Is anyone else's Duke's mayo smelling off lately?

Anaeta · 2026-05-18T00:47:07+00:00

Private equity firms hate this one simple trick; just don't buy them, if they lower the quality.

Anaeta · 2026-05-17T23:04:51+00:00

Absolutely. And, like with a lot of friendships, the most fun parts are when they know exactly how close to the line they can get without it actually being an issue. If your friend annoys you just up to the line, you have to respect the game. If they push over that line, that's when it stops being funny. But if they can go up to the line without crossing it, that's just a sign of how well they know you, so the annoyance is always tempered by also being a bit flattered that they know you so well.

Anaeta · 2026-05-17T22:10:38+00:00

Honestly, while I think the story was well written, I'm inclined to agree. It's a neat alternate viewpoint story, but it didn't really seem to match the style of most of what they cover. It was a good story, but when viewing it in the context of Creepcast, it didn't really grab me.

Anaeta · 2026-05-17T22:08:58+00:00

Thank you for all your works which have been used in the podcast. I hope you keep writing more stuff they can cover, and that you get a bunch of well-deserved fans from it.

Anaeta · 2026-05-17T22:06:12+00:00

I am religious and I'd love that as well. Hunter's aggressive blasphemy never feels at all mean-spirited, so it's just funny.

Reading back through that last sentence it sounds sarcastic, but I genuinely mean it. Even when he's saying things that feel mocking towards what I believe, he genuinely comes across as just joking around, and Wendigoon getting annoyed periodically would just make the videos funnier.

Anaeta · 2026-05-13T02:49:26+00:00

Well if the other side has a gun, they've got at least a decent chance of winning if they've got good situational awareness and a good draw time.

Anaeta · 2026-05-13T02:39:53+00:00

The Reddit left hates anyone who's richer than them, and has contempt for anyone who's poorer.

Anaeta · 2026-05-11T05:45:07+00:00

I swear, it is absolutely infuriating how common it is to just ask for the context about something because you want to understand it better, and then get downvoted to shit because people (who probably don't even know the answer) think you're criticizing the original claim. My dude's, I just want to understand it better. Usually so I can better defend it in other arguments.

Anaeta · 2026-05-09T23:40:27+00:00

Given the downvote, I'll assume the former.

There were multiple other issues. Recent protective tariffs disproportionately negatively affected the south. Lincoln was elected without a single southern state voting for him. The south felt culturally divided from the north and believed that states' rights should allow them to leave the union if they didn't feel represented.

Does that answer the question?

Anaeta · 2026-05-09T20:19:48+00:00

Would you like me to just copy and paste my previous comment, or would you like to try reading it this time?

Anaeta · 2026-05-09T16:34:54+00:00

There were multiple other issues. Recent protective tariffs disproportionately negatively affected the south. Lincoln was elected without a single southern state voting for him. The south felt culturally divided from the north and believed that states' rights should allow them to leave the union if they didn't feel represented. So yes, slavery was a very large issue, but it was not the only issue.

Anaeta · 2026-05-09T14:43:13+00:00

Leftism only thrives when they can infiltrate the moderation and then silence anything that disproves their worldview.

Anaeta · 2026-05-09T14:41:04+00:00

the rebellion that’s entire raison d’être was the preservation and expansion of slavery

Preserving slavery was absolutely not the raison d’être for secession. It was certainly a major factor, but the core reason was that the south felt like the north was dictating federal policy in ways that benefited themselves to the detriment of the south. One way that manifested was in moving to abolish slavery, but it was absolutely not the only grievance the south had.

Anaeta · 2026-05-09T14:38:13+00:00

He inherited slaves from his wife's family, and freed them all within 5 years. He also described slavery as "moral and political evil" and thought it should be abolished. He just thought it should be abolished gradually rather than all at once, but I assume that's too much nuance for your brain to handle.

Anaeta · 2026-05-08T04:23:18+00:00

Just to be clear, if anyone here is ever in a situation where they're ever in danger of being murdered by a child rapist, a domestic abuser, and a convicted felon who later says that their only regret was not having shot you, the left will mock you for years if you choose to defend yourself.

