Ubisoft should get comfortable with the idea of going out of business. I refuse to buy anything of theirs or interact with their shit launcher. Bad practices and bad products combined mean bankruptcy and i hope it happens soon so decent companies can get ahold of their IPs and make some good games out of them because Ubisoft is clearly not interested in doing so
It doesn’t make a difference. He still wants you to get comfortable with that. It doesn’t matter how he dresses up his sentences his thought process is the same, thats how he got to CEO.
The point of the dishonest article is to make you believe the CEO feels entitled to gamers becoming OK with subscription models. What he actually feels is a hope that subscription models will take off. It’s rage-bait. Did it work?
…you believe the CEO feels entitled to gamers becoming OK with subscription models. What he actually feels is a hope that subscription models will take off
That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.
People keep pointing this out like it’s some kind of misinformation.
The Ubisoft executive is saying gamers need to get comfortable not owning their games before subscription services will take off.
The Ubisoft executive would also very much like subscription services to take off.
QED the Ubisoft executive is saying “I’d really like gamers to get used to idea of not owning their games so our subscription service can take off”.
It comes back to the same thing: Ubisoft is saying aloud what they want the future of gaming to be.
And please don’t tell me you’re giving them the benefit of the doubt, here.
The problem is people apparently haven’t figured out yet how to read what the CEO of a for-profit company means when they say shit publicly about their services. Learn to read between the lines.
There’s a mile of difference between saying “consumers need to get comfortable not owning their games” and “we want consumers to get comfortable not owning their games (but using subscription services instead)”.
The former statement is extremely arrogant. The latter is just obvious. And it’s reasonable even if you or I personally don’t want to get our games on a subscription model - millions of people get their music through Spotify and it suits them just fine even though other people don’t want that. So it’s a way of straw-manning the people pushing subscriptions so you can hate them.
The saying comes from an opinion piece that was sponsored by the WEF. You can read more about it on the Wikipedia page. The article presented a future where the climate problem was fixed because the entire economy was based on services instead of the production of goods. It certainly has some elements that could work, but also has relied heavily on the neoliberal “the market will fix it” mentality.
Are streaming services that different from cable TV? You’re paying for access to new content. If you want specific content to own, don’t they all let you buy them? I know I was able to buy GoT discs when I wasn’t willing to pay for an HBO subscription. Has that changed?
Difference is that most games made anymore are online access dependent even if they aren’t dedicated multiplayer only games. What happens when subscriptions get so low that upkeep is unprofitable? You lose access to a game that you’ve paid a lot of money for, for no good reason as online isn’t necessary but the studios rarely patch it out at game sunset
yup, the very popular stuff you can usually (but not always) buy on disk. the less popular stuff you can sometimes (but not often) buy on disk if the creator really pushes for it
Bad writing for film and television really irks me because of how avoidable it is. I’m not talking about mediocre or lackluster writing, but the actual bad writing.
TV shows and movies are tremendously expensive to make. Every part of it costs a fortune except for one: the writing. Even if a studio or production company was paying for a whole team of writers to work full time it’s still only a fraction of the cost of paying film crews, actors, editors, and VFX artists.
Given the relatively lower expense, relative lack of time constraints, and enormous importance of the script to the overall quality of the product it absolutely boggles my mind that production companies consistently fuck up the writing process.
My pet theory is that this is because of the assembly line way of thinking of studios. Script -> Casting -> Shooting -> VFX -> Editing -> Profit.
It takes time to develop a good idea and script. If you force a writer to adhere to a strict schedule you’ll get a rush job and bad writing. As long as money keeps flowing in, their assembly line theory is validated.
It’s like reading a news article and seeing horribly constructed sentences and typos. Like, this is your main job! I know there are a lot of English majors out there who would love to find work.
At least for some of those there’s an excuse of needing to get the news out ASAP, but there’s no reason an in depth piece or an online article that’s been up for a few days should be butchered.
