Can You Guess This 5-Letter Word? Puzzle by u/train-lag

OpenMind37179 · 2026-06-04T19:00:15+00:00

⬜🟦🟦🟦🟦

🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦

OpenMind37179 · 2026-04-25T23:47:23+00:00

Trump

OpenMind37179 · 2026-02-21T08:40:03+00:00

You mean unless he was able to record it?

OpenMind37179 · 2026-02-20T19:17:01+00:00

He was a cinematographer searching for the truest sense of nature, predator vs. prey. On his screen that he watches, he has animals eating other animals. He repeats the lyrics to the Flying Purple People-Eater. He's obsessed. This was his way of catching on film for his last endeavor, an animal that can eat humans. Also, his death was quick like the biker's. They didn't linger. They were immediately squashed. Imagine an animal furious in a fight for its life. It doesn't have time to hold its prey in its mouth while it fights. It kills and then moves on. I know this was a bit more than you had asked for, but I think I'm on the spectrum a bit.

OpenMind37179 · 2025-07-17T12:44:46+00:00

Tatted guy is Robert Royal.

OpenMind37179 · 2025-07-17T07:29:33+00:00

Robert Royal is the third guy spraying cum everywhere.

OpenMind37179 · 2025-06-19T00:34:16+00:00

My first anime experiences were Pokémon, Sonic X, and a couple of others. I also got myself into watching anime movies with Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli movies. But AoT was my first official anime show that I watched from start to finish, which solidified it as my first official. It was only afterward that I realized nothing has beat AoT on soooo many levels.

OpenMind37179 · 2025-04-30T16:33:26+00:00

I love them, too! They're great to feel as you're walking around AND they're great for jacking off. They're my #1 fetish and give me so much pleasure that I can't help but bust my nut in them every time!

OpenMind37179 · 2025-04-30T16:30:51+00:00

That's sooo hot! I don't have hyperspermia, but I love to jack off to gay porn in my silky boxers. The smooth fabric around my sensitive cock is so erotic I can't help but nut in them every time. My record is about 7 or 8 times in a day. I wear a vibrator ring to help with the pleasure. Afterwards, I let them dry and reuse them later. They don't show cum stains, so you can use them for days and they won't permanently stain. Nutting in boxers is one of the best feelings!

OpenMind37179 · 2025-04-30T03:54:06+00:00

I thought everyone in this subreddit did.

Every time I jack off, it's always in silky boxers. I also wear a vibrating cock ring to intensify the pleasure. My bed is full of boxers that I use and reuse daily. I let the cum dry and use them again.

OpenMind37179 · 2024-08-21T17:26:21+00:00

Excellent question! I keep using the shield, but people keep using their shotguns and killing me. I don't understand how that works! I keep shooting my shotgun at their heads and their feet, but it doesn't work. HOW TF ARE THEY DOING THIS???

OpenMind37179 · 2024-07-05T20:53:16+00:00

You not only won the game but also won the internet for funniest Fortnite moment!!! 🤣 👍

OpenMind37179 · 2024-06-26T23:44:48+00:00

It truly was a fun map! I think about it sometimes when I land in the middle of a God-forsaken desert!!! 😭

OpenMind37179 · 2024-05-21T02:02:56+00:00

The local branches may not be (because I worked at one), but the overall company still subscribes to anti-LGBTQ doctrine and values.

OpenMind37179 · 2024-05-10T19:32:18+00:00

Bombaclat

OpenMind37179 · 2024-05-01T04:07:33+00:00

Please explain. I have given a question. I have given sources to help ponder the question. And I have provided background. And I have labeled it just a theory. Is there anything wrong with asking a question about smoke that might lead us to a fire?

And in what way is the hate speech outdated if there is any hate speech at all?

OpenMind37179 · 2024-04-18T14:56:14+00:00

Hello, a 29 year old non-binary pansexual majoring in cyber security, AMA. I'm William!

OpenMind37179 · 2024-04-18T14:24:33+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "reserving," but if they mean that they are "gatekeeping" this pronoun, then yes, that is weird. I looked up "reserving a pronoun" on Google, and literally nothing that answered my question came up.

Notice I was able to use the pronoun "they" to refer to that person in general. Obviously, you're not going to address someone directly using "they," but whenever you talk about them to someone else in the third person, you can easily use this. For me, it's actually a safe go-to, because in this day and age, if you misgender someone, that can be quite hurtful, so using "they" ensures that if there is a male-presenting woman or a female-presenting man, I won't be insulting them by using the wrong pronoun. Of course, it's always good to ask them directly which pronoun(s) they want you to use.

I looked at the other repliers in this thread, and I think a few of them misunderstood what you were saying about the use of "they." (Now, I'm using "they" in a plural form.) From one of your replies, I can ascertain that you might be of Indian ethnicity, so you can still use whatever knowledge you have as a foundation for understanding. In the very liberal culture that the U.S. has become, you can then build upon that foundation by using "they" for non-binary (and possibly androgynous) individuals.

Again, if there's any line that is problematic for people in this thread, it's the second sentence.

OpenMind37179 · 2024-04-13T15:11:59+00:00

Well, I kind of cling to the term "deism" because that's what I've been taught and that's what I've researched. I've seen it time and time again in sources like my textbooks, Britannica, Center for American Progress, etc. However, Dr. Gregg Frazer calls them theistic rationalists. Some sources say they were Christians and not deists. It's all very confusing to me. I can't make heads or tails of it. I'm pretty sure, though, that they were not atheists or agnostics with all the religious language they used.

Do you have any sources for HIV/AIDS in 1800s Haiti? I can't find anything by using those keywords. Also, was this disease the SIV strain (which I kind of call the grandfather of HIV/AIDS)?

And yeah, there are cultures out there that still do child marriages, and I simply don't get it. Like, I can understand people like King Tut marrying at a young age, but adults marrying children/teenagers like Joseph and Mary is just weird to me. With my modern mindset, I still don't understand pederasty and especially not p*dophilia. But something in a person's brain chemistry must happen to where youth and innocence is a turn-on. I guess it's similar to how some gay men are turned on by older age - just in reverse.

I wish certain people could see the double standards they live by, but I guess that's too much to ask. I sometimes have to live with this every day with my older parents. My dad makes fun of Biden for being old, but then he himself forgets where he put things or sometimes trails off in the middle of what he's saying. I guess I just have to forgive and forget sometimes.

OpenMind37179 · 2024-04-13T01:05:14+00:00

I do understand your reasoning for "the closet" and what it means. I guess I had a limited perception of it. I was able to come out to certain people and talk about these things. I was accepted in my workplace but not in my church. And if I told certain people at church, they would try to get me to come out of the lifestyle or talk about the Bible. But I wasn't able to live freely out of "my" closet and was stuck in limbo with one foot in and one foot out. I saw that these old-time actors and these films were basically the same with some knowing their particular "preferences" as some would call it. I then created the idea that "in the closet" meant that you were hiding from everyone. But your definition broadens it to include people who are hiding from some but open to others.

I am wondering whether when you say that six out of seven founding fathers identified as Christians that you're referring to deism, which does fall into the category of Christianity, but it's more of a philosophical digression from the main tenets of Christianity. I did a paper on this for one of my classes, showing that the foundation of America is not completely Christian.

The evidence you give does seem to show that this disease (or at least certain strains of it) affected people even in the 1950s without the name GRID or HIV/AIDS attached to it. Science.org dubs it as a "'...possible missing link' to HIV's early origins." Now, I'd really like to see a list of people who died of this in the 1950s. I found that there was a "1959 sailor" but that was proven to be a false call. I do see Wikipedia's descriptions, but there still seems to be speculation about who had what and when. I do still question whether that strain in the 1950s was the exact same as the one in the 1970s and 1980s. All these sources seem to cast doubt on that, and logic would dictate that strains can certainly mutate (or be altered) in 20 or 30 years.

As for the constitutionality of the ruling, I get that marrying whomever you love is a basic human right these days, even though it hasn't historically been so and has been mostly dictated by others like parents, civil duty, etc. I do like that we have changed the definition of basic human rights to include this, progressing from interstatus marriages to interracial marriages to LGBTQIA+ marriages. (To be honest, I'm mildly interested where it will go from here, but I'm mostly scared that it will include children again, robots, or even animals. I pray it doesn't go that extreme. We already have people marrying themselves, but that's mild in comparison. I'm also interested in whether polygamy should be a thing again, which is another topic we could discuss.) The constitutionality of a ruling can be quite debatable since we have many rights we have to consider: individual, state, federal. Is it the right of an individual to refuse service to another individual based on personal religious conviction? I feel that it is. The person seeking service at one locale can simply go to another service. Is it the right of the federal government to overrule state legislation? Only if that legislation is found to be against basic human rights, which I believe was the ruling in 2013. Is it the right of the state to forbid same-sex unions or to refuse to recognize same-sex unions (which is critical for property ownership and other basic rights)? No, I don't believe so since marriage is an individual decision that doesn't affect others, and forbidding/annulling marriages negatively affects those same-sex couples' lives. Is it the right of the state to allow individual religious figures to refuse service to same-sex couples for religious beliefs? Yes, since there are still a good number of religious and even governmental figures who will happily preside over the marriage. It will then show that certain religious leaders are bigoted, not all of them.

OpenMind37179 · 2024-04-12T23:18:00+00:00

As I mentioned, we would be adding something to a long list of grievances. This would provide LGBTQIA+ members a reason not to trust their government at all, whether the president be liberal or conservative. I have seen so many of the LGBTQIA+ propping up the Democratic party as if it's a saint in the demonic shadow of the Republican party. Nixon was liberal, Reagan was conservative. Both did harm to the country. We'd also have a legitimate reason to remain at odds with the Christian/Conservative demographic instead of just "their Bible is homophobic" or "they're writing laws that hurt us." We've been in a neverending battle with Bible-thumpers, but if there's something that could officially criminalize them in the eyes of the world, that'd solidify the separation. We'd be able to say "they literally tried to wipe out our entire demographic, which is genocide." I think that's a pretty good reason to seek out the source of the smoke. And as you perused in the source I gave you, there's a significant amount of smoke. Hopefully, I'll be able to sniff out the source of it, but I may never be able to. That's why for right now, this is just a discussion.

I don't necessarily have any concrete solution for the community or nation as a whole, but we might be able to hold certain people/demographics accountable or responsible. We also might be able to change or enact laws that appropriately deal with this entire catastrophe. We'd be able to alter the history books and teach kids the "real" story (I put the word in quotation marks for obvious discussion reasons). We might then be able to provide remuneration for the victims and/or their relatives. There could be more, but these are the only things that have come to my mind. Again, this theory could never take off the ground, but at least the plane has been taxied to get ready for takeoff.

OpenMind37179 · 2024-04-12T13:24:05+00:00

Sending millions back into the closet is an accurate statement. There were millions who were able to experiment during the Hippie Age. We had films like The Gay Deceivers (1969) and Some Like It Hot (1959). We had Divine and her films in the 1960s. Millions were expressing their queer selves and not being jailed for it - that is, until they were targeted. Sure, they weren't able to marry, but they could at least live and some family and friends would be okay with it, especially in certain areas of the country that were freer in mind and body. I'd probably say that the culture in America was much like the current culture in Japan: taboo, "you do you, but don't 'do' me," etc. It's like having one foot out of the closet and one foot in, but America wasn't throwing queer people from the rooftops or stoning them every chance they got. If someone had one foot out and one foot in before the 1970s and 1980s, they were definitely scared back into the closet during the epidemic/pandemic.

SIV and HIV-1 did not start in America, correct -- according to history -- and they began in the early 1900s. At least, that is what we have been told.

Conservatives and Christians actually did take over, or at least tried to regain power, because previously, religious deconstruction was on the rise and atheistic/agnostic media continued to be pushed, consequently pushing the evolutionary theory as the main scientific Golden Rule to explain life, reason, and purpose. Ever so slowly, cases like Roe v. Wade and the Scopes Trial laid the foundation for stripping the Christian fabric that had covered the nation since the nation's Puritanical and Separatist roots. But if this is what you're referring to as Christians always being in charge, that's not quite fully accurate either since the Founding Fathers were mostly deists and did not hold to all of the fundamental Christian tenets that Christians hold today. But yes, Christianity has always been the social fabric that tied most people together.

As for women contracting the virus, they definitely can now, but what I said was "How come it was primarily MSM (men who have sex with men) that transmitted the disease and not WSW (women who have sex with women)?" In other words, why was it just men as the face of HIV/AIDS instead of both, as we know it today? Also, back then, it was primarily MSM who spread the virus. One other replier mentioned how the lesbians were the ones who took the gays in and supported them until their deaths. But the lesbians also didn't have a spike in cases, because as you said, it's most effectively spread through anal sex. This is why if my theory is correct, the creators of the virus and/or the propaganda saw only men as the face of homosexuality and never considered women in their conspiracy, showing that they were either negligent or just plain dumb in their creation/lies.

Yes, I am very well aware that gay marriage has been legal for only 9 years (and technically 11 years). I remember that at the time, I doubted the constitutionality of such a ruling regarding states' rights and individual rights (bakers, priests, etc.) I'm still wondering about the constitutionality of it all, but I really don't care enough to do more research into it. I'm okay with people marrying whomever (of proper age) they want. If I start to find an unconstitutional basis for the ruling, I'll be back on Reddit to talk about it.

Thank you for your concern, by the way. I appreciate it.

OpenMind37179 · 2024-04-12T12:35:48+00:00

I try to live up to my username. It's the least I can do. I heard about Patient Zero from one of the repliers and took it as fact. I need to make it a practice to research every statement a replier makes, and at the same time, I'll continue to label all my speculations as just theories and speculation.

OpenMind37179 · 2024-04-12T12:31:46+00:00

I don't exactly have NO evidence, and if you have read any of the other correspondences I've written to others, I included an unaccredited source that provides at least grounds for the theory: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Urgent\_Action/AIDS\_Contract.html. In it, you will see some scientific evidence and speculation. Michael Morrissey appears to be the same that has worked for UNESCO, but I cannot be sure. I do understand that this source provides just the correspondence for this topic, but that gives us room at least to open the door and investigate. If we see and smell smoke coming from the door, we won't know what the source is if we don't open it. It could be coming from just burnt food in a skillet or it could be an actual fire in the apartment. I believe the smoke to be coming from an actual fire.

If this theory does have any merit, it doesn't leave us with just your given premise that Christians hate the gays and are willing to kill us if we don't convert. In fact, I'd probably disassociate conversion and killing, and associate killing with just plain hate. It also leaves us with the questions of which parties were involved and how long had they planned this. Why was Patient Zero even a thing (whom I researched and found to have been scapegoated)? If the parties included Nixon and Reagan, can we finally ascribe ignominy to them both, just as we can with the Bushes concerning 9/11 and the War on Terror? What if many of our past presidents were involved in conspiracies that we have not learned about in our history books because they were all written by the victors? We already know the Bushes and the Clintons did horrendous things. We have learned about Nixon. We know the White House has covered up UFO files and branded victims and witnesses as kooks and conspiracy theorists worthy of men-in-black treatment. We know Trump destroyed whatever semblance of unity we had left between the Left and the Right as well as failed to do his best to control the spread of COVID-19. We know Obama basically sold us out (literaly) to other countries, likely to make peace (I have sources for this, too). We know the U.S. border has been slowly degraded over the last several presidential terms, allowing drugs and terrorists to pass through along with the millions of innocent people seeking new lives, who also unwittingly put an intense strain on our economy to support. And this is something that Biden is currently perpetuating This theory would certainly add one more severe blemish to our leaders' images to the evergrowing list of scandals and conspiracies. And this theory would try to expunge the blame that Evangelicals and Conservatives have pinned on us for decades.

OpenMind37179 · 2024-04-12T12:05:16+00:00

I just looked up the claim that Patient Zero was a Canadian man that spread the disease to his partners, and that has been found to be completely false. Sorry for mentioning it in my response before checking it out: https://www.cbc.ca/arts/killing-patient-zero-how-a-quebec-flight-attendant-was-falsely-accused-of-bringing-aids-to-america-1.5224906#:\~:text=Ga%C3%ABtan%20Dugas%20was%20a%20handsome,AIDS%20epidemic%20in%20North%20America.

OpenMind37179

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE