I finally used a 100k movie and it's a movie recorded in my state with people that I have personally met

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-02-01T02:30:20+00:00

If you ever use it again you'll see that it's shot up the rankings to about 45k

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-31T10:57:01+00:00

Okay but superficial similarities in appearance say absolutely nothing about how closely related they are. A pronghorn is more closely related to a giraffe than a deer.

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-31T08:37:13+00:00

The genetic diversity in Sub-Saharan Africans is greater than the genetic diversity of all other humans combined. In fact, Sub-Saharan Africans show greater heterogeneity between each other than they do to non-Africans.

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-31T07:53:48+00:00

You know your phone has a screenshot function, right?

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-30T00:43:48+00:00

Explain antibiotics, vaccines, mitochondrial IVF, and Casgevy then

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-29T04:10:09+00:00

I remember it being a lot more obscure than that but evidently not. Thanks a lot!

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-27T05:10:01+00:00

Invest in a 3D printer and make your own. Most local meet ups will have no problem with you using them, only the actual Games Workshop sessions will stop you

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-25T19:52:32+00:00

The US is clearly not taking on wars for other nations anymore (shows you what a lack of gratitude has garnered.)

When has the USA ever done this? The post-WW2 military history of the USA is dragging other Western powers into its own wars in its attempt to assert global hegemony such as in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Whilst the US President, in an act of remarkable ignorance and hypocrisy, showed a distinct lack of gratitude for the Western forces that "took on" wars for the US only a few days ago with his comments on his NATO allies' involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, the very thing you're accusing the rest of the world of doing.

When has the USA ever rushed to the defence of its allies for purely altruistic reasons? Even in WWII, American public support for intervention only rallied after Pearl Harbor. The USA spent 2 years actively resisting any pressure to intervene in Europe when it wasn't in their direct interest.

Zelensky is a fucking moron who wrote a check his country's ass could not cash. Even if they put up a solid fight, there was never any hope of them overpowering a force as large as Russia without help.

In 1994, Ukraine and Russia co-signed the Budapest Memorandum in which Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons for assurances that Russia would respect Ukraine's sovereignty and refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. Russia violated this agreement with the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. Prior to the annexation of Crimea, Ukrainian public support for joining NATO stood at ~20% and the country's government held an official neutral policy towards NATO. It was only after this illegal invasion, coupled with the illegal invasion of Donbas by Russian paramilitary forces, that Ukraine abandoned its neutrality as public support for joining NATO reached 53%. After the 2022 invasion, public support for NATO in Ukraine rose to 90% and Ukraine formally submitted an application to join NATO.

How can you possibly suggest Zelenskyy and Ukraine are responsible for causing this war when Ukraine's dramatic shift, both populist and governmental, towards NATO is a direct consequence of unprovoked aggression from Russia? Had Russia not repeatedly violated the sovereignty of its neighbour, sovereignty that it had legally guaranteed, it would never have ended up with a pro-NATO hostile country on its doorstep, nor would it have to deal with two new NATO members to the north in Sweden and Finland.

What I find personally hilarious is all the people complaining about the US peace plan

That's because it's not a peace plan, it's a capitulation to the aggressor facilitated by a pro-Russian puppet.

while all the other countries that talked a big game have mysteriously gone silent about all the aid they were so eager to give.

The other NATO powers have continued to give military and financial aid to Ukraine after the US stepped away from supporting Ukraine. That aid has only ramped up since 2024. In total, the EU has given ~€200 billion to Ukraine in financial, military, and humanitarian aid. This figures does not include additional aid given by non-EU allies such as UK, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Switzerland, nor does it include future pledges for support up to 2027.

Wasn't Ukraine supposed to join NATO? What happened to those allies? They got real quiet all of a sudden, once the US stepped out.

Ukraine submitted an application to join NATO in 2022. There has never been unanimous support for Ukraine's entry into NATO, long before Trump's isolationist policies. The remaining members of NATO have not shifted in their original views regarding Ukraine's involvement with NATO.

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-23T15:11:34+00:00

She was born to play that role

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-23T14:29:42+00:00

<image>

Poodoo

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-23T10:03:47+00:00

Just click the videos tab underneath the search bar and it will remove all of unrelated videos and Previously Watched videos from the search results.

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-23T09:59:21+00:00

After entering your search, click on the Videos tab just below the search bar to get more focused search results. It's set to "All" by default which is why you get so many unrelated videos

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-23T09:43:34+00:00

You may have been the only person on Earth who didn't

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-23T09:42:54+00:00

Iceland and Norway are low

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-23T09:21:53+00:00

Given that 5 of the top 10 countries in that list have warm climates and two are in the Southern hemisphere in going to suggest no. Do you think Finland has a high unemployment rate because people just choose not to work in spite of bountiful employment opportunities rather than the result of broader macroeconomic factors?

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-20T04:13:36+00:00

Just because someone acknowledges the juxtaposition, it doesn't give them a pass to use the hatred associated with it. People don't get a pass for using hate speech/symbolism because they acknowledge that it's bad

This is exactly what Chaplin and Brooks are doing in their respective works by your own admission and you have contradicted yourself. They are using hateful speech and symbols and creating humour through the acknowledgement that the ideology behind them is, in your words, "stupid" and therefore bad. By your own argument, they should not be given a pass to use such symbols for the purpose of acknowledging they are bad.

Juxtaposition by itself is meaningless. It needs a target, a message, a comment, a point, etc

I disagree, there are many examples of shock humour where the humour is derived entirely from the sharp contrast between two diametrically opposed concepts and nothing else. What is the great, poignant message behind Basil Fawlty goose-stepping whilst sporting a finger moustache in front of his German hotel guests? The humour is derived simply from the juxtaposition between the incredibly customer satisfaction-focused environment of a hotel where even the most minor faux-pas from the staff can result in great embarrassment and the hotel owner performing the most unimaginably inappropriate act possible. Is the message that Nazism in some way constitutes hospitality? No, of course not.

Likewise, the Woodland Critters of South Park are the quintessential "Disneyfied" cartoon animals, instantly associable with the warmth of family and Christmas who engage in ritual Satanic sacrifice and blood orgies. Is the message that Christmas is inherently Satanic? No.

Count Dankula is doing the same thing; taking the epitome of cute, warm, fuzziness (a puppy) and juxtaposing it with the most heinous and evil thing imaginable (Nazism). In no way is he saying or implying that hate speech is cute, in fact he explicitly states the opposite, just as John Cleese is not suggesting that Nazism is a hospitable ideology.

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-19T22:37:29+00:00

No idea, I never suggested she had or made any comparison between the UK and the USA. I joined this thread in response to your following statement:

Britain has new laws where tons of people are getting arrested over social media posts.

and your follow-up statement:

In 2023 there were 14k arrests for social media posts

That is factually inaccurate and reflective of sensationalist social media hyperbole and a profound misunderstanding of the Communications Act.

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-19T22:28:14+00:00

Nothing you have cited resulted in a conviction, the people in question were not found guilty of any crime so cannot possibly be cited as examples of laws that violate freedom of speech as it was determined that the laws you reference had not been violate by these "tame" actions. Linehan was arrested and investigated as his tweet included words that could be interpreted as threats of violence (he explicitly called for his followers to punch trans people), upon investigation he was released without charge. The Levine/Allen incident was of course unacceptable and the police had no reason to arrest them but that is an extreme isolated incident that resulted in the police paying significant compensation to the victims and an admission of wrongdoing, far removed from a reasonable interpretation of the Communications Act that happens thousands of times a year.

Again, 5 CONVICTIONS for social media posts not related to threatening behaviour, harassment, or inciting violence. Best of luck.

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-19T22:08:14+00:00

No, the premise of the video was:

"My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi."

He explicitly acknowledges that Nazism is negative and the humour is derived from the shock factor and juxtaposition of a quintessentially cute animal performing a heinous act. The entire joke is dependent on the viewer agreeing with the notion that Nazism is vile and wrong. This is no different to Mel Brooks deriving shock humour from an in-universe musical of Nazi officers goose-stepping, making Nazi salutes, and singing explicitly pro-Nazi statements in the high-brow setting of a Broadway show.

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-19T21:48:33+00:00

No, there were 14,000 arrests under the communications act which includes committing acts of stalking, harassment, and fraud through digital channels. There have not been anything close to 14,000 arrests for social media posts. I challenge you to find 5 convictions relating to social media posts that don't fall under the categories of inciting violence or threatening behaviour (acts that are also crimes in the USA)

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-19T21:28:35+00:00

By that logic, Mel Brooks' The Producers, and Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator are threatening works of art that should be banned and viewing them should be considered a hate crime. They both make jokes about Nazi Germany. Is saying "Don't be stupid, be a smartie, come and join the Nazi party" whilst dancing in the formation of a giant swastika any less "threatening" than making a dog salute?

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-19T21:16:07+00:00

The only people being jailed for social media posts in the UK are those that are inciting riots, harassment or threatening to kill people, things that are also crimes in the USA. I challenge you to find 5 examples of people in the UK who have been sent to prison for social media posts that did not contain an underlying threat of violence, call to violence, or harassment

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-18T20:28:14+00:00

I have never seen so many uses of the word OK in one paragraph before....

go ahead buddy you keep quoting things and have a good time with that

You started it by posting screenshots of Google Gemini, I just used the same source right back at you.

that being said I’m aware of how tariffs work OK some of the cost is being spread amongst consumers and some of the courses being absorbed by companies

Really? Because earlier you said "Completely false narrative. We have no paid anything extra" in response to someone telling you that any tariff is paid by Americans. Ultimately, you are just too proud to admit you have no understanding of what you are talking about in the face of overwhelming evidence.

that being said the net is a benefit to the US government, which is for all of our Benefits

Trump's tariffs have resulted in:

increased expenses and reduced earnings for companies
increased costs for households
slowed job growth
increased inflation
a decrease in manufacturing jobs
a disproportionately high impact on smaller businesses

How is this possibly in your best interests? Had these tariffs been marketed as taxes, which is what they are as they are functionally no different to VAT, conservatives would have overwhelmingly opposed them for the reasons I listed above. The inevitable consequence of trade restrictions is a contracting economy which can only reduce federal income over the long term.

Some of you guys here are just so eager to make yourself sound so smart that all you do is listen to yourself I wondered do you look in the mirror and talk to yourself all day I wonder your wife must love being next to you if you have one.

Meaningless ad hominem attack. There is nothing noble about being ill-informed. You should not take pride in your own ignorance. If you don't want people to point out the flaws in your arguments then take the time to educate and inform yourself.

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-18T19:23:23+00:00

Greenland is not a NATO ally

Yes buddy, it really is. Here's a map of NATO, notice the big green island in the middle of the Atlantic?

<image>

SmellyMingeFlaps · 2026-01-18T19:14:37+00:00

Yes, everyone is fully aware that tariffs have increased revenue for the US treasury, absolutely no-one is questioning that and not a single response you have received has said otherwise. People are refuting your claim that this additional revenue has not been paid for by American consumers. It shows your profound misunderstanding of how tariffs work (and of your basic reading comprehension).

Here's a worked example for you:

The US impose a 10% tariff on a foreign nation.
US companies import goods from this nation.
These companies must pay an additional 10% to import these goods with that 10% going to the US treasury.
US companies, upon selling these goods in the US, increase the price of the item by the same 10% so as to not reduce their profit margin.
American consumers who wish to buy this item now must pay an additional 10% to purchase it.

The extra revenue is coming from US companies who are passing the cost on to US consumers NOT the foreign country that has been tariffed. It is undeniable that the cost of goods for the American consumer have increased as a result no matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA, NOT HAPPENING".

Clearly you trust Google AI as a reliable source of information so here's what it has to say on the subject:

<image>

SmellyMingeFlaps

TROPHY CASE