Really though writing should be the least important part of a journalists job, digging through stories and finding the truth or understanding the complex strands of the story should be and that often involves going back and editing, restructuring, reediting, reworking and adding to it over and over again.
It gets really hard to see your writing with fresh eyes once you’ve got it so perfectly constructed in your head, it’s super easy to miss awkward mistakes that have crept in - this is why editors were a thing but newspapers rarely bother anymore or the editor is too focused on political and social acceptable to notice grammar or word choice errors
I’m sure there’s plenty of those making a mess of things, but taking time in the writing process, getting input from relevant parties, and doing as much preparation as possible cuts out a myriad of problems.
Studio got a product placement deal? Great, let’s integrate that into the story long before filming even begins so it feels natural.
Director doesn’t know if he wants plot point A to happen or not? Good thing he heard about that while the movie was just a script instead of having him decide with dozens of people on set.
I’m sure there are uncontrollable, unforeseeable problems that will come up in any production. There is no reason to exacerbate those by being willfully unprepared. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure but it seems like film studios reliably hamper the “prevention” part to shave a few weeks off on prep time and end up losing more time or huge piles of money because of it.
i wouldn’t be surprised if a big part of it is that the higher ups don’t know much about what good writing actually is, or they’re too focused on ratings and they don’t dare deviate from “what works”. it also wouldn’t surprise me if writers weren’t allowed to make “major” changes to scripts after seeing how the writing looks after scenes have been recorded, because it might be “too expensive to change”.
It’s crazy cause if you hear writers in tv talk about it, they’ll get contracted like a month or two before they have to finish the first batch of scripts. Writing in Hollywood is as much about learning quick writing shortcuts/tropes to move the plot along to get the product out on time as it is being able to develop a plot.
That’s what sticks in my craw. If I’m a studio exec who’s going to invest potentially hundreds of millions of dollars it’s beyond stupid to jeopardize that to get a payout a little faster.
It just seems stupid to put a time crunch on the most important phase of your investment. I don’t see how taking a greater risk of a project being a flop is worth getting the script a few weeks sooner.
I think a lot is because Hollywood became a Henry Ford production process, one part feeds into the next so they’d have empty studios and workers idle if the next idea isn’t ready to go.
Also it literally doesn’t matter, this marvel film has literally the same plot and jokes as the last one? That’s ok we cooked up a drama where we pretend villainous gamers are against it to get people talking about it, we seeded stories into the media we own about it and forced our celebrities to pretend to love it…
They can make the absolute worst shit and as long as they link it to something vaguely related to some culturally significant thing it’ll be huge, even more so if they can link it to a social divide or political division they have no intention of ever actually caring about.
Childhood toy + social flag = money, it works for comic books ‘i had a the flash t-shirt when I was six I have to like these new films’, it worked with Barbie ‘this proconsumerism corporate tat which was heavily criticised by notable feminists has made a film attempting to shoehorn social progress back into a corporate friendly sales generating mush, they say the baddies don’t like it so I have to go see it!’, and it works with endless sequels ‘this franchise now makes zero sense, has the most painfully predictable plots, has gone so far off the rails jumping sharks that literally nothing makes sense and there are zero stakes to any of it which totally ruins everything that made the first one good…’ and you can’t even tell what I’m talking about with that because it’s everything (i was thinking john wick btw)
Make something actually good and no one will care unless the media circus tells them to, that’s how you get s flop. Make something even slightly changing intellectually or from a certain point of view and instantly most your audience is gone or angry, but be like Barbie and put sparkle on social concepts 90% of the world has agreed on for decades while actively avoiding anything more contentious then you don’t need to worry about alienating the audience or going over their heads.
And for some reason people just won’t stop watching it, they won’t watch indy stuff made with passion or small budget things no matter how good they are because they HAVE to see the big releases, like you’ll lose touch with society and be unable to make friends if you don’t force yourself to endure at least a dozen painfully dull industry movies a year.
