Stuff I just don't understand, post here yours.

[Knaight]

"Back in the day", I could watch Babylon 5, Buffy, Doctor Who (on PBS), and Star Trek.

Now I can't watch anything like those shows that I know of. If they're being broadcast they're after my bedtime, or on cable which is NOT BROADCASTING (I hate the rise of cable so very much, TV was free dagnabbit! I WILL NEVER PAY FOR CABLE!)..

Babylon 5 is free on go90 literally right now. I finally got around to watching (most) of it, and can confirm its current presence.

[factotum]

and the only thread that holds any of it together is a generic art style.

I don't think it even has that, to be honest. The art style of "Ghost in the Shell" is utterly different to the more cartoony visuals of "Dragonball Z", for instance. I wouldn't say Frozen has the same art style as Snow White, either, despite being made by the same company (albeit half a century or more apart).

[Frozen_Feet]

I don't understand why a co-worker opted to use a broom with a broken handle, when an intact one was available. Especially since I'd already thrown that broken broom in the trash once already.

There have also been surprising number of threads about "how do I tell X to someone?", where the obvious solution would be to, you know, tell X to someone. Like Jesus Christ, people, don't make social interaction any more convoluted than it has to be! I have concluded that the people asking these kind of questions must be near-pathologically introverted.

Related to this, people who lament they don't know enough people who share their interests, but refuse to go to conventions "because they are too social". Good God. It's no wonder that my personality diagnosis has shifted from Introverted to Extroverted, because it's impossible to not feel like a hyper-energetic people person around people like these.

[Aedilred]

Judging by the mentions I see about it Doctor Who is still being broadcast in the UK, but if it's still on PBS (like it used to be) it's either after my bedtime, or while I'm at work.

It was cancelled in 1989 but revived in 2005. Since the revival it has had much shorter series, rather than being a weekly fixture for most of the year. It's been shown on the Sci-fi channel and BBC America (and occasionally on CBC only) in the Americas; I'm not sure which channel currently hosts it over there.

[Tvtyrant]

Why the particular brand of pop vocals has colonized nearly every genre of music. If a song comes on the radio they are all but guaranteed to have the same pitch. Country, metal, pop, hip hop. Where did it come from and how can we get rid of it?

[Draconi Redfir]

I don't understand why a co-worker opted to use a broom with a broken handle, when an intact one was available. Especially since I'd already thrown that broken broom in the trash once already.

it could be any combination of things. emotional attachment, distrusting of newer equipment, or simply preferring the feel of the old broom over the new one.

Few questions for you.

To your knowledge is the co-worker autistic in any way or has something similar? I don't mean this in an offensive way, but it could be why he's attached to the old broom.

Is the new broom made out of a different material? such as plastic while the old one is wood? hold both of them for awhile, do they feel at all different from one another in terms of texture, weight, warmth, grip, etc? Could be the co-worker got used to the feel of the old broom and feels he isn't as good as the new broom.

Does the old broom have something the new one doesn't? (other then a broken handle.) such as softer bristles, more bristles, a wider / different shape, etc.

if yes to any of these, try looking around for a broom that is more similar to the original. he may be more willing to transfer to that one then the one you currently have.

Alternatively, and i found this worked with myself personally, try setting up situations where the co-worker needs to use the new broom, maybe ask him to clean a location the old one can't reach, or just outright ask him to use it for one day a week, then let him go back to the old broom.

Gradually he will get more used to the new broom, may even start to find it better and use it more. that's how i transferred over to chrome from internet explorer. i loved IE, but Chrome could do things IE couldn't, such as watch youtube or play flash games. so i used chrome for only those things, and eventually i used it for more things, and more things, and now i rarely use IE at all.

If the co-worker seems to make the switch to the new broom permanently, keep the old broom around for awhile, keep it in the janitor closet or something, so he's at least aware it's still there. After some time, maybe six months, maybe a year, his attachment will drain and you should be able to throw away the old broom no problem.

used that tactic to get rid of some knik-knacks, stuffed animals, and a blanket i was attached too as a kid. i kept them in my closet for years, but never used them. Eventually, the time came to clean my closet, and i found that it was much easier to get rid of them knowing i hadn't used/seen them in so long, then it was before.

[Peelee]

Oh god, this call I just got. Fair warning, there's going to be a large amount of vagueness due to HIPAA.

So this person is on a medical device. It's set to a specific setting that the doctor prescribes. The doctor, for whatever reason, decided to put her on an auto-trial. Short version, we give her a rental machine free of charge that can adjust itself depending on what her body needs at the time. Really cool technology, honestly. After a week, we send a report of the data to her doc, and doc decides whether to change the prescription as needed. Well, this woman is six days in, and just today called. She's never seen the setting go above the minimum number (which makes perfect sense, since it only does that when she's asleep). So because of that, she felt bad using it, and hasn't used it past the second day.

