King clapping sercastically. It's the best emote in the game by a fucking landslide.

Any emote can be used in a toxic way if you just spam it hard enough, or at the right time. But king clapping is the best emote to reply to toxicity, right before muting the emotes for that match.

This is a warlock. However seeing as you don't want a warlock, sorcerer / wizard are good second options.

Or cleric, that could work too, a weird cleric.

Then there's always the option of going nuclear and using whatever stat block you like, and spicing it up for flavor. (Oh no, my rogue isn't the knife-wieldy stabby-stabby rogue, she's a witch who happens to brew harming potions that only work as short range single target splash because of a special ingredient she uses)

Sneak attack? You mean increased potion accuracy? The dagger I took as part of the kit? It's not a dagger, it's a bird skull with a particularly sharp beak... Etc...

Can really be used with any clas in the game

You gonna argue the point or just bitch about it?

Oh hey it's dysfunctional Skylanders!

(Ok on a serious, and less mean note, well painted dude)

I'm pretty new to DnD so I only know warlock and monk in depth. However if Vivaldi was a warlock he'd definetly be an archfey. Have you heard the sheer amount of jumpiness in most his pieces? He's definetly the type to completely disappear after taking any damage.

You are both acting like children. It's a nuanced situation though. Bear with me here, it's gonna be a long ride.

.

. (Yeah this is how much space I'm going to need for big separators, as I said, strap in, I'm going to break this down )

He is trying to communicate things in inefficient ways, and getting fucked by Google while he's at it. Making himself sound like a lunatic.

He also might hold some maladjusted views, but I cannot really pin it down, because so much of this sounds like it could be caused by emotion (which you definetly aren't helping by laughing)

.

Meanwhile you are trying to force him to admit that he cannot give a single example. The problem is that he probably feels like he can get a better example, but just hasn't communicated it well enough.

So he might not even believe that he was so far able to give a good enough example. But the sentence you are trying to make him admit is that he CANNOT do it. Implying that will not ever be able to.

Also forcing someone to ADMIT to something they don't even BELIEVE in the first place is pointless. Even if you do get him to "admit it" by force, it's not an admission. It's him giving up on trying to prove what he believes. It's just bad for everyone.

Also you might hold some maladjusted beliefs too.

.

.

So you're in a deadlock. And the situation is deteriorating.

He is definetly not helping it by saying "so shoot me, I guess all men are useless" (or something along those lines).

And you definetly aren't helping the situation by laughing at him as he tries to prove his point.

.

.

Now as I said, both of you are acting like children.

He is fighting with strawmen ( the strawman argument that "all men should just be killed" ) ( which is btw an actual opinion a very small amount of people hold).

He seems to have gotten emotionally invested, which is a good way to keep making bad arguments.

And he might actually have some maladjusted views.

.

You are trying to force him to admit something he doesn't believe.

You are doing that while he still hasn't given up trying to explain his side because he feels he just hasn't argued it well enough.

Meanwhile, you are laughing at him, for trying to prove his point.

And you just straight up told him that he shouldn't talk to you unless he admits to something he doesn't believe in.

.

.

On his part: He is probably TAH for the part where he says "just shoot me all men are useless" because it's a strawman. You didn't say that and he is using an extremist opinion to discredit your argument.

And he was condescending. So he was the asshole for that.

.

On your part: The laughing, I'm not sure if you're TAH for it. It's definetly an asshole move. But depending on how rude he was, it might have been called for.

But you are most definitely the asshole for telling him to "admit the statement or don’t talk to you". So for that, YTA. That's not how relationships work. That's not how you solve disagreements. If you wanted a pause from the farse that has been going on you could have said it in better ways.

Also the main point you are trying to make is just plain wrong (that being: "women are the only ones who get the bad side of gender differences") (unless you don't live in the west then idk wtf your culture looks like).

I mean I'm sure there's plenty of shit women have disadvantages in. To name a few off the top of my head:

walking out at night is not recommended, childbirth pains are a thing, and the risks that go along with it, menopause is a thing, periods suck, having your looks be one of the most important things about you also sucks, a woman's body is just weaker... Aaanndd there are some fields of work where you are just going to get paid less. (Like architecture and professional sports, and probably some others I can't name). Oh and also societal expectation of being a mother can suck if you don't want to be one. And the expectation of submissiveness to an extent.

So yeah, there are some legitamate disadvantages of being a woman. But to just assume that being a man has no disadvantages of it's own is a simple case of "grass is always greener on the other side". Here are some male disadvantages:

Being sent to war to die. Being seen as the more dangerous gender. Which can then immediately snowball into people being uncomfortable around you, despite doing you nothing to provoke it. Having the societal expectation of never being emotionally vulnerable. The robust and strong body comes along with stinking and sweating a lot. Men get evacuated and saved last ("get the women and children out"). Men are just as likely to get domestically abused as women, but while there's a lot of talk about domestically abusive men, shelters for abused women, and general societal understanding that it's an issue, there is nothing of the sort for men. Men on average get harsher sentences for the same crimes. There's divorce laws which are biased towards women. Or the fact that men can be easily character assassinated with allegations of domestic violence, or r*pe, even if there's no proof.

So to just say that women are the only victims of the gender differences, is COMPLETELY wrong. And ust plain arrogant.

So for the arrogance, YTA.

Get out As everyone else said.

Also do it smart. Be prepared for her to throw a fit. Probably a good idea to have evidence of her being violent, not you. Just in case she decides to go ballistic.

Both YTA and NTA for both of you, it's nuanced. I can't type it out now. I have tried for an hour but it's a really fucked up situation to explain without seeming biased.

I will comment relatively soon, in an attempt to explain it.

I have to sleep first though.

And so they hired the bee-watcher -watcher -watcher -watcher

Except Jodi wasn't married, she was just a nut who couldn't stand losing a crush

Good point, I was wrong, didn't see that one. Only listened to the entire video like 23 times as I tried typing out the context before ultimately giving up and deciding to ask you to care first. So I was pretty sure the sigh you referred to was the only one I ever heard. My bad. The offer still stands

Probably any religion would. I mean of the major ones. It's hard to imagine an ancient religion endorse someone fucking a robot

I have no idea what you mean by sad sighing. The title literally says happy sigh

I can explain the context but it would take me a lot of time, and with you demonstrating that you don't even care about this so much as to read the title, I don't know if it's worth my effort.

If you want to hear the context breakdown, reply to this. Then I will assume that you will actually invest the effort to understand my POV if I make the effort to write it out.

That is a very innacurate read of the situation. Stripped of context and implications you are right. With context and implications, you are dead wrong.

Idk dude 4 minutes doesn't exactly scream oversimplifying.

And about the oversimplifying point. If there is one guy who doesn't oversimplify it, it's destiny. He did countless hours of recorded research and took notes on it. And yet... Many people remain fanatical, dismissing his work entirely.

The loose cannon

Idk dude I think we need more articles like these to come out. So that younger generations can see where it leads. And those aren't coming out if the only consequence is being labeled a bunch of bad things, and then used as a talking point.

It's the same principle as treating surrendered combatants well. If you don't do it, you're going to get a hell of a lot less surrenders. And the fight will be a lot harder.

There's a good shot it's a false flag article by someone who wants to disagree with feminism via a cheap anectode article.

There's an even better chance that anyone this article is aimed to reach will write it off as a false flag article.

Even if it is real, comments like these serve as incentive for other women in similar situations to lie to themselves that they wanted this. Instead of actively denouncing their past, and working out how to make a culture with workable rules for everyone on how the hell exactly dating should be done.

There's a good shot it's a false flag article by someone who wants to disagree with feminism via a cheap anectode article.

There's an even better chance that anyone this article is aimed to reach will write it off as a false flag article.

Even if it is real, comments like these serve as incentive for other women in similar situations to lie to themselves that they wanted this. Instead of actively denouncing their past, and working out how to make a culture with workable rules for everyone on how the hell exactly dating should be done.

You too

Tbh I fucking forgot what the comment was and now it's deleted. From what I remember though it was literally just saying that this dude looks ridiculous (which he does, looks like a cartoon). And then said that they therefore do not care what this dude thinks.

Idk what is so awful about it.

Well then good thing you looked at the comments and scrolled down to the downvoted ones, and then replied to a reply of a reply. That will ensure you keep on the happy shit.

Riiiggghhhttt but I think we all kinda know what particular things about this person are relevant to the statement we want to make about them. This person is wearing bright fucking pink to the point of actually looking like a cartoon. They aren't really the average person. And therefore aren't really the ones who should give a standard on attraction of others.

Plus I'm pretty sure the comment above (that is now deleted) just called them "a guy". Which they do look like. And got downvoted to high hell. Idk how that is supposed to be extremely offensive or rude.

How exactly can you refer to this person without sounding rude?

Ah... A person getting downvoted for noticing things...

Truly reddit at it's finest