I love the first one as a proper horror film, and love the second one as a great action film. Alien 3 always seemed to stand well with the other two by returning to the horror genre, and expanding on Ripley.
In the third film, Ripley has lost everything that she fought so hard for in second film, and it’s her against this alien that has taken everything and she knows it’s finally going to take her life in total.
The setting in Alien 3 was very original as a penal colony that’s just hot and dark, and the design of the alien is entirely different since it burst from a dog (or, a bull if you watch the Director’s Cut). The alien moves faster and more haphazardly and the cinematography reflects this as well. The final scene with Ripley’s sacrifice is the fitting end to what was a trilogy at that point.
I don’t know whether people confuse Alien 3 with the 4th one or what, but Alien 3 is a fantastic film that holds up well decades later. I’m always confused by the fact that people slam it so often, and it wasn’t until I saw people crapping on it online that I realized that there was even a consensus that it was bad.
Same. I thought it was actually quite enjoyable. Too long in the opening parts in particular, but once it gets going it has a lot of really funny moments.
Plus, as much as I could say “It could have been better”, I will also have to concede that given the modern Ghostbusters, fuck could it have been worse. 😅 Overall, pretty damn good.
That was such a weird one to me. I think partly they leaned too hard into trying to leverage controversy for attention, but still, the movie was fine. Like… except for the first one, they’ve all just been “okay” movies, in that context it’s probably one of the better ones.
🤯 I frankly never thought of just asking. I figured they were under the gun to deliver so quickly that they wouldn't do that. This changes things. I may have to visit In-N-Out again.
I played like 40hours of Cyberpunk 2077 before going on social media. I Thought it was going to get “mid” reviews, but I guess I got really lucky to not hit any serious bugs. Lesson being: If you wanna enjoy a game, don’t look at any marketing materials, and don’t seek out social media about it until you’ve had time to form your own opinions.
Yeah I think the same thing is happening with starfield as well. People expected skyrim x elite dangerous x the good parts of no man’s sky and I think that just isn’t realistic. That said I find starfield pretty meh in it’s current state, I am waiting for the QOL mods to stabilize before I play much as I just ran into way too many issues.
My biggest (not only) complaint so far is that entire planets have maybe 8 or 9 species of plants and animals. Hopefully biodiversity mods will pop up. It seems like a decent platform to build future content into.
It would be one thing if people were just overhyping things, but a lot of the outrage was over how much they just blatantly lied while marketing the game. They promised a lot of specific things and then released something that was aesthetically impressive but ultimately outdone in just about every other category by sometimes decades old games, and lacked all of the groundbreaking features they marketed.
Personally, even coming back to it much later and trying to enjoy it at face value with all of its updates, it still felt like a boring and shallow GTA clone with a neon glaze. That’s not to mention the fact that it’s still frustratingly buggy.
I read reviews before buying on day 2, basically. Sure, I expected some bugs, as the reviewers warned. I barely got any, just some visual glitches during cutscenes. Still, I would give the game a solid 8/10.
Came out of my playthrough to everyone raging about everything about the game. Couldn’t even give an honest opinion about the game without being downvoted to oblivion because people who never even played the game refused to believe the game was playable at all.
Same. I played it on stadia and it was pretty stable. When I went to that other site to see what people were saying I was absolutely shocked at the amount of bugs and hate it was getting.
Yeah I hear that’s bad, I hate all driving in video games so it wasn’t anything out of the ordinary for me, I think I drove a car like twice in 150hrs.
To be it was truly bad, but not in a rage-y way, only in a “Wow, this is it?! All this hype, all this wait, and this tepid fart is all we’re getting at the end?”-way.
I finished it - which granted isn’t difficult given how brief the main quest is - then went through some specific side quests. I will give it credit, some of the side quests have really cool characters and are overall really well done. And the graphics can be pretty as hell in some if not most areas. But ~everything else, the main quest, the writing, the story, the city in itself, the software quality, the combat system, the upgrade system, it’s all there, it’s largely functional, but just barely so.
So yeah, just massively disappointing given how much work must have been behind it. I don’t even want to know how often management yanked the team around and made them re-do massive parts of it, the bugginess and tonal disjointedness of the finished game hints at it plenty.
