A place for things

@pansnowflan

Who cares

536 posts

They want you to suffer.

How exactly did the Democrats fail their constituents by... Not letting us starve in order to look strong? Seems to me this actually caring about their constituents a lot more than a political goal.

switch-up-snowfox

Guessing they wanted the dems to stay hard on the shutdown until they got literally all that they wanted.

I've been avoiding using this one, but my goodness it fits here.

arizonaconservativegal

I just wanna know where they get the idea that Republicans were the ones throwing the tantrum when all we did was send the Dems a bill to fund the govt exactly as-is and as they themselves had just voted for only a few weeks prior. We weren't even trying to get check off our Christmas list, just to continue things exactly as they were and the Dems decided to shut down the govt in a now-failed attempt to get their own wishlist filled.

#Once again #Someone who uses 'usamericans' has a faulty opinion

sunder-the-gold

It's crazy how many people will screech at you for not 'accepting' their life choices, but hold no qualms about insulting you for yours. Like, fuck, honestly I don't even give a shit about polyamory, I've got more important shit to worry about, but every post I see about how monogamy is 'boring' or acting like you're doing something wrong by being monogamous makes it harder and harder to remain neutral.

Or they first say that being gay shouldn't be seen any differently than being straight, then they deride being straight as boring, and then they say that being straight is oppressing the gays.

They first say minorities of any kind deserve equal representation, but then they say that equal representation doesn't mean PROPORTIONAL representation it means a disproportionate 50/50 representation for what might be a 10/90 demographic ratio, and the next step after that is decrying any representation of the majority as oppression of the minority.

The people saying these things don't care about minorities, they care about seizing power. The minorities are just their shield.

DEI was never about helping minorities, it was about a convenient excuse to hire people who wanted to achieve the Glorious Communist Revolution. They would never hire women or minorities who would oppose the revolution.

Here's a black man talking about how DEI benefitted more White Women than Black People, because progressive white women preferred to hire more of themselves and less of anyone else:

To be fair, most of the people that say that gay people shouldn't be seen any differently will just stop there and not go into hypocrisy. I'm sure it's that way for other things too. But the loudest ones are the ones who then go on to insult straight people or white people or men or what have you, and they've been even louder because they've been amplified by all the outlets that choose to focus on them and pretend that they speak for everyone. And that's not to say it's a small amount of them, because it is a lot of people. It's just that the silent majority is bigger but they don't pay enough attention or they're just scared to go against the supposed consensus, which is why we're in the mess we're in.

I think it's getting a little better, in that even if they're still being amplified, everyone else isn't so quick to buy it and more people in those "communities" are calling them out. Still a lot more work to be done to undo all the damage.

I'm sure they'd still hate them if they didn't think they were white, but I'm sure it does make it easier for them to hate Jewish people,

Tweet Tweet

siryouarebeingmocked

Reminder that "Zionist" basically means "thinks Israel should exist".

And these folks use it as a pejorative.

Also I'm sorry to say but a big reason for this really is because they're thinking of Jews in general as white-adjacent, at least. They think of the Jewish people they see in America or maybe even Europe and just say "close enough, that's what they're all like, right?"

And at least in America, Jews aren't exactly known for their lack of success. Successful minorities aren't looked at all that well by this crowd, for some reason, so they've already got that against them.

It's hard to say that they wouldn't be so against Israel if not for all that. I think they've only ever really defended them against Nazism, which is essentially just "hyper white" to them.

whencartoonsruletheworld

nani in the original movie: i'm literally the only one who understands lilo, she's too autistic for the 2000s to handle and everyone else gives up on her or treats her like the problem. if anything happens to her i feel like i'm going to lose myself. literally everything i do in my life is so that i can keep custody of my sister and never have to have her separated from me, also this is lowkey a metaphor for colonialism

nani in the live-action movie: she'll be fine. im going to college

sunder-the-gold

Sasuga, Disney.

Was Nani's actress one of the ones that people online decided to throw a hissy fit over when the cast was revealed? Is that maybe why she has a reduced role

how are you a fan of so many things where the creators would hate you down to your very essence? it's pretty funny actually.

Half the LGBT community on tumblr already hates me for being bi, being Christian, or having the common sense to go "if you focus more on hating majority groups than gaining allies, your movement won't go far" and "don't call yourself anti fascist if you act like Nazis" and "Communism doesnt work and only leads to genocide and tyranny" so i guess I'm used to it.

Which lame unfunny wannabe bully are you fighting on behalf on btw?

Damn, couldn't even reblog to post this epic rebuttal which is also stupid lol

feminismisstillahatemovement

Those statements don't even look like actual harassment. Just random compliments.

semicolonthefifth

Well it’s an edit of a comic where the premise is men receiving unnerving or unnecessary compliments from other men (you can even see how the styles between the drawn men and the drawn women don’t exactly match). Here’s the original:

The edit is passed around so much people forgot there was an original. But yeah, the intention is clearly “how would men like it if they were treated/approached like this, unprompted?” The key word being: unprompted, and in a way where the recipient can feel uncomfortable. It can happen, and people are right to feel bad if it does indeed make them so.

Are a lot of men so deprived of love that a simple compliment can be burned in their memories like a campfire in a long bitter winter? Absolutely. But I don’t think all men like all compliments, and depending on how it can be said it can feel awful.

Heck we don’t even have to pretend like men cant receive unnecessary “affection” or be hit on. Examples like the Target guy and male celebrities (both old and especially young) have been on the receiving end of women who are honestly disgusting in how they try to get with them. Unfortunately for men there’s this societal belief that they always want this sort of thing and so they’re “fair game”, no matter how dehumanizing or personally uncomfortable the treatment.

And going back to the original comic: yes, women can feel this too. Catcalling isn’t always fun for the receiver, and I don’t think it’s fair to make this a black and white thing or to compare scars so as to see who’s bigger or more neglected. If the state of the world is to go by, it’s that the greatest mistake ever committed was that assuming nobody outside our own demographic can feel pain - or that we must always be on the offensive when it comes to discussing our pain whatever it may be.

That’s how I see it, at least.

feminismisstillahatemovement

I didn't actually know that was the case about the cartoon being gender-swapped, but the surprising thing is, it doesn't make any difference: if men I encountered said any of those things to me, I'd still take it as a compliment and an expression of friendliness, and they would brighten up my day.

Feminism really has done a number on women's mental health, and by extension, greatly damaged the kindness and trust of society for everyone.

For what it's worth, the original doesn't really change it for me either. Dudes compliment each other more these days (unprompted, even), and it feels nice every time. I'm not exactly starving for compliments myself, but it's still something that sticks with me when I get one out of the blue.

For what it's worth, the bottom right characters in each category come from the same game, Overwatch 2. I just think it's interesting how this concept kinda plays out within just one game.

5853 members, 2314 posts about #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtq community • From aromantics to zerogender, we accept all no matter who you are. Closed co

They finally did it. They formally added the P. Leftists are out and proud as Pedos. I mean, I suppose it's been coming ever since John Money started raping children.

sunder-the-gold

This makes it all the more priceless that I have some deranged Anon sending me an Ask claiming that all Pro-Lifers are secretly pedophiles who want a surplus of unwanted children in the world.

The P is more than likely for pansexual, BTW

Humans have two sexes. Leftists claim that there is an infinite number, but have never demonstrated it beyond violently threatening anyone who questions.

If you are attracted to men and women, that is bisexual. As in B. As in it's redundant to say you are pansexual if bi is already there

Being attracted to pans, literally, is regarded as a mental disorder called objectophilia.

Being attracted to pots like this can be forgiven, however.

I agree with this, to be clear. When they invented pansexual, they had to pretty much ignore what bisexuals were saying about their own sexuality in order to make it stick, which isn't surprising from this crowd.

It was all for the benefit of having an even more special, inclusive label that only worked if you've never heard of bisexuality.

Also yeah pansexual sounds like someone is attracted to more than just people to me, so there's that too

5853 members, 2314 posts about #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtq community • From aromantics to zerogender, we accept all no matter who you are. Closed co

They finally did it. They formally added the P. Leftists are out and proud as Pedos. I mean, I suppose it's been coming ever since John Money started raping children.

sunder-the-gold

This makes it all the more priceless that I have some deranged Anon sending me an Ask claiming that all Pro-Lifers are secretly pedophiles who want a surplus of unwanted children in the world.

The P is more than likely for pansexual, BTW

feminismisstillahatemovement

feminismisstillahatemovement

Spooky

sunder-the-gold

I’d love to know how he predicted that.

Pattern recognition, maybe, but the "Hannity actually bought an e-car" part is the real party trick

feminismisstillahatemovement

So Disney's apparently removing the "offensive content" warnings from some of their old films. I'm glad to see some sanity returning to the world but it honestly makes me wonder - why are they suddenly reversing all these decisions?

There has been a very rapid sea change the past few months, ultimately hinged upon and epitomized by the re-election of Donald Trump. Even the biggest proponents of DEI/wokeness/political correctness have been offered incontrovertible proof that their agenda is a minority position increasingly being rejected ever-more-firmly by the public, and so making that agenda the focus of their business will only result in bankruptcy.

On top of that, they know DOGE is coming to audit them and expose where the money funding that agenda was coming from.

From what I saw, they didn't exactly remove them, just reworded them. Instead of asserting that the content is offensive, I think it now says that they left the content as it was made and it contains content that some people may find offensive

feminismisstillahatemovement

This is just a numbers game to begin with. More men than women are gonna apply (let alone qualify) for such a dangerous and demanding job, and there's more white men than other races in America.

