Well, very salty person, I'm sorry that the newest comic attempts to override forty years of established patterns of behavior and psychology.

Almost like when Bruce just up and beat the piss out of his child, nearly killing him also overrode almost seventy years of established patterns of behavior and psychology.

By your logic then, we should all just immediately condemn Bruce Wayne as a vicious domestic abuser, who hits his own children harder than he hits his villains. There, problem solved. Now, privilege isn't the problem, it's just that Bruce is an asshole. Sweet! We've solved it!

You completely missed the point of what I said. I said that we can't stop here, we need to dig to an actual solution, and solve the actual problem, but everybody stops at this step and goes no further. We say here, have a sandwich, kiddo, best of luck eating the other two meals of the day, of being taken care of and having basic needs met and addressed. We get caught on this step, and never go any further because saying, "I want to feed the children!" makes us feel good about ourselves, but does very little beyond that. It isn't real, or sustainable help, because a politician will always come along and slash it as soon as they can get away with it.

We're sitting here arguing about feeding children a single meal, instead of acknowledging that the fact that we have children going hungry is a much larger, much more urgent situation than we like to admit.

It's like the homeless veterans thing; everybody goes, oh, how terrible, there are homeless vets, they can't afford houses! Instead of going, gee, maybe we should offer veterans mental health support, and readjustment classes, we'd rather argue about whether or not we should have veterans only shelters. There is a bigger root issue here that isn't being addressed.

If you're bleeding out, yeah, you put a band-aid on it if that's all that you got... But that band-aid isn't going to stop you from bleeding out. The band-aid is a stop gap to a more permanent, effective solution. But we're not looking for permanent, we're not looking for more effective, because that requires work beyond throwing money at it.

Parent my kids, but not in an actual parenting way, and they're tattletales, so be careful they don't tell their dad I'm cheating on him. Don't call me, because if my husband finds out, I'm blaming you. Also hope coffee is acceptable as a currency, because I'll pay $40 bucks an hour, but also coffee, because that's not sketchy all, this is all perfectly normal and acceptable.

IT absolutely is a problem, but to say we can't do anything about it is just passing the buck. I worked at CPS for a few years, and let me tell you, they actively hamstring caseworkers who want to help and protect children. Essentially, unless you actively see a parent hitting their child, or the child has clear and obvious bruises from a fist, or belt/cord, you're to put an 'action plan' in place, which is basically saying, here, stop and think about these things before you abuse or neglect your children.

And yes, as I clearly said, children need to eat. I'm not advocating taking food away from children. I said school's feeding children is a step not a solution. We're all over arguing about this, rather than forcing someone to step up and go, gee, maybe we should address why there are so many children who will go hungry if we don't have this program? Maybe we should discuss if it's a matter of a family being unable to buy food/healthy food, or if it's parental neglect, instead of saying, well, gee, sorry about your life kid, but here's a PB&J, hope it helps.

Yes, that little bit of kindness helps. Growing up as a kid with a mom who traded our food stamp money for cigarettes, whiskey, and drugs, the local church offering sandwiches to kids during the summer was amazing. But that doesn't change the fact that nothing was done about my mother's rampant abuse and neglect until after she put me in the hospital.

That's what I'm saying. The end goal is to ensure that these programs aren't needed. Not to keep these programs going forever, because that means there will always be children who can't trust that they'll get a basic necessity to live at home. It's unrealistic (new shitty parents will always crop up), but just throwing money at a symptom doesn't solve the bigger concern, of children not being able to get food at home.

But saying you want to overhaul our social services, saying you want to revamp food stamps, saying you want to completely redo our foster care system doesn't get you brownie points. It's not a 'hot button' topic, that one side or the other can rally around. It's a morass of government employees who either can't be bothered to do their jobs, or aren't allowed to do their job, of politicians having to enact and enforce laws, and actual time and effort put in for years before you start to see a return investment. It's far easier to say, here's a sandwich, kid, best of luck to you about not having access to food.

No, however... if you want it to be a driving force of your plot (the death) then you have to make it quite clear how the main character feels about the mentor. If it's just, well, I learned martial arts from this guy, and then he died, so now I rampage, that feels like an excuse, and not a plot.

Establish what the mentor meant to your character, whether through flashbacks, dialogue, or reflection, and you should be fine.

