I don’t mean this in a rude way, but what are you?
As for your question, here are a few options (not all trilogies):
Mass Effect
Dragon Age
Stalker
Deus Ex
Amnesia
Dead Space (skip 3)
Dishonored
Far Cry 3-6
Metro
Saints Row
Wolfenstein
My old cat used to do this and would tuck into “old” food with gusto when I sat down next to her: I figured out that it was her wanting someone to watch over her while she was vulnerable while eating.
I get why people do it (and I do too, cleanup and access) but I do wonder if putting food at floor level near a heavily trafficked area like the kitchen (which also tends to have multiple entrances/be open concept) would contribute to need to be watched over while eating. It’s not really practical to, say, stick a cat’s bowl up high, but I do wonder if they’d eat more freely as a result.
Then you must not have been to New York, because that’s definitely known as a conservative, insular group.
A history of oppression does not negate one’s own. Or is a Jewish woman whose movements are controlled and constrained by the men in her community who say a pray of thanks that they were not born women not to be considered because her great aunts died in pogroms?
What you’re trying to imply is that criticism of a Jewish culture is dangerous because others will claim it is inherently anti-Semitic. Those people are wrong and to be ignored: a deeply held religious and or cultural belief is not immune to criticism, and when it causes and encourages harm it deserves criticism.
To be open minded within this context is to be welcome to learning of how different attitudes and approaches to life can make things better beyond your personal upbringing. It means take the good whether or not it’s borne of your soil. It does not mean wide-eyed cultural relativism, regardless of what you think.
If I were interested in honest debate I’d go to a university panel discussion and ask questions.
No anonymity, credentials that are subject to scrutiny (while there are blusterers and con artists everywhere, it’s so much easier to do that on the Internet that it’s hardly worth noting), interaction with people in realtime whose opinions are likely very well informed, and it’s explicitly set in a learning environment.
On the Internet, people have long since figured out that you don’t “win” a debate by racking up enough points or learning something: you win by convincing the nonspeaking lurkers that you’re right, or funny, but you REALLY win by being memorable. So the majority of the coy “oh but my dear, am I not just a humble vaguely defined X with unspoken but assuredly (and unfairly) hated opinions who longs for an honest discussion” does not actually want a discussion: they want to tie their opponents up in knots and make them look buttmad so they can slither off to the next “debate”.
Maybe you’re different. But I have a hard time trusting that when you use the same format I’ve seen over and over again.
Having a shift in thought from, as the author said, trying to look good to an emphasis on humbly learning is a good step forward, though I don’t want to chain that to the sense that you’re not good enough.
It is startlingly easy to find plenty of people better than you at whatever you hold dear or like about yourself, what with access to the Internet/social media, and I see that effect present in people who don’t want to try to improve because they’ll never match the prodigy: I know that I’ve been discouraged. So while I get what the author is saying I don’t think it outweighs the mental load that accompanies it.
It’s a smidge over the threshold (63% reviewer score and 29% audience score) but I like this one more than the Ed Norton one (and the thought of him shifting based on heartrate is so fucking dumb) and I’m just kinda meh about Ruffalo’s Hulk.
The purpose of today’s credit score system is to eliminate bias. Before credit scores, borrowers were deemed creditworthy by lenders using factors such as income, referrals and even home visits. In 1974, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act disallowed credit-score systems from using information like sex, race, marital status, national origin and religion.
Today, FICO considers payment history, amounts owed, length of credit history, new credit and credit mix in its model. But that data may be influenced by generational wealth that many Black and Hispanic borrowers did not have equal access to, says Frederick Wherry, professor of sociology and director of the Dignity and Debt Network at Princeton University.
“We’re often told to stop talking about history, but history won’t stop talking about us,” Wherry says. “The data used in current credit scoring models are not neutral; it’s a mirror of inequalities from the past. By using this data we’re amplifying those inequalities today. It has striking effects on people’s life chances.”
Why does the first sentence read like a Jordan Peterson quote