Even in the show Dani is basically a child who’s convinced it’s her birthright to rule over the world. People were rooting for her because the story arc was cool, but if we take the character seriously she’s completely deranged since season 1.

Store them somewhere cold and dark. Makes them behave for a good bit longer.

To be perfectly clear:

You acknowledge them as far right Nazis… and see nothing wrong with that?

It’s impossible to avoid every possible trauma trigger when making a movie. The fact that some people might seriously be unable to watch sex scenes shouldn’t mean we cannot make them at all. If sex is an absolute red flag for you in movies, watch PG-13.

Other example: My mom doesn’t like violence in movies. (Doesn’t mind sex scenes btw.) And that just means she can’t (and doesn’t want to) watch most recently produced shows. And that’s just how it is.

Obviously there’s a market for movies with sex scenes in them, or Hollywood wouldn’t make them. You will just have to live with the fact that your in the minority here.

On the other hand, watching porns makes either make people horny or uncomfortable depending on their situation.

For teenagers maybe. Most adults can regulate their emotions enough to handle it. I mean, if you watch movies with your mother on a regular basis just laugh akwardly over all the scenes she doesn’t want you to see and that’s it. With anyone else, why does it bother you if they’re watching with a smirk? It’s not like people break out into orgies watching a small sex scene.

I think what’s happening with people getting overly irritated with sex scenes in movies is, in last consequence, the habit of puritan self-censorship. “Oh, we shouldn’t watch that and be aroused by it, that’s so indicent. I will be embarrassed if someone catches me doing such a shameful thing.”

Once you accept how normal and beautiful human sexuality is, sex scenes become just that - normal. A realistic part of the stories we like to be told.

Most action scenes could be skipped aswell with a black screen and showing the defeated party dead or incapitated on the floor afterwards.

Most landscape shots, portrait close-ups, or otherwise non-verbal scenes could be skipped entirely.

Thinking about it - most movies could be completely omitted by just telling the audience the end result with a few lines of text on screen.

Let people enjoy things. Just because you don’t care for sex scenes says nothing about them being invalid or unnecessary for other people.

Or I’ll just watch a good movie with a well made sex scene. Why does it bother you if others enjoy that?

As someone who too enjoys sex scenes in movies and doesn’t really get the hate for them - I really dislike (most) porn, and probably for the same reasons.

Sex and intimacy are a huge part of human relationships. Sex scenes in movies show (and not just tell) those relationships, where they stand, how they develop. There is no real intimacy in (most) porn. Porn doesn’t tell stories, it doesn’t show human relationships, it just depicts body parts smashing into each other basically. Very rarely a porn video is good enough to suspend my disbelief so I can imagine the important, the romantic part of it and forget that I’m watching either the product of an explorative industry or the fetish of a couple who film themselves because they like to have themselves watched by strangers. But to show me the dynamic between two fleshed out characters, how it changes over time, and what relevance sex has to them - porn can’t do that.

Good tips in the comments - although in my experience sometimes it just doesn’t work. I’ve got 3 litter boxes for one cat, they are accessible to him, private, and clean. He still poops on the floor when I’m not at home (or asleep).

Animals can have behavioral issues just like people.

This may depend on the country but I as a therapist ask everyone anyway. And I’ve experienced many, many people over the years being afraid of speaking up. It’s always a moment of relief when it’s out there and they realize I’m not freaking out over it.

I’ve pretty much heard it all. Including the various ways people try to approach the subject while still unsure how I will react. And I do think that is something you could try if you’re unsure about your therapist - talk to them about your suicidal thoughts and see how they react before you confirm plans or attempts.

Chances are of course they can get quite a bit from your way of talking about it, because you’re definitely not the first person with those thoughts in front of them. The thing is - suicidal ideation is, depending on the type of disorder, quite common. If we’d admitted anyone who thought about suicide to a psych ward immediately they would be bursting at the seams and we’d get nothing done at all. So that’s not happening. As long as you can convincingly agree with your therapist on a plan forward (which could mean: Okay, I promise not to kill myself until next Tuesday) you don’t have to be admitted if you don’t want to. Which also would be an option of course. Psychiatric wards are emergency departments. They are supposed to be there for you when you’re seeing no light at all and in my experience, at least where I live and work, in fact have saved quite a few lifes.

