RationalMadman

The accent you were hearing from Jelani is Carribean-Cockney. The main traits that separates it from something like the African Cockney black accent is the speed with which one speaks it (faster) and the more monotone delivery of it but also there's much harsher enunciation of the consonant that ends words.

they both vary how they say 'th' but Carribeans will go more for 't' while all other cockney variants aim for 'f' or 'v' sound.

Carribean-Cockney says this:

'How's tings goin' fam? You keepin' well 'n' dat?'

Whereas African-Cockney says this:

'How's you? You healfy 'n' okay?'

It's not just the slang, it's the delivery,

The best way to show you the difference is to give you an example of two rappers who have a Ghanaian-cockney (Stormzy) and Nigerian-cockney (Dave) accent to contrast with the Carribean-Cockney from the song I just showed you:

Big Zuu spoke more straightforward Cockney and has Lebanese and Sierra Leonian roots.

The funny part is that Korea isn't that most capitalistic type of country even in its vicinity. China has far worse poverty than Korea yet is called left-wing.

In Korea, they subsidise Insurance rather than healthcare itself and you can only lose that if you screw up badly or cancel it yourself.

They have essentially got 'national health insurance' that covers 80% of fees on average. The reason in squid game his mother didn't get it is he'd screwed up their credit score and cancelled the insurance on top of it.

There is no such thing as a British accent. If there was a British accent it wouldn't be that, it would be much more 'upper class'.

Marbles episode was phenomenal.

Glad you liked it, it is definitely deserving of its success.

dude, that track had EVERYTHING. Flow, bars on bars, hot af beat, perfect delivery. You complain about it, you just don't know rap. That's all I have to say.

Sure, sure. You are only seeing numbers, not overall proportion or gain vs loss.

you are looking at it surface-level. Canadians pay more from the upper brackets to support the lower than the US ever has.

There is barely any (or none at all) tax in US going to socialised healthcare, for instance.

America is full of tax evaders.

Every thread you write is either extreme satire or the ramblings of someone who should not be in any position of power. Not sure how else to put it. You don't understand how to lead without being tyrannical.

Lower taxes than America huh? LOL! Other than corporate tax, you'll find the opposite is true.

I meant includes supporting.

What I am saying is I don't support that award. What could Caitlyn Jenner possibly have done post-transition within her first year as a woman to qualify for woman over the year over every other woman in existence that could be picked instead of her?

It's things like that which I, personally, don't feel that censoring the opposition on it is correct.

People are cancelling JK Rowling, a passionate feminist and literal pioneer of female authoring in the modern age becoming mainstream, because she said (quite rightly) that one can't just put on makeup and undergo some operation and say they've lived life with the same disadvantages as a cis female has.

You don't suddenly become a woman because you ask people to call you 'she', people should call you a pronoun you like but you didn't experience the life of a woman you had a different struggle which is insulting to both trans people (and their struggle) and cis females to pretend is the same struggle.

Il-nam was apathetic, neither a pure sadist nor a saviour. He didn't care about the agony of others, it was mild entertainment for him.

He is, as I said, a clinical sociopath, not a psychopath. He has some emotions, just much less than an average person. Life is a joke to him.

Your 'window dressing' point applies to literally all series, most series have 2 characters that are way more pivotal to the storyline than the rest. It's extremely rare for that not to be the case.

Breaking Bad: Walter White and Jesse Pinkman

Naruto (3): Naruto, Sasuke and Sakura

Bleach: Ichigo and Ruki

Harry Potter (3): Harry Potter, Ronald Weasley and Hermione Granger

Star Wars: Initially, Obi Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker, later on Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker

These things are always there

While I get it from a genuine variety of sources and more often than not I only particularly care what's in the News if either it's mentioned elsewhere or my parents talk about it, I will be specific on this as I'm aware this sounds ignorant.

I am a firm believe in the Illuminati controlling the News and yet I am left-wing. I do not understand why most conspiracy theorists are right-wing, it is a fact that right-wing News is even more blatantly geared to disinformation than the left-wing news but both have their fair share of context twisting and brutal manipulation of the facts to fit their biases.

