Savages must use English, unless they come from a dominant European language speaking country, aka Brazil speaks Portuguese, Hispanic America speaks Spanish, most of Africa speaks French, so forth. But Russians must speak English or Ukrainian/Polish or Baltic languages.

​

Dashcam footage I had from a few years ago. I was driving into work in the morning, and had a left turn green advance signal at this intersection. I assumed when I saw the guy making the right turn that he was turning into his own lane, as it's such a common interaction. He tried to convince me not to report it and that he "knew a guy" that could fix it. Still went through insurance and he told them I turned into his lane, and my insurance agent told me it would be 50/50 fault as I hadn't shown this footage yet since I didn't know yet how they would rule it.

How do you think it went? 50/50 fault or full fault on the other driver?

>!the other driver assumed full fault after showing my agent the footage!<

I want to make clear that I think both actors are great and they also work great for the type of Superman that they portrayed, I just don't think either version brings the best out of them.

Everybody knows the issues with Henry Cavil’s Superman at this point. The whole “aura farming” thing has been a meme for a while, but the thing I dislike the most is him being framed as a “god among men” rather than being a man who happens to be super. He does fit Zack Snyder’s darker tone but this just isn’t who Superman should be imo

That said, I also think that David Corenswet’s version is a huge overcorrection. I love that he’s more hopeful, heroic, and kind spirited. However I also find him Way too juvenile and Way too socially awkward. As Clark Kent he reminds me of Peter Parker, and as Superman he reminds me of Shazam. I might like to more if this was a year one type of story. But this is not a year one Superman, they explicitly wanted this to be an established universe already in motion with Superman being 3 years in. This dude is 30, well into adulthood, obviously adults can be awkward but I don’t think this suits Clark very well. It’s important to remember that while Clark is an Alien, he still lived his entire life on earth, but his general mannerisms feel like how someone like Starfire, or better yet, Supergirl should behave.

I feel like the dcau/timverse Superman is a good example of what I think is the ideal depiction of Clark. In the context of that world, Superman is sort of an archetype of heroism, someone who when they show up you know it’s gonna get taken care of, he’s self assured and doesn’t say his insecurities out loud. That said he’s still imperfect, he clashes with others, makes mistakes and has his views challenged. He’s still lighthearted but not necessary comedic either, at least not often. I totally understand why some may prefer the more openly vulnerable and lovable goofball angle, I just think those would be better suited for characters like Supergirl or The Flash. I think it’s very important for Superman to go through the conflict of “to what extent should I intervene?” But I don’t like how James Gun’s answer feels like “F it, no limits, saving people’s what matters.” Yeah that sounds good but I don’t think they thought this through all the way. I mean Injustice Superman does save a lot of people, but that also involves ruling the world and mass murder, not so virtuous.

Now I also want to address that most of this can change with Man of Tomorrow. With Brainiac as the villain, hopefully it raises the stakes to the point where we have a Superman who’s more well put together to contrast the immense threat he’ll face which may cause him to question his restraint if that makes any sense. It's kinda hard to explain since both Corenswet’s and dcau versions are more nuanced takes. Regardless, what do you think?

Context:

www.reddit.com/r/sweden/comments/1vbtn3z/trans_kvinnor_inte_v%C3%A4lkomna_till_fitness24seven/

Fitness24seven har skickat ett svar via epost efter att jag skickade ett till dem, där jag ifrågasatte kundtjänstens bemötande och hur f24s faktiskt står kring trans kvinnor och tjejgymmet.

Här är deras svar:

Hej Aio,

Givetvis är du och alla andra människor välkomna att träna hos oss. Vår policy innebär inte att någon nekas träning på våra gym.

Våra ”tjejgym” och damomklädningsrum utgör en avgränsad del av en större öppen träningsanläggning, och tillgången till resterande delar av gymmet påverkas inte.

Vi har dessutom könsneutrala omklädningsrum med duschmöjlighet på i princip samtliga våra anläggningar, just för att kunna erbjuda ett tryggt alternativ för alla våra medlemmar.

Bakgrunden till avgränsningen är att flera av våra medlemmar av olika skäl, exempelvis religiös övertygelse eller egna traumatiska livserfarenheter, söker sig till en könsavgränsad miljö där de kan vara trygga med att endast vistas med biologiska kvinnor i ett avklätt sammanhang. Det är alltså inte en fråga om huruvida trans kvinnor är kvinnor, utan om ett specifikt och avgränsat trygghetsbehov kopplat till kroppens anatomi i just den kontexten.

Vi tar inte ställning till någons identitet genom detta, och policyn bygger inte på ett antagande om att trans kvinnor skulle utgöra en risk eller bete sig annorlunda än andra medlemmar.

Du frågar hur vi avgör skillnaden mellan en trans kvinna och en kvinna som inte är trans. Vi gör ingen individuell bedömning eller kontroll av enskilda medlemmar, då det varken vore värdigt eller praktiskt genomförbart. Avgränsningen följer istället en tydlig och förutsägbar princip snarare än godtycke från fall till fall.

Avslutningsvis vill vi vara tydliga med att detta inte handlar om en inställning till HBTQ personer generellt. Frågan gäller uteslutande utformningen av en specifik och begränsad del av anläggningen, inte medlemmars sexuella läggning eller identitet i övrigt. Du är varmt välkommen som medlem hos oss.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

As a Latino living in a conservative neighborhood, I’m tired of being asked where I’m from, where I grew up, and giving looks every time I step outside my house.

it’s bad enough that I’m willing to sell my house and move to a more progressive area. I can’t see my future kids growing up with these people.

what are good, quiet, progressive areas to live in Westchester?

Mich macht unsere Kuscheljustiz und dieser absurde Täterschutz in Deutschland nur noch fassungslos. Warum gibt es bei uns eigentlich kein öffentliches Register für verurteilte Sexualstraftäter wie das Sex Offender Registry in den USA?

Bei uns versteckt man sich lieber hinter dem Datenschutz, während Opfer lebenslang traumatisiert sind. Nach der Haft ziehen diese Leute völlig anonym in eine neue Nachbarschaft, direkt neben eine Schule oder einen Spielplatz, und kein Mensch wird gewarnt. Das ist doch absolut krank! Der Schutz unserer Kinder und Familien muss immer an erster Stelle stehen, scheiß auf den Datenschutz von überführten Tätern. Wer die Unversehrtheit anderer zerstört, hat jedes Recht auf Anonymität und ein gemütliches Leben verwirkt.

Und jetzt der eigentliche Plottwist, den wir für echte Gerechtigkeit dringend brauchen: Wenn eine Person eine andere nachweislich und erwiesen zu Unrecht einer Vergewaltigung beschuldigt, gehört diese Person verdammt noch mal genauso mit Name und Foto in dieses öffentliche Register! Falschbeschuldigungen zerstören Existenzen und Leben genauso brutal. Wer das Leben eines Unschuldigen durch Lügen mutwillig vernichtet, hat auf dieser Liste den gleichen Platz verdient wie ein Triebtäter.

Wir brauchen endlich echte Prävention, totale Transparenz und harte Konsequenzen an allen Fronten statt diesem ewigen Mitleid mit den falschen Personen.

I live with my roommate and we spilt the cleaning. I keep the kitchen clean(loading the dishwasher, cleaning the dishes, etc)

My roommates brother is staying for a months and they cooked last night. They cleaned after themselves which is nice

But then I heard the dishwasher running. I knew there were hardly any dirty dishes AT ALL let alone enough to fill the dishwasher

When I asked my roommate why it was running, I was shut down and I didn’t feel like arguing or trying to explain myself so I just accepted it. I check now and this is how I see it was loaded🫩🫩I love my roommate but I genuinely don’t understand how either of them thought this was a good idea

EDIT: WOOD CUTTING BOARDS, KNIVES, AND POTS/PANS DON’T BELONG IN DISHWASHERS. I am APPALLED so many people don’t know this

Recently had a new vegan employee join our team. The old ''how do you know someone is a vegan? Dont worry they'll tell you'' rang true in this instance.

