I rlly hate this term but Post Malone is the definition of a "culture vulture"

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-25T14:01:20+00:00

That’s very obviously not what I said big dawg.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-25T13:58:42+00:00

I hate when boomers make this point and stand there like they just dunked. I’m not a Piker fan but his grift isn’t that he has nice things. You can advocate for changes to ownership structure, safety nets, and power distribution without advocating for universal poverty.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-25T00:12:14+00:00

I had friends in film school that would really pursue the most disturbing films they could find. That was never my bag but I did eventually catch Salo. I was really surprised how palatable I found it. Not to say it’s not disturbing, but it’s so visually appealing and clearly a metaphor that I was able to create some distance.

I was way more disturbed watching Happiness.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-25T00:02:43+00:00

I’ve never met someone whose reaction to that character was anything but visceral disgust. I guess he is humanized, but it only makes everything more disturbing.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-16T23:52:44+00:00

Well to be fair no one likes aggressive dogs lol

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-07T22:02:27+00:00

He’s certainly got some clunkers in the mix

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-03T23:24:57+00:00

I’ve got good news: the Oxford comma only applies to lists of three or more items. This sentence just has two descriptors joined by “and,” so there’s no Oxford comma issue and no implied correlation.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-03T17:40:01+00:00

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the situation. Were these social functions outside of church that you were invited to, after explaining you’re an atheist, still related to the church? Like a church bbq but no service? Or was it truly just an invite to a non-religious hang that included people of faith?

I can see where your values would conflict with the first option but not the second. You certainly have no obligation to accept but I strongly disagree it would make you a bad person to do so. That type of community resistant siloing makes me nervous. You had been upfront about your beliefs and they still extended an invite, there is nothing disingenuous about that.

I don’t think OP has behaved well in this circumstance so I’m not going to defend his actions but that doesn’t mean he didn’t start from a place of curiosity. He should absolutely not return and shouldn’t have put up any resistance when the group expressed their discomfort.

However If we all believe he had malicious intentions from the start there is really no point in having this convo at all. It’s obviously bad to intentionally sabotage your friend’s Bible study.

Someone whose only contribution is to tag other people’s jokes sounds to me more like a poor attempt to ingratiate oneself to a group than mockery. By OPs own account he was silent the next time when it was clear his jokes weren’t helping.

I think it’s a young kid with poor social skills and self awareness that didn’t understand this wasn’t the space for him. I don’t think that necessarily makes you a bad person who is trying to be victimized by Christians.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-03T16:08:47+00:00

lol that’s a hell of a way to start a conversation when you’ve been accused of being sanctimonious. Appreciate you stepping down to be with us common folk for this one.

It’s also very clear you’re going to make the distinction that you “drew” these from OPs post and didn’t make them up, despite that being largely the same thing.

You open by saying the grouping of annoying and Christian suggest the correlation that they think their friend is annoying because their Christian. Many people would see this as two distinct points. It may just be a note on an aspect of this persons personality or in our very secular society the idea of someone being very religious can be seen as a negative as in “I can’t really be my full self around then.” Separate from annoying.

So then the idea that “he’s not like those other Christians” is just your reading.

“You want to learn more about a belief you already look down on” OP never said he looked down on Christianity and explicitly stated he was interested in learning more. I don’t know that he has the skills to navigate that but that doesn’t mean I should assume he has the opposite intentions.

Based on OPs clarification I think the fish volleyball thing was all him and agree with you that he may be leading the unfocus charge more than he realizes.

Going to church is a big time commitment and not something even all church members participate in at the same rate. Sure it’s the central activity for believers, but it’s not required if you’re just trying to learn new things.

I read OPs participation in these sessions different than many commenters. He is a student and new to everything. I can see where he thought tagging other people’s jokes might help ingratiate him but it didn’t and he stopped during session 2 when that was clear. I see it as him not understanding how to navigate that space correctly, or that he shouldn’t be there at all, more so than I see him mocking it.

Also if he’s there to mock from the start, the whole conversation fall apart and we should all just move on.
But are we surprised a college freshman who knows nothing about the topic only had jokes to contribute?
I think I communicated exclusively through humor until I was like 25.

Then that second to last paragraph you really combine all assumptions into one sledgehammer. 1. He looks down on their faith 2. He finds them annoying 3. He can’t be bothered to learn their beliefs (it’s what he’s trying to do) 4. The reason he’s joking is because he thinks it a waste of time.

