Anonguy Tumblr

A place for stuff to be stuff at. Stuff includes crap I write and stuff from other, better Tumblrs.

[left-reminders]

[armedjoy]

[zagreus]

Capitalism breeds imitation

[argumate]

the car thing seems like a bad example though, cars used to be a lot more diverse back when we hadn't figured out how to build them yet, then over time they naturally converged thanks to the fact that they all do basically the same thing and are subject to the same physical laws.

also there are 23 cars on display from 21 different brands, but many of these companies have consolidated or are just a different range of the same company:

- Dodge and Jeep are Chrysler

- Buick and Chevrolet are General Motors

- Lincoln is Ford

- Acura is Honda

- Lexus is Toyota

- Infiniti and Mitsubishi are Nissan

- Audi and Porsche are Volkswagen

so what you see is a few car companies in each of the major economies (US, Germany, Japan, Korea, China) with factories scattered across the world producing a high volume of very high quality product relative to anything you could drive in the past.

but you can also go to a niche vendor and get something crazy or mess around with aftermarket accessories if you really want to, because you know, capitalism.

the bigger issue is to look at how these companies are dealing with the shift to electric vehicles and the interplay between them as national champions and the governments that they serve/control and the complex policy tradeoffs that result.

(also, where is Tesla??)

[argumate]

oh look more car discourse

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Someone said that the chicken sandwich pic is cherry-picking a single common staple item on menus. And the last time I walked into a Wendy's, I could get three different variations of that sandwich. And three different chicken wraps. McDonald's UK has five different chicken burgers. Four if you count "chicken mayo" and "chicken mayo with bacon" as the same thing. This is like saying every supermarket is the same because they all have flour, or every school is the same because they all teach maths.

[turtleduck-inc]

capitalism is when i can get the same item in various price to quality ratios from several different places, allowing me to choose exactly what i want and how much i'm willing to pay for it.

[yokelfelonking]

Capitalism is when you can get 50 different variations on a chicken sandwich, vs communism where you're lucky if you get any food whatsoever.

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

Capitalism does breed innovation. You don't see a single communist country inventing the chicken sandwich, do you?

[anonguy11]

Plus just because capitalism isn't innovating in cars or chicken sandwiches doesn't mean it isn't innovating in other fields.

Please don't let the overall message slip by you because it was written on a turd guys.

[extradan]

Diamond is Unbreakable - Another One Bites the Dust

[anonguy11]

“Jake the Dog was killed. He was killed by Kira Yoshikage, who had matured.”

*chirp*

[darkmaga-retard]

[gqa1]

Reblog In 5 seconds for good luck

[nullelemental]

​this worked last night lets go for round two

[illinicoise]

“But if you forget to reblog Madame Zeroni, you and your family will be cursed for always and eternity.”

[spn-fandom-breathing-heavily]

not even risking that shit

scrolled past this, re-evaluated my life, then SCROOOLLLED back up and hit the damn reblog button. 

Last comment same thing. Sorry to the next person who sees this. I just can’t risk it. I have things I need to do before my life becomes hell. Lol

man i fucking hate yall who tf put this up knowing damn well we all gonna reblog it im heated im really sick af bout this 

[modelinterrupted]

I don’t play that shit lol sorry

[latenightsugar]

WHyyyy

Sorry everyone

[just-jay25]

If only if only the woodpecker sighs the bark on the tree was as soft as the sky why the wolf waits below hungry and lonely he cries to the moon if only if only

[kixgbear]

Shiddd

this post followed me to Facebook and im sooo annoyed!

It’s been a MINUTE since I’ve seen Madame Zeroni, fr fr

[glamhoeour-deactivated20251207]

I HATE TUMBLR FKKKK SAKES

LMAOOOO

[venusians]

Not tryna fuck up any of my planetary Returns~

One time I didn’t and I was broke for like a month but the next time I seen it I rebloged it and a bitch just got 500 out the blue and a 20 gift card

[aiplejuice]

Oh hell nah I can’t even risking it I’ll reblog this rn

[blacksubzero90]

[imoverallofit]

I dont even joke with it

[thedelusionreaderbitch]

Guys…

[verity644]

I trust this old ass woman with my life

[libelula202]

👆🏻Absolutely. Because it’s Madame Zeroni and she’s never do me dirty.

[otatma]

[saint-batrick]

i’m sorry to reblog this, i only ever try to reblog things that are like “reblog this and good things will happen but there are no negative consequences!”

but i am un-fucking-willing to risk a whammy from madame zeroni.

and hey, this version comes with immunity cat!