I just don't get why she wouldn't call us on the second day when she decided, "i should stop using this thing because i feel bad," or call her doctor and ask them, or at the very least, if she was dead set on not using it, bring the damn thing back to us.

Although, to be fair here, a good deal of people on this do things that I just don't get. Like, when they're new, I totally understand, they've never dealt with this stuff before. But people who have been on it for years and years, and then do things that very obviously make no sense whatsoever... people are weird.

[Vinyadan]

+1 to 'Dear spitters, please bring tissues'.

[Lord Joeltion]

The thing is something like don't traumatize my children doesn't work as a standard because it is way too subjective.
(Snip)

Similarly, the idea that if there is no gun pointed at you then you don't have to watch it makes no sense. Take for example one if the general concensus on decent public behaviour: you don't go outside in the nude.
(Snip)
could you ignore it still?

(Snip) What can and can't be looked away from is just based on personal levels of comfort. I can't really understand people doing something that I am that uncomfortable with it andI bet you can't either (it's just that PDA isn't one of them).

(Snip)However, I would assume that you Joeltion have no problem with anyone oggling someone in short attire, you might find there justification to be disgusting but surely if you notice someone oggling you and you don't like it you can simply look away and mind your own bussiness.

First, I used the kids as an expresion. It was an euphemism to refer to "real public sex" vs simple PDAs. RPS could be anything involving nudity to a hand under clothes, and I think anything under that range is forbidden by law. Now, Raising children is up to parents alone. Whatever may traumathize then is strictrly responsibility and problem of their parents. This rule does not apply when Law is broken, since thats something beyond control of parents. I never meant to say kids was any kind of standard. They obviously arent.

And no. Nothing obligues you to look at anyone in the street. If you find something disgusting/scary (a burn victim, a clown, a spider, a huge dog) a good citizen should simply look away. He has no right to control or tell people what is forbidden or shouldnt be done. Thats why we have laws and discrimination is a crime in a developed country. As I said, nudity and sex are covered by law. The reason you shouldnt overlook those cases is because they are crimes, not because of being gross or because you dont like them. Good citizens should always report crimes. Your example is moot.

Answering your question: No I cant. I generally dont look away from crime. Anything else, I dont generally mind, everyone should mind their own business too.

Whatever the case, I dont think "what makes me feel comfortable" can never be a parameter for anything. Be it in private or public. You may ask politely that people stick to your personal standard, but you have no power to impose them or even demand them. Nobody has nor should have that power on any kind of environment. Thats why we have laws (not that anything the law says is ok either, specially on cases where it allows discrimination).

And yeah, even if I were a girl, I dont mind people oggling in general. Not even to my girlfriend (unless she feels uncomfortable, thats when I throw them a death glare or visually block them). What I said, is that ogglers are nastier than people kissing or showing affection, because to the general public they come accross as perverts. I made a general statement, not a personal one. But yeah, I do think oggling is more pervy than showing any PDA that doesnt threaten the law. Heck, people in my country feel more uncomfortable of people kissing the same sex and dont mind owners kissing their pets. Im exactly the opposite (specially dogs, they lick their parts just too often).

Sorry for typos and the likes. Im writting on phone :)

[lunaticfringe]

Some places require women to wear heels as part of Professional or Business dress. It's 2017, let that poor girl wear a fancy flat for God's sake.

Wearing uncomfortable shoes because they look good.

[Aedilred]

And no. Nothing obligues you to look at anyone in the street. If you find something disgusting/scary (a burn victim, a clown, a spider, a huge dog) a good citizen should simply look away. He has no right to control or tell people what is forbidden or shouldnt be done. Thats why we have laws and discrimination is a crime in a developed country. As I said, nudity and sex are covered by law. The reason you shouldnt overlook those cases is because they are crimes, not because of being gross or because you dont like them. Good citizens should always report crimes. Your example is moot.

...

Whatever the case, I dont think "what makes me feel comfortable" can never be a parameter for anything. Be it in private or public. You may ask politely that people stick to your personal standard, but you have no power to impose them or even demand them. Nobody has nor should have that power on any kind of environment. Thats why we have laws (not that anything the law says is ok either, specially on cases where it allows discrimination).

Even if we take it as read that nothing that is not illegal is objectionable (flawed on a number of levels, but let's run with it for now), most societies have public decency laws. The law therefore takes the view that when you're in public you are subject to certain responsibilities not to act in a way which will offend those around you. It places the onus not on the offended party to look away but on the offending party not to offend them in the first place. It's the same principle as applies to pretty much all criminal law, really: the same one that means that the right to swing a club ends where someone else's face begins. The public sphere is considered a common "face", and consequently club-swinging (or in this case, performing acts of private intimacy) are frowned upon.

As to "what makes me feel comfortable", often such laws are vaguely drafted to allow a wide degree of discretion on the part of what is prosecuted, and what offences people get convicted for, to allow for various contexts and elements of intent, but also to reflect whether anyone was actually offended or likely to be offended by it. This permits for different venues and audiences (a nudist beach vs a children's playground) and also for changing social mores. But social mores pretty much amount to the sum, or perhaps average, standard of "what people feel comfortable with". So I don't really see any problem at all with considering that and making judgments on an individual level, at least to the extent of defining what you're ok with and what you feel is acceptable public behaviour. The individual view is relevant in determining the common one, even if it's not the standard.

[Potato_Priest]

With regard to spitting, I was recently on a camping trip in a field campus, and one of my cabinmates was sick. Throughout the first night I kept hear him hacking up phlegm and spitting it out (that sort of hwach ptoo sound) , which is pretty disgusting by itself, but when I woke up and asked him about it I found out he'd been spitting it on the wall because he didn't want to get up to move the trash can.

He cleaned it up, but I still don't think that I ever want to speak to this person again.

Absolutely disgusting.

[ve4grm]

There have also been surprising number of threads about "how do I tell X to someone?", where the obvious solution would be to, you know, tell X to someone. Like Jesus Christ, people, don't make social interaction any more convoluted than it has to be! I have concluded that the people asking these kind of questions must be near-pathologically introverted.

Related to this, people who lament they don't know enough people who share their interests, but refuse to go to conventions "because they are too social". Good God. It's no wonder that my personality diagnosis has shifted from Introverted to Extroverted, because it's impossible to not feel like a hyper-energetic people person around people like these.

To both of these, I'm just going to say social anxiety is a horrible thing, and can make these sorts of interactions absolutely terrifying. It's also unrelated to intro/extroversion, though having it does give you a reason to be more introverted.

In any case, everyone has their lines, where they don't feel comfortable past them. I'm sure you have yours as well.

[Florian]

A thing that I don´t really get is the consumption of alcohol in public. Not talking about Oktoberfest, drinking a beer in a cafe/club/bar/restaurant or at a social event/gathering, rather people buying two or three bottles of beers for the sole purpose of drinking them in the metro at their way home or even standing before the supermarket where they bought it. Absolutely nothing wrong with getting drunk, I´d be a hypocrite to condemn this, but it´s nothing that should be down so openly in the public, as that´s sending the wrong signals and can be very inconvenient to people that will react negatively to it, like people in the AA, minors or generally someone having grown up in a "drinking" family....

[factotum]

Even if we take it as read that nothing that is not illegal is objectionable (flawed on a number of levels, but let's run with it for now), most societies have public decency laws. The law therefore takes the view that when you're in public you are subject to certain responsibilities not to act in a way which will offend those around you.

I think that's stretching the definition of "Public decency" somewhat? Those laws are intended to ensure you won't have a couple having sex in the middle of a public park, not to prevent that same couple kissing on the street.

[Aedilred]

I think that's stretching the definition of "Public decency" somewhat? Those laws are intended to ensure you won't have a couple having sex in the middle of a public park, not to prevent that same couple kissing on the street.

But this goes to my point, I think. We have reached the point where we no longer consider public decency to be outraged by a couple kissing on the street, but in many cultures and at various points in our history a couple kissing in public would be, or have been, considered in that way. In the UK at least, offending public decency is a common law offence, so the point at which the line is drawn is constantly updated to reflect current social mores - which in turn are informed by the views of the individuals who make up society.

As an individual you may fall on the "wrong" side of the line with regard to that judgment, but you're still entitled to your opinion. The extent to which you express that opinion, especially to the parties involved, is a rather thornier issue, but I think that applies to almost everything anyway.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Draconi Redfir: the workplace is littered with intact brooms of identical make, so they could've fetched or asked for one of those. Instead of taking one out of the trash with its handle snapped halfway and splintered. I believe I succintly communicated all the vital information to them by saying "just throw that thing in the trash and use this".

---

@Ven4grm: there is a mile-wide gap between me feeling anxious about doing something, and me asking self-answering questions about how to do something.

[Draconi Redfir]

@Draconi Redfir: the workplace is littered with intact brooms of identical make, so they could've fetched or asked for one of those. Instead of taking one out of the trash with its handle snapped halfway and splintered. I believe I succintly communicated all the vital information to them by saying "just throw that thing in the trash and use this".

i dunno then, maybe the broken broom-handle lets him hold it in a certain way an intact-handle wouldn't allow, like under his arm or something. who knows, he'll switch if he wants to switch, just leave it be.

[Algeh]

A thing that I don´t really get is the consumption of alcohol in public. Not talking about Oktoberfest, drinking a beer in a cafe/club/bar/restaurant or at a social event/gathering, rather people buying two or three bottles of beers for the sole purpose of drinking them in the metro at their way home or even standing before the supermarket where they bought it. Absolutely nothing wrong with getting drunk, I´d be a hypocrite to condemn this, but it´s nothing that should be down so openly in the public, as that´s sending the wrong signals and can be very inconvenient to people that will react negatively to it, like people in the AA, minors or generally someone having grown up in a "drinking" family....

Is this common where you are? Where I live, you generally don't see non-homeless people drinking in public unless it's at an event where beer is sold or at a restaurant/bar/other place with on-premise sales. (The stereotype for homeless people includes the idea that they have a large bottle of cheap alcohol with a brown paper bag wrapped around it while they're drinking it, but I actually am not at all sure I've ever seen that happen, either. I assume that some of them do drink just like many other adults, but they probably try to do so in a less visible place.)

I think it may even be against the law to drink alcohol while just walking down the street here, but it's to the point that I've never seen anybody do it and it's never occurred to me to do it either, so I'm actually not sure if it's a specific law or just a thing that everyone doesn't do as a cultural thing. (Given all of the other variously-antisocial things people do in public around here, I'm guessing it's a law.)

I would probably enjoy taking long rides on public transit more if I could drink while I was doing it, but I'd probably enjoy the experience less if the other random people could also drink while they were on transit with me, so I guess it's a wash. (People certainly do take transit when they've recently been drinking and are still pretty drunk, of course, but at least they don't get drunker over the course of the trip.)

[2D8HP]

A thing that I don´t really get is the consumption of alcohol in public. ....

II think it may even be against the law to drink alcohol while just walking down the street here,....

@Alger, your guess was right it's about what's legal.

@Florian lives in Germany
where drinking in public is mostly legal, while you live in the USA where drinking in public is mostly illegal, the brown paper bags over the containers are a dodge to avoid arrest (not much of one, they just give police officers an excuse to ignore the obvious, I work around a lot of City and County of San Francisco cops, and they mostly look for reasons to leave the homeless alone, I remember last year one homeless lady kept repeatedly vandalizing a station trying to get arrested without success, and we had a bunch of tents surrounding one station for months, until the local merchants complained enough that the mayor ordered that they be cleared out).

[Lord Joeltion]

Even if we take it as read that nothing that is not illegal is objectionable (flawed on a number of levels, but let's run with it for now), most societies have public decency laws. The law therefore takes the view that when you're in public you are subject to certain responsibilities not to act in a way which will offend those around you.

Nope. Laws are crafted in relation to a "social ideal", it has nothing to do with the sensibility of individuals. It's this "social construct" what ultimately matters. Your personal opinion/sensibility may or may not be covered by this "social standard", but that's ultimately irrelevant. That's precisely why laws are voted in a democracy: the entire point of the Law is to fit a social standard that comprises all individual standards but oppresses none (that last part is where laws in RL can be crappy). This social collective should be as objective as possible, and as such, they should agree with a majority*.

The fact that they are called "decency laws" doesn't turn them into a special kind of law either. Of course, in RL what is "socially acceptable" mutates through the years, but that's exactly what majorities do in a society: they fluctuate. Individuals don't fluctuate through the years, but the majority they once belonged to may lessen through the years. That's what produces a need of modifying the "decency code". This "decency code" is about what the majority thinks, not individuals. And like every other kind of law, they need to be crafted in a way that doesn't oppress a minority either.

*Of course, what I mean with "majority" isn't just "the biggest single group of people"; but the "most general definition that includes most of the peoples".

It places the onus not on the offended party to look away but on the offending party not to offend them in the first place. It's the same principle as applies to pretty much all criminal law, really: the same one that means that the right to swing a club ends where someone else's face begins. The public sphere is considered a common "face", and consequently club-swinging (or in this case, performing acts of private intimacy) are frowned upon.

That misses the point of having laws too: Just because a law agrees with you it doesn't mean it was crafted for you. Laws aren't crafted for individuals, they must correspond to the greater number of people as possible. That's why minorities fight to be included in the first place(women, lgtbs, native americans, etc). Minorities should be protected and recognized by the law too, as long as they aren't oppressing anyone else.