Guys, they're still trying to pin him with negligent homicide, which, while it won't put him away for the 15 years they were hoping for, it could still land him in state prison for 4 years.

Man's a hero, and they are still trying to punish him for keeping the public safe from a man who was openly threatening to kill people.

worldweaverofmediocrity

whom killed whom? and what did the first person prevent?

Daniel Penny placed a strung out crackhead in a poor headlock, after said crackhead was openly threatening the other passengers on the subway, stating "someone is gonna die today," and "I don't care if I go to jail for life," that's when Penny, a former marine, pinned the crackhead, and held him in a headlock, he was assisted by other passengers.

After the crackhead lost consciousness he placed him in the recovery position, and surrendered to police, not aware the crackhead had died.

Said crackhead has a long criminal record of assault and threats, but the MsM painted him as a poor, and innocent Michael Jackson impersonator.

scribe-of-storm

Daniel Penny has just found him NOT GUILTY of Negligent Homicide.

White Boy Summer shall Continue until Civilization Improves.

Daniel Penny has been found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide for the death of Jordan Neely by the jury on Monday.

sunder-the-gold

The men helping him hold the crackhead down were ALSO black. But that doesn't fit the narrative.

I know one was, but I thought the other was Hispanic.

A nice trifecta of unity to keep the subway car safe once one of them stepped up lol

#Like symbolism or smth

so-much-to-read-deactivated2025

That’s what it does mean. That’s what it’s always meant. Feminists hate men so much but talk like they’ve never met one.

No, it's also been used to excuse terrible behavior, but you hate feminists (or just women) so much yet talk like you've never met one. Like all anti feminists do

No, the very few times it has been used that way, everyone else called them out for it because that's not what it's used for, but I guess you wouldn't want to see that people actually aren't cool with it so you can remain convinced otherwise

therealtruthalways

❓❓❓

sunder-the-gold

Just because Putin is a bad guy DOESN'T mean the people running NATO are saints.

something i've noticed that has become really annoying in the past 10 years or so is this fad of what i've been calling, for lack of a better word, "structural whataboutism." it's that thing where, when faced with a concrete, resolvable problem in your community, your answer is to blame it on a vast, unsolvable issue of structural inequality and then throw up your hands. "there's trash all over the ground in this corner of the park" becomes "well, that's where MEN OF COLOR congregate after their 12-HOUR GRAVEYARD SHIFTS and i'm not going to support a CARCERAL SOLUTION to a CAPITALISTIC PROBLEM. WE NEED TO ELIMINATE POVERTY AND THE SUBJUGATION OF THE WORKING CLASS" and it's like okay but sis. someone still has to go pick up the trash. we don't need a carceral solution, we need more trash cans. you're not going to eliminate poverty and the subjugation of the working class and even if ya did, there would still be trash on the ground. how any of this passes for radicalism within their peer groups i simply don't understand. it's radical laziness more than anything else

The laziness of it, that really nails it I think. It's like mental sloth.

And apparently that's called "acedia" but maybe that's too fancy of a name for this

Concept I've been stewing on for a while here. I've got a name for it now and I'm calling it the Shot Dog Factor. It's a numerical value, assignable to any internet post, which represents the average number of engagements it needs to reach before someone comes along acting like this post shot their dog.

And for the sake of High Number = More Danger, which feels like the intuitive and sensible read, let's call it the inverse. As in the chance that any given interaction results in a Shot Dog response.

"Hee hee haa haa" type of silly shitpost? Low Shot Dog Factor. Largely safe. A genuine political opinion? Critically high Shot Dog Factor. Guaranteed to elicit such a response if it breaks containment.

As a result of this phenomenon, you see phrasings and circumventions added specifically to lower the Shot Dog factor. Every "now I know this doesn't apply to EVERYONE'S specific situation, but I just think--" about something where the non-specificity was obvious, but OP needed to add that disclaimer to avoid the Shot Dog from someone who thinks it needs to apply to them.

And another--perhaps the most--critical thing to understand about the Shot Dog factor is that 0 is not a valid value. There's a discontinuation at 0. And as such, the Shot Dog limit, as engagement goes to infinity is, in fact, 100%. Any and every post you have ever made, given enough containment breaching, WILL piss someone off in wild ways. You can lower the Shot Dog factor but it is never 0. Sometimes when a post of yours escapes containment, you must simply sit back and accept this reality.

#op the fact that you called it this. has skyrocketed the shot dog factor for this one astronomically. im so sorry (via @mecharose)

Thank you yeah no that was part of the vision

In order to demonstrate the last point about "never being zero", the very concept of the Shot Dog Factor comes with a positive Shot Dog value. Leading by example or smth

A place for things @pansnowflan - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag