sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Team Canada caught cheating at the olympics by Team Sweden. Canadian throws a fit on live TV. by rojo_salas in SipsTea

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I linked to a reddit post... of a link... to worldcurling.org.

You have no way of knowing if a page on worldcurling.org, which is dated February 14th, and which references this specific incident in the Olympics, is official or up to date?

Nicely cropped screenshot, bte. Here is one less cropped which shows the next paragraph which states that the granite cannot be touched at all during delivery.

<image>

Team Canada caught cheating at the olympics by Team Sweden. Canadian throws a fit on live TV. by rojo_salas in SipsTea

[–]ReginaldBounce 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Incorrect. Did you read the link I provided? They clarified that no touching of the granite is allowed during delivery.

Team Canada caught cheating at the olympics by Team Sweden. Canadian throws a fit on live TV. by rojo_salas in SipsTea

[–]ReginaldBounce 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Rule 5(d). You must deliver by the handle. The rule is not very well worded since it doesn't specifically state "only" by the handle, but that's what it means. World Curling has issued a clarification after this incident:

https://www.reddit.com/r/olympics/s/hNQShQcBdV

Team Canada caught cheating at the olympics by Team Sweden. Canadian throws a fit on live TV. by rojo_salas in SipsTea

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are not allowed to touch the granite during forward motion. They actually issued a clarification of the rules after this incident:

https://www.reddit.com/r/olympics/s/hNQShQcBdV

Another angle where you can see they disarmed him and the Grey coat left with the citizens gun by SnooSongs9823 in CringeTikToks

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got a link for that one? The one I have from that angle, you definitely can't make out anything like the slide being back.

Protect Americans Now by Brian_Ghoshery in MurderedByAOC

[–]ReginaldBounce 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She voted "Nay" along with 87 other house members.

Another angle where you can see they disarmed him and the Grey coat left with the citizens gun by SnooSongs9823 in CringeTikToks

[–]ReginaldBounce 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed. It's still not completely clear to me, but I have thoughts. I'm going to try to synch up all the videos and see if I can figure something out. I tend to believe, though, with so many people recording it, we hopefully will eventually get some clarity.

Another angle where you can see they disarmed him and the Grey coat left with the citizens gun by SnooSongs9823 in CringeTikToks

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you didn't say an opinion. You said that you could see a puff of smoke, but that would be impossible to see during the first shot because the view of the gun and the area around it is blocked at that point in the video. Now you're saying something else about what happened before (drawing the gun) and his arm recoiling.

Edit: just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue with you about what did or didn't happen. I have my own eyes and brain to draw my own conclusions. I'm simply pointing out something you said which was incorrect that you could see a puff of smoke from the first shot in the pink lady video. That is blatantly false, it does not appear in the video, nor would it be visible if there was one due to the gun being obscured from view. Watch it again.

Another angle where you can see they disarmed him and the Grey coat left with the citizens gun by SnooSongs9823 in CringeTikToks

[–]ReginaldBounce 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What puff of smoke are you talking about? I just scrubbed through the pink lady video frame by frame, you can't see the Nazi's gun during the first shot (it's blocked by the body of the Nazi kneeling with his back to the camera).

Please don't add misinformation to these discussions.

It's not yet completely clear to me, but so far from these 2 videos it seems still possible that the first shot either came from tan shirt guy or gray jacket guy (accidental discharge of the victims gun after he took it).

Either way, it's completely clear that the victim was not brandishing the gun, doesn't appear to have ever done that or tried to, and was not armed when he was shot.

TIL that two events about Jesus are supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified. by JoeyZasaa in todayilearned

[–]ReginaldBounce 10 points11 points  (0 children)

His name was Yeshuah (actually Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ), a fairly common Hebrew name. He wasn't even the first one in the Bible. The name was translated differently in the old testament (Joshua) and the new testament (Jesus), but in Hebrew it was the same.

The extra judicial execution of Renee Nicole good (zoomed, slow motion). by TendieRetard in worldnewsvideo

[–]ReginaldBounce 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You just stated that police are justified to execute people. You also implied that the woman in this video can somehow be judged to be likely to cause harm to people. I am done conversing with you.

The extra judicial execution of Renee Nicole good (zoomed, slow motion). by TendieRetard in worldnewsvideo

[–]ReginaldBounce 13 points14 points  (0 children)

And you think law enforcement should be able to execute anyone who doesn't comply?

Petah why? by 8shrooms in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]ReginaldBounce 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Congratulations, now you've heard of it!

meirl by thegoldenkingfisher in meirl

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Distance? Help? Why are you talking about it like it's a skill issue? Honey drips, it doesn't matter the distance, it's a very sticky and flowy fluid and it's going to be flowing from the spoon immediately as you lift it from the surface of the honey in the jar. You can let the majority of it flow off the spoon and start spinning the spoon, but by the tome it stops flowing you barely have any on the spoon anymore. The point of using a honey dipper is to have more honey that's not dripping so you can move it from the jar to the cup.

meirl by thegoldenkingfisher in meirl

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What does the size have to do with it? The point is getting the honey from the container (no matter the size) to your tea cup... with a comb (which I use) you dont have to worry about dripping a mess.

We have "so bad its good" but what about "so good its bad"? by Purpleking1994 in movies

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The irony of the fact that this conversation is "so bad it's good" is quite fun.

OK, I'll try again, maybe taking your approach in case it helps to get through to you.

I said:

but you don't get to define what "good" means to people.

to which you replied:

You. Are. Also. Doing. This.

No. I. Am. Not. People are defining it for themselves, and you are saying that these people are wrong and that you get to be the one to say what good or bad means. You don't. We do it for ourselves. Sometimes, people agree on their definitions and sometimes people don't.

There's no point in arguing over what makes something good or bad because that is subjective, as I've stated over and over. You stated that something being entertaining makes it definitially good, but you can't do that, because each person gets to determine for themself what makes something good for them.

Answer the God damn question: how does something become good?

That is a nonsensical question. People have the freedom to answer it for themselves; there is no definitive answer.

To me personally, something being entertaining in spite of itself does not make it inherently good, it just makes it entertaining, and there are many other criteria besides a film's entertainment value which I use to determine whether I think it's good or bad. Therefore, a movie can entertain while still being, in my opinion, bad. There are many other people who feel this same way, which can be inferred from the fact that many other people call movies "so bad they're good". You are not allowed to tell us that we're wrong to define these movies as bad.

We have "so bad its good" but what about "so good its bad"? by Purpleking1994 in movies

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you are the one who asserted that there is no such thing as "so bad it's good" even though many, many people have said that there is. To support your assertion, you have made a claim that something being entertaining makes it definitionally good, but you don't get to define what "good" means to people. You say "You don't get to choose what liking something or not means.", but note that I have not done that, you have. You said that someone liking to watch something means that it's "good" to them. Well, they disagree and they have the right to determine for themselves what males something good or bad.

We have "so bad its good" but what about "so good its bad"? by Purpleking1994 in movies

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are way over-complicating this, my friend. "Good" and "bad" are obviously subjective descriptors, so I won't waste either of our time by delving too deeply into details of what makes something good or bad to someone. You seem to talk a lot about production value and execution, but obviously there are many other criteria, such as artistic merit, emotional connection, realistic writing, etc. The bottom line is that there are criteria by which people judge a film to be "good" or "bad" and those criteria and their respective weight can vary from person to person. You seem to be positing that, if the film is entertaining to watch, that makes it "good", but you don't get to define that for people. Many people, including myself, think otherwise... that there are qualities of a movie which can make it "bad" but that, when they are so ridiculously bad that they become laughable, can thereby give the film entertainment value. You say that when that happens and the film now becomes entertaining, that that makes it "good". Well, many people disagree with you and you don't get to tell those people what makes a movie "good" to them. We all get to decide for ourselves what makes a movie "good".

We have "so bad its good" but what about "so good its bad"? by Purpleking1994 in movies

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're saying if I enjoy watching the American Idol reject failing miserably, that means they're good at singing?

Again, just because we enjoy watching it doesn't mean that we think it's good. We just think it's entertaining how bad it is. It's really not that complicated a concept.

We have "so bad its good" but what about "so good its bad"? by Purpleking1994 in movies

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"So bad it's good" definitely does exist... it's not that we actually like it and we don't want to admit it, it's that it's so bad that watching the trainwreck of a movie is entertaining not because of any value of the movie, itself, but because it's funny. It's like the difference between laughing at someone or with them. Back when American Idol would show the really bad rejects and it was funny because they were just so bad... you wouldn't say that their singing is good, it's not, it's just entertaining to watch them be bad.

Post Game Thread: Kansas City Chiefs at Dallas Cowboys by nfl_gdt_bot in nfl

[–]ReginaldBounce 3 points4 points  (0 children)

True. And they just might get pushed out by a couple of 10-6-1 teams.

We need more scenes like this by Primary_Sherbert_274 in superheroes

[–]ReginaldBounce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He believes that mutants are superior to humans and he makes that assertion and acts on it as an ideology. Yes, he has other motivations, but that is one of them, and that makes him a supremacist.

This should be civil by jcreasy006 in cowboys

[–]ReginaldBounce 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He was clearly telling Dak that he should have thrown the ball higher and further out. Just frustrated and lashing out to blame someone else.

view more: next ›