Special shoutout to the driving, which highlights how the game was clearly not meant to have this until relatively late in development.
I borrowed it from a library for a PS4. It was genuinely unplayable if you actually wanted to play it, but for laughing at the bugs and whatnot it was great.
Would’ve been pissed if I had paid anything for it.
I’m not a gamer but I’ve noticed reviews of anything are usually trash. And if you’re thinking about buying a product and looking at reviews, you’ve gotta be careful to avoid reviews where they get a cut on the “buy now” links. In fact, usually if it has a link to buy it I just go back and forget that review.
There’s a generic thing with cilantro that makes some people think it tastes like soap. I don’t have it, but my wife does. I hardly notice cilantro, but even a little ruins a dish for her.
What we taste is a specific chemical that you can’t taste. There are a handful of these chemicals that can be tasteless or not based on your genetics. Drinking alcohols all have a chemical like that. If you ever see anyone hold their nose while taking a shot, it means they’re a taster of that chemical, and trying nor to taste it.
Every little bit I eat them to see if I like them (or can force myself to) but I just haven’t been able to yet. I really wish I could just get over my dislike but I can’t seem to enjoy the taste.
I saw someone commenting how they specifically don’t like “raw tomatoes”. I was wondering why you’d be eating raw tomatoes to begin with but they just meant like regular tomatoes, ones you haven’t cooked since for them the cooked ones were the norm. And it had so many people agreeing with them about how “raw tomatoes” are disgusting.
I’d call “raw” tomatoes, as in regular eatable ones as just regular tomatoes. Raw to me sounds like unripe. While prepared, I guess that is self-explanatory. But I guess that’s more about cultural or language differences.
What do you not like about “raw” (I guess it is now warranted since there’s ambiguity, so fair enough) tomatoes? I think they’re the tits! First time I hear the term “heirloom tomatoes” btw.
Raw means uncooked, not unripe. They taste sharper and have their skins on, and the seeds are with their gel and juice, between the firm fleshy parts. When tomatoes are cooked, often the first step is to drop them in boiling water for a minute, take them out, and slide the skins off. Because the skin gets tough when cooked. The other thing that happens in cooking is that the flesh softens and the seeds migrate so it’s all more or less the same texture. The flavor gets sweeter too.
Personally I like raw tomatoes and cooked equally, but they are different.
Just sounds so weird, people calling regular tomartoes “raw” lmao. Is that a thing somewhere in the world, maybe the US? They like their stuff factory done lol
Raw cherry tomatoes or grape tomatoes would go along with raw carrots and raw celery and raw cauliflower and raw bell peppers and other raw vegetables on a crudité platter. Guess what “cru” and “crudités” means in French?
The point being that these are all vegetables that can also be served cooked. (Unlike lettuce which is ruined by cooking. I tried it once, blech.) But when dipping, you want that firmness and fresh taste.
It’s not a US thing, or anything special, you just seem to have an exaggerated idea of what the word raw means. Maybe you’re confused because it can also mean naked (“in Equus, he appeared on stage in the raw”) or chafed/chapped (“his nose was red and raw from the snowstorm”) or unedited/unfiltered (“the raw data suggests Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 election”). But in this case it just means uncooked/unheated. It could be sliced and spiced and still be raw.
Btw, we don’t default to cooked or canned tomatoes, we would specify those as well, for instance in a pasta or chili recipe.
Depends on the context. For instance I have tomatoes growing in a pot on my balcony… I might say, “I put some tomatoes in the salad” or “…in my sandwich” and we’d both know I meant raw. Or I might say “this curry has tomatoes in it” and they’re obviously cooked. Even if I said they were fresh tomatoes from my garden. Unless I was offering chopped tomatoes as a condiment for the hot curry, then they’d be raw.
The people in the comment thread were just trying to make it clear they have an objection to raw tomatoes but not cooked ones, that’s why they specified.
Yeah but if you see monogamy as bad and immoral and try to explain why … somehow I expected at least some understanding. I thought other people were afraid to say what they really think.
Well, granted my sample size is extremely small, but I’ve only ever known 2 polyamorous groups of people well enough to visit their home. And in both cases, there was always 1 person who wasn’t as happy as the other two and was tolerating the scenario due to pressure from the person they considered their ‘significant other’.