Basically movies that cost almost nothing to make and use great writing to build up the world. Our minds are really good and fleshing out the rest as long as their given good writing as a foundation. Productions could save a lot of money with good writing. It blows my mind you could sink $200 million dollars into a project and not have an absolutely flawless script.
I never said they’re mutually exclusive. There’s tons of big budget explosion movies that have great scripts. Dark Knight, Casino Royale, Matrix, The Bourne movies, Heat. The best movies have legs and continue to sell for years after release, exploding sun only gets you a good opening weekend.
It’s completely beyond me why scripts get rushed out the door before they’re at the very least solid. Sure, a production company might make their money just a little bit sooner but they run a massive risk of losing all of their money making a movie that completely bombs.
It’s impossible for every script to be a masterwork, but holy crap it seems like an audience wanting a competent script is too much to ask. It’s not like there’s a shortage of aspiring writers that can take a crack at a script until it’s at least passable.
Because writing doesn’t really work like that, the reason we get bland writing is because they keep adding extra chefs.
Thay get these professional writers that learned formula in school and apply it to sections of someone else’s work and wonder why the result is an ugly tapestry of formulaic rubbish.
All the things people love are written by people with passion for the project, then they get a budget increase and professional industry writers get brought in and it’s all shitty generic snappy dialog and dramatic posing that feels uncomfortable and awkward in the scene.
Yes, boomer humor tends to be unfunny when you consider the real fact that the US is one year away from having open genocide of minorities and other “undesirables.”
Having to live armed every day because fascist shitbags are openly trying to kill you tends to suck the fun out of parties.
when did the left agree we had to lie about the right to make them sound bad? That we just had to make up bullshit that obviously is a lie to go after people on the right?
Mate, there are prominent US politicians saying they aim to destroy the issue of trans people, to find a solution to a the trans problem. What do you think that means?
In 1930s germany most people would vote for the facists, people did not turn to facism because they were born evil. That is to say, if you were german and lived through the effects of the end of ww1, you would be facist too
I’ve gotten fucked at every step of my life by capitalists and other greedy fuckheads, and it hasn’t made me fascist and I didn’t and never will vote for Trump.
Some people are just pathetic and want someone else to solve their problems. Some people are just stupid and cannot see how their problems will never be solved by a greedy asshole getting more power.
Some people are just terrible and will look down on others for merely existing. That doesn’t make them evil. It makes them FUNCTIONALLY evil. A hand does not need to know why in order to strangle someone.
I literally HAVE gone through what they have. I’ve grown up and lived in red states almost my entire life, but thank you for assuming my experience.
Again, stop infantalizing them. They are grown-ass adults PRETENDING to be victims of things that aren’t even victimizing them. They are pathetic losers taking the bait.
If you’re a fish, taking the bait means you die. If you’re a fascist, taking the bait means the “other” dies. They are not worth the pity you are giving them.
His point is that even if the Germans of 8-9 decades ago were stuck in a bad position such that fascism was their best choice, the people who are leaning into fascist ideals today don’t have that same excuse.
You can choose how you respond to a situation. It is ABSOLUTELY their fault. It will never not be their fault (those who supported, not merely lived through it).
Stop infantalizing people. Are humans not special in conservatives’ belief? Are we not better than dumb animals? Then why are you using the excuse that they were a cornered beast?
In 1930s germany most people would vote for the facists …
This is a common misconception. Even at the height of their power, the Nazis got only 43% of the votes. They were able to win elections because the other parties were unable to come together and run a joint candidate list. If the Social Democrats and Communists had formed a coalition, they might have won instead.
The Italian Liberals of the 20s adopted a “wait and see” approach, leaving the outnumbered socialists, anarchists and communists to fight both the fascists and the loyalists alone. Then when it was clear that the fascists were winning, the Liberals joined them.
I suspect that the 30s Social Democrats of Germany were similarly irresolute (though didn’t join before they were forced to) when dealing with the Nazi threat. Centrists tend to be, whether center-right like the Italian Liberals or center-left like the German Social Democrats.