[the-stitched-wizard]

I’m sorry, grandmama Zeroni, I’ll be good, I promise. Please don’t put fungus in my toenails or something.

[fiercefatfeminist]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[smoothbrains]

Let me introduce you to the University of Toronto protest that happened in 2012.  Warren Farrell was holding a lecture discussing men’s rights, men’s issues and problems that they face in society and this is what happened.

Feminist activists embodied the exact opposite of peaceful protest and had to be forced back by a multitude of police because they were physically barring the entrance to the campus building, keeping many from entering to listen to the lecture.

Later on the fire alarm was pulled without cause, an act which is punishable by law.  Curiously though, no charges were ever filed and no investigation was put toward finding out who pulled the alarm to disrupt this lecture.  

This is what happens when people who are concerned about male DV victims talk.  This is what happens when men try to find their own space to work out how to handle the problems they face in society.  Left and right, you have these self-righteous people who are framing the narrative to make it look as though they’re preemptively silencing hate speech, rather than silencing a man’s freedom of speech.

If you want people to stop bringing up male victims in the same conversation talking about female victims, stop silencing the people who are trying to talk about male victims on their own time.  Thank you.

[shinosarna]

You forgot the fact that Warren Farell is an anti-feminist who claims gender pay gap doesn’t exist, and that’s what people were protesting. Not “discussion of male victims”. That’s what people were protesting, specifically his views.

If he was JUST for men’s and father’s rights that would be fine, but feminists have a right to oppose someone who opposes them. Or does free speech only apply in one direction?

Also ‘exact opposite of peaceful protest’ is a violent riot. Shouting and holding transparents IS the literal definition of a peaceful protest - peaceful protest isn’t supposed to be NICE or QUIET, otherwise what’s the point of even going to one?

[shinosarna]

Like, I see exactly what you’re fucking doing. You picked Warren Farell because he’s a relatively educated centrist, instead of some raging nazi manchild who wants to legalize rape, so he’s harder to dismiss than an average MRA. But you just ended up proving OP’s point - why do only people who bring up men’s rights only EVER seem to do that as a response to feminism, and never on their own?

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Warren Farrel is a former feminist. He was literally a prominent feminist, welcome to speak at feminist rallies and talks of equality until he was removed.

Why was he removed? Because he started including men in gender equality and the feminists didnt like this. Like-he was on your side until he started being more inclusive of men. Which actually disproves OP (and you) even more.

See, feminism has a long history of gendering issues, and outright advocating that men should not be included as recognized victims, nor receive help.

Literally the first women’s abuse shleter was immediately followed up with a men’s abuse shelter. Feminists were ecstatic about the women’s shelter, but angry at the men’s shelter. They called it misogyny to “waste” resources and space for men when (as they believed), men could only be abusive, not victims

The feminists called Ms. Erin Pizzey, the woman credited for opening both shelters, a misogynist. They attributed helping men to supporting abusers and “male violence”. They angerly protested. They were caught harassing and threatening Pizzey, killing her dog, causing her to flee the country, and converting her men’s shelter into another women’s shelter (from which Pizzey was forever banned).

Sounds like women (but especially feminists) were unhappy about men having their own space and their own help.

But wait! Those were feminists of the past, right? Modern feminists dont do that! They’ve grown past being a roadblock in men’s issues, right?! Wrong.

Various prominent feminist organizations and influential feminists are insisting that, under feminist patriarchal theory, women cannot be abusers, only victims. That men cannot be victims, only aggressors.

That domestic violence can only come from men. And that helping men is apparently equivalent to supporting male violence. Check out the feminist Deluth Model or NIA.

As in when people (men, women, whoever) try to merely include men in gender equality, feminists will jump in and shut it down. Making inequalities all about women ensures women receive 100% of the help. When you gender the issue, you gender the solution.

This isnt even mentioning protests, where feminists will openly try to prevent any discussion of men’s issues, like suicide, which is overwhelmingly male (worldwide). Which include things like pulling fire alarms to keep the discussion from happening, to literal bomb threats

Even a former feminist, Cassie Jaye, tried to shine some light on male victims with her film, The Red Pill. Only to have people, who admittedly never watched it, call it misogynistic and ban it from theatres. She receoved so much hate for merely including men in gender equality and being critical of feminism when it was wrong. As in with Pizzey, Farrell, and Jaye (generations apart), it proves that even feminists arent allowed to shine even a little light on men. So what celebrity, what politician, what activist, would dare risj their career to care about men?