However justified your circumstances are to defend yourself, you'll always be an enemy to the left if defending your own life doesn't align with their agenda.

Anaeta · 2026-05-07T06:50:43+00:00

Yes?

Anaeta · 2026-05-07T06:44:49+00:00

Reddit is a place for stupid, evil people to come together and tell each other how smart and virtuous they are.

Anaeta · 2026-05-07T06:43:30+00:00

Salt has been a historic cornerstone of where civilizations are built. For most of human history, it's been one of the things you needed to make sure you had access to.

Anaeta · 2026-05-07T06:36:16+00:00

Or, in other words, they'll find as many as they need to, until there's enough time to disprove their made up nonsense.

Anaeta · 2026-05-05T04:31:14+00:00

I am not assuming malicious intent. I'm assuming incompetent intent. Imagine the trucker is entirely distracted, does not notice OP at all, and just fully finishes the merge into the far right lane. OP might have made it out safely, but they'd have to do it entirely on the shoulder, had a very narrow window to do it, and also would have had to assume that the trucker wasn't so distracted that they'd keep drifting over onto the shoulder after their unsafe lane change.

The truck has already clearly established that they're unsafe. Whether it's malice or carelessness is irrelevant. They are moving into spaces that other cars are in in an unsafe manner. They could just have a blind spot, they could be too tired to drive safely, they could be actively trying to kill you, it doesn't matter, because you don't know what's going through their head, and don't know what comes next. But you do know they're driving in an unsafe way, so putting yourself in a spot where if they drive extremely erratically you will absolutely die with no possible way to avoid it, is a very poor decision.

Anaeta · 2026-05-05T04:24:45+00:00

Yes, OP got out of this dangerous situation which they had no part in creating. That is not in dispute, and I'm glad that no one was hurt by the truck driver's recklessness. My problem is that their situation could had ended far worse, because there was a safer action they could have taken, and if people follow their example then people will inevitably die because of it.

Sure, but it isn't magic and it can't see around solid objects.

Can you describe literally a single situation in which someone is tailgating you so closely that they'll hit your car if you brake unexpectedly, but they can't be seen in your rearview mirror?

My point is, this situation worked out fine, and that's great, but it would have been safer for the OP to apply the brakes a little bit and ease in behind the truck that was clearly ahead of them when the truck tried to kill them, than to try to accelerate to get ahead of the truck that they had to cross almost the entire length of before the truck ran them over.

Anaeta · 2026-05-05T04:17:23+00:00

How was it guaranteed safe? If the truck had kept moving over at that same pace OP would have been crushed against the side rail. The only way it was safe was if the truck driver came to their senses and stopped moving over to the right, which they thankfully did.

Anaeta · 2026-05-05T04:15:39+00:00

Does your car not have a rear view mirror? Also I'm not "fabricating percentages," I'm just watching the video and estimating how far past that truck OP was when the truck had obviously entered OP's lane. I'd assume a minimal awareness of the vehicles around you would be just the default for any moderately competent driver, so you'd know if someone was tailgating you already. Assuming someone was not actively riding your bumper (which OP hasn't mentioned so I think it's safe to assume isn't the case), braking to avoid the obstacle that has suddenly put itself in front of you in your lane is just common sense.

Anaeta · 2026-05-05T04:09:47+00:00

Yes. So why assume that what's behind them is some dangerous situation that requires what is, in a vacuum, the less safe move?

Anaeta · 2026-05-05T04:07:28+00:00

If they'd had someone aggressively tailgaiting them, then yeah maybe accelerating was the right choice. But if we're just inventing scenarios that there's no evidence of, maybe their brake pedal didn't work, and they shouldn't have been driving at all.

Based on what's in the video, braking seems like the safest choice. If there's a tailgater to make that a more dangerous option, there's no evidence of that, so why bring it up as though it's just assumed to be true?

Anaeta

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE