This is soulism
exocrinous
joined 1 year ago
Barry has standing in that destruction of natural habitats in the area surrounding his hive has impacted his colony's ability to thrive. His colony is a victim of colonialism. If he can prove that his colony is descended from an earlier colony which cultivated plant life in the New York area that was deforested by humans, then he may be able to argue that his colony is owed a certain amount of land. Charging rent from the human businesses on that land so he can buy honey, Barry would be able to supply his colony with enough honey to get us to the end of the movie's plot.
It's a little more complicated than what we actually saw, but the logic is sound.
Well I'm ace, I hate 99% of those songs, and I hate birdsong.
8 didn't do any retcons. A retcon would be "actually Snoke isn't the main villain, he's just a clone created by Palpatine." 8 was perfectly happy to play nice with all the facts established in 7, and then have Ben kill Snoke as the first dramatic climax of the movie. 8 gets to have two dramatic climaxes because Rian Johnson is a brilliant filmmaker.
When I first got into D&D I didn't know what edition I was playing. I knew there were multiple editions, but I couldn't find the edition number. The box just said Dungeons and Dragons.
It was 4E, and I played multiple other systems before I finally got into 5E.
Well it didn't "undo" anything in 8, it just undercut and betrayed its core themes. That doesn't erase 8, it just spits in 8's face.
It's impossible for 8 to have undercut 7's core themes, because 7 doesn't have any.
Snoke wasn't set up to serve as villain for three films. He was set up to serve for two films, same as the emperor. You're just salty that your fantheory didn't come true.
So, you also maintain that 6 undid 5 by killing off the Emperor, right?
Name one thing 8 undid from 7.
That's the long term plan they won't admit. And that's why it's important to fight these kinds of changes. They want to take enough inches that they'll have a mile.
Alright, so I'm on team "alone in the woods with a bear", but since you want to talk statistics, let's talk statistics and the heteronormativity embedded in your statistics.
The figure I'm familiar with is that 1/4 of women have been sexually assaulted. Maybe you have a figure that says 1/3, that's fine. But crucially, these figures do not say who did it. What you've made is an assumption that women only get sexually assaulted by men. Personally, I think that the vast, vast majority of sexual assaults on women are done by men. But not all. I don't believe you can transfer those two statistics - women sexually assaulted and women sexually assaulted by a man - 1:1.
Let me explain where I'm coming from. Half of transgender and nonbinary people have been sexually assaulted. That's double the number of women! This factor, double, is consistent across sources I've seen that investigate both figures with the same methodology. You might have a source that says 1/3 of women are sexually assaulted, that's fine, but the ones that investigate rates for both women and trans people say it's twice as many trans people.
I could go ahead and assume, if I wanted, that half of all trans people have been sexually assaulted by a cis person. That's the same assumption you made that 1/3 or 1/4 of women have been sexually assaulted by a man. But it's a bad assumption. I know lots of trans people who've been sexually assaulted, and most of the time it was by a fellow trans person. You see, trans people have our own community that's isolated from the cisgender dating scene as a matter of safety, and that means isolated, lonely people let their guard down around fellow transes and the victims can't get away from their abusers, nor are trans friends of trans abusers willing to give up a social network in which the abuser is embedded. It's messy and disgusting and it wouldn't be a problem if cis people just accepted us, but it's where we are. I would be wrong to assume all rapists of trans people are cis people.
And I read way too deep into your comment and got a vibe that you were making the assumption that all sexual abusers of women are men. You probably don't actually think that and didn't mean to make any kind of implication along those lines. So I'm just leaving this comment as a general reminder not to use heteronormativity to inform our statistical analyses.
But so is existentialism, absurdism, cynicism, and whatever Nietzsche was on about, which all refute nihilism.