The dynamic was: A & B would be considered spouses to each other, A wants to bring in additional person C and create a trio under the banner of “polyamory” and B consents (because they are willing to accommodate anything A wants to make A happy). So person C enters the relationship and they form a polyamorous-trio, but instead of it being a true trio, it’s more like A & B still have their relationship (now burdened) and A & C have a relationship, but B & C don’t engage much. This is the exact scenario I have witnessed in the only 2 households I’ve ever known doing it.
That’s given me the impression that arrangements like that usually serve the needs of one or two people but often leave at least one party secretly unhappy. Maybe if more people actually witnessed polyamory working as it’s been proclaimed, there would be higher opinions of arrangements like that. But I sure haven’t seen it - my current conclusion is that it’s just not within the bounds of human nature for this kind of relationship to work.
I think they can work, the problem tends to be people going into it not realizing that it’s more demanding than monogamy, one person feeling pressured into it especially when the relationship started as monogamous, and/or it being done as an attempt to “fix” a relationship that clearly isn’t working out, the latter of which happened with someone I know.
I’ve known quite a few people/groups that are poly and I dated someone who was poly for a while too. I did it because I didn’t feel like I had to deal with 100% of my partner because that would have crushed me.
My info is purely anecdotal but two super common threads that kept on appearing is there were people who were poly, but were never actually poly and just said it because their partner wanted to be so they said they were too and that the people who were super committed to poly all were trying to fill a gap in their lives and had a lot of insecurities in general.
Most hated the idea of ever being alone, not just in ‘a relationship’ but actually just being by themselves.
I think there’s a bit of thing where the less toxic the people, the more discreet they tend to be. I certainly wouldn’t let anyone who had only visited my house a handful of times know I’m poly. That’s only something people I would call friends would know. I also have pretty strong boundaries around not having secondary partners who aren’t specifically looking to be a secondary partner (usually because they already have a nesting partner themselves).
It’s also one of those things where most of the people I interact with IRL are all cool chill and reasonable people and then I go to nearly any online space and everyone is freaking insane with really toxic dynamics.
I think this point about being discreet is huge. My husband and have been open/poly for a decade (ie from the start). We don’t keep it a secret by any means, but most people I know have no idea — it just doesn’t come up in conversation very often.
We had a very bizarre situation recently where one of my closest friends saw my husband holding hands with his girlfriend at the beach. She texted me frantically, saying she just wants to support me and is here if I need her and she hoped she was doing the right thing by telling me. It was pretty trippy to tell this friend who is close enough to know super specific details about very private parts of my life “oh cool thanks but it’s chill.”
Non-monogamy isn’t for everyone, but it’s for a lot more people than you might think.
Yeah, this is my dynamic as well. My partner and I have been together for a decade and poly from the beginning. It’s not at all a secret, but people are so used to monogamy as a norm that they often just think our other partners are super close friends that hang out at our house a lot.
I wouldn’t say that I’m discreet, but I don’t make a point of telling people about it or anything. It eventually comes up in conversation naturally as I’m getting to know people. If I talk to you about my personal life, it’s gonna come up.
A “V” is a perfectly legitimate arrangement. In fact, those who demands the two other sides of the V to have any kind of relationship, even mere friendship, are considered toxic. And living together is forcing the issue.
Would you consider it a perfectly legitimate arrangement if one end of the “V” resents it and is unhappy? Because that’s the only way I’ve ever seen a polyamorous arrangement working in practice (and as I said earlier, I’ve only seen two, and both were like that).
I’m on one end of a V and super happy with the arrangement (the “primary” end, so the one most likely to harbor resentment). The other end of the V is too. And so is the middle lol.
Actually now that I think about it it’s actually a W. The other side of the V is in another V with her primary.
A resentful V is unhealthy and not going to end well, but there are plenty of happy functional Vs around.
Although I am not interested in doing it myself, I consider myself a student of psychology and sociology and am very curious. I hope I have the privilege of meeting a success-case such as yourself in person, who’s not shy about discussing it candidly, because I have a lot of curiosity about it and how it works.
