When I turned 16 in the 90s and bought myself my first (extremely used) car, my dad folded up a $20 bill and tucked it into the owner’s manual in the glove box. “Always keep $20 in your car,” he said, “You never know when you’re going to forget your wallet and have to pay for a tank of gas.” (Sidenote: remember when…

This is why ALL neighborhoods needs to be reconfigured to be walkable. Re-zoning, streamlining of mixed-use development, and changes to roadways to ensure pedestrian and bicyclist’s safety is paramount. Everyone deserves to live in a walkable community.

Pretty much most “city center” type places that push for high walkability and the like are NEVER affordable

YES

This is a (very obvious) correlation/causation thing. If you can afford a genuinely walkable neighborhood, you are probably already wealthy enough that the statistics favor you being healthier, happier, and gaining more wealth.

If I only didn’t have to drive 20 minutes to a walkable area in which to walk around. 🙄

Never mind whether Jack could have lived. He didn’t. What I want to know is why, after a whole lifetime lived afterwards, when Rose dies at the end, instead of meeting the man she eventually fell in love with, married, had children with, had and held, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, for who knows how…

Yes, but she was a rich, first class passenger. They would have at least made a show of looking for her.

See also: the insane way some people use the term “plot hole”. Like, a character doing something off-screen and then surprising you with the result is not a plot hole. A character behaving non-optimally or without perfect objective logic is not a plot hole. Stuff like that, it’s like you people have no idea what…

scruffy  nerf herder

Don’t forget he’s also a scruffy nerf herder.

And IMO, getting the creator to weight in is just as bad. If they provide evidence (“He did X in scene 1, which proves he is Y”) that’s fine. But if they didn’t put it on the screen, then it stays ambiguous.

It’s one thing to cogitate on an ambiguity in an attempt to better understand what the storyteller’s trying to say, and it’s a whole ‘nother to be drawing maps and dissertations insisting on the “truth” of a fictive story. The latter’s led to modern audiences being really literal about what they see onscreen and…

I’ve got a better Titanic conundrum for you; Did Jack doom the RMS Titanic by saving Rose? If she had succeeded in throwing herself overboard, someone would have eventually noticed, a “man overboard” alert would have been sounded, and the ship would have stopped to carry out some futile attempt at search and rescue.…

Yeah, less a debate than a weird retroactive change that most audiences reject.

There is no debate.

This is a really, really good point.

This maybe a little off subject but what about people diagnosing others or calling someone a term they don’t know the meaning? I hear people throw narcissist around alot. 

Another term that is misused constantly is related to multiple personality disorder.

For some reason, people have this belief that schizophrenia = MPD, but they are not the same, especially since schizophrenia is a real diagnosis and MPD doesn’t exist at all.

Here’s one that people really get wrong: negative reinforcement doesn’t eliminate a behavior, it strengthens it by removing something bad. *Punishment* is designed to eliminate a behavior.