Jesus, you mods fucked up with this April fools joke. I get it, you're trying to make the day fun, I don't blame your intention, but this was a misstep.

OP, this is a problem beyond our reckoning. This is something a trained professional needs to navigate. Both the trauma to him and the complication of both your autism diagnoses. You're not equipped to deal with this on your own, indeed most neurotypical people aren't equipped to deal with this on their own, they're just more easily fooled into thinking they are.

You're doing the right things.

>That north is on top makes sense based upon the geographic fact that most of the landmass of the earth is north of the equator.

You say that like it's the obvious choice to make. It's not. It could just as easily make sense to put south on top because most of the landmass of the earth is north of the equator, and most of the landmass of the earth is below our feet, i.e. down. That's my entire point from beginning to end. Someone has to choose that majority of landmass equals higher up on the map. It's not a universal constant that someone would choose to put that at the top of the map. Nor is it a universal constant that my comment, therefore, makes no sense.

Fair enough, my man, I feel ya.

Why does that make it make sense? You could just as easily say the land mass is more dense, so it should be considered the bottom, or considering populations, it makes more sense to consider the landmass as a mountain, and more people live in the valleys than the peaks.

There's not a geographical reason, there's a sociological reason, informed by geography.

There's a lot of truth to what you're saying, but there's an inherent natural inclination to see up/down as fixed and side/side as variable (seeing as that's where we do and don't have total freedom of movement) and using the (more or less) fixed poles as the fixed point makes a sort of sense that would arise naturally, I think.

I wonder if it's a personality thing, given a blank piece of paper and your own deduced position, if you would naturally place yourself on the upper half or the lower half.

I think if it was me, I'd probably place myself on the lower half, with the intention of climbing upward to explore, rather than delving lower to explore. Maybe that's because I'm not an explorer, and see possibilities in the sky, and inhospitabilities below.

I profess myself curious as to why "dead guy still dead" is worthy of an article this particular time.

So now no one gets to complain about being exploited for money? This is a good thing?

And you don't think it's OK to complain about having your disability exploited for money?

They don't care about the doll. They care about a company trying to cash in on their disability.

And if it doesn't look like them, what, exactly, is the point?

Gatekeeping? A doll? The doll doesn't actually have scoliosis, you know that, right? It's representing something. In your mind, is this a good, effective representation? In the original commenter's opinion, it's not. They have reasonable reasons why they think that. If you disagree, feel free to make a counter point about why it is good representation. But gatekeeping this is not.

I refuse to believe it's not

Man, even here I can't avoid the special edition changes Lucas made.

Starting bid looked like $750k. This is pretty rarefied territory, at that point, if I had that kind of money and wanted to use it in this way, I'd probably just donate it.

And been the torturer. And a billionaire. And someone who met the love of their life and spent 80 years with them. A whole world of experiences.

Who would assume otherwise??

Black russians are better, but while I wouldn't go out and order them all night, a white russian hits the spot every now and then. If you are feeling spicy, replace cream with bailey's.

I don't understand, because I've not actually had the pleasure, but I certainly understand the appeal, and will be taking advantage at the nearest opportunity.

Depends on the woman, and the day (or the hour, or the minute), but yeah, that's a low odds maneuver.

Oh, you were referencing the Black Spot incident. I think they do make at least a small reference to it in the movies.

I guess the major difference is that I feel like all of those stories, actually getting into them as much as we do in the books, is a strength of the book and part of what makes it not entirely cumbersome at its page count, it really drives home that this is not a new problem, but it's entirely too much to fit into a movie, or even two movies.

It sounds like you're only familiar with the movies, the book gives a lot more historical material to work with that was just cut completely out of the movies. Some of it is more covered briefly, some of it is pretty detailed. But there's a lot to work with.

Sort of a feedback loop

Yeah, was gonna say essentially this. There's tons of potential for stories to be told, either that were in the book and cut out of one or both of the movies, or hinted at that could be fully fleshed out, or even existing in the massive expanses of time that the book just skips over.

Well, sorta - the writers confused the issue by making purgatory relevant to the last season when it wasn't before. Had they not done that, a lot fewer people would be confused.

Most people who talk about it likely haven't read it. Even the scene, let alone the entire book.

It's a weird scene, don't get me wrong. It's used as a metaphor for transitioning from childhood to the next stage of life, in order to separate them from IT's influence. Probably better ways to have done that, but it was part of Bev's story, to be thinking along those lines, and that fits.

The entire end of the book goes so far off the deep end, that honestly this scene doesn't even really stand out.