So men actually do try to talk about their issues. But feminists have long since discouraged the public from paying attention. Talking about men’s rights and issues gets you mocked. The media would sooner talk about “sexist air-conditioning” or “manspreading” than, say, gendered rape definitions or the sentencing disparity. You claim theyre waiting until the spotlight is on women to speak up about male victims, but men have been talking about being victims for decades. And they have been silenced for decades, most often by feminists.

So congratulations. All eyes are on you. Serious talks about domestic violence or rape can only happen when the victims are women. And when those women consistantly gender being victimized, and demanding gendered solutions, dont be surprised when men (or even women) chime in and try to include men into the issue.

You made your own problem. You took over men’s spaces that they used to talk about their issues, discouraged people from recognizing, talking about, and fixing issues men face, and unquestionably gendered any and all issues to exclude male victims to the point that the spotlight was only ever on you. So now, if the men who have been silenced for decades by feminists and had all other methods cut off want even a chance to be heard, it basically needs to be when feminists are talking about female victims (gendering the issue). Because now the spotlight and microphone is only ever on when it’s about women. You did that.

If you have a problem with men trying to be included as victims (when youre the reason they were excluded in the first place), then you never cared about recognizing and helping DV victims (victims in general). You only cared about women. There’s a difference, And it shows

[shinosarna]

Yeah, none of that fucking happened. Bullshit.

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Fantastic response. I can really tell that you care about victims and are capable of being critical towards groups you support when theyre wrong.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

“It’s okay for people to disrupt a talk about men’s issues if it’s by an anti-feminist!”

How convenient that feministsregularly characterize almost everyone talking about men’s issues who’s not a feminist as anti-feminist and misogynist.

Weird how those people take issue with an international political movement that regularly says sexist things about men, has tried to redefine sexism so men can’t be victims, and actively attacks the idea that they should not collectively blame men.

And has occasionally gone as far as pulling fire alarms and falsely blaming mass murders on people who want to talk about men’s issues.

>So now, if the men who have been silenced for decades by feminists and had all other methods cut off want even a chance to be heard, it basically needs to be when feminists are talking about female victims (gendering the issue).

Remember, cheshire; they get mad when women try to talk about men’s issues too. Same protests, same heckling, same fire alarms. 3 talks at U of T, and feminists went after them all. One was even a joint talk by a woman and a gay man, IIRC.

Not to mention the Men’s Rights conference that had to move because it got death threats.

Also, it’s ironic how feminists say we all need to include women in certain categories even at the conceptual level, but it’s somehow wrong to ask feminists to do the same for men, even when ignoring male victims runs counter to their stated mission of ‘equality".

And how the person who kinda endorsed feminists behaving badly suddenly stopped believing feminists could do…well, things that are mostly just as bad.

[anonguy11]

Anyways, people wouldn’t have to only bring up male DV victims when you bring up female ones if not for two problems:

1. You won’t let anyone talk about men’s issues period without one of you coming in screaming your head off.

2. You didn’t then bridge talk about female DV victims to shit on men, pretend no man has ever or will ever be abused and then proceed to be bigoted towards men.

If it’s “derailing” to talk about male DV victims when you talk about DV only in the general sense of female victims only, you’re not actually trying to bring awareness to DV, you’re just an asshole.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

“If your talk about rape can be derailed by talking about rape, you weren’t actually talking about rape.” -you, IIRC?

[anonguy11]

Yeah, wanna say, 2014-ish?

Because the same issue was occurring in that it wasn’t female rape victims were being coat tailed, it was that feminists were using them as a means to shield their bullshit.

More things change, the more they actually don’t.

[fiercefatfeminist]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[smoothbrains]

Let me introduce you to the University of Toronto protest that happened in 2012.  Warren Farrell was holding a lecture discussing men’s rights, men’s issues and problems that they face in society and this is what happened.

Feminist activists embodied the exact opposite of peaceful protest and had to be forced back by a multitude of police because they were physically barring the entrance to the campus building, keeping many from entering to listen to the lecture.

Later on the fire alarm was pulled without cause, an act which is punishable by law.  Curiously though, no charges were ever filed and no investigation was put toward finding out who pulled the alarm to disrupt this lecture.  