I’m glad it’s working for you. If you don’t mind me asking, how long have you been participating in this relationship, do all 3 live together or separately, and have you always been an end or have you also been the middle of the V?
I hope I have the privilege of meeting a success-case such as yourself in person, who’s not shy about discussing it candidly, because I have a lot of curiosity about it and how it works.
Not the person you’re asking, but given your categorical prior assertions, I cannot help imagining a mocking tone in your question.
Not sure how you are misingerpreting what I’ve said, but you are way off here. My previous experiences (don’t know how you got ‘assertions’) are based on an already disclosed small sample size.
I have no judgments and no expectations but I am genuinely curious to learn more about the psycologies and dynamics involved, because it’s completely foreign to me. Are you confusing me with another poster?
My husband and I have been together for 10 years. He currently has a girlfriend he’s been seeing about 6 months. She lives with her husband (who also has a secondary partner) and two children. I have dated a bit but am not currently interested in anything outside our marriage. We also had a relationship a while ago where a close friend of mine had a purely sexual relationship with my husband for a little while, and for the next three years, we went through periods of being a triangle, a V, all just friends, she lived with us for a bit. She moved across the country and now is in a monogamous relationship, and we are all good friends. The most drama that has ever happened is that a guy I was into slept with a girl my husband had slept with. That kinda sucked. Thankfully I had my husband to cheer me up.
Because that’s the only way I’ve ever seen a polyamorous arrangement working in practice
And we know that the only things that exist are the one you have personally seen, so neutrinos, ultraviolet light, Greenland and the dark side of the moon don’t exist. Right?
It’s more like: I’ve only ever seen two unicorns, and both were white. Someone is trying to convince me that pink unicorns exist and I am saying I would like to see a pink unicorn.
Seems like you are intentionally trying to start a conflict where none exists.
Would you consider it a perfectly legitimate arrangement if one end of the “V” resents it and is unhappy?
That’s just called cheating, not polyarmory.
Mind you, I’ve been in this setup you describe for a long time. My previous partner had female partners on top of me after ~7 years of only having me, and while I was friends with some of the women - good friends with one, even - I wasn’t ever “close” to most of them. Worked perfectly fine for me.
And this wasn’t a short thing either, we were together for ~10 years after that point, and the longest “third” partner was for 6 years.
My wife has has a boyfriend for more than five years. I’m not attracted to him like she is, but nobody is unhappy in or about our arrangement. We met each other really young, and it stuck. But neither of us wants to have only one great romance in our lives. It really is what works for us.
It’s something I’m actively pursuing. I really had to transition first before it was a realistic option. Now it feels almost inevitable. I rock a manic pixie moon child look and vibe working at a busy dispensary. I just have to let RNGesus do her terrible work and stay vigilant.
I’ve been in poly relationships most of my adult life, around 15 years now. I’m certainly familiar with the type of relationship you describe, but the long term, stable poly relationships are the ones that have been poly from the get go.
I don’t tend to date people who are “opening things up” in a previously monogamous relationship, because being someone’s learning experience is a bummer.
So person C enters the relationship and they form a polyamorous-trio, but instead of it being a true trio, it’s more like A & B still have their relationship (now burdened) and A & C have a relationship, but B & C don’t engage much. This is the exact scenario I have witnessed in the only 2 households I’ve ever known doing it.
That is in fact common, but would also not result in “moving in” or “forming a polyamorous trio”. That’s exactly not the point, it’s just one person having two relationships and - hopefully - each of the partners is fine with not having 100% of their partner. Which many people actively enjoy mind you, not spending all the time sitting on top of one another.
In fact I would say that from all the poly couples I’ve know over the years, very few are trouples and want to move in together.
I was going to offer my anecdotal subversion of that argument, that the boyfriend/husband is the one to suggest it, but then I remembered I was the one who pushed for it. Granted, it was because I was having testosterone issues and I encouraged my wife to pick up a side partner, so she wouldn’t have to suffer with me. We are a very indulgent couple, and I could tell the dry spell was wearing on her.
Of polyamorous relationships, I will say two things:
Before you even consider opening a relationship, you must have absolute trust in your partner. There can be no lies, no half truths, no omissions. If you can’t meet this, don’t even bother trying. It will only drive a wedge between you.
