Parasocial relationships refer to one-sided relationships in which a person develops a strong sense of connection, intimacy, or familiarity with someone they don’t know, most often celebrities or media personalities. These relationships exist only in the mind of the individual, who experiences a bond despite the lack of...
We can all recognize deeply, egregiously unhealthy parasocial relationships, so I’m not going to bother talking about those.
But there are plenty of what I would call parasocial relationships the track back quite a long time in human history that I think are completely normal.
Take, for example, the famous athlete. If you find a particular athlete to be your favorite, and you watch their interviews whenever they’re available, and you get excited when they get paid a bunch of money in a trade, that’s a low-key parasocial relationship. Maybe you even send them regular fan mail, cheering them on when they do well or consoling them when they do poorly. You are invested in their life without reciprocity, and find joy and value in simply observing their existence.
There are lots of actors and actress that we love to love, where many people have formed a parasocial relationship: Tom Hanks and Keanu Reeves are two that come to mind.
These are situations that go beyond “yeah I’m a fan” and into feeling some level of investment in their success. It doesn’t have to be extreme.
I think, as with many things, there are healthy ways to engage in parasocial relationships in moderation. It becomes a problem when it becomes detrimental to your daily life, especially if it begins to replace other forms of human interaction. If it’s just a thing you enjoy on top of other, more typical relationships, them IMO there’s nothing wrong with that.
I think it’s the same appeal as The Onion. It’s satire. The best part of The Onion is reading the headline before the URL. I don’t take stuff like this as a sincere attempt to make the alleged author look good. It’s too far-fetched for that.
The common thread of all comedy is the unexpected. In this case, it’s the “haha if only this were real, that would be great” element that makes it funny
Tl;Dr: a meme went around asking women if they’d rather be stuck on an isolated island with a strange man or a strange bear. Most women chose the bear, largely due to the bear being more predictable and easier to deal with than a man inclined to do them harm, which, based on the experience of most women, is a whole lot of men.
Fragile men took this as an attack on all men everywhere and were offended at being “called a predator”.
There’s a pretty good thread in my comment history where I try to address the issue with one such fellow male and their response is about what you’d expect, confirming all the reasons why women chose the strange bear over the strange man
Punching up and punching down are extremely different and your comparison is deeply disingenuous.
Black men don’t hold positions of power in society simply by being black. Black men don’t get off with nothing but a slap on the wrist for serial sexual assault because “we don’t want to ruin the promising life he has ahead of him”.
A) it’s much less about whether the bear is a bigger threat and much more about how fucking awful men must treat women for the average woman to go “hmmm… Maybe the bear, tbh?” The fact that it’s even something women have to think about for more than a split second is a dramatic failure of our society. THAT is the point, and any discussion of “well you don’t know about bears then…” is reply-guy shit that misses the entire point and simply serves to further solidify how blind most men are to what goes on in the day to day life of women.
B) An aggressive bear is a known quantity. Is it a threat? Obviously. But it’s a threat that we understand extremely well. Like, a quick Google search will teach you everything you need to know about what to do if you see a bear. But a strange, unknown man? Who the fuck knows. They might seem perfectly pleasant and reasonable, act like your friend, and then flip the fuck out when the woman refuses to sleep with him that night in return for all that manly protection he provided during the day or whatever. THAT is why women pick the bear: a known problem is often preferable to uncertainty that could lead to being extremely vulnerable against a really smart attacker.
Remember, the question wasn’t “would you rather be in a locked room with a bear or a man?” It was “would you rather be stuck on an island with a strange bear or a strange man?”
And to your final question, why can’t we just respect other humans? Great fucking question, but the misogynists should be the ones facing that inquiry, not the people on the internet trying to point you towards them. It may be more uncomfortable and even dangerous to confront them, but don’t take the easy way out by asking victims and their allies to be “nicer” instead
Does the question say “with a bear, in an enclosed space, where the bear only has you as a source of food?” No, it didn’t. Your entire argument is based on “women - and people like you - are dumb and don’t know what they’re talking about if they think men are less scary than bears.” But the truth is, YOU don’t understand the question being posed. You are literally doing the thing that people have a problem with. You aren’t asking questions. You aren’t seeking clarification. You aren’t giving the benefit of the doubt. You aren’t trying to understand. You aren’t doing anything to indicate that you aren’t exactly the reason why so many women picked the bear.
You could have said all of this in a way that wasn’t being an ass. But you chose not to. Thank you for self-identifying as part of the problem.
Yikes. That’s a while lot of words just to show exactly how much you are part of the problem.