The generally accepted rule, as far as I know, is that it's capitalized in conjunction with a name, but not as a title itself. So for example... Lance Corporal Jones, or the lance corporal.

Because those tattooed arrays do one specific thing. Mustang's gloves allow him to transmute the air into something more flammable, that he then ignites with his 'spark gloves'. Armonstrong's gauntlets also let him do very specific things with stone. Kimblee makes explosions.

Ed can do whatever he wants; we see him change the shape of stone, of metal, water and ice, dirt, and so on. He doesn't need a different set of gloves or tattoos for every material or every transmutation he does.

Had this happen on the Dead By Daylight sub a few years back; I was saying how I'd had some bad games, and then had a player basically act as a tour guide, and 'boop the snoot' (it's an old school DBD thing), and how much I appreciated it, and how this one player just having a good time, and having fun, was one of the best games I ever had. Massive upvotes, people saying we needed more games like this, and more posts like this instead of everybody bitching all the time... Three days later it was deleted as 'low quality content'. Like... My guy, I basically wrote a short novella of this Tour Guide Meg leading me around Midwich elementary school, and how much it made my day.

Wow that was uh... that was a wild ride of wrong from start to finish.

See, this is something though where I'm like... we're all missing the greater point here?

Yes, children need food. But I see so many posts of, all these kids wouldn't eat if it wasn't for their safe place at school. Okay... but maybe we should do something about the fact that these kids aren't eating at home. Like that is a concern, and we should address that?

Having the government step in and make sure our children are taken care of is great, but it's not a long-term solution. Ensuring our children are in safe homes, with adequate food, needs to be a priority. Feeding them at school takes care of a symptom, it does not fix the problem.

Our childcare options are a joke, our foster care system is a disaster, and CPS causes more harm than it helps. When I was at CPS, the general accepted practice was... poor people are poor, and can't be expected to adequately take care of their children, so set up a parenting guideline, and check in every three months. Send parents who have been neglecting and abusing their children to parenting classes, ten in one year, then reevaluate the situation. Middle and upper class families get, well, they're not actively abusing their children, so file a report on the issue, and close it as unindicated. No need to stress anyone out!

Providing kids with food during summer lunch programs is a step, but it's not a solution. We keep throwing money at steps while providing nothing as a long-term option, instead of making sure kids are safe, and fed and taken care of at home. Then we all start arguing over 'Democrats want to take responsibility from parents' and 'Republicans want children to starve', and we all miss the bigger goddamn point of... This is all just a band-aid fix and nobody wants to actually address the real problem, because it doesn't get the kudos and easy acclaim.

So much this. Like all the people who won't watch/read/listen to something 'because it's popular'. That's an exceptionally shitty reason to not try something.

The big thing is, I feel, that we're starting to accept that masculinity in and of itself isn't bad, anymore so than 'femininity' is bad. A boy can like trucks, a girl can like dolls, or vice versa, and it makes no never mind to anything. It hurts no one. We've gotten to a point where we're raising the new generation to just like... have fun. You want a doll? You want a play cooking set? You want trucks? You want GI Joes? Cool, you do you and have fun. A toy is a toy, meant to have fun, and should not be an object with which to push a social construct.

My grandmother always complained about the way I sneezed. That I was 'too loud', and it sounded like 'a man's sneeze'. For years, I tried holding my sneeze in, and then basically choking it off into as quiet a noise as I could make it.

Funny story I like to tell my kids: when we graduated, one kid walked out of high school and straight into an 80K a year job back in 2008.

He'd gone to a local trade school thing for high school kids, and gotten his certifications for heavy equipment operation, and diesel mechanics. While everyone else was going into college, ending up in debt, for jobs that paid maybe 40 or 50K if we were lucky... He had zero debt, and bought his first house within two years.

Okay, I know it's not as bad as like, smacking your kid, but one of my aunts used to flick her children on the nose. And it always bothered me, because I get it, not really painful or anything, but it was so demeaning. Treating your kids like dogs, and like... I don't even know, something about it just bothered me.

It may be a D&D 5e thing, but it has nothing to do with superheroes; I routinely play Exalted (2e and 3e), and you are pretty much an unstoppable god, barring others of the same exaltation as you, or godly dickery.

