Just some stuff @iggldybiggldyboo - Tumblr Blog

Yeah, Iran and Russia are cool and mayors have the ability to control American foreign policy.

pointing-at-fascists

Loves dead kids award goes to this faggot

fighting fascism with slurs, only on tumblr

You can tell they are pro palistinian by how much they hate gays and use it as an insult.

cheshireinthemiddle

So...youre turning down half of your potential clients if they dont vote the same as you?

Bold strategy, cotton...

theconstitutionisgayculture

Just for fun, i'd retain her services. be very demanding, super picky, all that. Once a house was finally determined and things were about to go under contract. I would say "oh. sorry. I found another realtor to actually finish this out. I saw that my money wasn't good enough for you. So i found a less morally upstanding realtor to get the comission, you're welcome."

slavicgerman

Boo fucking hoo and based kids.

twinflamedreams

So they created a hostile environment and likely mentally abused a child with their position of authority, badly enough the parents took them out of class and they are honestly worried about losing their job, showcasing they DID do something pretty bad and/or consistently and its coming back on them that their own terrible behavior has consequences 😱

so clearly it’s “homophobia” and “they’re a victim”, It couldn’t have been their own behavior and there totally wasn’t any way to avoid this by i dont know, not harassing/bullying children over personal political views? 🙄

It’s honestly amazing how much of the “phobia” accusations are just “i did something terrible and it didn’t go my way, everybody take my side quick!”

I have no idea what the further context of this is (this is update 2, so there has to be more) but just having a pride flag in a classroom is a huge red flag. So with the info available, I'm gonna agree and say the teacher deserves it and probably should end up getting fired. Especially since schools usually don't investigate teachers in favor of "homophobic" parents. And the part about "innuendo and out of context student/teacher banter that was taken way out of context" is very worrying. "Innuendo" usually means sexual innuendo, and trying to frame that as "student/teacher banter" means this person regularly has sexually charged conversations with the children in their class. Again, without further context, this seems like this person got caught harassing a student, sexually or otherwise, and is hiding behind the "homophobia" accusation.

the-davest-of-uncles

^^^^^

@mrsurlaw , this might answer your questions.

beardedmrbean

LINK

Someone who gets this angry at kids shouldn't be teaching. I'm assuming these are high schoolers, and given that this person was themselves once a high schooler they should, in addition to what they see at work every day, remember that being a high schooler makes you a complete fucking moron and not get into such petty back-and-forths with their students.

Someone who gets this angry at kids and allows it to affect their teaching like this should take a good hard look at themselves.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe they should've reported the harassment instead of acting childish.

Yes, I'm saying the teacher should've told on their students.

feminismisstillahatemovement

the line "I hate feeling like a victim" made me actually laugh. They love feeling like a victim. A victim class at least. They hate feeling like a victim of your own actions though. When they have to face the music of what they have actively done, it's bad. But, at least they are still trying to shift back into victim class mode saying it's homophobic and everyone but them is wrong and evil. That won't help them when the rubber meets the road and they actually have to take a bite of reality. But, it's still funny to see them try and keep the bubble wrap on their world.

dorian-they-ao3

IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946) • JIMMY STEWART as George Bailey and LIONEL BARRYMORE as Mr. Potter

dorian-they

wait WHAT 😳 i mean that feels accurate but still…. WHAT.

dykecostanza-deactivated2024112

here’s the official fbi memo about it! you can view the whole document here

the fbi presented these “findings” to mccarthy’s house unamerican activities committee (huac) in an attempt to get it’s a wonderful life pulled from theaters but huac decided not to take any action

a-path-beyond84

The hero in the story is also a banker. In fact, the owner and manager of the bank.

The target of the story isn’t the upper class or the wealthy, rather the implacably greedy. We don’t dislike Mr. Potter because he has money, only because he places money as the highest source of value and acts accordingly. George Bailey is capitalism + a concern for the common good.

yourtoradorasextendedwarranty

Kind reminder.

Capitalism isn’t Greed they aren’t the same.