It really, really helps if you are both queer. It really levels the playing field, as either way you slice it, there will be far fewer available females than males.
I just don’t get it. Having a relationship with one person is hard work (anyone that says otherwise is either very lucky or their partner is making all the effort). Why on earth would you want to make your life even more difficult?
Tbh, my wife and I have been together for so long and through so much that is has become easy. We’ve been together more than fifteen years, and both of us consider our childhoods of abuse to be the hardest periods of our lives. We know and trust each other deeply and implicitly. She’s had an increasingly serious second partner for more than five years now, and it’s become pretty easy. I’m casually looking for a boyfriend, and she’s excited for me. It’s the foundational strength of our relationship that makes this lifestyle possible. We’ve built a big, full life together, and we have enough love and space in our lives to share <3
For some of us at some times in our lives, having a relationship with two people is less work. It requires much more communication, better scheduling, and much more attention to your partners’ feelings … but that might be a good investment of time anyhow, and often gets overlooked.
I find that having multiple partners helps me appreciate each partner much more, for themselves – it’s easy to mix up how much you love just having a partner and being loved, with how you actually feel about that person. Poly gives you the distance and contrast to see your partners clearly, and that can be really special.
I’ve never been polyamorous but I have been a player before and a period during which I had lots and lots of casual sex with lots of different women actually gave me a better appreciation of women as individuals.
There’s something about not having one person be your everything that allows them to be a real person instead of a symbol.
Yeah that’s indeed something. I had a sex partner on top of my romantic partner for a few years, and that worked okay - since you only meet for shagging - but wow would two romantic partners be too much for me. Still, I was perfectly fine with my romantic partner also having another partner in addition to me. They could handle it fine!
This is so strange to me. Not the polyamory, the weird hate of it. I’m in a monogamous relationship and polyamory just doesn’t appeal to me. But I don’t really give a shit about what other people do or who they fuck as long as it’s consentual.
To me it always feels as if people are just loudly signaling their own unhappiness in their existing relationship when they hate on polyamory. It’s a weird form of surpressed and internalized envy.
No hate from me but two is almost too many people for me. I love my SO, I just have a really hard time being around anyone for any length of time. Different strokes for different folks.
I’ve been in poly relationships for years. They work really well for me and my significant others, but we are pretty discreet about it because folks tend to be huge assholes about it.
Generally, you don’t see the poly relationships that work great; mostly, people see the type of scenario one of your other commenters described because the stable relationships are less visible.
Here I am surprised that a person is surprised that non-preferred sexual acts would trigger visceral disgust.
I mean, sex is actively disgusting unless your partner just happens to have the right combination of signals to transform it into something non-disgusting.
The wonder is that any sex ever is seen as non-disgusting.
ehhh bodies are pretty gross. teeth in places mashin up stuff, grimy bacteria in all the folds and crevasses, stinky sweaty fluids and excretions, there’s tons of stuff in the human body that is either conceptually quite horrifying or that we are downright neurologically programmed to be disgusted by. the eroticism of it all really just allows us to look past the disgust and see desire, joy, pleasure. that’s the subjective element.
that dude was dumb for thinking polyamory is a sex act though lol
I’ve not met many poly groups but my experience was strained. First time meeting these people and the only thing they spoke about was them being poly and how much sex they were having. It was a bit odd for a first meeting with strangers. Not usual dinner conversation I felt.
Yeah, the polycules I’ve met have all been hot messes that caused a lot of pain for everyone involved (and adjacent). At least a few have this attitude of “Monogamous people are prudes and need to open up, polyamory is HoW hUmAnS sHoUlD lIvE”. Maybe it’s just bad luck, but as a result I generally keep a bit more distance with my poly friends.
Which is the reason I do not support polyamory. They are unstable beings whose life revolves around chimping it out with their genitals. Polyamory has existed among animals and in many old civilisations like the Indus civilisation, and those practices are very harmful for everyone involved at the end of it.
I was given the justification of “animals also do it” by some communists, and since then I maintain distance and walk on my own path of leftism. If someone calls me a misogynist and rightwinger for it, I am happy to be called one.