This is what happens when people who are concerned about male DV victims talk.  This is what happens when men try to find their own space to work out how to handle the problems they face in society.  Left and right, you have these self-righteous people who are framing the narrative to make it look as though they’re preemptively silencing hate speech, rather than silencing a man’s freedom of speech.

If you want people to stop bringing up male victims in the same conversation talking about female victims, stop silencing the people who are trying to talk about male victims on their own time.  Thank you.

[shinosarna]

You forgot the fact that Warren Farell is an anti-feminist who claims gender pay gap doesn’t exist, and that’s what people were protesting. Not “discussion of male victims”. That’s what people were protesting, specifically his views.

If he was JUST for men’s and father’s rights that would be fine, but feminists have a right to oppose someone who opposes them. Or does free speech only apply in one direction?

Also ‘exact opposite of peaceful protest’ is a violent riot. Shouting and holding transparents IS the literal definition of a peaceful protest - peaceful protest isn’t supposed to be NICE or QUIET, otherwise what’s the point of even going to one?

[shinosarna]

Like, I see exactly what you’re fucking doing. You picked Warren Farell because he’s a relatively educated centrist, instead of some raging nazi manchild who wants to legalize rape, so he’s harder to dismiss than an average MRA. But you just ended up proving OP’s point - why do only people who bring up men’s rights only EVER seem to do that as a response to feminism, and never on their own?

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Warren Farrel is a former feminist. He was literally a prominent feminist, welcome to speak at feminist rallies and talks of equality until he was removed.

Why was he removed? Because he started including men in gender equality and the feminists didnt like this. Like-he was on your side until he started being more inclusive of men. Which actually disproves OP (and you) even more.

See, feminism has a long history of gendering issues, and outright advocating that men should not be included as recognized victims, nor receive help.

Literally the first women’s abuse shleter was immediately followed up with a men’s abuse shelter. Feminists were ecstatic about the women’s shelter, but angry at the men’s shelter. They called it misogyny to “waste” resources and space for men when (as they believed), men could only be abusive, not victims

The feminists called Ms. Erin Pizzey, the woman credited for opening both shelters, a misogynist. They attributed helping men to supporting abusers and “male violence”. They angerly protested. They were caught harassing and threatening Pizzey, killing her dog, causing her to flee the country, and converting her men’s shelter into another women’s shelter (from which Pizzey was forever banned).

Sounds like women (but especially feminists) were unhappy about men having their own space and their own help.

But wait! Those were feminists of the past, right? Modern feminists dont do that! They’ve grown past being a roadblock in men’s issues, right?! Wrong.

Various prominent feminist organizations and influential feminists are insisting that, under feminist patriarchal theory, women cannot be abusers, only victims. That men cannot be victims, only aggressors.

That domestic violence can only come from men. And that helping men is apparently equivalent to supporting male violence. Check out the feminist Deluth Model or NIA.

As in when people (men, women, whoever) try to merely include men in gender equality, feminists will jump in and shut it down. Making inequalities all about women ensures women receive 100% of the help. When you gender the issue, you gender the solution.

This isnt even mentioning protests, where feminists will openly try to prevent any discussion of men’s issues, like suicide, which is overwhelmingly male (worldwide). Which include things like pulling fire alarms to keep the discussion from happening, to literal bomb threats

Even a former feminist, Cassie Jaye, tried to shine some light on male victims with her film, The Red Pill. Only to have people, who admittedly never watched it, call it misogynistic and ban it from theatres. She receoved so much hate for merely including men in gender equality and being critical of feminism when it was wrong. As in with Pizzey, Farrell, and Jaye (generations apart), it proves that even feminists arent allowed to shine even a little light on men. So what celebrity, what politician, what activist, would dare risj their career to care about men?

So men actually do try to talk about their issues. But feminists have long since discouraged the public from paying attention. Talking about men’s rights and issues gets you mocked. The media would sooner talk about “sexist air-conditioning” or “manspreading” than, say, gendered rape definitions or the sentencing disparity. You claim theyre waiting until the spotlight is on women to speak up about male victims, but men have been talking about being victims for decades. And they have been silenced for decades, most often by feminists.

So congratulations. All eyes are on you. Serious talks about domestic violence or rape can only happen when the victims are women. And when those women consistantly gender being victimized, and demanding gendered solutions, dont be surprised when men (or even women) chime in and try to include men into the issue.

