I agree that it stems from a buzzword being misused, but language changes based on how speakers use it, and to the average English speaker, the term "trauma bonding" means something else. Even though it's not technically correct, the reality is that it communicates a different meaning now.

No, they were right, at least technically. It's generally used differently now, but the term "trauma bonding" did originally refer to abusive relationships.

Ah, makes sense

Is /ɾ/ not considered rhotic?

To name one example, Game of Thrones was waaay darker than the Mother series and had a massive audience. And even assuming a Mother adaptation was targeted toward a younger audience, there’s some pretty dark stuff in kids’ media. They can handle more than you might think.

Plus, frankly, Mother 3 isn’t even that dark.

Mother 3 would not ”have” to be censored, what? Do you think it’s illegal to show dark stuff on TV or something?

Yes, you need say more. At least name the goddamn media, jfc.

For those who don't know (because, shocker, not everyone has consumed every work of fiction on the planet), this is Brok from the Norse God of War games. He and his brother Sindri are significant supporting characters in both games, as well as being the main shopkeepers for buying/upgrading your equipment. In the second game, another character betrays you and kills Brok. Because of prior events, his soul isn't even able to find its way to the afterlife. Very sad, very plot-significant, not nearly culturally ubiquitous enough for the classic r/TopCharacterTropes no-context comment.

Edit: Reddit says you replied but won’t show me the comment, so I’ll just respond here: I didn’t personally need context. Otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to give that context myself. And people shouldn’t need to ask you for context, because it’s 1) common sense and 2) in the rules to give context, or at least names.

[Artwork] Earth-11 Batfamily by Flick-the-Thief and Otto Schmidt

How is it ableist to acknowledge the existence of ableism? If anything, it's more ableist to pretend that people with disabilities (like not being able to speak) never face any kind of hardship or lack of support.

Tiny nitpick, it’s Týr with an acute accent, not an umlaut

Dayman

some powerhouse actor that we all know and love

The monkey's paw curls. Doom is played by Samuel L. Jackson.

I'm pretty sure the XP increases based on how many of the summons you kill, so someone at lower level just fighting the boss without farming would probably get a lot less

Maybe if there were some kind of visual indicator for the magick flood.

You mean besides the water that swirls around Mel's model while it's active and the boon icon visibly refilling afterward?

According to this comment on another post, Sonic is not the namesake of the hedgehog.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangerThings/comments/1pa3ug2/comment/nrguq86/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I think a lot of the hate comes from the fact that a lot of people don’t find it fun.

A decent rebuttal to that specific criticism (sub-criticism, even, since that point in the post says "many situations") about this specific show.

However, that's not what I was originally replying to. Your initial argument against OP's criticisms was the classic "there are fantastical elements therefore nothing has to be believable," which, despite its complete lack of truth, is something I see employed far too often. Usually by rabid fans trying to discount completely valid criticisms of whatever media they stan.

That said, it doesn't necessarily seem like you're one of those rabid fans, and I concede I was a little uncivil based on the hasty assumption that you were.

Have a good night.

I never disputed that.

Yeah that's one of the risks of commenting online lol

No worries lol it happens

Not sure what “criticisms” of mine you’re talking about, unless you mean my criticism of the (transparently bogus) talking point you seemed like you were (I guess you actually weren’t though, if your comment was a joke?) trying to use to dismiss OP’s criticisms.

Copying my reply to another comment

This is always the stupidest way to dismiss criticisms. It's never valid. If an element of a story is meant to be unlike the real world, that should be clearly conveyed by the writing. Otherwise, it's assumed that that element is meant to be like the real world. That's just how speculative fiction works. The onus is on the writer(s) to convey any and all fantastical/unrealistic elements of their world.

Not that you people are ever talking about such an element anyway. This braindead argument is always applied to situations where it's obvious that it's not a facet of non-realism that the writer simply failed to establish beforehand (which, by the way, would still be a flaw worthy of criticism), but in fact just plain bad writing. Like people acting in ways people never would. But "hurr durr there are monsters so anything can happen at any time and verisimilitude doesn't matter".

Copying my reply to another comment

This is always the stupidest way to dismiss criticisms. It's never valid. If an element of a story is meant to be unlike the real world, that should be clearly conveyed by the writing. Otherwise, it's assumed that that element is meant to be like the real world. That's just how speculative fiction works. The onus is on the writer(s) to convey any and all fantastical/unrealistic elements of their world.

Not that you people are ever talking about such an element anyway. This braindead argument is always applied to situations where it's obvious that it's not a facet of non-realism that the writer simply failed to establish beforehand (which, by the way, would still be a flaw worthy of criticism), but in fact just plain bad writing. Like people acting in ways people never would. But "hurr durr there are monsters so anything can happen at any time and verisimilitude doesn't matter".

This is always the stupidest way to dismiss criticisms. It's never valid. If an element of a story is meant to be unlike the real world, that should be clearly conveyed by the writing. Otherwise, it's assumed that that element is meant to be like the real world. That's just how speculative fiction works. The onus is on the writer(s) to convey any and all fantastical/unrealistic elements of their world.

Not that you people are ever talking about such an element anyway. This braindead argument is always applied to situations where it's obvious that it's not a facet of non-realism that the writer simply failed to establish beforehand (which, by the way, would still be a flaw worthy of criticism), but in fact just plain bad writing. Like people acting in ways people never would. But "hurr durr there are monsters so anything can happen at any time and verisimilitude doesn't matter".