I had to look him up. I know the character (live-action pirate from SpongeBob SquarePants), but I didn’t know he had a name. I was barely an adult when that show started airing, so I haven’t seen much of it.
I also found out that the actor who voices SpongeBob plays Patchy. Had no clue it was the same guy. I’ve never heard of any hatred for Patchy, though. Is there any reason in particular people hate him? Or is it just “enough with the live-action; let’s get back to my cartoons!” mentality?
My wife and I lived in Germany for 2 years. We went to Munich for a weekend and had an excellent historical walking tour across the city, provided for free by our hostel.
During that tour, we learned that pretty much every stereotype Americans have for Germans (lederhosen, yodeling, beer and brats, etc.) are actually Bavarian culture, not German. And Germans are actually quite offended at the confusion we have between their culture and Bavarian culture.
We also learned that Bavaria used to be quite wealthy and powerful, and intended to split off into their own independent nation at one time. But then Hitler set up shop there and made it his headquarters for the Third Reich. The city was absolutely decimated during WWII, and when the war was over, they not only had to rebuild from scratch, but also had to contribute to rebuilding the rest of Germany, as well as paying for war damages for Europe and all Allied nations, etc. Their wealth was pretty much depleted and their hope of being an independent nation was gone.
Bavaria was a very agricultural heavy state, that made a few things right in the last few hounded years. Bavaria has like every over German state a long and rich independent history. Only Bavarian nationalists dream of an independent Bavaria. Hitler joined the NSDAP in Munich and it was one of it’s early strongholds. Most German cities were destroyed in WWII. Germany did not “pay” reparations, because they still had a lot of open dept from WWI. They paid with land, factories, infrastructure and forced labor. What the guide meant was probably the so-called “soli”. It is a special tax that was levied from former Westgerman states to support former GDR states, which did not develop as much under the socialist rule. That tax was and is controversial and was changed to nowadays only applie to richer people.
Bavaria was always a big state in german, that tries to play a special role. Especially their main party the CSU participated in German politics, while enforcing predominantly Bavarian Interests. These methodes were obviously anti democratic but only borderline illegal and forced the government to restructure the parliament.
So yea. I grew up in Bavaria and I get why most Germans are quite annoyed with bavarians.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it the German Texas, if the kids can still go to school without fearing for their life. Sounds more like the German Ohio.
I said Quebec because of the victim complex and all the chest beating about independence that goes nowhere (Quebec at least has a better reason than Texas or Bavaria.)
During that tour, we learned that pretty much every stereotype Americans have for Germans (lederhosen, yodeling, beer and brats, etc.) are actually Bavarian culture, not German.
So for lederhosen, it’s mostly true, although they’re traditional in Austria too. Yodeling is Alpine culture and not specifically Bavarian, meaning it exists in Bavaria, in Austria and Switzerland. For beer, only weissbier is truly Bavarian; e.g. pilsener originated from Czechia, lager originated from Austria [til!]. And although there are Bavarian bratwurst variants, bratwursts are not specifically Bavarian. However, veal sausage (weisswurst) is exclusively Bavarian.
And Germans are actually quite offended at the confusion we have between their culture and Bavarian culture.
That is true. I think to some degree this confusion comes from the fact that so many Americans were stationed in Bavaria after WWII, so they only got to experience this part of German culture.
[…] when the war was over, they not only had to rebuild from scratch, but also had to contribute to rebuilding the rest of Germany, as well as paying for war damages for Europe and all Allied nations, etc. Their wealth was pretty much depleted and their hope of being an independent nation was gone.
I am not particularly versed in Bavarian history, but note that some Bavarians have developed a bit of a fetish portraying themselves as victims of injust decisions from on high. I would take that info with a grain of salt.
Antisemite Aiwanger, extensive preventative jail, attempts on dismantling state equalisation payments, lack of secularisation, decades-long opposition to queer legalisation, abortion, social security, asylum in general et cetera
Don’t forget being the german state for beer and alcoholism, and being staunchly against legalizing cannabis because “OMG drugs”, apparently. The CSU needs to be dismantled. Period.
It’s not like the northern states don’t hold this hypocritical position themselves though. CSU just had powerful positions in drug politics lately, I guess.