Greed is a human condition. We are born with it. Capitalism is trade and barter for private ownership. The man here isn’t (as stated above) arguing against capitalism. He’s arguing against greed. He’s arguing against malice. And frankly he’s arguing for the interest of not just his common man, but for the people in that room. People more comfortable in their lives spend more. That’s a reality.

themodernmaccabee

Point of fact for shits and grins:

McCarthy didn’t run the house unamerican activities committee.

There's some sensationalism here and all. But, the fact is they didn't do anything. People ask the government to do crazy shit all the time. In this case, as in probably millions of other cases, they said no.

I see this far less as a shocking reveal of some amazing secret and more a "yeah, same shit, different day". someone said "you oughtta!" and the body in charge said "we ought not". that's how it should have gone.

"Some people stole other people's creative works for their own gain, and those happened to be the only surviving copies, which proves modern piracy is morally justified because, uh, media preservation or something."

John Lewis Barkley was blown up by Germans in WWI. A tree fell on him, and it broke his gas mask.

It also cured his stutter.

By Prokopetz logic, blowing up the patient is a morally just stutter cure.

Personally, I think "media preservation" is just another in the long line of unconvincing reasons pirates make up to justify getting free stuff.

I'd frankly prefer it if they stopped with the excuses.

I have softened, slightly, on piracy over the years. I've always been quite staunchly against it. But, there are also situations that exist now that didn't exist when I had a much more hard line against it.

The big one being things along the lines of Sony going and "selling" media, then just deciding to revoke access to it after people paid for it with no compensation. I find it perfectly justified for those people to pirate every single thing those people paid for.

There's similar situations of online streaming stuff censoring or altering episodes. Or straight up removing them from a series entirely (like the first D&D episode from community). I find it perfectly justifiable to find pirate sources for all the removed and altered content.

Similarly, some things are just gone from legitimate sources. Whole shows you just can't see because they aren't reasonably available. In those situations I would home someone could find some kind of alternative, used, physical media. But that's harder and harder by the day. I find it much less distasteful to pirate things like that as well.

I still hold that none of that should be done for profit. Even back in the before times, the long long ago, when we would get fansubbed VHS tapes of anime. this was technically piracy, but was never done for profit (at least among reputable fansubber types) and honest consumers of it would get legitimate copies of whatever they were watching when/if it ever became available. So there has always been, to be, grey areas on piracy. Though none of them were ever just justifications used to get free stuff and pretend you're somehow a better person for it at least.

miss-rum-hee

Posting a picture of a child victim of colonialism in the Philippines over some random white dude being happy about figuring out how to make vegan ube ice cream is.....something.

cheshireinthemiddle

It's...ice cream. He didnt even say he invented the concept of ube ice cream. He just made a recipe he liked and shared it.

You can be called a "white supremacist" for anything.

haven't you noticed? it's not for anything. it's for everything. The only spectrum that exists is a binary of "not white" and "white supremacist". there is no portion of the spectrum where you are white and not a white supremacist. it's just dolled up in whatever convenient justification is at hand when they say it. But what they really mean is if you are white, you are inferior, and that makes them not racist. It's not a smart or even coherent thing to believe. But no one ever accused them of being either of those things. So it's probably a lot easier for them.

officialunitedstates

im communist mostly because i hate shopping and want the government to give me 3 bean tickets and 1 bread ticket each day so my choice is made up for me

kevinkinky

anti communism jokes sure haven’t evolved huh

officialunitedstates

ill try to be cleverer when i attempt to roast this mass murdering economic system in the future

xxx-theartofsuicide-xxx

There’s nowhere for the joke to evolve. The punchline is the same for everyone, comrade.

I love how someone defending a framework created when Europe was still mostly monarchical like it applies perfectly to the modern capitalist, small-R republican world…think they can cast stones for people using old anti-communism chestnuts.

I keep trying to come up with a communist joke, but it never seems to work out.

I have posted before about how sometimes well-meaning attempts at running D&D without some of the more unfortunate dynamics can often backfire but in a way where most people don't even register it backfiring. Because when you take the step of "oh D&D's various 'evil humanoids' don't just exist in a vacuum and given the renfaire colonialism on display it's kind of impossible not to read them as somewhat racialized" many people will then go "okay but we still need some people who player characters should be allowed to kill guilt-free, so let's replace 'orcs' with 'bandits' because killing bad criminal people is perfectly ideologically neutral." At that point it's like "okay so your characters are no longer the racist kill squad, now they're just the Tough on Crime Vigilantes."