I suspect that the 30s Social Democrats of Germany were similarly irresolute (though didn’t join before they were forced to) when dealing with the Nazi threat.
The social democrats started the iron front, they fought the SA in the streets, they didn’t join them. Their party was banned and members where thrown in jail once the Nazis won.
I sit corrected, then. Should have known better than to think Social Democrats as useless as liberals in fighting fascists tbh, given what we’re seeing today…
The NSDAP got 43,9% but since another party, the DNVP which was another right wing party they formed a coalition with, got 8% they had majority. So most people who voted did vote for the fascists.
Fair point, the DNVP was a right-wing party, but I wouldn’t call them fascist. They were dissolved after Hitler won absolute power (although not imprisoned or killed), and some even worked with the German Resistance.
This is what I mention when I'm covertly pushing "radical" ideas such as 4 day work weeks. We have all of these technological advancements - Why can't the workers see some of those benefits instead of them being funneled to the top in the form of extra profits?
Try 30 hour week. It’s superior to 4 “days” of random length. I had a couple of Philippines based contractors on my team who had 4 day weeks, but they still needed to work 40 hours
The goal was never leisure. The goal was always profit. And so we feed the profit machine, and when we run out of resources, we’ll start throwing in sacrifices.
If chatGPT was marketed towards workers filing reports for idiot bosses that won’t know the difference it would have been made illegal within the month
Honestly I just like the idea of it because if someone decides they really want to grind for a bit they can now take up a second up to full time job without worrying about most of the shit employers will give you for that.
What I think should be the standard is a “full time” job being 18 hours in a week of work time, including commuting, with any time above every additional multiple of 18 immediately paying out as 2.5x the pay that’s been earned so far. Doesn’t just give people their free time back in spades, it also significantly discourages extorting workers for overtime instead of staffing adequately because now it’s literally more expensive to pay out any overtime at all than it would have been to just hire the additional worker at equal pay, and that effect ramps up exponentially too, by the time you’re at the soul grind of a 40 hour week you’ve already tapped your employer so hard it would have been cheaper to hire 5 additional workers than it was to make you work that 40 hour week.
My organisation does 4 day work weeks. But we chain our staff so only some of us have a 3 day weekend. My day off is usually either Tuesday or Wednesday (by choice, I could take Monday if I wanted).
It works for me because I have a normal weekend with my friends and family to do weekend stuff, and then my day off doesn’t really feel like a true weekend so I use it to catch up on errands, housework, medical appointments, etc. Meaning unlike most of my peers who have to do it all on the weekend, my real weekend is pure fun. I don’t do any serious housework on my weekend, I have a weekday where I work on myself and my home.
BY ACCESSING THIS SITE YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUTUBE (HEREBY REFERRED TO AS THE “PLATFORM”) HAS THE ABILITY TO FORCE YOU (HEREBY REFERRED TO AS THE “SCHMUCK”) TO AGREE IN PROXY TO ANY ABSURD CONDITION THE PLATFORM DECIDES, AMENDABLE AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE, AND WITH STIPULATION THAT THE SCHMUCK MAY NEVER EVER CHALLENGE THE PLATFORM IN COURT OR EVEN LOOK AT THE PLATFORM THE WRONG WAY WHILE WALKING BY ONE ANOTHER IN THE HALL, LEST IT HURT THE PLATFORM’S FEELINGS.
Why are we infantilizing adults? Interpersonal relationships are complex and nuanced; we can acknowledge and even warn against the potential dangers of severe age-gap relationships without insulting the autonomy and choices of those involved. These neo-puritanical bullshit tendencies creeping in on the left needs to stop; it’s a trojan horse for the next generation of conservatives. Reject non-nuanced conservative-bate thinking.
I agree that the way we socially condition and, more importantly, hold men accountable are the real issues, which only reinforces my point. If the problem is men rather than age gaps, why disparage age gaps and not male behaviors instead? It’s like trying to focus on getting the blood stain out of a carpet while somebody has an open wound on their arm and continues bleeding out; it’s focusing on the wrong part of what’s wrong in the scenario.
Absolutely. There’s a reason why 40 year olds are going after teens - they know that women their age wouldn’t put up with their bullshit but the younger women will. They’re predators through and through because healthy relationships are equal, there is no power imbalance.
Because while it may result in a stable, positive, loving relationship (or just mutually great, harmless sex that’s what they’re after), it’s a strong predictor when people are actively seeking a relationship with that kind of gap. Think about the likely reasons someone would seek that kind of thing, and the likely outcomes. I think it’s reasonable to look at this sort of thing with suspicion, but not to immediately dust off the pitchforks and light the torches.
Not all middle-aged single men distributing candy from the back of their windows van are paedophiles, but it’s both reasonable and responsible to look at what they’re doing with suspicion.
It’s interesting you’d bring politics into this when conservatives seem so wrapped up in protecting child brides, child beauty pageants, fetishise youth, and appear to be massively over-represented represented in paedophilia stats.
If you thought I was defending conservatives, you’re wrong. There’s nuance to this; the topic is sexual dynamics but the purpose is dominance. This is a conservative kind of principle because it’s about limiting autonomy of consenting adults, enforcing social morals, and boogyman logic. We should be embracing and striving for a better, freer, more autonomous world, where everyone, women included, are empowered rather than limited, not just settling for a slightly preferable version of the patriarchy.
Which means embracing a nuanced world. Which is why I said acknowledge and even warn against the potential dangers of severe age-gap relationships; we don’t have to be blind to real world dangers, but that we shouldn’t let fear of those dangers drive us into blind ignorance again or else we’re just repeating the same cycle. Hence the trojan horse. We get better when we accept difficult concepts rather than accept simplified extractions for the masses.
edit: just in case my position is somehow still unclear, yes I’m using conservative as effectively synonymous with “bad” here. I’ll consider caring when they consider better conduct and positions.
Not saying you’re defending conservatives - just embracing and diving into some of the nuance.
Broadly, I agree with you on this. The main possible point of difference between us relates to the perceived level of risk associated with such relationships. For what it’s worth, I’ve linked a NIH study on the topic to the angry lunatic that also responded to my parent reply.
I dunno. Speaking as a male, the reason I see older men seeking far younger women is that it’s easy to seem like the smartest guy in the room when you’re also the oldest guy in the room. You can project an air of worldliness that makes you seem smarter and wiser than you really are. You can get younger women, legal women, fawning over you because they’re young and haven’t really experienced enough of life and people to be wise to the bullshit. They avoid women around their own age because they’ve been around, they know all the tricks.
Yeah. Not impossible for the to be healthy relationships but those appear to be the minority. With age generalay comes other factors, like financial resources, that strike a relationship power imbalance.
I think it’s reasonable to look at this sort of thing with suspicion
I think it’s reasonable to mind your own fucking business. The judging and flimsy excuses to meddle are guaranteed to cause relationship issues for others.
You act when there’s evidence of abuse, not ‘predictors’. This is fucking twitter/reddit moon-logic where every day 5000 supposed serial killers are identified based entirely upon whether they kicked a dog or left the toilet seat up.
Think about the likely reasons someone would seek that kind of thing
This is a stupid assumption in itself. Most people don’t have a wealth of relationship options to choose from. If you’re desperate enough to denigrate yourself using tinder, you’re desperate enough to cast as wide a net as possible and settle for anyone not actively smoking meth.
You act when there’s evidence of abuse, not ‘predictors’. This is fucking twitter/reddit moon-logic where every day 5000 supposed serial killers are identified based entirely upon whether they kicked a dog or left the toilet seat up.
Yeah - the National Institute of Health’s National Library of Medicine is a junk source, but here’s the actual data. Spoiler: it’s a predictor. I think it’s time you calmed down and started acting based on evidence rather than rage and moon logic.
You also seem to be confusing looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening - why?