So, I firmly believe that almost no news source that's mainstream is at all not a part of the problem and instead I focus on news sources that I think have the kind of biases I would like to see actually supported, I do really look at all news sources but the ones I trust most and take most serious on matters are those whos biases align with my own, this is the actual way to operate in a world of fake news, the one with the agenda you support is likely to tell you the line of thinking you should hate the least and question the least. I do always look around a topic, even in 'metoo' scenarios, to check if really the person was frame or not but what I do trust most and found my cross-source investigations support nearly 95% of the time (genuinely 92-95 out of 100 kind of ratio) is the ones with both a left-wing lean and yet a lean that isn't entirely dedicated to 'hating the right-wing'. To avoid helping people locate me, I will give examples of sources I trust most.

The Guardian (all countries where it has a branch, it's reliable)

BBC News

ABC News

Vox

Sky News Australia (massive right-wing lean but my investigations found that it actually states the truth often)

CBS News

The Independent

Often CNN (extreme bias but it fits my own and rarely directly lies, just twists context)

Al Jazeera (but I never trust it on matters it has locally in the middle east, instead its international reports are where its real reliability lies, it is very biased to be anti-israel and anti-American-right etc so I am careful what I trust or don't trust).

The Atlantic

and many others of course.

Canada is a developed nation where I personally have found a real overload of bullcrap filled with bias in its News so I stick to the source 'The National Post' there, even the national news source of Canada is filled with too much bias to bother following regularly. Just take one look at its website: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada

It looks like a teenager with 2 week's experience designed that website under extreme time pressure. I don't feel they put much effort into removing blatant bias from their articles.

There are many others I follow on the side but basically those sum up what I look at.

I follow many scientific magazines/papers. These include Psychology Today and New Scientist (as well as BBC's science branch). I also follow many YT channels that aren't officially 'news' for hot takes on things etc. Some are even right-wing, I am a Jordan Peterson subscriber for instance.

Aside from when I give a damn about a particular article and do that cross-checking exercise (forcing myself to read many reports on the same topic/event) what I generally do to vet is just go with what I basically know the bias is and will fit mine. You see, since bias and twisting the truth to suit one's agenda is fairly inevitable in journalism, what I want is a twisted truth coming from a source that ultimately has the same overall morals and goals I have for society since they'll rarely report the truths that matter for my agenda in a twisted or fallacious manner. 

Such biases include, supporting a shift to higher minimum wage, better workers' rights, a total shift to the left for overall politics, not overly pandering to minorities just because left-wing (overly pandering includes things such as forgetting that Islam is linked to Sharia Law and that the influence it has on a culture they immigrate into needs to be significantly mitigated if it is to remain left-wing and liberal, it also includes not supporting calling Caitlyn Jenner 'woman of the year' after she had only been a woman for one year despite definitely supporting trans rights on a personal level). I also would say a huge thing for me is to report more on the mental health aspects of mass shooters without needing to deny them being the villains they are. We need to empathise even with those we despise, this is a significant life skill both wings lack at the moment but the right-wing lacks more for sure.

As for science news (which matters much more for our species than bullshit political news but unfortunately the latter can't be ignored) I generally find they don't lie even if they're biased, so if they state facts you can trust it regardless of agenda and it's nice to read.

Well, it's pretty easy really, the hard part is accepting that barely anyone does. What I do is ask them 'alright, this is your take on this topic so why do you believe it and are you willing to let me attack it?' obviously I don't directly word it like that but I basically do that. Be careful doing it, it can cost you friendships and pleasant exchanges, however that ultimately is the test. If they get more hostile the more interest you take and less hostile the more you nod and gloss over any take they have on any topic, you know that you're dealing with a 'sheep'.

Unlike others who are very self-driven and notice 'sheep', I've learned to accept them, I don't have hostility. Some of my close family are what I'd call 'sheep' but I just let it be, I can't change them being sheep any more than they can change me being a self-thinker with a rare ability to admit my own biases while determining truth. The more you fight to change people, the worse your life will get. Instead just get along with them, socialise with them and appreciate their strengths, leave the deep chats for people who also want that. Your life will get much better and more fulfilling.