But I feel I should make clear that D&D the game itself is not exactly at fault here: like, okay, it is sort of at fault in the sense that it is a game of fantasy killing people with swords and magic. And it is easier for people to accept the killing with people with swords and magic part when they can imagine that their characters are at least to a degree justified. That is sort of just built into the game (and the game has built into its lore varying levels of making the fantasy of killing certain types of guy justifiable).

But D&D is not at fault for making people go "okay so it's bad when you kill orcs simply because they're orcs. It's better when you kill people who are bandits, who are a class of evil criminals where killing them is actually wholesome and sensible." Like, yeah, most people probably don't think about it that deeply, but the reason people don't think about it that deeply is ultimately ideological.

And the ideology is basically "it is bad to be racist but it's good to be a tough on crime vigilante."

krongbly

I don't disagree with this post but I do think there's an important element being left out here which is that 9 times out of 10 players are engaging in combat primarily as a form of self defense. Most of the time it's less of "we can kill these people because they're criminals and that makes it ideologically neutral" and more "these NPCs are trying to kill us and the most effective way to stop them right now is to reduce their hit points to 0 which, if they fail their death saves, means they will die."

I think "vigilantes tough on crime" is actually kind of a bad descriptor for how most parties operate. This definitely varies wildly from table to table but I think for the *average* table there's honestly a solid chance that either your players are friends with at least one criminal NPC or even that they themselves are criminals. There's even an entire class who's fantasy is "criminal."

I don't think the self defense point actually holds true in a meaningful sense.

In older editions of D&D, which were much clearer on the expected gameplay being "go into the dungeon and steal the stuff," there wasn't really this layer there. The rules for combat were generally quite harsh on player characters so combat was certainly something they didn't want to get into too casually, but ultimately the player characters were just going into the dang monsters' house and stealing their stuff. The monsters were arguably the ones acting in self-defense (but they're evil so who cares).

But in the WotC editions the self-defense justification is still fraught because modern D&D especially is an action game. It's a game where characters mostly have access to various methods of visiting violence upon their environs and where the gameplay itself rewards them for violence, because combat is the main source of experience as written in all WotC editions of the game and characters primarily grow in combat effectiveness.

The self-defense angle I feel is not supported by the game's rules itself, but is more of a narrative contrivance introduced by groups to make their characters feel more heroic.

My friend @tenleaguesbeneath once described it as, and I am paraphrasing, "characters hunting things for sport but the things attack them first so they can claim self-defense." Characters want to get into fights (because that's where the rewards are), characters primarily grow in terms of being able to get into cooler fights, but because getting into fights on purpose isn't heroic there's an angle of "those goblins started it" to make the characters feel more heroic.

I don't think this is a bad thing per se. It is one way to make the power fantasy of D&D feel less like the characters are violent thugs and more like heroes. But like it is basically a group of mercenaries going into a warzone, they can't really say "well we didn't really expect to have to kill anyone on our mission, but sadly, circumstances conspired against us." Fighting is what the game wants them to do and I don't think anyone is wrong for wanting to portray the player characters as engaging in self-defense, but it's only self-defense through a very crooked lens imo.

lumpout

Linking this to the modern "revenge porn" action movies like John Wick and Nobody.

The self defense/revenge motivation is a fig leaf for indulging in gleeful violence. While modern DnD fictionally positions the party as the righteous castle-doctrine empowered heroes; we should at the very least be critical of why it is doing that. It's functionally identical to the fantasy of "what would I do if a bunch of terrorists/bank robbers burst into the room?" Just because there's an in-universe reason as to why you get have to murder all those people in flashy and fun ways does not mean that it isn't what you (the player) sat down at the table to do.

jambeast

And the key thing to remember is that violence is awesome (in fiction) and we don't have to justify it to anyone.

brazenautomaton

Yeah this post is horseshit and the ideology behind it is soul poison. If you demand a Maoist struggle session for your D&D campaign for its ideological implications then 387.44 million miles of wafer-thin circuits is not enough to express the extent to which you need to go fuck yourself. The assumptions and demands you make are based in a concept of human experience that only exists to serve your politics. This is not how human beings engage with art, this is not how human beings engage with stories, this is not how human beings engage with games. You are suffering under this monstrous worldview and you are monstrous in attempting to inflict it on others.