If you’re desperate enough to denigrate yourself using tinder, you’re desperate enough to cast as wide a net as possible and settle for anyone not actively smoking meth.
I thought we were dismissing moon logic and deferring to evidence. One in eight people in my country use online dating without controlling for anything - age, relationship status, nothing. Forbes Health state that 52% of American adults that have never been married use online dating, and Statistica report 57.44 million users of online dating in the US in 2022. On the other hand, the NIH report 2.5m Americans have used meth in the past year. Reeeally scraping the bottom of the barrel with over half the available dating pool, eh?
Are these feels based on your personal experience? You might be able to do better than meth addicts if you calmed down a little. There are plenty of free meditation resources online - it can’t hurt to give 'em a try!
I read this over a couple of times looking for your thesis statement… nope, there wasn’t a point hidden in there anywhere, just poorly-contextualised quoting of statistics, like how you gloss over the very poor success rates on dating apps/sites, and an opening strawman.
Just a very overwrought u mad troll. Okay, cool, can’t believe I interrupted my movie for a ploy straight out of 2010.
You also seem to be confusing looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening - why?
Because there isn’t a difference. The moment someone falls on the wrong side of a taboo, they’re considered fair game. You’re just doing the work of rationalising it.
I read this over a couple of times looking for your thesis statement… nope, there wasn’t a point hidden in there anywhere
Did you get as far as the first two sentences from the study? I’ll give them here.
Adolescent girls with older male main partners are at greater risk for adverse sexual health outcomes than other adolescent girls. One explanation for this finding is that low relationship power occurs with partner age difference
I’ve brought credible, relevant studies and stats, you continue to defer to feels. “nuh-uh - I am rubber you are glue” isn’t going to cut it. That’s the feels covered, now tell me why you’d type the way you did it you weren’t blinded by rage.
There’s no difference between looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening? This is just stupid on the face of it - tantamount to “There’s no difference between investigating someone and executing them.”
Is your treatment of reasonable suspicion (informed by credible studies) as active intervention, and insistence that you can only date the handful of crackheads in your age group the result of a persecution complex linked with relevant experience?
now tell me why you’d type the way you did it you weren’t blinded by rage
Fuck me, you’re tedious and desperate. Oh noes, I swore again, I must be ‘raging’. Absolutely one-note, and about a decade by its best-by date as a troll, let alone a debate tactic. Even if you could get me stirred up, it wouldn’t be an impediment to my reasoning skills or articulation because I’m not a child.
I’ve brought credible, relevant studies and stats
…over something that was never a point of contention. You went google-fuing for no other reason than to look like you’ve got something to argue with me about.
There’s no difference between looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening? This is just stupid on the face of it - tantamount to “There’s no difference between investigating someone and executing them.”
No, if we’re going with argument by analogy, what you’re doing is stirring up a witch hunt and then claiming no responsibility when people you’ve enabled drown a bunch of spinsters.
You don’t look upon a bunch of strangers’ relationships with ‘suspicion’ if you have any fucking concept of pulling your fucking head in and minding your own business. You’re a busybody, a gossip, a meddler. If you want a predictor, try having a healthy relationship with anyone when you’ve got a bunch of twat neighbours looking through your windows and whispering behind your backs. You’re the same kind of arsehole who makes going out in public hell for a lot of mixed-race couples because they get smirks and weird comments about how it must be a ‘mail order bride’ scenario. Like you’re not fighting for some great moral victory here, you just suck.
You go on this diatribe for keeping the data and practicalities in mind when I see a 45 year old guy with an 18 year old as you talk about people afflicted with addiction the way you do? Careful on the high road - I hear it’s precarious up there.
I’d encourage you to direct your witch hunt nonsense at the NIH. Not much for me to argue, sorry.
I hope that active imagination of yours is useful in your search for a stable relationship - truly.