You made your own problem. You took over men’s spaces that they used to talk about their issues, discouraged people from recognizing, talking about, and fixing issues men face, and unquestionably gendered any and all issues to exclude male victims to the point that the spotlight was only ever on you. So now, if the men who have been silenced for decades by feminists and had all other methods cut off want even a chance to be heard, it basically needs to be when feminists are talking about female victims (gendering the issue). Because now the spotlight and microphone is only ever on when it’s about women. You did that.

If you have a problem with men trying to be included as victims (when youre the reason they were excluded in the first place), then you never cared about recognizing and helping DV victims (victims in general). You only cared about women. There’s a difference, And it shows

[shinosarna]

Yeah, none of that fucking happened. Bullshit.

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Fantastic response. I can really tell that you care about victims and are capable of being critical towards groups you support when theyre wrong.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

“It’s okay for people to disrupt a talk about men’s issues if it’s by an anti-feminist!”

How convenient that feministsregularly characterize almost everyone talking about men’s issues who’s not a feminist as anti-feminist and misogynist.

Weird how those people take issue with an international political movement that regularly says sexist things about men, has tried to redefine sexism so men can’t be victims, and actively attacks the idea that they should not collectively blame men.

And has occasionally gone as far as pulling fire alarms and falsely blaming mass murders on people who want to talk about men’s issues.

>So now, if the men who have been silenced for decades by feminists and had all other methods cut off want even a chance to be heard, it basically needs to be when feminists are talking about female victims (gendering the issue).

Remember, cheshire; they get mad when women try to talk about men’s issues too. Same protests, same heckling, same fire alarms. 3 talks at U of T, and feminists went after them all. One was even a joint talk by a woman and a gay man, IIRC.

Not to mention the Men’s Rights conference that had to move because it got death threats.

Also, it’s ironic how feminists say we all need to include women in certain categories even at the conceptual level, but it’s somehow wrong to ask feminists to do the same for men, even when ignoring male victims runs counter to their stated mission of ‘equality".

And how the person who kinda endorsed feminists behaving badly suddenly stopped believing feminists could do…well, things that are mostly just as bad.

[anonguy11]

Anyways, people wouldn’t have to only bring up male DV victims when you bring up female ones if not for two problems:

1. You won’t let anyone talk about men’s issues period without one of you coming in screaming your head off.

2. You didn’t then bridge talk about female DV victims to shit on men, pretend no man has ever or will ever be abused and then proceed to be bigoted towards men.

If it’s “derailing” to talk about male DV victims when you talk about DV only in the general sense of female victims only, you’re not actually trying to bring awareness to DV, you’re just an asshole.

[shivam-raj-blog]

It would have been awesome if head of the houses weren’t allowed to award or deduct points from other houses and when they needed to do so they would have to approach someone else… Like-

Snape: Deduct 5 points from Griffindor.

Any Prof: Why?

Snape: Because Miss Granger answered my question.

Any Prof: WTF????

[deathdaydungeon]

If this is about the incident in PoA where Snape is covering Lupin’s lesson, and he deducts 5 points from Hermione for speaking out of turn, then I think this actually raises a rather more interesting discussion.

Firstly, let’s be clear - any professor would side with their fellow teacher.  Hermione’s point deduction was not, as you suggest, for answering the question - but for speaking out of turn when she had not been invited to answer; in doing so, Hermione disrespects Snape’s authority.  

But rather more interestingly, it’s worth looking at the wider lesson - Harry turns up late, and Snape deducts points accordingly.  Snape then has to tell Harry to sit down three times, and on the third time, he deducts more points and threatens to remove fifty points as a deterrent, and Harry finally relents.

So when Hermione starts speaking out of turn, Snape is already dealing with an air of disrespect in the classroom - and for once, he is an interloper - he might still be a teacher, but he’s the wrong teacher, and the children are questioning his authority.

Importantly, during all of this, Snape does give latitude - he deducts points when Hermione interrupts for the second time, not the first, and he invites Harry to sit down more than once before deducting points.  You can see similar escalation with Ron - Snape warns Hermione that he is teaching the lesson, and then when Ron argues about Hermione’s punishment, Snape gives him detention for the same infraction that Hermione had been warned about:  “…if I ever hear you criticise the way I teach a class again, you will be very sorry indeed.”

The thing is, the way the kids react in these scenes is very real and absolutely understandable for their characters - Harry challenges authority when he doesn’t respect it, Ron defends his friends, and Hermione wants to impart her knowledge.  …but the frustrating thing is that Snape’s reaction is equally understandable, and yet, many don’t seem to recognise it.  It isn’t him being a git - it’s him being a teacher with authority.  

It’s not unreasonable for him to expect kids to arrive at his lesson on time, sit down, and speak when they’re called upon instead of disrupting the class by speaking out of turn. 

[snapedefender]

snape’s point deductions are rarely without merit tbh. there are some glaring outliers, but throughout the series snape takes points for a variety of reasons that are actually within his purview as a teacher: disruptions, out-of-turn talking, disrespect, rule-breaking, etc. it’s not unreasonable for him to take points from students who participate in that behavior and it’s not him just being a dick. 

also like… he’s a teacher - and, even more importantly, a teacher who is in charge of a class that can result in injury or worse if not managed strictly. some of my strictest teachers were my chemistry teachers - bc if you get something wrong in lab, it is actually possible to hurt yourself or others. potions is a volatile subject and it does make sense to me that snape would want to rule with an iron fist, esp considering some of his students are young. (have YOU ever tried teaching 11 year olds? i have. they’re terrible at focusing and if they can hurt themselves with something, they will.) 

like yeah, harry & co think it’s unfair and sometimes it might be - but not always. of course the kid who speaks out of turn thinks it’s unfair when a teacher tells him to stop talking and then takes points when they don’t listen. snape is actually an authority in the classroom, regardless of the trio’s personal feelings toward him. 

[liminy-lemony]

I was 13 when i first picked up a HP book, and i always saw that “snape deducts point from hermione bc she answers questions” as reasonable. Bc around that time, i was the smartass in my class, and i was docked points for this a lot, until a teacher told me: it’s not getting the answers right and moving on, it’s about learning. It’s for the kids with difficulties, the kids who are learning in a foreign language, for kids who need to understand the content instead of parroting it.

My answering the questions for my classmates i was taking their chance at learning, the content and the process. Bc when pace of the class is set to the smart one, everyone else gets dragged along and nobody’s going to put an effort in anything. I was smart in history, not chemistry, and that got boring very fast.

So yeah, you all can miss me with that nonsense. It’s called perspective.

[prosnapeblogging]

Snape’s point deductions were hardly as unreasonable as some remember them to be, and on a related note, they weren’t as numerous either. When he takes points, it’s usually because of classroom misbehavior, and he takes small amounts of points. If I remember correctly, when he takes points it’s almost always no more than 5 or 10 at a time. And we’re in his classroom more often that we are in other teacher’s classrooms, so we see him take points in class most. So while I’m sure that he took more points than many of the other professors, we see him take a lot more in comparison simply because we see his classroom a lot more than we see others’. There’s a post somewhere that lists how many points were taken by each professor throughout the entire series, and Snape and McGonagall were almost equal. But most of Snape’s were in many small amounts, and most of McGonagall’s were in a few large amounts. Most of the view of Snape unfairly taking a lot of points comes from what events are depicted in the book because of relevance. And Snape didn’t give a single point throughout all seven books, so the idea that he made Slytherin win the house cup because of all the points he gave is just ridiculous.

[potions-and-potters]

You: snape took points unfairly just because he hated The Golden Gryffindor Trio™!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!

Me, an intellectual: snape was being a Teacher™

[anonguy11]

And as we all know, teachers hate all children equally.

[nightbringer24]

I’d like there to be an isekai where the person summoned/sent to another world isn’t sent there to be a world saving hero or something. 

Where the ruler is like “Yeah, so we need a good middle management type person around here. … Want to be a lord/lady with your own land?”

[gsirvator]

Have I got the Isekai for you, how a realist hero rebuilt the kingdom.

[anonguy11]

“There’s an isekai for that.”

[okthatsgreat]

here's a quiz i made so you can learn what type of fanfic character flaw you would be <3333

[cosmic-espero]

I'm going to lose it I'm perfectly happy with this development

[iceice-baeby]

How did I knew I would get this

[secret-of-maana]

[cats-wolverine]

used solely to be the other half of a relationship

do these people have personalities besides being in love? we will never know. these types of characters are often found in fanfics with certain personality traits or flaws erased so that their relationship with the protagonist strives. but good for you for finding happiness in another, im very proud of you. there is love for you yet <3. if i had to recommend a song for you, i'd choose "Birdhouse In Your Soul" by They Might be Giants, "Perfect" by Rob Cantor, and "You" by Tally Hall :]

[anonguy11]

forever protagonist fanon loves you, whether that means that youve been horribly mischaracterised or are just a very loveable character in canon. OR, youre the main male character in all of the harem fics. pick your poison. if i had to give you a song, i'd recommend "I'm Gonna Win" by Rob Cantor or "Dirty Town" by Mother Mother :]

[anarchpunk]

[cisnowflake]

They vote once to take your shit. Good luck voting for them to give it back later.