As to "what makes me feel comfortable", often such laws are vaguely drafted to allow a wide degree of discretion on the part of what is prosecuted, and what offences people get convicted for, to allow for various contexts and elements of intent, but also to reflect whether anyone was actually offended or likely to be offended by it. This permits for different venues and audiences (a nudist beach vs a children's playground) and also for changing social mores. But social mores pretty much amount to the sum, or perhaps average, standard of "what people feel comfortable with". So I don't really see any problem at all with considering that and making judgments on an individual level, at least to the extent of defining what you're ok with and what you feel is acceptable public behaviour. The individual view is relevant in determining the common one, even if it's not the standard.

And this is precisely what I said. "What makes ME feel uncomfortable" is NOT an acceptable standard. "What makes PEOPLE feel comfortable" is not only acceptable, but what everyone supposedly already agreed on. The problem is, individuals aren't people. YOU are not PEOPLE. "People" is an hypothetical ideal of what society thinks, and in a fair country is a standard that covers most of the people. Your opinion as an individual is weightless when contrasted with the opinion of law (that people already agreed on).

(snip)when I woke up and asked him about it I found out he'd been spitting it on the wall because he didn't want to get up to move the trash can.

He cleaned it up, but I still don't think that I ever want to speak to this person again.

Absolutely disgusting.

It's not only disgusting, it was very jerky on his part. Spitting (or emanating any kind of fluid) in a shared space shouldn't be accepted. Yeah, that's one of the few cases where it demands swallowing it back, no matter how sick you feel. Either that or jump over a window of something.

A thing that I don´t really get is the consumption of alcohol in public. Not talking about Oktoberfest, drinking a beer in a cafe/club/bar/restaurant or at a social event/gathering, rather people buying two or three bottles of beers for the sole purpose of drinking them in the metro at their way home or even standing before the supermarket where they bought it. Absolutely nothing wrong with getting drunk, I´d be a hypocrite to condemn this, but it´s nothing that should be down so openly in the public, as that´s sending the wrong signals and can be very inconvenient to people that will react negatively to it, like people in the AA, minors or generally someone having grown up in a "drinking" family....

Well, I don't think it's justifiable either, but there may be social/personal reasons behind that kind of behaviour. Take into account it isn't implausible for a worker going home "getting the urge" of a beer, but having a wife/family that is both waiting him home and that also won't allow him having a beer*. Or maybe he wants to share it with his pal but they don't have the time to go to a pub. I mean, there may be a million justifications for that (the majority of them probably still reproachable) but it isn't necessarily tied to a bad habit such as alcoholism; it may be just a minor misbehavior or disregard for social etiquette (like people listening to music without earplugs in public).

*And for a lot of countries, beer is the preferred social drink in a friendly context. For every social group there's a single kind of drink (alcoholic or not) that fits this place and most others don't. For example, this one is the most popular in the Southern Cone.

[A.A.King]

Thats why we have laws (not that anything the law says is ok either, specially on cases where it allows discrimination).

The problem is, individuals aren't people. YOU are not PEOPLE. "People" is an hypothetical ideal of what society thinks, and in a fair country is a standard that covers most of the people. Your opinion as an individual is weightless when contrasted with the opinion of law (that people already agreed on).

How exactly do you reconcile these two points? How can you on one hand say that laws can be faulty when they allow discrimination (a very individualistic view, because if a law allows for discrimination it's a majority of the people who have agreed up on it so clearly it should be okay) yet on the other hand say that the opinion of the individual is weightless when contrasted with the opinion of the law?
Why bother saying you believe that there are (or can be) laws which are wrong when you also believe that your individual feeling is weightless against the law?

I also feel the need to state that I never said anything about what the law should be. I simply stated my individual opinion on what constitutes proper public behaviour (if you do something to a man and people would be disgusted if you followed it with 'he is my brother' then don't do it at all, a perfectly sensible and simple to follow rule) but I never mentioned any intent on making that law or even an intent to tell people that they are behaving in an unproper way. I mentioned my private annoyance and my equally private judgement of these people.

I then deconstructed your silly rebuke that you can 'just look away' by trying to illustrate that if you know something is there you can't simply break eye contact and be just as happy as you were before noticing. You didn't seem to understand that yet clearly you understand that your girlfriend does. So how come that when your girlfriend feels uncomfortable knowing she is being oggled you try to stop the oggler and don't tell her to 'just look away, he isn't pointing a gun at you' (unless in the rare case in which you 'throw a deathstare' to protect your girlfriend is when someone is actually pointing a gun at her to make her look at them, in which I can only commend you for the power of your deathstare. I like to think I can throw a mean look, but I fear mine would be powerless when used on someone who is armed and, presumably, dangerous. Law Enforcement could use more people like you).