And you just assume it must be an age-gap relationship and start getting icky feelings and start looking online for ways to justify your pearl-clutching and feelings of outrage, when on the balance of probabilities they’re just a father and daughter with a healthy affectionate relationship you never had growing up, and you just have unresolved emotional issues.
Yeah… ngl, kinda hoped we’d left most of you people behind on reddit.
Yeah - fuck me - I find incest to be a problem too - for all the same reasons and a handful more. Are you going to suddenly start clutching your pearls at that one?
Who said anything about incest? Fuck me, I was on the money. You came at me with a bunch of trolling crap and accusations of ‘rage’, yet you may legit need help.
Nah, mate, you’re just deranged. You see any two people in public together and assume they’re screwing, then if someone points out to you that they’re probably just related you still think they’re screwing? Fuckin’ weird.
Do you frequently find it this difficult to follow a conversation, and have to constantly reestablish the frame of reference, or should we read something into your desperation to pivot away from the point?
This issue is constantly telling younger adults that their choices aren’t valid and are subject to scrutiny by older adults, even total fucking strangers.
Subtext. This meme isn’t about the image, it’s about the culture upon which it is commenting. And a large reaction to that culture is beyond discouraging of age-gap relationships, it’s prohibitive of them. This reaction wants to redefine adulthood as post 25, label anyone above 25 who shows interest in those under as automatically and inherently predatory (as opposed to potentially predatory), and in doing so severely infantilizes anyone under 25 as “incomplete” adults, as if adulthood is some kind of clear journey with a specific and obvious destination, who they deem incapable of evaluating risks and circumstances and making autonomous choices.
It’s interesting, I agree with what you say here and this is what I thought you were saying… But when I read it the first time without additional context it kind of sounded like the argument was that we are infantilizing the older individuals. It appeared that the argument could have been: we make the “rules” and apply them to the older half because they are the ones who are incapable of dealing with their emotions, needs and desires.
You are right that it is in the subtext. This is the same poor argument that men are unable to control their desires if a woman wears revealing clothing… Just restructured around women being “taken advantage of” by a “smarter more mature male”.
It might also have been why the other commenter thought you were defending the conservative position. There are two steps here that you made when the intermediate step could also apply and would be an honestly revolting position to defend. I couldn’t quite figure out if it was a reasonable position or a very well hidden dog whistle.
I guess all I can say to that is that while I try best to communicate my meaning clearly, I am a fallible human who will sometimes fall short of perfect wording. Thank you for reading my words with an open mind and inquiring for more information where necessary rather than jumping to conclusions, I guess.
This reaction wants to redefine adulthood as post 25
It’s even more than that, it wants to make adulthood some kind of sliding window where the age of the older partner defines how “adult” and “capable of making decisions” we see the younger partner, and the older a person gets the more people at the lower end of the age range get excluded for them from this fictional adulthood. For example: 60 and 30 would also be seen as inappropriate.
Now it’s perfectly normal for younger people not to find much older people attractive or suitable to have a relationship with and vice versa, and they may even find the idea repulsive, but this is still a personal preference. It’s probably even the preference of the majority of people, but that does not mean we should take away the agency of adults to choose their partners when they have a different, non-conforming preference. At that point it has nothing to do anymore with protecting vulnerable people from predators, but about imposing your own preferences and dating standards on other people, and you’re quite right in calling it out for the neo-puritanical and conservative thinking that it is.
Honestly I’m okay with making the age of legal adulthood 25 years, and I’m part of one of the last generations that could buy cigarettes in the US at 18. A long time ago, people didn’t live as long as they do now, so it was just kinda mutually agreed upon that an 18 year old kid was smart enough to read and enter into a contract. Military enlistment? Contract. Marriage? Contract. Home loan? Contract. Can you honestly say that at 18 you knew what you were signing up for with every contract and agreement you were signing?
This isn’t so much about intellectual growth, as it is is about contract law. How many kids ended up over $100k in debt before 25 because they didn’t fully read and understand the pieces of paper they were told to sign to go to college? The biggest lie on the Internet is, “I have read, understood, and agree to the Terms of Service.” I think, for some kids, it’s too much to ask that they learn how to read a contract, unless you want to make it a graduation requirement, but that’s a whole other conversation.