D&D as a whole, but particularly 5e, discourages creativity, IMO, which is why so many players can't easily jump to other systems. Sure you can take other traits, play off the meta, but half the party's gonna snicker, the other half are gonna roll their eyes, and your GM is gonna look at you suspiciously, wondering how you're going to wreck his game if you go outside of like, four acceptable builds. The only exception to this is 'memey' builds which are humorous, but either situationally powerful, or just flat out useless 95% of the time.

D&D is also famous for being the most generous; in no other game do you get exactly 1847656 saving throws or attempts to save yourself. One-shot kills are rare, and being punished for your mistakes is very rarely fatal, or even game altering.

When my kid started getting into RP'ing, him and his friends started on D&D 3.5, before we moved them up to WoD Werewolf, and then finally Exalted. It's easy, it's simple, and for the most part? Unless your GM is actively looking to kill you, there are very few things that a D&D character can't survive in some way shape or form.

So when they run into a game where there's consequences for their actions, when they actually have to think things through, and play smart, and not just brute force or connive their way into a place they shouldn't be because 'lols', it's an eyeopener. And not a particularly pleasant one.

tldr: D&D rarely punishes players unless a GM is looking to punish players, so when players face consequences in other games, they tend to get upset.

I was given a 24 hour silencing ban by a mod because I 'seemed frustrated' in my post about how we should stop complaining about things breaking the rules, and just report them for violating the rules instead.

When I asked what I'd done to earn a ban, that was the response I was given. That I 'seemed frustrated'. I pointed out that nowhere in the rules did it say a mod could hand out a ban for someone being frustrated -I hadn't cussed, or called anyone names, the worst I did was telling one commenter to read before responding -she gave me a week silence ban, and dared me to complain again. I laughed, said I'd just show myself out, I wasn't interested in playing her power games, she said good we don't want you here anyway, with a smiley.

So forgive me if I'm not crying for you, Argentina, but new rules seem to be made up on the spot, with little more than 'well, I've decided I don't like this thing'. So people are understandably tetchy about getting banned from their favorite subs because one mod went power hungry.

I'm unsure of the post, but it makes sense, and there are probably numerous people who have pointed it out. Because it makes sense, like...

Bruce had one night of violence, and he let it shatter his entire life. He dedicated everything he had to trying to right that single night, and became Batman because of it. But at the end of the night, he goes back to his mansion, in his cave, with his gadgets, and toys, and he's safe. His home is a safe place, where the crime of Gotham doesn't touch him. Violence touched his life once when he was a child, and let it dictate the entirety of his life.

Conversely... Jason grew up with continual violence. It was just a fact of life for him, even before he ended up as a homeless child in the most crime ridden part of Gotham. Park Row (what Crime Alley was called before Thomas and Martha Wayne's murder) canonically has the highest crime rates, including multiple murders every night, rampant drug use and prostitution, robberies, burglaries, and gang wars. He saw Batman locking up criminals, who just came back and did the same thing the next night, and the next and the next, until Batman locked them away again, before restarting the cycle, over and over. How many people do you think he saw being raped, mugged, or murdered by a criminal Batman had already locked up once, twice, thrice?

Bruce put a criminal in jail, then went back home where it was safe until he arrested the guy again. Jason, on the other hand, would've watched these same criminals do the same thing, who knows how many times. How many times would it have taken, watching someone be victimized -or being victimized himself -from someone Batman had put away?

But on the opposite side of that same coin... How many low-level people, just trying to feed themselves, or their families for another day, did Jason see Batman beat to a pulp? How many people, who were just trying to survive -like Jason himself -did Batman beat up, and haul off to prison? Only to start a new generation, who were left to try and feed themselves when their parents were put in jail?

Yeah, one of the big things I take issue with is... Nah, I chose my boyfriend, he chose me... He's a grown ass man, he can take care of himself, children take priority.

I think Jason, as someone who supposedly likes Victorian era romance novels, would be the last person to throw shade at anybody for their chosen method of escapism.

As a dude who, if we take that one singular panel of him reading pride and prejudice as gospel (as so many people do), has probably been teased relentlessly about his own reading habits, he would be the last person to tease and mock other people for their favorite books.

I think half of these YA romance novels these days enforce problematic ideals, not the least of which is that a girl has to choose between two men to be happy, that it's going to be this great big heart-breaking choice for her. But you know what? I'm not out here about to judge people who are actively reading a book. Jason, as someone who had limited access to books during his formative years would be the last person to openly criticize people for what they're reading.