[shineymetalmaddness]

[jv]

"you make it, they take it"?

It's always funny how the anti-socialist antics use to describe so well how actual capitalism works.

Also, which communist regime was "shoot out" by the people? Because for what I know all of them have either been voted out or disposed by a fascist coup backed by the CIA (see... The entire 20th century in central and south America)

[anarchpunk]

Staff is not allowed to interact with my posts.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Tankies respond to criticism with “no, that’s capitalism!” Drink a sip.

Wait a second. I thought communism has never been actually tried? Now it’s been done and failed because of outside influence?

Does this genius think anything not far-left is fascist?

[anonguy11]

>does this genius think

No, that’s the problem.

[cyberxbattalion]

[uncle-cazador]

No thanks

[mint-corset]

When you put a computer in objects, it always goes south.

[uncle-cazador]

Yes

[salvrun]

I remember this. It was at SHOT show a few years ago. It’s not a ”smart gun”, it doesn’t interface with the firing mechanism. It’s just a sensor strip down the magwell tracking the floor plate and one in the slide to watch the chamber so it can display if you have a mag in, how many rounds are in that mag and if there’s one in the chamber. I’d totally buy this.

[uncle-cazador]

I don't care if its not a smart gun. Its a computer where it does not belong

[unsolids-your-snake]

It's just like all the shit in cars to "help" you drive by braking for you and turning the wheels and shit. Not only WILL it fuck up and cause accidents (my car almost slammed me into another car with """lane correction""" and DID cause me to be rear-ended) but also if you can't drive or shoot without help, you can't drive or shoot. And you shouldn't be trusted to.

[sharper-and-bigger]

Wouldn't it be great if that damn thing told you there were a few rounds left when you're actually about to run empty?

[dashaibo]

So how many of you don't have ac, GPS or parking assistance in their car?

[saintofpride201]

Despite their shortcomings, those don't really almost get you killed the same way something like the gun computer would.

Best to just learn how to count your shots.

[xphilosoraptorx]

Right, cause nobody ever loses count in the middle of an intense situation. And good luck if your weapon is fully automatic. "Did I just spray 75 rounds, or 77?"

That's like saying you don't need a fuel gage, you should just learn to calculate how much gas you have left.

[saintofpride201]

To be fair, i've actually literally done that for years. The gas gauge on my dad's S10 is broken, so I have to gauge it myself through watching the mile counter or simply guesswork. Mainly guesswork, because the mile counter often gets stuck somehow.

Also, there's always that chance the bullet counter will glitch, break, or otherwise not work properly. People have been counting their bullets for a century without the use of an electronic counter, myself included. I understand automatics, but there's a trick my dad taught me to figure out if I'm about to run dry: Always load the last few rounds with tracers. It also helps that it starts making an audible clicking noise on the last 5 or so rounds, at least for most rifles I've handled.

Even in a panic or a bind, we have to learn how to do things manually. At the end of the day, computers are just a convenience that can decide when they want to stop being convenient. They're useful at first, but when they break down or die out, they're pretty much as useful as a paperweight attached to your gun.

[xphilosoraptorx]

Couldn't the same thing be said of a gun? It's great until the trigger gets bent, or the firing pin jams. Then I guess you could still throw it at your opponent.

I always thought one of the big points of a gun was that it uses technology to level the playing field. Otherwise, wouldn't we all be using swords still, which require much more training?

So the idea that one kind of technology to level the playing is okay, but another to level it even more isn't, because "that technology is dumb, just learn to count", doesn't make any sense. "Who needs a calculator, just learn to do the math on paper, or in your head." "Why do you need a radio in your car? If it breaks, it's just dead weight. Just listen to the wind outside instead."

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>It's great until the trigger gets bent, or the firing pin jams.

Both of which are extremely rare examples, unlike, say, a computer glitching out. 

>but another to level it even more isn't, 

I don't see what's being leveled with a bullet counter. It just makes it slightly easier to tell when you're running dry.

I've rooted tablets before. I know about the John Deere firmware controversy. I don't want to go through any of that nonsense with a gun, should I ever own one. 

IMO, this is at best an assist, not essential.

[alaija]

It’s worse than an assist. If it fails in the wrong way and some fuckwit has come to rely on it it could be dangerous. 