It sounds to me like that’s an issue of predatory lending and business practices; why don’t we attempt addressing those issues rather than arbitrarily deeming people too underdeveloped to understand such things for literally a third of their estimated life-span
I think education is part of the problem. The legal age of adulthood is 18 in the US, but we don’t teach kids to be adults before then. We teach them how to pass standardized testing so the schools can say they’re not failing and continue to receive the most state and federal funding they can. Public schools in the US got really bad a teaching actual life skills along the way, mostly because we had a bunch of conservatives saying it’s the parent’s job to do that. I haven’t kept up with education for a while, so I don’t even know if kids are learning how to balance a checkbook.
Our priorities are ass backwards when it comes to education. “Bean counters see a school whose students aren’t passing the standardized testing? Slash their funding, that’ll make them work harder!”
I got there from a point of, “at what point do we consider ourselves adults?” It’s kinda fucked that we say, “Yes, a kid fresh out of high school with hardly any actual life skills is perfectly competent to sign contracts, to understand the law and be held liable when they break it, date and possibly get married, enlist in military service, sign for loans, register to vote, and all this other good shit, but they’re not old enough to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco.” I mean, it’s settled science that at 18 years the brain is still developing, and doesn’t really stop developing until around 25. So, obviously I feel like that should be where we say adulthood should start.
I mean, if we’re not going to change it, then obviously we need to refocus public education in the US. Stop teaching kids to pass the standardized testing that state and federal government use to assign schools funding and focus more on teaching kids how to actually adult. How to make budgets, how to file taxes, how to read and comprehend contracts, etc.
All of the 18-year olds will disagree. It would be quite cruel to take away their deserved freedoms of adulthood.
Sure if you’re older than 25 or 30 you know that you’re not fully mature at 18, but freedom is more important than being protected from all bad decisions.
I agree WRT things like voting. I believe if you’re old enough to be drafted or to voluntarily enlist you’re old enough to have a voice in government. But perhaps the draft age should be raised, if not outright abolished. The age to enlist should definitely be raised, as I feel exposing a kid, even one on the cusp of adulthood, to the horrors of war is abhorrent, doubly so if they are being conscripted.
Because just because you’re old enough to make your own choices, it doesn’t mean your choices are good. And from the other side, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right. Lots of older guys who date much younger women are very predatory and manipulative.
Because just because you’re old enough to make your own choices, it doesn’t mean your choices are good.
And does this suddenly stop being true at 30? At 50? Fallibility is a human condition that extends well into adulthood.
And from the other side, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right.
At no point have I been discussing the legality of anything. Legality is a separate conversation from morality, I agree.
Lots of older guys who date much younger women are very predatory and manipulative.
Yes, which I acknowledged, and even implicitly expressed the value in being aware of this fact. That cars have potential to result in fatal accidents is not good reason to fully discourage the use of automobiles, and the same logic applies here.
They’re not his bodyguards. They’re there to hold him back as long as they can while you run away. This is not to give you an chance to escape, but because he gets disappointed and sad if the hunt is over too soon.
And it seems to be part of this strange anti-pleasure right wing campaign to use youtube to brainwash gen alpha into being obsessively homophobic in the most petty and pathetic way possible to the point that people start thinking YOU’RE gay, and have fragile masculinity by dividing 50% of the human population into greek letter categories unironically, setting things up so they’re guaranteed to become incels due to the romanticization of sexual ignorance and really long abstinence periods, so they can then get rich blaming their inability to get laid on something something gays something something feminazis™ to get them riled up and more importantly get their paranoid karen moms to donate to their incel cults.
“I will shred this uterus down to its last atom and then, with the stones you’ve collected for me, create a new one teeming with life that knows not what it has lost but only what is has been given. A grateful uterus.” -Plan B wielding Thanos
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.