When with shallow thinkers, learn to think shallow. I say that without any resentment or hostility at all, I have come to be at total peace with this concept and way of living life. Save the philosophy and political shit for people who really wanna chat about that.

So, at this point I realise you have noticed some things but totally missed others. On the other hand, I agree with you on something that many missed; il-nam was a complete and utter hypocrite. I don't just mean him dying, take this 'equality' stance he holds (or at least the cop's brother holds), there's no way at all they thought that by not punishing fighting that someone with a body like Deuk-Su is on equal footing with someone like Sang-woo for starters (and Sang Woo was a brilliant fighter and tactician but just face it, Deuk-su wins that fight every time).

What I am getting at here is that the very fact alone that beating the crap out of people, even to death, was unpunished within the resting area meant that regardless of one's ability at games, one was permanently a slave to one sole skill; hand-to-hand combat. No amount of social skills would help either because a 'gang' has every reason to turn on each other since only one walks away with all the money. 

That is one main reason I don't despise Deuk-su at all, not even for how he betrayed Mi-nyeo (the chick he banged). At the point of betrayal, he had every reason not to jeopardise himself and his team and was nearly 100% certain her team was bound to lose given that the doctor had told him what the challenge would be and that the command for them to be teaming up made it more likely the doctor was correct about what lied ahead. He had to maintain a ruthless persona even if he actually had feelings for her (which I don't think he did but if he did, he'd have had to act extra ruthless anyway) and ultimately he got extremely unlucky with how things played out. He even correctly abused his strength in the glass game, I would absolutely do what Deuk-su did there, even if I was weaker than him. I don't even know why anyone bothered going, what you do is blackmail the rest to vote to end the games if you're an early number, if anyone tries to push you off, you grab onto them and kamikaze and say you'll do that beforehand. This would have led to the glass expert helping them a bit and may have led to a totally different outcome.

Regardless, I am saying I see what you mean about hypocrisy and double standards along many angles in the game but that didn't make me dislike the ending, that was something I noticed before that was revealed.

I also think you didn't pick up on many clues that Il-nam is actually the father of Gi-hun and obviously was a sociopath who didn't give a shit about his son but just knew who Gi-hun was and engineered encounters with Gi-hun (such as counting with his finger pointed just as Gi-hun passed by him though I think that was a genuine thing he was doing because he needed to know his brain could still count people accurately so he'd stop the night-fight just in time for four teams to be the amount left). When Gi-hun says he's lactose intolerant and asks for chocolate milk (both a ridiculous and yet reasonable request because chocolate milk still has lactose but yes, it has slightly less and the lactose itself fuses with the cocoa somewhat to make digestion a tiny bit easier, it's why lactose-intolerant people often react more severely to something like pizza than a chocolate)... Anyway, Gi-hun says that and then the old man asks him if he got beaten for that as a child, then Gi-hun says 'yes' and the old man says he did that to his own son.

Another clue to pick up on (there's clues that were so abstract you couldn't pick up on) is that when they run around the marbles arena it's based on the old man's house and Gi Hun specifically states that he himself remembers living somewhere like this (clearly before the divorce/split which led to his mother needing to move in with him). This may also explain why the old man spared Gi-hun in marbles at all but I doubt it. At that point Gi-hun had proven himself even as a non-son ally and the old man obviously had planned to be the 'sucker' that didn't get picked so he could easily leave without getting noticed, this was all ruined because Gi-hun decided to pair with him.

I am confused though, since had the doctor not been killed off prior to marbles, there'd have been an even number of competitors but perhaps the old man had planned to drag out the marbles game regardless and do it how he did so he'd be killed at the last second and be able to fake it. 