There are cases where psychiatric admission is the right call though. Sometimes it’s literally life saving. Depression isn’t static - it goes up and down, goes loud, goes silent. When you’re deep in a life crisis, when you’re feeling like you’re losing your fucking mind and are actually about to kill yourself those are the places to go to get you over those critical days or weeks to recalibrate and reconsider. I’ve personally spoken to many patients who were completely releived afterwards and glad that there was such a place for them. If the alternative is a lost life, psychiatry is a valid attempt to get better, even if it doesn’t work for everyone.

Of course it’s an even better route to get there by admitting oneself - I just believe the likelihood of that happening depends a lot on how afraid people are of psychiatric clinics. And they do vary of course. I personally still would go though. Before I end my life I guess there wouldn’t be anything to lose anyway.

I do think that is true. I’ve worked in a clinic through the whole pandemic, which meant mandatory tests everyday. Cought two asymptomatic infections this way. With the first one I had a very light headache - I would have thought absolutely nothing of it if it weren’t for the test. Second time I’ve got no symptoms whatsoever. I then got it again for round three and that one suuucked.

Who knows how many had it were none the wiser.

He won’t wear that permanently, they just wanted a memeable picture for the press release.

You bet I am, but if burning books was the only or worst thing they did I couldn’t care less. Which is why it has to be legal for individuals to keep doing this. Doing it in the name of a government or powerful organisation - this is where it really starts to leave a bad aftertaste.

And just to be perfectly clear, people like me being pissed about something obviously won’t and shouldn’t be enough reason to ban anything. What definitely should be illegal is political meddling, something that connects religious groups in the US more with the religious extremists abroad this proposed law seeks to appease than some Dane with a Quran and a matchbook.

What you’re debating and arguing for does not exist. You do NOT have the right to express yourself in any way you see fit.

I agree. You’re mistaken if you think this is what I ask for. I’m saying the consideration of weighting individual freedoms against each other mustn’t be taken lightly and in this specific case the freedom of expression should win.

Your whole argument of, I should be allowed to express myself in any way shape or form that I see fit. Is not a good one. Because you do not have that right.

My actual argument is this: When it comes to book burnings, since there’s no harm done to anyone and no call to harming anyone either, the freedom of expression should be given priority over religious sensitivities. This would be different if there was something harmful being done or incited, but the only things that really are in danger here are books and the only people taking offense with that are people who think specific objects should be treated as more than a book by everyone in- and outside of their religion.

How many times have you gone out and burned books in public?

Never, but that would be an extraordinarily bad argument for or against any kind of freedom.

The public act is exactly what should stay legal. This is not a debate about fire hazards and matters of insurance after all, it is about the right of expression, and that is a debate about behavior in public.

So, you’re going to decide that no one can feel degraded by having their religious scripture burned, just because you can’t comprehend the feelings others.

They have the right to feel like however they like. You for example are free to feel sad, angry, happy, horny, offended, relieved, or anxious about this comment of mine. But none of those are what I intent to incite. So you feeling one way about my comment shouldn’t be the only consideration when it comes to questioning if my comment should be legal. It shouldn’t be disregarded altogether either - but the right of expression is an incredibly important legal asset, and such a trade off shouldn’t be made lightly.

A book burning with calls to violence against humans - that, definitely, should be (and is) illegal. A book burning as an expression of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” - that is not a call to violence, that is a valid expression of your democratic rights. Intent matters.

We should not give in to extremeists demands under threat of violence

But in effect, if this law gets ratified, we are.

So governments should negotiate the demands of terrorists? What?

It’s always unreasonable when religious people make demands towards others outside their religion.

What you can’t do, is grab the microphone and say muslims are subhuman worthless rats that does nothing but chug camel-piss and beat their wives.

But that has nothing to do with book burnings, no? Either that was already illegal hate speech or it won’t even be affected by this new law.

Book burnings should stay legal exactly because they aren’t degrading anyone. Just an object. They are only inciting violence from the very religious POV that the books themselves hold the rights a person has. But they don’t - and they shouldn’t. Comparing violence towards things with violence towards people is simply being dishonest, or in the worst case it means adopting the perspective of religious extremists.

Then in Germany and Austria you can be arrested just for looking at a swastika on your phone.

You absolutely cannot.