The point of public decency laws was never 'we have public decency laws so when something is considered indecent by someone you better get your act together and stop' but if it was you would be right: Every individual has his own interpretation of what it means to be 'decent' so we need a consensus law so everyone knows what to expect outside and how to behave. What you have to ask yourself however is "Why do we have public decency laws if you can just look away"? Do you not wonder as someone who can ignore pretty much anything that isn't an active crime scene why there are laws prohibiting behaviour which doesn't affect others accept by maybe what they see? Public Decency laws are there because the 'just look away' method of living your life has been tried and tested and survey says "After having seen it and knowing the naked man is still on the bus I feel almost as uncomfortable as I did when I had to look at it" as our top answer.

Sadly for most of us 'Object Permanence' is a thing. The world doesn't disapear when I put a hand in front of my eyes and so neither does that uncomfortable feeling.

[Westhart]

Wow, semi-gone for a few days and every thread I'm posting in explodes . Here goes!

Because the culture is very different. I could speak a lot about what makes anime its own thing; but in reality it all reduces to the cultural differences. Japanese and Asians in general share a particular form of humor (not talking about comedy). For instance, some months ago I got really hooked by a DORAMA (Japanese "drama" or soup-opera). It was a romantic comedy. Now, I basically never in my life would have watched a romantic series; or any kind of soup-opera. But the show was really witty, fun, and the characters were quirky enough for be truly bizarre; yet realistic enough to appear very human and relatable. A "westernalized" version of the same series I would have probably found not worth my time. I know, because the plot was pretty standard too.

Hmm, fair enough then.

Ha, yeah, Naruto (and DragonBall, and others like those) have a very specific audience that they're trying to appeal to. Teen (and somewhat pre-teen) boys. They attract others as well, but if you aren't a teen boy, there's a good chance you won't enjoy it.



Yeah, not really the broadest of experience. This is like saying you don't like Western cartoons, when you've only seen She-Ra (awesome girls kicking butt), Thundercats (pre-teen male power fantasy) and Alvin and the Chipmunks (youth-focused).

Ha, fair enough

The key, just like finding a movie you like, or a book you want to read, is finding the genres you enjoy. Do you want to find a good fantasy? Sci-Fi? Action? Do you want comedy? Slice of Life? Something darker?

I'm sure there would be something you'd enjoy, but go into it with your own preferences first, not those of other people.

Eh, I watch pretty much anything, whether it be star trek, indiana jones, the riddick series, and LotR to romance, and comedy (mainly lewis black and gaffigan). I guess I'll have to look for another anime to watch :P
[quote]

Well for one thing, there have always been people who enjoy foreign films. Anime is basically just foreign films, but in animated form. And sometimes more of a TV series than a movie, but you get my point.

Also, western countries still have a perception that animation is for children's entertainment, or at most for comedic shows (the Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, etc.). With a few exceptions (most of which are at least somewhat influenced by anime anyway), those who want a more dramatic show that's aimed at an age group over 10-12 years old don't have much other than anime to turn to. Also, with a very few exceptions, much of the art and animation of western cartoons is IMO really, really bad anymore.

For that matter, go back 20 years and there wasn't a whole lot of televised media at all that would appeal to fantasy or superhero fans. Sure, there was some televised sci-fi in the 90's like the various Star Treks and Babylon 5, but other than that you had Buffy in the late 90's, and not much else. Anime scratched the itch of someone who might be looking for something a bit more superhero-ish, or who wanted something more fantasy-based. We have more alternatives now, but anime has had a huge head start in terms of catching the interest of people who are more geek-minded in their entertainment.

Also, I'd argue that anime was helped along by the Japanese dominance of the video game industry in the 80's and 90's. When Nintendo and Sega ruled the gaming world, they gave Japanese culture an in to western markets that didn't previously exist.




This is not restricted to anime fans. Lots of people tend to push the things they like on others in hopes of finding a new fan they can gush about their passions with. Often times, it has the opposite effect, and makes that person hostile to the thing that they feel is being crammed down their throats. This is why I avoided anime for my teens and early 20's, why one of my friends refuses to ever read A Song of Ice and Fire, and so on.

All good points, you got me

I got really into anime for a while, because until I understood the Japanese set of drama conventions, a lot of the plots seemed less formulaic and more surprising to me than the tv I was used to. After a while, I learned the typical genre conventions they were playing by and my interest in watching pretty much any random thing waned (this was way back before streaming services when people got their anime either as fansubs passed along by mailing tapes around, bought commercial tapes based on the cover art, or had to deal with whatever limited selection of tapes a local rental shop had, so my ability to choose what kind of anime to watch was limited by what people I knew had lying around), but at first it was just nice to have a fresh set of assumptions to work with.