You are not revealing a secret pro-vigilantism argument, you unfathomably vast stumblefuck. You are revealing that you have conditioned other people to be afraid of speaking up against you and they're unable to fight your openly malevolent bad-faith attacks, so when you threaten them with Unpersoning for some game mechanic or setting detail you don't understand, instead of standing up for themselves and telling you to fuck off they shuffle to the closest equivalent of it that they think won't get them yelled at.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I personally enjoy playing D&D and thinking about stuff like this. :)

brazenautomaton

I'm sure you do. I'm sure this is so natural to you that it does not even register as a coherent or specific thing that you're doing. I'm sure you think this is just the way everyone looks at everything.

But if at any point in your entire life you ever, under any circumstances, believe yourself to have revealed something about someone's moral ideology based on how they engage with a game, you need to go fuck yourself inside-out.

I'm sorry you've gotten that impression from my post but that couldn't be further from what I actually think. However, you seem like a genuinely unpleasant person so I don't think there's any point in keeping up this discussion for either of our sakes. :)

brazenautomaton

Did the following words come out of you yes or no:

The reason people don't think about it that deeply is ultimately ideological.

And the ideology is basically "it is bad to be racist but it's good to be a tough on crime vigilante."

cookingwithroxy

Unfortunately Brazen I think the simple factor here is that your vitriolic reaction gave OP an excuse to absolutely ignore the counterpoint being made.

The classic D&D part being a big example, considering the scenario is 'Dangerous creatures/violent criminals have nested in the (ruins of a fallen town/keep)/(local forest)/(nearby cave system) and are posing a constant and ongoing threat to everyone in the area. And you, as a hero, can gain renown/save people/profit off of dealing with them.'

The concept that everything there is harmless and safe and nobody is doing anything bad until the adventurers show up is a complete fabrication and I can absolutely say this and base this on the over 100 copies of Dragon Magazine I have sitting in a bin amongst the other things I have collected since my mother bought me the original Red Box set when I was NINE.

The need to define a world entirely and utterly divorced from our own by the standards of political theory that even on THIS world are actually rather questionable? Has nothing to do with 'issues in the text' and everything to do with 'if everything does not reflect my politics, my politics have no weight'.

But again, your vitreol si what OP is using to ignore this rather pointed fact.

>Linking this to the modern "revenge porn" action movies like John Wick and Nobody.

In John Wick and Nobody, the revenge fantasy is presented as toxic and harmful to the people engaging in it, and those around them, and occasionally innocent bystanders.

Heck, the villain of the second Wick film uses avengance as an excuse to silence the guy he forced to kill his sister, and it backfires.

>It's functionally identical to the fantasy of "what would I do if a bunch of terrorists/bank robbers burst into the room?"

The stereotypical DND adventurer party are usually the aggressors, not the defenders.

You're stretching extremely far to draw a false equivalence to People You Dislike, without any actual criticism of either.

And I don't think you actually understand either group.

I don't think "how would I react if my life was under serious and immediate threat from assailants?" Says Anything™ about the people asking the question, despite your

All this back and forth and analysis of how roleplaying works and all that stuff is some real new gamer shit.

TTRPG is simple. if folks are having fun, you're doing it right. Doesn't matter what the content is. If it gets your panties in a twist about how a table you aren't at is having fun. Neat, fuck off. It has nothing to do with you, and never will.

If a table loves killing orcs because they are somehow the cartoon version of racists players who pretend it's another race. That's up to them. If you're playing at that table and don't like it? leave. It's not up to anyone else to decide how any table is allowed to have fun.

I've never heard any of that stuff from older gamers. modern D&D culture is a cancer on TTRPG.

On the plus side, modern D&D is killing it's self and pricing it's self out of what most gamers are willing to pay. Especially new gamers. So many of them are finding other systems. Other systems older gamers have been in the whole time and can help new folk learn the old ways. It's funny how many things this applies to, but I'm particularly keen on tabletop stuff myself.

I do this kind of stuff professionally. Not development, but on the user end. hosting games in a game space and such. I've never seen a group of new wave gamers last more than 2 or 3 sessions. At the same time there are multiple campaigns run my and partially played by the old guard that have been going on for years at this point. Observing the short lived "we're not going to have a problematic game, here are your safety tools" games has been useful though. You can see which person isn't down with it, and include them in more traditional tables. there's about a 90% success rate with that. I love seeing these people having their eyes opened to the kinds of things that can be done when you break out of the D&D roach motel. Both mechanically and culturally.

This is mostly a grognard rant at this point. But, if you are, for lack of a better term when it comes to a game you play to relax, serious about TTRPG. Dump D&D culture. find yourself a group playing something you've never heard of and that isn't something like "it's D&D, but i added robots". Find a Pathfinder game if you want to stick in a similar theme lane. Find something crazy like Mutants and Masterminds. Try Savage Worlds. Go wild with, like Racoon Sky Pirates or something. Just break out of what you're stuck in. don't let D&D burn you out.

granmabarb

He was just a young man. His life mattered.

*nitter link below for those who can’t access the twatter. simply copy and paste to your preferred browser to watch the video and read the comments

https://nitter.net/Banksycat/status/2057500117905682762

Henry Nowak's alleged killer has claimed during his trial that he was acting in self-defence.

Here's the context missing;

>Vickrum Digwa, 23, claims he acted in self-defence after [Nowak] used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off, Southampton Crown Court heard.

And;

>Police initially handcuffed the victim before discovering his fatal injury a short time later.

So, officially, the cops didn't even notice he was stabbed when they cuffed him.

Even being very charitable, that sounds a lot like incompetence. Were they in a very dark alley or something?

Still, the trial of his killer has been covered multiple times by the Beeb and other outlets.

A Sikh man, Vickrum Digwa, is standing trial for the murder of a Polish student, Henry Nowak, in Southampton, Hampshire

>It is admitted that Nowak, already weak from knife wounds, was trying to reach help when the police arrived. The evidence is that, having arrived, the police interviewed both parties; told that Nowak had started a drunken fight and racially abused Digwa, they immediately handcuffed him. Afterwards, they realised his condition. When he collapsed, they removed the cuffs and administered first aid. But it was too late. He died in their hands.

The popular narrative is that the police automatically arrested the white guy who allegedly made a slur. I think the punching complicated things, but I still wanna know why they didn't notice the stabbing.

turtleduck-inc

this is missing some of the big sticking points of this story. like that digwa's family was extremely complicit. his parents and his brother helped him lie to police on the spot. iirc, his mother even held henry down as he was bleeding out in the street. none of his family members were charged for any of this, last i heard.

but that's just a family of criminals. what's maybe more egregious is that henry told police multiple times that he'd been stabbed and one of the officers turned around and told him, word for word, "i don't think you have, mate".

they didn't just arrest him because they were told he attacked someone. they arrived at the scene and immediately started treating him with open contempt.

That seems pretty polite to me, not "open contempt".

Especially when suspect lie about being hurt all the time.

Also, the original complaints were about Nowak, Digwa, and the cops' treatment of both. Not the family of either of any of those.

I have seen no evidence of any racial motive by the cops. Just assumptions.

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

They let a kid die on the street after being stabbed in the face among other palces. His injuries would be extrodinarily obvious to even passing inspection. But they didn't do that because someone on a phone said he "attacked me racially". they came in, treated him as an automatic guilty until proven innocent with no way to prove innocence from the get go. They are trained to do this to white people only. there's not a cop in the whole county who will see a black guy and a white guy fighting and do jack shit to the black guy but will (and have, on camera, evem when the white guy was only being assaulted) tackle them violently and arrest them, letting the actual criminals just leave.

