Pokemon is a non-political IP where checks notes the evil group usually torture pokemon, and oftentimes want to change the world to better reflect their ideal world.

Pokemon became political when checks notes again you treat people like people when they change THEIR body and don’t expect anything more from you than before

As yes, makes sense. What is next? A Pokemon that can transform in other pokemon? A Pokemon that dresses up like a different kind pokemon? I bet the woke pokemon company will release a black Charizard that is more special as the original Charizard./s

Fuck morons. In a world, where everything is political, they manage to point at a 9yo girl wearing pants in a movie and claim that it is political.

Edit: THEY ARE LEAVING THEIR HOBBIES AND PASSIONS OVER THIS! THEY ARE LEAVING THEIR COMMUNITIES OVER THIS! that is mental.

That is not how modern capitalism works. Modern capitalism works in 5 years. CEO have figured out that they don’t need to work for the shareholders but make it seem like they do. CEO wants to get their bonus and they get their bonus if the shareholders are happy and usually the shareholders have short term interests too. So for a CEO, it is more profitable to take actions that generate more profit in short terms.

Which is why there are mass hiring and firings. Those things are a huge waste of resources but it look good on you if you can sell it right to the shareholders. You are willing and able to react quickly.

So a cure for cancer would be sold as soon as possible because whoever has the patent, would make billions (short term). Remember biotech and their COVID vaccine?

The problem becomes finding a cure and a CEO doesn’t have any interest to heavily invest in finding a cure if the cure is not “around” the corner anyway, as that wouldn’t be very short term minded of them. But as this problem exists for any illness, the ones most likely to be treatable through publicly funded Research will get the funding to make the medicine and put a patent on it.

Edit: they don’t kill you for profit. They don’t heal you for profit. For their profit, they act. You just happen to be acted on.

Can’t read the article bc paywall but importantly they changed it or this is fake

Edit: USA today and ny times claim it is fake

It has a straw. Idk…

A ugly thermo can with a straw and a handle.

Ofc, there is a difference. But that difference is not in where you think it is.

If you celebrate it for everyone, you celebrate that for every individual. You don’t create a group in your head. If you would celebrate it for republicans, you would create a group in your head and it would be less about the individual. But importantly, republicans are individuals and the celebration for everyone includes those individuals. The coverage for republicans would be as much celebrated as the coverage for potato farmers. But I don’t think anyone would be insisting that democrats didn’t celebrate that potato farmers get aca, outside of silly linguistical reasons.

What kind of weird mental gymnastics is that?

Do you think people don’t know that republicans are included in “everyone”?

So, just to be clear, if you would celebrate your child amazing school report, you aren’t celebrating their A in math? Because you are celebrating the school report and not the math grade?

I remember people being happy that everyone got “Obamacare” and everyone includes republicans.

I haven’t seen any suggested policies that said “everyone but republicans should get …”. But there were a few about e.g. giving children “free” lunch in school to ensure children have at least 1 meal per day. No one wanted to check if the parent of the child is a republican or if the child was. In fact, when the program was running for a little while, every child got their “free” meal.

Yes, people celebrated that republican got healthcare because that is what everyone means. Republicans are part of everyone.

To play the devil’s advocate, it is scientific fact that people are less deterred by gravity of punishment than certainty of punishment. if you understand the police’s job as both preventing crime and investigating crime, than crime prevention is the more important job than crime investigation, because every victim would be the happiest if they never had been a victim. So it is logical, that if a crime happened, you want to investigate and if possible, use the investigation to prevent crime. As perceived certainty is such a good deterrent of crime, you want to be perceived as highly successful with investigations and therefore punishment as highly likely.

So that brings you in the situation where an investigation has a higher value for the police when the investigation is in the news, as a success in that investigation will raise the perceived certainty of punishment more, compared to a “unknown” crime. As the value is higher, the resources spend on it can be higher too, as long as the additional funds are relative to the additional value of the investigation.

It seems immoral to spend more resources on high profile cases, as it seems to value certain lives more but arguably it raises the safety of everyone by making punishment seem more certain.

Obvious counterpoint: If you know that they are doing that, you aren’t perceiving them as successful in the average investigation and there you don’t feel like punishment is certain, or more certain.

Imagine, you waste energy by running ai bs instead of just forwarding to the link and by doing so, you make people not click the link, and therefore you don’t give the site any opportunity to generate revenue. Effectively, wasting energy and killing the source of the information.

Thanks google.

Who is “you”? I didn’t make any such claim. I commented to the conversation that you had with someone else, because I really didn’t see any contradiction.

So I certainly didn’t imply any of that.

I fail to see how the other person implied it is a good thing. The other person implied it is inconsequential if you don’t intend to attack. That isn’t good. Whether or not, that statement is accurate, is a different discussion, then whether or not a person implied that it is good.

I don’t understand what failure you are talking about but clearly you aren’t mistaken in with whom you are talking. But given what you wrote and based on that your understanding of the situation, I don’t understand where you see grief in what you think, was written.

I mean, it is valid perspective. You can doubt the existence while welcoming the existence and encouraging it. E.g. i doubt that there is a god, but I think the existence of a god would be good and I would welcome someone to be that god.

Again, I don’t see them saying what you think they said but if they did, it would be a valid perspective.

Where is the contradiction?

What expansion?

Doubting the expansion of NATO.