What you say though, about his motive not making sense, is partly because I think Korean statements that are philosophical don't directly translate into English (both an issue on subbed and dubbed). What he was really saying was his motive, if you follow the context of the last scene, wasn't to just thrill himself, it was also to prove to himself (not the other businessmen involved) that at the core, humans are corrupt and that no matter how many random variations of people enter such a contest, they all end up backstabbing and selfishly operating regardless of what social bonds they form or previous assistance. I think he explicitly knew his own son was entering the contest that round, which he didn't mention to Gi-hun as he didn't know how to justify why he'd ditched him and his mother even financially despite being that rich. I also think he'd had Gi-hun followed long before and engineered it so that Gi-hun in particular got invited after he'd had every chance to get out of his parasitic lifestyle himself. This may explain why, sure others may have had many chances too, Gi-hun was already in crippling debt for years but only got asked to come to the game years after it began. He'd have been a perfect candidate way, way before. If you observe Deuk-Su's, Ali's and Sang-woo's backstory, those 3 explicitly are made clear to only have recently got into crippling debt scenarios, Gi-hun is in contrast shown to have perpetually been in it for years before he was asked to join the games. This is a much more subtle hint that Gi-hun was the old man's son as opposed to an ordinary candidate (as well as the old man seeing Gi-hun after quitting or even the old man voting 'no' when he was the tiebreaker, respecting Gi-hun's wish).

The one thing against this theory is that the old man who clearly had sussed out the honey candy game being what it was, chose to let Gi-hun get umbrella (initially he let Gi-hun pick and insisted on it but Gi-hun then picked the umbrella and insisted the old man confirm he was okay with star). I also think the old man even knew the licking method and that holding the candy to the 'sun' would give a significant clue (given what he says about stars) but what confuses me is why he'd risk his own son losing on that particular task. I get that he is a darwinist and believes if his son didn't earn the win he doesn't deserve it and wanted to give his son a fair chance in life but I don't get that one time why he didn't either take umbrella or suddenly 'remember' the symbols and say they should all pick triangle.

My explanation of that is that the old man ultimately didn't think his son would win the whole thing, he was ready to break his own heart and see Gi-hun fail. This may also explain why he himself stalled the licking technique and was yes, using saliva to cut his own, but being slow. He was perhaps willing even to swap the candies if need be (I know, this is a stretch) but if you realise that if the rules dont' stop something then anything goes, then you'd understand.

What really confused me about the honey candy game was that the guards were so blatantly mispositioned to see some while watching others like hawks, it was perfect for cheaters, as we saw with the 'lighter' chick who would have had it confiscated and been killed/eliminated for ruining the 'entering the game as equals' concept etc. Even weirder was the Deuk-su was in sight of the cameras even if the guards weren't watching him. Surely one of the guards at least spotted what Deuk-su was doing. The only explanation I can think of is that the square guard who was involved with the organ harvesting saw it and didn't snitch because he planned on the doctor allying Deuk-su for a near-guaranteed win of the tug of war later on. That is the only explanation I could think of there. There is no way that the lighter being involved in the game matched the front man's 'equality' mantra.

All apes use revenge as a form of justice, it's a very primate-based concept. 

Other animals tend to have consistent bullies and victims, primates are one of the only to have people shift in the social hierarchy and often aggression is a positive motive to do that and apes are the primates that consistently have that.

Baboons tend to only have revenge among the alphas but apes (baboons are primates but not apes) have even timid apes use their 'allies' to hurt someone that has hurt them.

I mean, I can't continue this conversation if you have an ethical dilemma with spoilers. If you're okay with spoiling since I do warn it in the thread's title, I'd like to discuss it.

To me, it was actually too obvious but I'm extremely intelligent with these twist-heavy series. The only twist that caught me by complete surprise is that the cop's brother was who he was. I caught onto that his brother must clearly be important and potentially even running the place but I didn't expect him to be who he was.

what's wrong with the finale?

Did you not find the twist good?

What policies of Trump's are good?

that's due to covid and imports not happening as much because many, many issues arose as there were outbreaks of the delta variant worldwide (and most conspiracy theorists who refused to take the vaccine also happen to be blue collar workers who do the work exporting things)

You mean like the poor would under the regime Trump wants? 

Maybe I'm ignorant here but how exactly is it that this is able to happen?

I have never come across another developed nation that's a genuine democracy where a false vote (not even via the mail-in voting) is able to be forged on this scale unless the person literally handed the document/letter over to another to fill in for them. I think the US system itself is the issue personally, I never heard of this level of voter fraud unless we mean pseudodemocracies like Russia, China and Iran that probably literally rig their elections.

One piece of advice I'd give you if you're using a VPN that clearly another troll here has used  would be to avoid using US IP addresses. Most banned trolls of this website have been from either the US or India. Avoid those 2 nations when selecting the server, I'm pretty sure that'd fix quite a bit of it.

One banned user may have used Australia but I doubt it, they probably tried to appear to be from the US. VPNs default to a server near to you that is not particularly busy, avoid using the default if it keeps resulting in blacklisting.

Which VPN service do you use? I use NordVPN and have never had a blacklist issue on this website. Do you mean via TOR browser?

Also, it would help to reveal your IP to the mods here at least once. You could be anyone and type any illegal thing at some point, they have reason to demand to know your real IP but once you do that you should be allowed to use VPN.

Do you realise or not that I was saying to advertise this website elsewhere? You seem to have misunderstood what I said.

The site is dead because it doesn't advertise anywhere and he can't qualify for it due to some severe troll posts and also because of not identifying himself on the website.

I am surprised it lets ads run on the website even thought the owner isn't named on it. It has huge risk in its business model overall.

alright well unlike Google's adsense, it has vageuness in its terms of use so I'm not sure if the stuff those users posted will disqualify from the ads.

If it was Google adsense, that 100% would lead to penalty once Google was informed.

yeah that isn't with google adsense though I don't think. idk how/why that one ad thing is running.

Also, to qualify for ads the posts of members like Mesmer and Wylted will need to be removed, even some of my rap battle lyrics may need to be censored.

A primary reason for it and why I won't aim to own a website like this is that the owner cannot remain anonymous while having a busy website as the way to get busy is to have adverts and a criterion to qualify a website for ads is to attach your person/company to the website as that individual and/or company is what the advert is done in the name of.

The owner of this website wants to stay anonymous and doesn't even debate in fear of his real opinions linking to his real identity. I understand the fear but the owner specifically can't be the one to be this fragile on a website if it is to get busy. The owner can be careful what they type but needs to reveal who they are.

What I like is more like this:

^ WARNING it spoils some things about who wins fights etc.

that's one way to not answer me

lol. that's some cliche-ass statement any politician of any wing could say to make 'fuzzy feelings' that get you to vote for them.

Stop the vague waffle and get to the point, do you specifically think that statement is only true for the US of A? If so, what makes you think so and why was it not true for things like the Roman Empire?

If you don't support fully socialised grants, the way that Britain and more 'in between' social democracies do it is that you only need to pay back the loan if you earn a certain amount per year and only pay out of a percentage above what you earn past that wage/salary.

It also has a cap on age but the catch in generosity is that you only get up to 4 years paid (one year leniency to change your mind on a degree) at the bachelor degree level and then need to have got decent enough grades there to qualify for the master's loan.

Some degrees are longer (towards 4-5 years) for the bachelor part alone, such as medicine. Such degrees get the full package paid for but again it's iffy if you get the last year paid for if you already had a year paid for on another degree.

One point you have to firstly absolutely concede was that the Spaniards blackmailed their colonised into Christianity in a way that the Brits opted out of doing.

The reason for this, to be fair to the Spanish, is that the agenda of the British was very rarely 'dedicated' to any one land they colonised. They knew if that particular land happened to oust them later on, they had more than enough other colonised areas that were colonised to make us of and maintain good relations with for many decades or even centuries to come.

This plan ultimately failed to factor in wars in Europe tiring out their armed forces and capacity to maintain their empire but even then the fallback of alliance with said nations remains overall. 

This agenda meant that not for reasons of morality but of expedience, it was suboptimal to overly bully the culture that was in place and instead what they'd do was find rivalries where they could help one side that wasn't currently 'winning' to win the power struggle and then say 'now you owe us, help us stay in control here'.