This isn’t about you. It was never about you. Your desire to pivot this to a class issue is some hardcore mansplaining. Get over yourself and listen to victims instead of thinking you know better than everyone.
Imagine you have a car powered by a nuclear reactor with enough fuel to last 100 years and a stable output of energy. Then you put it on a 5 mile road that is comprised of the same 250 small segments in various configurations, but you know for a fact that starts and ends at the same elevation. You also know that this car gains exactly as much performance going downhill as it loses going uphill.
You set the car driving and determine that, it takes 15 minutes to travel 5 miles. You reconfigure the road, same rules, and do it again. Same result, 15 minutes. You do this again and again and again and always get 15 minutes.
Do you need to test the car on a 20 mile road of the same configuration to know that it goes 20mph?
JSON is a text-based, uncompressed format. It has very strict rules and a limited number of data types and structures. Further, it cannot contain computational logic on it’s own. The contents can interpreted after being read to extract logic, but the JSON itself cannot change it’s own computational complexity. As such, it’s simple to express every possible form and complexity a JSON object can take within just 0.6 MB of data. And once they know they can process that file in however-the-fuck-many microseconds, they can extrapolate to Gbps from there
Except we know what the lifecycle of physical storage is, it’s rate of performance decay (virtually none for solid state until failure), and that the computers performing the operations have consistent performance for the same operations over time. And again, while for a car such a small amount can’t be reasonably extrapolated, for a computer processing an extremely simple format like JSON, when it is designed to handle FAR more difficult tasks on the GPU involving billions of floating point operations, it is absolutely, without a doubt enough.
You don’t have to believe me if you don’t want but I’m very confident in my understanding of JSON’s complexity relative to typical GPU workloads, computational analysis, computer hardware durability lifecycles, and software testing principles and best practices. 🤷
My understanding is that signing a petition and creating an account aren’t necessarily linked, and it’s up to the person who created the petition whether verification is required.
Right I’m saying I always thought that was an optional feature, determined by the person who created the petition. I don’t think it’s a universal requirement for all change.org petitions
For the same of checking uniqueness it’s probably fine to just ignore them. Yeah, it sucks if johndoe@obscure.domain and john.doe@obscure.domain can’t sign the same petition but outside of the big email services I imagine that kind of collision is pretty rare
Let em figure it out. Wasting their time is a core strategy in reducing their impact and will to continue cheating
I certainly didn’t share it myself but it’s possible my old boss did!
TBH, in my very personal opinion the third party anti-cheat apps are like 50% placebo. Just makes people feel better. They are very protective of their “secret sauce” but I can say none of them are anywhere close to perfect. The thing they’re best at is taking the easy stuff off our plates so we can focus on the more difficult problems of hardening the game itself and analyzing telemetry.
The number of examples I have seen of people being told to shut up about their lived experiences with sexual abuse in the past 24 hours on this platform is deeply disturbing....
And that is the patriarchy in a nutshell: a system that is advantageous to men, and then teaches men to consider any critique of that system as a whole, rather than of individuals, a threat or insult to be stamped out with vehemence. The people who do this shit genuinely believe that it’s unfair to be treated this way, never realizing that their attitude provides the infrastructure that allows thereally bad people to continue doing what they do.
It’s like ACAB; it doesn’t necessarily mean that every cop will abuse a minority given the chance, but that nearly every cop actively participates in a system that enables and protects the abuse of minorities, and that it is impossible to distinguish who the select few truly “good” cops are.
I don't want to form parasocial relationships with people I fap to
Parasocial relationships refer to one-sided relationships in which a person develops a strong sense of connection, intimacy, or familiarity with someone they don’t know, most often celebrities or media personalities. These relationships exist only in the mind of the individual, who experiences a bond despite the lack of...
And here I thought only Newshour was covering the trial on PBS... (lemmy.world)
Netanyahu admits ‘tragic mistake’ after Israeli strike on Rafah camp kills dozens (www.smh.com.au)
Prediction for final Lower Decks episode (sh.itjust.works)
And please write your apology as detailed as possible at the prompt. (lemmy.world)
rice (lemmy.world)
Alt text: Distracted Boyfriend meme, My 4080 Super, Me, My Steam Deck
Dark Brandon strikes again! (lemmy.world)
It is apparently controversial (lemmy.zip)
50 million rendered polygons vs one spicy 4.2MB boi (lemmy.world)
For security reasons (lemmy.world)
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/cd29e707-8f43-4511-afc6-0a778fe36a61.jpeg...
lemmy stop silencing SA survivors rule (lemmy.cafe)
The number of examples I have seen of people being told to shut up about their lived experiences with sexual abuse in the past 24 hours on this platform is deeply disturbing....