Why would anyone be afraid of a defensive alliance growing?

Hypothetical question after which context is provided, “when you don’t want to invade them?” Asking a hypothetical question is not contradictory to doubting the expansion.

How about trying to join yourself?

I don’t understand why you quoted that.

A trans man feels like a man but before at least social transition, they probably don’t feel like a man, in the sense that we have been talking about it. Which is why they transition.

It is ridiculous to read this and misunderstand what kind of “feeling like a man” we have been talking about.

I am Talking about trans men because 1. They are men. We talked about men. 2. It is bs, to act like you understand why a trans man wants to social transition but give shit to any (apparently cis) men when they want to have their gender affirmed.

Yes there are toxic men who expect ridiculous things from other people to feel affirmed, and often they are toxic. But this whole conversation is generalizations over generalization to toxic stereotypes. I am highlighting how much bs that is. Fucking treat people as individuals. If they want to meet their boys for a beer and discussing how the process of their different projects is going and what they might be able to do, to feel “manly”, then why do you have to be toxic to them? How does that make them insecure? Is my mother insecure when she goes to a girls night?

People should fucking chill and if they want to judge people, be precise. Could you imagine how much the “immigrants are bad” folks would suffer if they had to be precise and explain to the class how their coworker is a good person and hard worker while being an immigrant, but all immigrants are lazy and criminal.

I am sick of the left copying right wing rhetoric. People are individuals and most of them are pretty cool.

So Where was my logic bad? Did we talk about fragile egos? No. We talked about a vague notion of men (not only cis) wanting to feel manly.

I think it is a good idea to help them to understand to use their language.

The rubles don’t go “up” but the dollar goes “down”.

That better matches their understanding of reality and it is irrelevant for what you try to communicate.

People are mad about the weirdest thing.

When I was fully a gamer™, I used to get mad when people said that video games would make people to murderers. Now a bunch of the people, who probably used to get mad with me, are afraid that somehow video games makes you gay. Like dude, you know it is bs. You said it is bs.

“But it is about how the narrative suffers from the woke shit” yup totally true which is why the political right hated the harry Potter game for jk rolling’s wokeness with Dumbledore’s homosexuality and her rewriting of history by lying about what her notes would mean. Because they “hate” when authors don’t respect the story but go for clout. (For those, who don’t know, once jk said in an interview that a David star meant that the character is a wizard, later she claimed the same David star meant the character was a Jew) oh wait, they didn’t boycott the game but hyped it up? Surely not because jk is a terf. No way.

I don’t agree that it is a common phrase but I will give you that. So what is it saying in the context of the post without being completely besides the point?

I mean I think you would agree with me, if I would say that, saying “you aren’t a good person if you have to say it” would be off-topic as a response to someone who would say that when they hear that someone wants to feel like they are a good person, they think they are a bad person. I am changing the context to highlight why I think it would be completely besides the point. In that case, I think you would be right to take it literally and accept it as a off-topic response. But if it would be a reaction gif, you probably should ask yourself if it is wise to read it literally as an off-topic response or adapt it a little to fit the topic.

Now back to the real thing, The literal reading is toxic, and e.g. transphobic because it says that coming out makes you not a man. The little adaption that I think would be a valid way to match it in the context, is to change “says” to “says that they want to feel like”. Maybe it seems big but I honestly think it is an adaptation required for most reaction gifs or meme templates. But as it is still toxic and transphobic, I am not too interested in arguing whether or not I am wrong to read it like that instead of literally.

Now you are saying that it is a common phrase that says that if you make a big deal out of being something, you aren’t that. That sounds like the literal reading of it. So we are back at off-topic toxic, and e.g. transphobic statement. Because guess what being trans and coming out and transitioning seems like making a big deal out of it. I think it is a big deal and they have very right to do so. I hope their experience is pleasant. At this point, it seems like you think they shouldn’t and that doing so makes them not a real e.g. man. I don’t think you think that but to me, your argument seems to point there. Would you be motivated to tell me how that is not the logical conclusion?

What are you infering? On what ground?

There is a difference between infering and assuming.

You are correct, technically it doesn’t. It is about kings, and the poster tells you to replace king with man.

Also technically it is saying that a trans person who tells you that they are a man, is not a real man. I mean trans men are men.

But I don’t think that is a fair reading of the text. But sure you can read the message that I call toxic, as a toxic message to men in general and especially towards trans men. I just don’t see where you want to go with that.

Alternatively, and admittedly, I am reading it in the context of the post in which it is about men expressing that they want to feel manly. Still toxic, and implicitly transphobic, but at least matching the post.

What am I infer that it doesn’t say? I am willing to give that point up if you can make your case.

Where does it say that?

The post in the picture, just completely dismiss any possibility other than a man wanting to feel superior.

That is the starting point, that is what I am talking about.

The comment in the picture provides us with a story and context but it is not the same story or context because it is a different user sharing their experience. I have no issue with that.

The reaction gif is implying that you aren’t a man if you express that you want to feel like one.

Where does it say that you say it says? Where does it state that it is about making it your entire personality? Where does it say, it is about people who want to show how manly they? Where does it state that they don’t like a man stating that they are so manly? It seems to be about the opposite. A man who struggles with feeling manly. Where does it state that it is something the person does all the time?

Some of these are inconsequential in some scenarios but all of them highlight how much you read in there that just is not present to justify toxic language and behavior.