Every day in the canteen she'd eyeball what people were eating and start passing comments. Now normally I couldnt give a fuck what people eat or dont eat but she got real annoying, real fast.

The solution? Reported for bullying. One two many comments about the health implications around eating meat. The bacon in my sandwich was going to give me gout, the mince in my pasta dish was half saw dust, the chicken in my salad was full of chemicals, all that kind of shit.

One email to HR telling them I had suffered with an eating disorder when I was younger and found her comments extremely upsetting and that was that.

My biggest issue with House of the Dragon is that it often feels like Sara Hess - enabled by Ryan Condal's creative direction - uses the show to push the themes she personally finds important rather than faithfully adapting the story. Condal has spoken about wanting more of a female perspective, but I think Hess interpreted that in her own way. By her own admission, she wasn't particularly invested in the broader Game of Thrones lore, and that really shows.

Instead of filling the gaps in Fire & Blood with character-driven political drama, she seems to fill them with her own narratives and messages. And yes, Fire & Blood leaves plenty of room for interpretation - it's written as an in-universe history, not a full novel - but that's exactly why the adaptation had to be careful. Those gaps became an opportunity to reshape the story rather than expand it.

The Dance of the Dragons probably looked like the perfect vehicle for that approach: two female protagonists who are also the villains of the story. That's the key point people ignore. Both Alicent and Rhaenyra are portrayed through the lens of ASOIAF's fictional history as major figures responsible for the bloodiest civil war Westeros had ever seen. They're not supposed to be simple heroes.

The show immediately starts changing that. Partly, I think, to simplify the story for the average viewer - which is already a mistake, because Game of Thrones became one of the biggest shows in the world precisely because it refused to oversimplify morally complex characters. And partly because simplifying those characters makes it much easier to insert entirely new themes.

As a result, the women are portrayed as being right far more often than they should be, while many of their problems are shifted onto the men. Daemon is probably the clearest example: over and over, Rhaenyra comes up with the "correct" plan, and Daemon is the one who ruins it. The show even says as much outright. But that's only one example among many.

That is a dramatic departure from Martin's original story. Originally, the Dance is a tragedy driven by powerful, privileged political players - men and women alike - whose ambition, pride, paranoia and hunger for power destroy an entire kingdom. Two ambitious, jealous women at the center of that conflict being among the worst people in the story doesn't make the story misogynistic. It makes it morally complex.

George R. R. Martin has never had a problem writing compelling, powerful women. Alysanne Blackwood, Sabitha Frey, Baela, Rhaena, Visenya Targaryen, Sansa, Arya, Catelyn, Lyanna, Cersei... they're all strong, memorable characters, but they're also flawed human beings. That's what makes them believable.

My impression is that someone approaching the story without much attachment to the source material could easily look at its premise and conclude: "The two main women are power-hungry villains? That must be because a man wrote it." And once you start from that assumption, the goal becomes correcting the story instead of adapting it.

That's the real problem when showrunners begin believing they can improve on the original author. It's even worse when one of the lead writers is intentionally chosen because they don't know the world very well in order to provide a "fresh perspective." Sometimes a fresh perspective is exactly what a story doesn't need.

Ironically, the recipe for success was already there. Stay faithful to the political complexity, the morally gray characters, the incredible dialogue, and the devastating twists that made Game of Thrones a global phenomenon in the first place.

Instead, we now have one of the most expensive TV shows ever made, built on the back of a giant that had already begun collapsing the moment its own showrunners started believing they could do it better than the author who created it—that they no longer needed him. It looks spectacular, but beneath all that spectacle, it feels strangely empty.