This tactic worked most places but the native tribes had zero interest in ruling over the area such as Canada or the US, they just kept to themselves. This meant that the British (who, as you said, came after the Italians, Spanish and Portuguese had already begun a lot of colonising in the Carribean and everywhere South of Us and in South America and what the Brits did was use their expertise to negotiate and 'tame' the Natives working out which tribes were more open to peaceful resolution and selectively being violent with the ones who were beyond negotiation.

The natives has a lot of reason to be brutal and beyond negotiation, given how Columbus' crew and the Spanish+Portuguese had been treating them. The Spanish and Portuguese style of colonising was to blackmail into their religion and language, totaly and utterly redefining the culture. They had to wipe out many tribes before the others caved in out of fear.

You can say whatever you want, these are the facts. This style of colonising was by no means at all more merciful than the British style, it was just more bare and honest. The British colonists were very good at appearing to be reasonable while actually being dictatorial but the Spanish colonists were just plain dictatorial. In fact, the only reason elections and democracy got introduced to Latin America is because they saw the success that the British and French had inspired in Canada as well as what both them and the Italians and Irish (as well as some Germans and Scandinavians who joined later) had inspired in the US. When people can 'vote' (back then only white land owners could), it makes people less likely to rebel. Latin America had much less of a proportion of Caucasians (and caucasians who are portuguese and Spanish especially if they reproduced with natives, don't necessarily look entirely Caucasian) so they realised that in their cultures they couldn't limit democracy just to rich white land owners and had to open it up further, however bribery and blackmail were again far more commonplace and 'bare/honest' in Latin American 'democracy' than it was in the US.

There is a consistent pattern here, if you haven't noticed. I am not saying that if you caved in and agreed to be Christians and speak their language that they abused you, I'm saying they relentlessly abused you until you did so. Even then, you had to 'know your place' you never could rise anywhere near to the top as a true native but it is true to say that many natives don't like politics, they dislike the strict hierarchy in nations as their culture was much more egalitarian.

The 'pretty girl' rarely gets shown to have proper depth like she was.

I meant Ji Young, not Il Yeong, I'm new to Korean naming style.

do you understand that your source is a Santa Fe Motel?

Your source is 100% biased, I am not interested in what it says. If you analyse it, the British were in fact the only one who tried to genuinely buy and negotiate land with natives. The other colonists were brutalising and blackmailing. Your source is simply whitewashing the sins of the Spanish colonists.

The English mainly focused on Canada and North of US, they didn't clash as heavily with the natives but it's true, they also interacted less and married them less.

If you'd observe nativesin Canada (which dealt only with the British and French colonists) there was much more humaneness towards them.

This isn't me being blinkered, the British were very cunning and tore cultures apart in order to secure themselves powerful within the places they colonised but they were not as far in their ruthlessness as the crew of Columbus was. Especially not with things like rape and extremely torturing those they took over. The British style of colonising was much more about appearing to be good while actually being corrupt.

Also, the British didn't force Christianity on those they colonised, which is an aspect you are admitting almost every other colonist did (the Islamic forced Islam instead etc). The Brits were more gradual and tempered in their colonising. They'd introduce the religion but wouldn't blackmail, this is also why places in Africa where the British colonised have far more in-tact native tribes and subcultures such as the Masai in Kenya. 

At least we agree on Columbus.

but Columbus worked closely with the Spaniards. There is no way for them to plead ignorance, they participated in the pillaging.

Can you imagine if Tucker Carlson said 'fake news' while being president?

The irony would be hilarious.

What I enjoyed the most is that there wasn't a character in it that I think was totally unrealistic. They had stereotypes which aren't even normal to have (such as Il Yeong and the old man) these stereotypes really exist of course but they're often relegated to totally irrelevant background characters in most series, here they showed a lot of types who are normally background characters as at least prominent in one episode.

Gi-hun is a type of character who nearly never ever is the protagonist of a series, he is often some loser support character at best.

If there is no season 2 then I'd agree the ending is iffy.

Khan Academy is named after Salman Khan, its founder...

You do understand that is inside Spain right? The Spanish colonists were brutal abroad, in fact most European colonists did their worst sins outside of the country.

What have I said that is wrong?