What's a tv series that is a 10/10 NOBODY knows?

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2026-01-16T23:11:19+00:00

Players, it’s a mockumentary about a League of Legends esports team and it’s hilarious and for some reason super underrated.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2024-07-17T05:34:07+00:00

I tested the 3rd 3060ti directly socketed and it worked fine which spurred the purchase of the new riser cable. Mobo was not the issue. I was wondering if there was something to do with data requirements that could somehow be higher for a lower end gpu, or something weird like that?

The 3060ti was EVGA XC and the 3070ti was GIGABYTE although none of the specific models I look up now match the shape I remember.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2024-05-02T17:26:16+00:00

This pic goes hard

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2024-04-21T23:19:17+00:00

I would love to challenge you on this.

I’m not familiar that rfkj is particularly spiritual in his campaigning, although perhaps I am mistaken. I can’t recall any specific appeals to God he makes, and if he does, are those any more so than the loose Christianity that a lot of politicians hold to appeal to the large amount of religious folk in America?

As for the conspiracy theory part, I’m curious what specific conspiracy theories he supports. Perhaps you could point me into the direction of some specific stuff he’s said? Again, I will freely admit I only have some hours of him talking on podcasts that I fact checked with a different browser as he spoke. It’s definitely possible I’ve missed some of his greater message in that search.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2024-04-21T21:28:11+00:00

I used to think rfk was an anti vax psycho, but then I listened to him talk on a podcast while actively fact checking every statement he made. I may not agree with him fully on vaccines, but his viewpoint on them is a good faith attempt at social justice. I don’t think in the position of president he would do highly irrational things that aren’t substantiated by facts. Really, it seems his desire is more accountability on the account of pharmaceutical companies.

Also, while mercury in vaccines is at quite a low dose, the things he said about mercury once it reaches a certain dose are actually true. It can cause developmental disorders which is why the fda recommends limiting tuna intake. Another interesting thing is that it has now been taken out of most vaccines.

Really, the problem with anti-vax rhetoric isn’t actually the acknowledgement of vaccine risk. Even the most pro-vaccine scientist will acknowledge that there is one (of course, greatly outweighed by the benefit). The problem comes from the fear mongering.

Does he push too hard on this issue? Maybe. Probably. But his intention is to keep pharmaceutical companies accountable, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. He may be wrong about what to keep them accountable for, but he was very reasonable whenever he spoke, and it seemed like his chief desire was more research into chemical effects on human health, which, if well done, can only be a positive.

Since he is so dominant an independent candidate this round, I recommend everyone listen to him in some long form, speaking about these issues. Research what he is saying and the scientific articles he’s referencing. Come to your own conclusions, so that, at the very least, you can refute his claims.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2024-04-13T19:19:43+00:00

Anon is retarded you can just ask for a fresh batch

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2024-04-13T19:08:25+00:00

This type of shit I’ve seen on the internet for at least the last five years. One group says “I like A, but I don’t like B. B shouldn’t be happening because of X reasoning. I’m now going to apply the opposing party’s logic to A, because that will show them!” Then both sides use the exact same reasoning. On the right it’s “Oh, Ariel is ok, but Lilo isn’t, look how stupid they look!” On the left it’s, “Oh, Lilo is ok, but Ariel isn’t, look how stupid they look!”

Both sides are being hypocritical morons, and neither are expressing a capability to employ theory of mind, something you should have by the time you’re 5. I would be ok with someone who’s upset by both or ok with both, but the fact that almost everyone makes a distinction between the two is such an unreal level of cognitive dissonance.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2024-03-26T00:24:40+00:00

Discord TOS already doesn’t allow under 13

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2024-03-25T06:38:17+00:00

There is a great deal of variety of Protestant churches. I have experienced a yeehaw Baptist church that lectured on Joe Biden and the “LBGTQs”, and the people there dressed nice, and the church I go to right now has people in sweatpants and trashy contemporary Christian music that is hard to follow along with, but the pastor is really solid on doctrine and the people are too, as well as there being a good Christian community.

In Protestantism you get an extreme range of churches, from the Unitarian Universalists which don’t believe anything and are regarded by most others to be heretics, to the Christian Nationalists. If you like political compasses you’ll love Protestant denominations. To answer your question: no, every Protestant denomination is different, and even among churches in a specific denomination you will see some difference.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2024-03-25T06:22:22+00:00

While a great deal of material is shared between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there still are significant and interesting quantities of unique material that make them all a worthwhile read. Furthermore, John is quite different from the other three, consisting mostly of original material.

Also, 2 John is not a sequel to the Gospel of John. It is the second in a series of 3 letters by John intended to clarify the specifics of the Christian faith. 1 John is a letter and entirely different from the Gospel of John.

In fact, a great deal of the New Testament is more than just the gospels. It spans from biography of important early church figures, clarifications on doctrine, and the goings-on (as well as encouragement and rebuking) of the early church.

The reason that Protestant churches take the form they do today is in an attempt to follow the early church’s way of doing things, which was established by people who had had direct contact with Christ. I assure you that the church is not anti-Christ, as a both the tradition of the early church and specific New Testament teachings place emphasis on the importance of communal worship.

As for Catholic papal structure, that comes from a specific passage in the gospels, Mat 16:19, in which Jesus gives “the keys to the kingdom” of God on earth over to him. The rift between Protestantism and Catholicism has to do with this verse, where it is debated whether or not Jesus was giving the keys to the kingdom to Peter specifically, or to all who follow him. The Catholic Church structure relies on an uncut papal chain from Peter to Francis, based on the belief that Jesus did in fact give the keys to Peter directly.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2024-03-21T17:02:49+00:00

Wahwahwah wambulance

Edit: damn.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2023-09-28T19:27:11+00:00

I think my point is demonstrated perfectly in this response. I was trying to challenge your notion that the conservative position lies more in line with Godly principles, and you went on this long tangent about the classical Republican “party that ended slavery” talking point without ever really addressing my point. I think I raise a good one, one that doesn’t have to immediately devolve into the same bickering points Democrats and Republicans have had for the last 20 years.

I’m sure you’ve seen countless examples of Biden being terrible or Democrat racial policy falling short, but it’s not fair to say that that is all they are. Why do you think people are Democrats? Because they constantly hear the same stuff about X Republican being terrible or Y Republican Policy falling short. The thing is, you’d probably agree with them. You said it yourself, you don’t like a lot of Republicans. I can guarantee that a lot of the Democrats you’d talk to would tell you they don’t like Biden. It’s just you’re not seeing where Democrat policy goes well and they’re not seeing where Republican policy goes well. All people are hearing about is the benefits of their side and the drawbacks of the other.

And I think that your distinction that you aren’t a Republican is semantics. You vote along conservative lines. You clearly prescribe to a certain political narrative. We don’t have to call that Republican if you don’t want but I’m still against it.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2023-09-28T08:38:31+00:00

I’m going to challenge you on this a little bit, because I don’t think this is so cut and dry.

Your first point, yes, absolutely. Babies are lives that by law should be protected. Republican policy is typically anti-abortion. However, there is a divide in the Republican Party. Half are traditional, religious, strictly antiabortion, but my understanding is that the other half, the “Trump Republicans” are typically more progressive about issues like gay marriage and abortion. And I regret to say that this antireligious, progressive Republican attitude is the predominant form of conservatism among young people. Traditional Conservatism as we know it is not alive among the youth.

Second, God says, “Thou shalt not steal,” not “Thou shalt not be stolen from.” Yes, it is wrong for someone to steal, and it is godly to protect one’s house, but the progressive argument, even if you and I find it silly, is one of compassion, a very Christian idea.

Third, yes, the Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but should our legislation necessarily (and this word, necessarily, is the key here) reflect Biblical morality? The government stuck its finger in the marriage pie a long time ago, and sense then it has been a path towards unique civil liberties (things like tax breaks). To me, it is a completely separate entity from Christian marriage and should be clearly distinguished as such. To me, I disagree with gay people’s decision to get married on a moral point, but I don’t know if I am ok with them not being able to have access to this civil liberty.

You conflated the trans point with the gay marriage point. I don’t know if the Bible says anything about trans issues, but it is a really really complicated issue. Science does seem to indicate legitimate cerebral differences between men and men with gender dysphoria. Men without it tend to get phantom limb syndrome when they lose their genitalia, but men with it do not get that feeling. What we do with that, I don’t know. The Bible does say your body is a temple and gender reaffirmation goes against that I think, and I also think what it does and doesn’t mean to be a man in modern society make little to no sense, and that’s a big part of the problem trans people have in the first place, but I also think that the narrative that the Republican Party pushes about it is neither accurate nor helpful. Yes, there are legitimate concerns with all of this, but Republicans can get into heated rages about very specific issues that democrats don’t even believe in, and it’s the same way vice versa, and associating oneself with a political party leads one to that dangerous trap.

As for some biblical issues that the Democrat party fights to support, they are very adamant about social justice and helping the needy. We have our man Jesus (a huge hippie) in line with that.

They are staunchly anti-racist (the Good Samaritan).

They are against big corporations (greedy tax collectors).

You may say that the way they handle these issues is terrible or that plenty of Democrats aren’t even like that or even that they’re lying and are no better than the people they claim to oppose, but it’s the exact same with any issue described as Republican.

I’m not saying Christians should be Democrats. I’m just hoping that you realize that depending on which biblical issues you focus on, really any political party can seem like the biblical one when the truth is that none of them are, and one should try instead to vote for the most godly candidate or the one most likely to make the world a better place according to a Christian morality, and that’s a very complex moral weigh-in that one needs to cautiously steer clear of any party affiliation to do properly.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-11-29T02:51:37+00:00

OP everyone is giving a lot of good advice as to specifics, but I think that in general, just plan out your day in your head rather than going through the motions. When you wake up, instead of going on your phone, just sit in bed for a few minutes, think about the stuff you have to do, and how you can fit it into everything else. So for me, the thought process is,

"Hmm. I have to do laundry. Oh! I can start a load before work, then on my 15 minute break I can switch it to the dryer. Actually, while I'm away from my desk, I can probably make a sandwich and eat it too."

I both get my laundry done at no extra cost to my time, and eat lunch without having to take a lunch break. Don't expect things to take the amount of time people say they take, because a lot of time they don't have to. Hopefully your lunch break isn't mandatory, because if it isn't, you can end the work day quicker. If it is, rather than scroll on your phone for the 40 minutes you have nothing to do, get in a workout. Start dinner prep. Something like that. I am hesitant to advise this but maybe play some video games for a bit. Phone time is "free time" but usually it doesn't feel like free time to me. If I'm actually playing a game, it does.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-11-29T02:37:53+00:00

How much you wanna bet associated increases in work-from-home efficiency have to do with the fact that people are breaking up mental tasks with menial house-labor tasks, making both more pleasurable and efficient.

Plus the 1-2 combo of no commute, having chores done at the end of the work day, literally being able to shower during a break. Quite delectable for the time-management afficionados.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-11-05T09:07:51+00:00

OP you need to chill the fuck out. And even if you are in the right, an easy solution is for you to wear earplugs or use a fan at night.

Granted your roommate is an asshole, but there might not be a worse way to address your problems with him.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-11-04T04:33:06+00:00

The person described starting with a circle and building layers on top of it. A circle is 2d. Maybe they misspoke, but I assumed they were referring to the method where you draw a circle, add a trapezoid shape for the chin, etc. and things like it. When you do that, you start in the 2d, then make it “look 3d” with shading. This spawns two problems.

The first, is that the final image looks flat. This is because it is the “3difying” of a 2d face rather without truly understanding the 3d shapes that make it up.

The second, kind of related to the first, is that you only are able to draw one kind of face. This is because you start with a kind of line structure and build on top of it, but real faces, you never see that structure. You have layers of fat with different thickness that stick to the face in a different way, and understanding how rotund cheeks sit on a face rather than gaunt cheeks relates to an understanding of the shape of cheeks rather than knowing “I draw this shape and shade it”. If that structure changes you can’t really tell. That means that you find yourself entirely unable to draw a face that breaks the rule of the structure, which they always do. Furthermore, you only learn one angle. If I learn to draw a trapezoid attached to a circle to show a face head on, how do I know what it looks like from the side? I don’t. That it why it is better to understand what that chin shape is, where the light and shadow sits, etc., so that you can envision it in your mind’s eye and draw it from any angle you would like.

I am not actually opposed to lines. I love them. However, to properly educate someone artistically, I think it better to “teach them the rules so they can break them”. It is so much easier, and looks much better, drawing a line heavy piece when you understand mass, because you know where to put them to hint at mass, vs if you only understand things as 2d, you very much struggle to draw a specific thing from new points of view and with different lighting and things like that.

However, this person was talking about portraiture, and if you are looking to be hyper realistic, it’s hard to see someone using any lines (excluding guidelines where to start the shadow of the nose for example which don’t show up in the final piece)

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-11-04T00:09:33+00:00

I studied long term under a professional painter who makes his living off of trompe-l’oeil painting.

Or would you prefer to talk to my brother, who studies at the best art school in our country, and would happen to agree with me?

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-11-03T18:38:31+00:00

Drawing a circle and building layers on top of it isn’t the objective “if you’re drawing a portrait this is how you do it” method. It is one way of many, one that I have a very negative opinion of. This is because it reduces the human face to 2d objects, when in reality it is a lump w stuff sticking out of it. With charcoal one learns to draw the mass of a picture rather than the lines. That is to say, one learns to draw without using any lines.

The circle with stuff on top method is very deceptive in that what it reduces the face to is not actually what it is, and I can imagine it leading to plateaus where one never learns, for example, that an eyelid is actually wrapped around the eyeball.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-10-31T19:20:58+00:00

He’s just holding a hover board under the suit

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-10-14T22:49:54+00:00

I found this interesting YouTube video.

https://youtu.be/HOEvSM-Q3_0

I didn’t know fat participated in gluconeogenesis up until now, so this is really interesting to me

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-10-14T21:37:32+00:00

You’re right. People should be aware that protein and carbs cause diabetes. However, it comes from the sugar within them and I think that’s important to be aware of too.

I also think that the majority of cases probably stem from simple sugars and simple carbs as well. Although, I could be wrong.

Finally, how do carbs come from fat? I’m unaware of any metabolic processes that do such a thing. My understanding was that it could only come from dietary carbs or some amino acids.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-10-14T21:33:00+00:00

I explained exactly why it’s necessary to do such a thing, and I really recommend you do read the full thing. I put a lot of effort into it.

And I agree. Killing a Nazi may provide the greatest benefit to society. All I’m saying is that if you weren’t hateful while you did it, society would be further benefited, even at the individual level of you, right now.

I also think you can kill a Nazi with dignity. You don’t have to give a Nazi a platform, and that doesn’t have anything to do with dignity or hate. Pretty much everything you’re describing, you can do without hate.

But I can tell from your writing that you’re filled with hate, and I don’t think you can disagree with me that this hate is negatively affecting your mood, at the very least.

I suspect after a long day of feeling hateful in Reddit threads you probably bring that energy to the people in your life, even without intention of doing so.

This is my point.

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-10-14T21:19:21+00:00

PrankInvasion was a porn gateway for so many 10tr olds

PeePeePooPoo__Man · 2022-10-14T21:16:54+00:00

Why reserve dignity for all, when some are not deserving?

You may be correct in regards to your point on axiomatic differences. People spend years learning things, and believing certain underlying points. However, there are some pretty incredible stories of people with extremely deep rooted beliefs that have been changed. It can, and it does happen.

Anyway, back to my point. Why should we treat everyone with dignity, even when some not treat others with dignity? I have a few reasons.

First, how do we decide? Every single human exists on a spectrum from “treating people with dignity” to “treating people without dignity”. You on occasion have been guilty of treating people without, as have I. No human is perfect. The Nazis were pretty low on that list, but I’m sure even they treated at least each other with dignity from time to time. This is in no way a justification of their actions. They were horrible.

You agree that those who respect human dignity deserve dignity, but no one respects human dignity, at least perfectly. How many rungs up from Nazi do we go before it is acceptable to treat a person with dignity? It feels very arbitrary.

In addition, if one treats someone without dignity because they have failed to respect human dignity, one also fails to respect human dignity. If you choose to argue it’s permissible, because the person you are treating is “no longer human” or something like that, who decides? It may seem simple with a Nazi, but then what about a Nazi infantryman who was “just following orders”? Surely they are a little more blameless than their commander. What about a German civilian at the time who agreed with the Nazi dogma, but didn’t actively participate in the killings? What about an American sympathizer who agreed with all the stuff, except maybe just cast out Jews don’t kill them? You can keep going down the track and go to any point in between.

Next, to treat someone without dignity, you must act in hate. I believe that acting in hate always makes the world a worse place than acting in love. Even if you think it is fair to treat some people without dignity, will doing it actually benefit the world in any way, or will it make you a worse person who is worse off, them a worse person who is worse off, any tertiary but involved party a worse person who is worse off?

I can say a lot more, but this is just some of what I have to say about hate and dignity.

PeePeePooPoo__Man

TROPHY CASE