southsamurai

Well, I can’t say I’ve ever thought about it before. Which is kinda weird considering how huge the movies were when I was a kid and how much I loved them. I always kinda thought of them as a set; I wouldn’t have thought about picking one, it’s the synergy that made it work.

I guess I gotta go with either Obi Wan or Han though, with Leia being a close third.

Obi Wan because he was the introduction to what Jedi are supposed to be, and anyone else that came after in the movies had to live up to that because Alec Guinness’ performance was so tight. He’s still what I think of when the word Jedi pops up. “These are not the droids you’re looking for”, with a bare minimum of movement and the confidence.

Han shot first. And that’s why he’s a candidate for favorite. He’s a guy that can read what’s going on and not hesitate to trust himself. He doesn’t pretend to be perfect, but he’s got swagger and style. Then he lives up to his own hype.

Leia is not because of the picks obvious reason young men loved seeing her on a leash. Ngl, that scene was… formative. But the reason the scene happened in the first place, story wise, that’s why she’s awesome. She chain chokes a giant alien at least three times her mass while barely clothed, and she got there on purpose. She’s no delicate flower of a princess, she’s a warrior princess, a She-ra or Xena.

That’s literally what I said originally

That’s a perfect example of where it isn’t strict, it’s abuse. Or at least right on the border.

Also, damn. I’m sorry you went through that. I’m just glad you found a doc that handled things right.

Yeah, it’s a thing. Word usage varies. One range of the various usages of strict is adhering to, or enforcing adherence to, a set of rules. It can also mean that part of “strict” is enforcing discipline to maintain those rules.

Taken to its extreme, it edges into authoritarian behaviors. But the usual, more typical usage would be far less extreme.

As an example, ever hear of a strict vegetarian? That just means that don’t deviate from the diet. That’s it.

The problem comes in when the usage of it as unnecessary, arbitrary, and cruel enforcement of rules for their own sake takes over. There are plenty of abusive people that would call themselves strict, despite violating boundaries and social mores in the process, which means they’re just pretending.

But there is a difference between a kid being tightly supervised and abuse. There’s an even bigger difference for having expectations for a kid’s behavior and activity and abuse. Both of those are strict, but not abuse.

The key to that difference is usually in how boundaries are handled. You also get different outcomes, and if the methodology being used isn’t adjusted to the individual kid, it’s often going to feel abusive no matter what the intent is.

Not all kids are going to respond the same way to any parenting methodology. Twins can even respond differently. So you absolutely have to be ready to adjust what you’re strict about and how that’s applied if you want to stay in line with the right balance of structure, support, and freedom. What one kid thrives with, the next may utterly reject and be harmed in the attempt.

Strict is only “bad” when the structure is bad.

Being strict about not playing with fire is a good thing. Being strict about never going near a campfire is, at best neutral, and could be bad when taken to an extreme. Being strict about never going camping is bad.

Strict only means keeping rules in place. It doesn’t mean you can’t be flexible, that you can’t adjust rules as the kid ages and matures. It definitely doesn’t mean the rules have to be arbitrary and can’t be explained and discussed.

You think being strict about a kid not using racial slurs is a bad thing?

Or making them see a doctor regularly and as needed?

Or that they bathe?

The list of things that can’t be negotiable is very long if you go into detail.

The list of things that can’t be negotiable at a given level of age and maturity isn’t short either.

Strict doesn’t have to be done badly at all. It’s just that uncompromising strictness is the opposite end of a slider from utter laissez faire. Which has just as many flaws.

There’s a reason that authoritative is the usual recommended goal; it’s being strict when necessary, and loose when not. But “strict” is part of that. Strict is making sure that there’s a reliable structure a kid can build a foundation of self on. It’s the walls of the sandbox and the sheet of material under out that keeps weeds from poking through.

The sandbox of development is the freedom to play within those boundaries. It doesn’t have to mean all noes, or all have tos.

Strict is, “you’ll do your homework because it’s part of the process of learning. When do you want to do it, and what can I do to help?”

Abusive is “you’ll do your homework or I’ll beat your ass”, and then beating their ass as the first and only option.

This sounds like an attempt to recreate mollosoi dogs, just with extra steps.

I’m fairly confident that the examples given would result in a large (but not giant), smart, and people friendly dog that could still operate successfully without a handler. Not in the first generation, but eventually.

Tbh, don’t even need wolves in the mix; they don’t really bring much to the table, and you aren’t going to maintain that look past three or four generations to begin with. Wolf-dogs that breed with each other don’t hold on to a wolfish look for very many generations as it is, even when they’re all mixed with the same dog breed. Hiding mixing in that many dog breeds, you’re looking at what? 1/32 wolf by the time you have a breed that’s no longer being crosses outside of established individuals from the project. Maybe it’s 1/64th, I can’t remember what it came out to when someone did the math on reddit about how many generations it would take to no longer be breeding half breeds at all, with a stable population for the project.

If you leave wolves out, you already have a more stable pool that you can select traits from for each succeeding generation. You just can’t keep a wolf appearance without breeding wolves only, and even then you’d have to select each generation for that look to the exclusion of other traits.

Part of the reason dog breeds exist is those repeating chains of DNA that most (but not all, supposedly) canids have. Can’t remember the right term for it, but the Russian foxes also rely on that quirk. When that’s in play, you can breed for specific traits, but the more focused you get on one, or one small set, the more the others express themselves, hence the curly tails and floppy ears of the Russian “domesticated” foxes. You select for friendliness, you get “softer” looks. You select for looks, you get some combination of other traits (like the skittishness some smaller breeds are known for).

We already have a good idea of what traits breeding for size gets, and we have an idea of what breeding to visual standards gets when that standard is wolfish.

Edit: the Wiki summary for mollosoi dogs

There’s a difference between strict and abusive.

That could be my happy place

Ngl, earl grey scented soap seems awesome

It would make me get down on my knees

To pray, yeah, to pray, that’s it

I never have from a big brand, but I’ve run into it with some oddball stuff for sure. Usually electronics

Nah, screw that if you have space. Yeah, you can run out off space, but keep things organized and throw out the oldest first. Some assholes will only honor a warranty with original packaging.

You may need to move, and original packaging usually protects better than random boxes.

You might want to gift something older, and original packaging helps.

Reselling with original packaging gets quicker responses and (sometimes) better prices, no matter how good the condition is.

If whatever it is becomes collectible/valuable, original packaging almost always increases price.

Keep that shit at least a year, if you have room at all, even if you have to open the box up and fold it flat.

Well, it’s true!

Much appreciated!

Was it monkey fighting? I thought it was monkey loving

Tbh, I don’t use actual Firefox often any more it’s usually forks, and I’m not hyper worried about updating them as soon as a new version rolls out, I’m fine waiting a few weeks.

But I have noticed the sidebar thing on my laptop. Not sure which version it’s on, but it can’t have been much more than two weeks since I updated Firefox on it, since that’s when I did a version update to mint. Maybe three weeks at most.

I think you underestimate your “eye” for poetry.

How does estrogen feel like a crackling TV fuzz bubble wrap  circling your breasts and hips  more a kind of awareness  than a sensation  a spotlight an irrational happiness  a full-body smile

That one in particular, that’s some good shit right there. Evocative, descriptive, emotionally honest. I’d be proud of that one if I had written it. It paints and feeling with words and that is what poetry does best.

I personally dig simple, short poetry anyway. It’s harder to pull off, but when it works, it hits harder. Yours work, at least that’s these do.

Thank you for sharing that. I don’t have anything useful to contribute, but I felt compelled to say that sharing that part of yourself is a very wonderful thing. It certainly gave me a glimpse into a lived experience that is very hard to really put myself into beyond an intellectual level. I felt what you said in a way I haven’t before. That’s a beautiful and powerful thing.

So, again, thank you.

See, that’s asparagus tricking you into thinking that is how it grows, by crafty memeing. When we (and by we I mean all right thinking asparaguys humans) know it isn’t.

There’s a part 2?