If you believe it's only racist if there's a signed memo saying "be racists to whites or else" then you are being purposely obtuse. Just looking at the actions being taken, over and over and over again makes it very clear it's racially motivated every time.

I'd upload the video of cops rushing in to arrest an assault victim for being white, but that's not allowed in reblogs.

apricops

we talk about how “let people enjoy things” has destroyed people’s brains but “good comedy should punch up” has convinced so many people that being pointlessly mean to strangers is not only justified but virtuous

rohirric-hunter

Hnnnnnnnng the first time I heard the phrase "good comedy should punch up" it was a comedian answering a question about why he never did bits about things "relatable to black people" and he said "because good comedy should punch up." Hey! Buddy! I think you could have just said, "Because I am white and unfamiliar with that culture and I'm afraid I might be accidentally insensitive!" You could have said that! Instead!

Anyway aside from the way it -- I'm sure unintentionally -- came off, it kind of opened my eyes to the fact that most of his humor basically boiled down to insulting "acceptable targets" and wasn't actually all that funny.

There is an important distinction people should consider, and the phrasing this guy used IMO goes the wrong way.

"Good Comedy should punch up" implies punching is needed for comedy, so pick a better target.

"Good Comedy should never punch down" is subtly different, but allows for non-punching comedy.

I think these distinctions are important

all of these definitions are shit. Good comedy makes someone laugh. That's it. If you don't like it made someone laugh. that's your problem. If you don't like why their laughing, that's your problem. None of that is on the jokes or the tellers. There can be stuff that's wildly offensive to some and hilarious to others. The second you start policing what's allowed and not, you create the tools of your own oppression. Today you get to say what's "allowed" to be made fun of and how. Tomorrow, once the people you oppressed get a bigger stick, now they tell you what you're allowed to say and do. The only solution is to allow everything and mind your own business if you don't personally like it.

apricops

rohirric-hunter

feminismisstillahatemovement

I remember when Paul F. Tompkins did something like that. Did a whole PSA style video on how certain things just can't be part of comedy, and you have to make sure you're allowed to talk about something before making jokes and blah blah blah, sacred cows. I never gave a crap about anything he had to say after that. as a comedian or otherwise. he destroyed himself with that.

Three days every year this is all I see

This is a lot less funny when you're sitting in a hot room in the uk.

A lot less funny for you sure. All the sweeter for the rest of us sociopaths comedy enjoyers.

To anyone confused- he said he’d give money to anyone who could give him a concrete action plan, then the UK called his bluff and showed him one and now he’s leaving them on read.

He was baiting morons-there is no plan that ends world hunger for that amount of money. There is no plan that ends world hunger for a hundred times that amount of money. And anyone with a high-school understanding of economics knows that.

daysleftofsecondterm

Whatever you need to pretend to get through the next 937 days, my friend. If you need to believe in fairies to cope, then by all means.

votivemanatee0

Fun Fact! the plan to end world hunger has existed in many forms over the decades, it has simply not been done and hidden as those who would be doing it would not be able to profit off of this. similar situation for homelessness and education too btw.

Oooor it's impractical and it wouldn't work.

Even after the USAID cuts, the US alone gives about 50 billion in foreign aid a year. Heck, the UK spent over 15 bil (USD).

Also, it's adorable that you have such trust in the UN.

> similar situation for homelessness

Homelessness is often the symptom. The primary issues are often mental health issues and drug issues.

And countries with public-funded healthcare still have homelessness issues.

And also beggars pretending to be homeless.

>and education too btw.

Most schools in the US are public. Same here in the UK. Even when it comes to college, most loans are already federal.

I'm starting to get the impression you don't just have faith in the UN, but in governments in general.

And somehow think taking credit for ending world hunger is not something tons of rich people would love to have.

The Bill Gates Foundation alone already has a higher budget than $6 bil. Which is less than a buck a person on Earth, at tweet time.

votivemanatee0

I love how you don't even defend your previous claim, you just switch to another Tesla Man Bad meme.

In both the classic (Dawkins) and mdoern senses.

Also, I literally AM an immigrant, and have spoken out against anti-immigrant sentiment loads of times. So this imagined version of me in your head is still wrong.