track. The Ring cab choose its bearer, but not the people around them.

To me Frodo being the single most important part of success is a lot like so many people who think Romeo and Juliet is a romance. We're not shown that Frodo is unique or special in his ability to carry the ring to Mount Doom (especially since he clearly couldn't on his own) but that we can accomplish great things by working at them together. Tolkien's life before he wrote it feels like an important piece of support for that idea.

she is hesitant about imposing age limits

Y'know, except the minimums that already exist.

If there's a lower limit there should be an upper one. If we're acknowledging that different people can be more or less capable in their 80s then we should do the same for late 20s.

But we won't because anyone young enough is a "dumb kid" to far too many Americans, especially the ones ok with the status quo.

I see what you're saying, but Frodo literally couldn't have done it without Sam. We see that directly.

We don't know if it could happen the other way around or not because that's not the story we were told.

I'm not trying to diminish what Frodo did but it seems to me the statement "Frodo was the only individual in the world that could do what he did" does so for Sam's contributions.

Honestly all of it wouldn't have worked without all of the surviving Fellowship's (plus Gollum) actions, but Sam's are the most direct.

It seems to me there's a reason that Aragorn didn't bow to Frodo, but all four of the Hobbits. They were all simple folk, not warriors who achieved great things with plenty of sacrifice. Elevating Frodo does a disservice to the others.

100%

She's a great actress doing a fantastic job of playing a very unlikable character. Except that she's not unlikable in the way a good unlikable character is. She's not the way OP is feeling about Q.

But it's not just the way she interacts with Data, which does result in character growth for both of them. I'm sure they were going for the adversarial thing but it didn't work, with Data or anyone else.

I'd agree with the other comment as well. The first two seasons are bumpy but they build a lot.

Skipping them, even where they're rough, does you a disservice in the long run. It's well worth the trouble.

I see you resisted the urge to say who

Season two also isn't the greatest. But its got some solid stories that do affect things later.

Mostly I just can't stand Pulaski

That sounds a lot like

My rear passenger tire was about 3psi low so I bought a new Grand Cherokee