So kindly please step on down from the soap box, and don't put your prejudices on a character. Thanks.

The West Memphis Three.

Now, before everyone gets all bent out of shape here... It was a terrible thing, what happened to Damon Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Miskelley. However, in our drive to focus on the tragedy that was the WM3... It seems like everyone forgot that there were three, eight year old little boys who were brutally murdered.

The actual case that started the West Memphis Three has been completely forgotten, the real killers of the boys never found. I understand the publicity to get the Echols, Baldwin, and Miskelley out of prison, but it just seems like everybody kinda forgot that the whole reason they were in jail in the first place was because there was a murder.

While I don't particularly agree with media digging in and reviolating victims in these sorts of cases... If you look into anything about the murders of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore, you find... Oh, three boys were killed, yes, WEST MEMPHIS THREE, CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT DAMIAN ECHOLS!

And again, I don't blame Echols, Baldwin, or Miskelley for this. But it's obnoxious that there's almost zero evidence to be found without a deep dive on the three murder victims, but I can easily find out every last little detail about Echols childhood.

Not only do I hate that 'take' -haven't they damaged Bruce's character enough in recent years? seriously, stop please - but... but...

Can we talk about my massive amounts of confusion from seeing Bruce Timm? Like it took me a minute to notice the second 'm' and go, wait what the hell is going on over here lol

My boyfriend, bless his heart, is from Florida originally and says 'Strength' and 'Length' like lin-th and strin-th, hitting the 'th' sound hard. It drives me up a tree, even now, after eleven years of being together lol.

I will say NTA, however... Moving it out of your bedroom into a different room would be the kind thing to do here. See if he'd accept that alternative. He shouldn't have to literally feel your dead husband's eyes on him from a photo across the room. That is a bit much to ask from him.

Now, if he says it needs to be taken down entirely? Yeah, then he's the asshole. But I don't think it's unreasonable for him to ask you to move it out of the bedroom you two now share either.

No, most criminals have personality disorders. That's what I'm talking about. Anti-social personality disorder isn't a mental illness. It's a personality disorder, yes. However, schizophrenia can be kept at bay with medication. Someone with the psycopathy mental disorders (narcissism, borderline personality, sadistic, anti-social) can't be cured because these are personality disorders, things that can't be cured, or treated.

Gacy couldn't be 'treated'. He was a narcissistic sociopath, who cared only about his own wants. You will never be able to convince a Gacy to stop what he's doing, because he doesn't care about right or wrong, he cares about what he wants. He is the only person who matters.

Same with many criminals. While Richard Chase draws attention because of the horror of his crimes... Very few mentally ill people commit crimes. Some studies (including one done by the NIH) have shown that people with severe mental illness are less likely to commit crimes. Unfortunately, when they do, it does tend to be much more violent and horrific, but that doesn't change that they are less likely to be inherently violent without provocation.

Bundy, Gacy, Kemper, Bonin, Kraft, Corll, and other similar killers aren't mentally ill. They have personality disorders. Which is what I was getting at with 'disingenuous' to say they're mentally ill. Because it has nothing to do with a physical or chemical defect in their brain in the manner of, say, schizophrenia, paranoid schizoaffective, ADHD, or the like. That's the important distinction.

During the 60s and 70s, the 'hay day' of American serial killers here in the states, true psychiatry was in its infancy, and so was diagnosing, treating, and handling of mental illness and personality disorders. (For an excellent example of this, Without Redemption: Creation and Deeds of Freeway Killer Bill Bonin, Vonda Pelto and Michael Butler is an excellent showing of this, psychiatrists in the 90s talking about psychiatry in the 70s, and reading it in the 2020s is a wild ride).

The issue is that since mental health professionals are still dealing and adapting with our growing understanding, most 'normies' (non-mental health professionals) are still stuck on things released ten, or even twenty years ago.

When you hear about someone like Mullin, who admitted that he knew murder was wrong, but that he was doing it for the greater good, to save California... you can sympathize a bit. Here was a truly mentally ill man, who didn't understand why his delusions were wrong.

However, when you hear about someone like Bonin, or Speck (killed 8 nurses in one night), you can't sympathize because they know what they're doing is wrong, and simply don't care. And pointing out that one has a mental illness, and one has a personality disorder is a far better way of putting it than just trying to say not all mentally ill people are violent.