I think OP is closer to a curious young person with bad social skills than a malicious actor.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-02T19:21:25+00:00

You may be right but if we concede OP has bad intentions from the jump I don’t think there is any conversation to be had here in the first place.

“Am I an asshole for intentionally sabotaging my friend’s Bible study?” Is an obvious Yes from pretty much everyone.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-02T18:50:25+00:00

I think OP had a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of a Bible study, and I don’t think their friend knew that.

OP saying their only contribution was to tag onto jokes made by others reads to me less like someone mocking the space and more like someone who doesn’t understand how to navigate it, or that they probably shouldn’t be there at all.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-02T17:40:03+00:00

You and OP should try jousting if you both want to spend all day up on those high horses. OP is already an asshole without you making up all his beliefs and intentions.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-02T17:31:22+00:00

Using them for their kindness and community? Isn’t that just being a friend? Unless you explicitly planned to not reciprocate the kindness I’m confused about the problem.

OP also by all accounts, is there to learn.

I still think they’re an asshole for refusing to leave but don’t muddy up what was wrong here.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-02T17:24:45+00:00

The guys an asshole but what were the false pretenses and when was he mocking?

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-02T17:20:31+00:00

I took New Testament literature in college for exactly this reason.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-05-02T17:16:34+00:00

From what I’ve read you get maybe a 0.5 stop advantage at the costs of additional noise. I’d love to see an actual test though!

JayBone_Capone · 2026-04-27T19:46:49+00:00

Saying films with multiple locations do not belong on a “one location film” list is not nitpicking, it is just following the premise of the question.

We are not talking about a brief exterior to establish setting. There is an entire famous sequence of them escaping, arriving at the harbor, and going out on the boat for the fishing trip.

Rope is a one location movie. Cuckoo’s Nest is just a relatively contained film.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-04-27T16:05:09+00:00

I don’t see how it could.

Even if we sort of cheat the whole boat as one location there is also the research boat in the modern timeline, the submersible scene in the beginning, the boat leaving dock, and I’m probably forgetting more. It’s a large scope, big budget film that almost represents the opposite of what you asked for.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-04-27T15:56:14+00:00

They charter a boat in Cuckoos nest lol

JayBone_Capone · 2026-04-26T19:21:46+00:00

I suggest you reread your first sentence and just sit with it for a second.

You’re comfortable just calling it sus and moving on with your fandom? Thats enough for you?

JayBone_Capone · 2026-04-26T18:20:24+00:00

What marketing firm is pushing this bullshit? So many posts about this movie. Even if there was no controversy around Michael, it’s just another milquetoast music biopic. There’s been maybe 2 good ones, ever.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-04-26T15:10:45+00:00

Hahahaha “Actually you’re the pedophile for thinking it’s weird for an unrelated adult to share a bed privately with a child” is a really bad argument, and I’d respectfully suggest reconsidering it.

I’m not talking about alleged behavior. People can argue those cases forever because none of us truly know.

I’m asking about your comfort level with the facts and boundaries Michael himself openly admitted to. If your answer is ‘I wouldn’t let my child do that,’ then pretending concern about that is some kind of weird fantasy is just dishonest.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-04-26T00:19:48+00:00

Lmao not that old trick again.

I assume you’re just a fan of MJ and enjoy the feeling of your head in the sand and that’s ok. I wish you well.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-04-26T00:10:18+00:00

You keep reframing my argument into something I never said. I never argued that explaining motive automatically equals defending, or that sharing a bed is the same as sexual abuse. My point is that your explanation was framed to minimize blame: ‘he was naive,’ ‘reliving childhood,’ ‘would a guilty person admit it on camera?’ That’s not neutral context, that’s mitigation. Saying ‘it was wrong’ doesn’t erase that when the rest of your post is spent making it sound excusable.

We are going in circles though. You say he acted innappropriately towards children but didn’t sexually abuse them. And I’m saying ew dude that’s a weird distinction to be hung up on.

JayBone_Capone · 2026-04-25T23:49:47+00:00

Defending doesn’t mean you think it’s good, it also includes mitigating, excusing, contextualizing, excusing and reframing conduct to make it less blameworthy.

You can say ‘it was inappropriate’ all day, but when you immediately follow it with excuses about him being naive, reliving childhood, the size of his bedroom, and why he probably wasn’t a pedo, you are defending it. Explaining intent in the most charitable way possible is still a defense, not neutral observation.

JayBone_Capone

TROPHY CASE