Fair enough.

And this is where I'd disagree with a bunch of you. Sure there are people who really love opera or modernist classical music (myself) but the odds that they will be of the "no you must like this thing I like" is higher than just about any other obsessive about their hobby topic if that topic is Anime. Huge football fans (both types) generally don't try to get me to watch after I've said no. Heck huge sports fans don't keep trying to see if I like watching Jai Alai, skeet shooting, or field hockey if I don't watch sports. So there is something either about Anime, the kinds of people attracted to it, or the social norms associated with it that makes this behavior MORE COMMON than in many other fields. To some extent comics and manga fans (and the various overlaps between all three) seem rather similar and often come from the same social field so I guessing it is that. But anime/its fandom does have something about it.

Bingo.

Well, it seems that I'll have to give anime another try XD

[ve4grm]

Well, it seems that I'll have to give anime another try XD

Not necessarily. Just don't close yourself off to all of it because some weren't to your tastes. If you come across one that sounds like it might work better, give it a go.

Given that you mostly listed sci-fi/fantasy genres, I'd suggest seeing if anyone has a good example of one of those.

[Lord Joeltion]

How exactly do you reconcile these two points? How can you on one hand say that laws can be faulty when they allow discrimination (a very individualistic view, because if a law allows for discrimination it's a majority of the people who have agreed up on it so clearly it should be okay) yet on the other hand say that the opinion of the individual is weightless when contrasted with the opinion of the law?
Why bother saying you believe that there are (or can be) laws which are wrong when you also believe that your individual feeling is weightless against the law?

How do I reconcile the idea that something is in theory one thing but in practice it may be very different? Even the opposite? Because I lived for quite a while here, that is. One thing is what a Law should do "in theory"; but practice may differ, because errare humanum est. That's why. Claiming that laws are real objective truths would be simply lying. That doesn't mean that's what they aspire to be. Practice and theory doesn't always go holding hands, specially for law, which is generally a reactive phenomena.

Spoiler: On discrimination

Show

And no, you are mixing the fact that because "individuals" are victims of discrimination, discrimination is a phenomena in relation to individuals. That's not how it really works. The problem isn't when an single person is discriminated for his/her/its particular traits; it's because that his traits belong to a collective that is actual discrimination. When you are discriminating a woman for being a woman, it's all the women who are being discriminated by default. That's what you call it "discrimination" (as a legal term).

Now when she allegates that she is being "discriminated", but in reality it was because of her specific behaviour (maybe she did something against the norm, or is misbehaving in general) that isn't actually discrimination. In that case, the fact that she happens to be a woman is secondary, and it's her own personal traits what makes her be rejected. The same applies to any group, religion, or whatever that may be considered a minority or a significant group in society. Discrimination is related to prejudice; and prejudice always deals with generalizations. But of course, every case of discrimination requires special attention, more than rules allow here, I reckon.

But this is probably too convoluted a topic to be spoken so lightly, so I rather not discuss this here. You can PM me if you want.

The reason I said your personal opinion was weightless was in relation to police yourself what other people do. That's where your opinion holds zero water. Now, if your opinion moves you to want a change in the system; now that may be valid. But the point is the same, as long as the law is allowing it, you have no right to push anyone to fit your personal standards.

I also feel the need to state that I never said anything about what the law should be. I simply stated my individual opinion on what constitutes proper public behaviour (if you do something to a man and people would be disgusted if you followed it with 'he is my brother' then don't do it at all, a perfectly sensible and simple to follow rule) but I never mentioned any intent on making that law or even an intent to tell people that they are behaving in an unproper way. I mentioned my private annoyance and my equally private judgement of these people.

And I never said or implied you shouldn't be bothered. I said you shouldn't annoy other people with your annoyance. Having an opinion is ok, but it's like having a kinky tatoo in a private part of your body: You don't need to show it to everyone. People may find it disgusting. Altho, I don't really mind.

I then deconstructed your silly rebuke that you can 'just look away' by trying to illustrate that if you know something is there you can't simply break eye contact and be just as happy as you were before noticing. You didn't seem to understand that yet clearly you understand that your girlfriend does. So how come that when your girlfriend feels uncomfortable knowing she is being oggled you try to stop the oggler and don't tell her to 'just look away, he isn't pointing a gun at you' (unless in the rare case in which you 'throw a deathstare' to protect your girlfriend is when someone is actually pointing a gun at her to make her look at them, in which I can only commend you for the power of your deathstare. I like to think I can throw a mean look, but I fear mine would be powerless when used on someone who is armed and, presumably, dangerous. Law Enforcement could use more people like you).

I don't really understand anything you said here. People should mind their own business as a rule of thumb. I thought it would be pretty obvious for an inclusive forum like this one. Specially with a respected LGTB community.

In any case, just because I have already grokked this behaviour (minding my own business*) on a subconscious level it doesn't mean I am oblivious to the insecurities or fears a girl may feel when she is victim of any kind of staring. For all I know her; it's not the fact that she is being "appraised" that might bother her; but like I said; people who stare are always creepy. And from creepy to dangerous there are too few hypothetical steps. My duty towards her isn't just protect her physical health, it's also about making her feel safer in general. Just like she does for me.

*And to clarify, by "minding my business" I simply mean don't judging what other people do in public. It's not like I won't notice somebody trying something shady on my blindspot. I'm no Rambo, but I'm also quite paranoid from time to time.

The point of public decency laws was never 'we have public decency laws so when something is considered indecent by someone you better get your act together and stop' but if it was you would be right: Every individual has his own interpretation of what it means to be 'decent' so we need a consensus law so everyone knows what to expect outside and how to behave. What you have to ask yourself however is "Why do we have public decency laws if you can just look away"? Do you not wonder as someone who can ignore pretty much anything that isn't an active crime scene why there are laws prohibiting behaviour which doesn't affect others accept by maybe what they see? Public Decency laws are there because the 'just look away' method of living your life has been tried and tested and survey says "After having seen it and knowing the naked man is still on the bus I feel almost as uncomfortable as I did when I had to look at it" as our top answer.

I think you missed my point entirely. I solely claimed that policing what other people do under personal beliefs wasn't acceptable. People shouldn't stick to anyone's standard, as long as they obey the law. If you aren't comfortable with the laws you were born with (like... A LOT of people EVERYWHERE) go work and make some change. But don't judge people based on your beliefs alone. That's wrong. And most of the time it's also futile.

Sadly for most of us 'Object Permanence' is a thing. The world doesn't disapear when I put a hand in front of my eyes and so neither does that uncomfortable feeling.

Honestly (and please take this as a friend), that's what psychoanalysis* is for. Mental discomfort isn't something you deal with by trying to enforce the world to shape it as your desire. That only leads to frustration. I know from experience. I'm still dealing with the fact too, btw.

*Or whatever is available in your country instead. Meditation always good too.

[Aedilred]

It's not only disgusting, it was very jerky on his part. Spitting (or emanating any kind of fluid) in a shared space shouldn't be accepted. Yeah, that's one of the few cases where it demands swallowing it back, no matter how sick you feel. Either that or jump over a window of something.

Is it illegal? No? Then you don't get to complain!

[Lord Joeltion]

Is it illegal? No? Then you don't get to complain!

Actually, being a friend the one in question that's true. He wouldn't get a complain from me. He would get a punch in the nards. But complain? Of course not. What are we? Savages?

[A.A.King]

[Stuff that was too long to keep, I, A.A.King, copied some sentences down below but because I'm on my phone I didn't want to add have to add the Quote box to all of them]

I would suggest you listen to your own advice friend

"People who stare are always creepy" -> "People should mind their own business*" & "*And to clarify, by "minding my business" I simply mean don't judging what other people do in public."

You are judging people for what they do in public.

"you shouldn't annoy other people with your annoyance. Having an opinion is ok, but it's like having a kinky tatoo in a private part of your body: You don't need to show it to everyone. People may find it disgusting." -> Itself really. You were annoyed by my criteria for what constitutes proper public behaviour, which is fine opinion to have but you don't need to show because then you annoy people with your annoyance.

And of course:
Most things you said -> "The reason I said your personal opinion was weightless was in relation to police yourself what other people do. Now, if your opinion moves you to want a change in the system; now that may be valid. But the point is the same, as long as the law is allowing it, you have no right to push anyone to fit your personal standards."

Why tell me I shouldn't voice my opinion on behaviour that annoys me? The law allows me to say what I want so surely your opinioj with regards to my behaviour is completetly weightless and you have no right to push me to fit your personal standard.

If you're that annoyed by someone voicing an opinion you disagree with may I suggest Pyschoanalysis? Mental discomfort isn't something you deal with by trying to enforce the world to shape it as your desire.

I mean, to be honest if you were that annoyed by how I believe the world should be (a believe I don't even try to enforce) you could have just ignored it. You didn't have to read, nobody was pointing a gun at you.

[JNAProductions]

People. Just people.

[sktarq]

People. Just people.

I get this.....I really get this...but I find that thinking of humans as rationalizing not rational helps a lot.