“ And good luck if your weapon is fully automatic. “Did I just spray 75 rounds, or 77?” “

Look at the belt. 

[anonguy11]

>this basically serves no purpose

So it doesn’t need to be on the gun because it doesn’t do anything.

>bro why are you stressing about this?

Because I don’t want to need a gun in the future only for it to be unable to fire because the on-board computer is downloading updates and it can’t load the prompt to fire. Stop being a stupid sci-fi moron for five seconds and actually think instead of knee jerking to the complainer being wrong you asshole.

[dailyjackiechan]

You have been visited by the Chan of wealth, reblog this and you will have money come to you!

[misscokebottleglasses-deactivat]

I REBLOGGED THIS YESTERDAY AND LIKE 2 HOURS LATER THE WALLET I HAD LOST 6 HOURS AWAY FROM HOME THAT HAD MY DEBIT CARD AND LIKE 80 DOLLARS IN CASH WAS DELIVERED TO MY HOUSE WITH NO RETURN ADDRESS I CANT HELP BUT THINK IT WAS JACKIE CHAN WHO SENT IT GOD BLESS YOU JACKIE CHAN

[mrbeefgnaw]

You know what, tumblr? Fuck this post and fuck you. Last time I reblogged this just because Jackie Chan and a couple days later I got a bonus at work. Now this shit shows up on my dash again and logically I know if I reblog it probably nothing will happen BUT WHAT IF I DON’T REBLOG IT AND THE UNIVERSE IS ALL “YO I WAS GOING TO THROW SOME MONEY AT YOU BUT YOU DIDN’T REBLOG THE MONEY CHAN SO NAH” So here I am, shitting up your dashes with the Money Chan again. Sorry not sorry, I’m about to have to fit a car insurance payment into my budget.

[jeshala]

I’ll go down with you.  You are not alone.

[nehirose]

mostly i just reblog this one because look at his happy face, but also what the hell basically everyone i know could use some financial windfalls right now so WHY NOT.

[blackwoolncrown]

Good morning

[prostatestar]

[brazenautomaton]

hey remember when mother’s basement said that a generic, merely below-average isekai was the worst anime of 2019 because it had the horrible wasted potential of not being Communist?

[thenorthlord3]

He literally says “capitalism bad” almost every video

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Huh. And I stopped watching him because I saw he had pronouns in his twitter bio and I figured he’d just get even more insufferably woke.

[anonguy11]

>generic merely below average isekai

Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?

[thespectacularspider-girl]

River City Girls Zero is offering in the options a localization and adaptation setting for the script. This has caused the usual suspects to go mad, thinking that the developers are supporting Gamergate and such.

Huh?

[anonguy11]

You can pick what kind of translations you get for text, from very literal to heavily localized and the usual “gimme easy mode” and “why yes I must insert my politics into things” crowd are mad because even if said references made it into the game you can just... turn those off.

[such-justice-wow]

Urgh, I ate Hershey’s chocolate once. Just about managed to swallow it because spitting it out is gross and rude, then had to wash my mouth out with coffee to get rid of the taste. How can Americans enjoy that stuff, what’s wrong with their tastebuds?

The worst I had was the almond hersheys kisses because they do legitimately taste like vomit. Its just awful.

[thantomphief]

Y’all okay???

[such-justice-wow]

Have you eaten almond hersheys kisses??? Can you stand that??

[alaija]

Maybe we’ve discovered America’s Vegemite?

[sillybitchynerd]

A lot of it has to do with shelf life and the Wests obsession with keeping food ‘preserved’ for as long as possible. We make way too much of it so it needs to sit around on store shelves for YEARS. I think a lot of chocolate use preserved milk so it can last longer and not rot. The English chocolate a coworker of mine brought back from vacation got these white spots on it from the oil separating in the bar itself. It’s just more natural. 

But our taste buds are like.....100% different. We grew up with different foods at different levels so what tastes like hot shit to you is like a super boring sweet to us. But your candy tastes bitter and sometimes sour to me because it’s not sweet enough for my taste buds. 

My friends looked at me funny when I put like a LOT of sugar in my coffee in Japan. They were worried about my teeth and freaked out when I kept getting like the sweetest drinks and ADDING sugar, but that’s just what my mouth likes and over there its much lower on the sweetness.  

[siryouarebeingmocked]

doesn't Japan have dental issues or something?

[anonguy11]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J44svaQc5WY Here’s a video on the subject.