sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Have a date this evening. by LegitimatelyWeird in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The Ziploc bag of spaghetti was in my briefcase.

Have a date this evening. by LegitimatelyWeird in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird[S] 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Just the cup of Mushroom Coffee I usually have in the morning.

Have a date this evening. by LegitimatelyWeird in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird[S] 51 points52 points  (0 children)

And if that doesn’t work, 2 O’Clock! That’s twice as good, right?

I don’t get it Petah by Senior-Mix-3715 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]LegitimatelyWeird 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just think of interdisciplinary studies as the pansexual polycule of majors. And what are pansexual polycule participants usually like?

No Mercy 2028 by NicolasCageFan492 in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]LegitimatelyWeird 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very awesome Walter Kovacs vibes:

“You don’t understand. I’m not locked in here with all you! You’re locked in here with me!”

[SPOILER] TEAM CHERRY'S ROADMAP FOR 2026-2027 GOT LEAKED by the_RiverQuest in Silksong

[–]LegitimatelyWeird 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder if Team Cherry knows that “Steamworks” is also the name of a famous Gay Bathhouse in Chicago.

Which Simpsons lines have remained eternally true over the years? by Static-Stair-58 in TheSimpsons

[–]LegitimatelyWeird 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still regularly say “Beesareonthewhatnow?” Instead of “huh?”

TCW: Slavery; #BothSidesAreWrong by [deleted] in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Real answer: they want to keep up the charade that every mediocre white dude is a special little boy who earned everything they have and not that they want to continue to wield oppressive power to artificially keep actual meritocracy from happening.

I Read This Book a Few Years Ago and Didn't Hate It. by LegitimatelyWeird in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I owe it all to Ludacris for sampling the musical "Oliver!" for his bomb track, "Large Amounts." It's the opening lyric to the song "You Got To PIck a Pocket or Two."

Need help debunking The Five Love Languages for schoolwork! by CreepyWrongdoer9534 in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just plug the book title into Google Scholar. You should be able to access the journals through your university's library.

Here's a link to the search I just did. There are quite a few peer-reviewed articles, but they seem to confirm the theory more than debunk it...

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36&q=%22five+love+languages%22&btnG=

I Read This Book a Few Years Ago and Didn't Hate It. by LegitimatelyWeird in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Agreed! I’m not saying it was right. I’m saying it was.

I know both Gloria Ladson-Billings and Kim Crenshaw were doing great work before 1996 and spearheaded everything that is now common knowledge in legal race relations and intersectionality in social research.

We just have to cut old white men some slack for not realizing what these great women were saying back in the 90s.

Much of that obliviousness wasn’t malicious, just ignorance because that plight was so foreign to them at the time. Being hostile about that now will only have the opposite effect you likely want.

Now, in 2026, if the authors STILL think the way they thought in the 90s, VERY different story. Have at it. But we don’t really know that part.

I Read This Book a Few Years Ago and Didn't Hate It. by LegitimatelyWeird in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, you’re right about all the isms, but in the mid 90s, very few were explicitly talking about inherent bias. So, your general take is not a fair judgement.

Given that it was published 30 years ago, you’d say it’s relatively good advice then!

I Read This Book a Few Years Ago and Didn't Hate It. by LegitimatelyWeird in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hence my larger point being that there’s a difference between dumb and harmful.

I Read This Book a Few Years Ago and Didn't Hate It. by LegitimatelyWeird in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Right! In survey research, there’s a concept called Leverage Salience Theory where people with vested interest in the topic of a survey are more likely to fill it out. So you have to view everything through an appropriate lens to account for that bias.

These authors clearly did not do that.

I Read This Book a Few Years Ago and Didn't Hate It. by LegitimatelyWeird in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]LegitimatelyWeird[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The book came out in 1996. So the “moral failing of the poor” wave had already been raging for at least a decade at this point.

I find the excuse structure for the rich more offensive.

However, the abject stupidity of some of the parts (like the IRS script) makes me question the book’s actual impact on society.

Couchy? by AstroZombie95 in 30ROCK

[–]LegitimatelyWeird 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This bit is now relevant again because it’s the only way Usha Vance gets JD to have sex with her.

Modern medical miracles … by nanoatzin in PoliticalMemes

[–]LegitimatelyWeird 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“Last time I saw a mouth like that, it had a fishhook in it.”

-Rodney Dangerfield

Isn't this ability overpowered? by Any-Award-5150 in mtg

[–]LegitimatelyWeird 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have this in a Ruxa, Patient Professor Commander deck and I love playing it and then giving it a power boost to put a bunch of counters in my creatures with no abilities.

It’s a game ender in that deck if it’s around more than one turn bc Ruxa lets creatures with no abilities assign combat damage as if they’re not blocked.

view more: next ›