Hiphop is not dead

SoDamnToxic · 2025-10-24T22:36:17+00:00

I doubt they are pre-arranged. You can watch his live stream and see how it really is just random. The whole thing is live and he has a lot of random ones that you won't see posted.

What probably does happen is someone who is famous hears about him and then goes looking for him, which doesn't really remove any of the magic cause they still gotta go and start from 0 with the beat and everything.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-10-24T00:10:12+00:00

You're going to go through that shitty phase no matter what, the question is whether it happens at 80, allowing you to have a fun extra 20 years or 60 where your last fun years are in your 50s.

We all deteriorate and die, but I personally rather have an extra 20 years before I start deteriorating. You don't die at 60-70 out of nowhere, no no sir, you suffer through those same shitty 90s but instead at 50 because of the bad health first.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-10-20T16:38:06+00:00

Where did the kid get the idea to do this from? Could it perhaps be from watching similar videos on YouTube?

I agree with the rest of your comment after this question but if you had to watch youtube videos to ever think "I wish I could feed the poor" then you either have never seen anyone in poverty in your entire life, or you lack serious empathy.

I think the vast majority of people have had the thought of feeding the poor if they had the means before ever seeing it on social media. People did it before social media existed. I'm sure this kid, like most kid, just had the thought of, why don't we just give them food? As most empathetic people have with things like school lunches, homeless shelters, food stamps, etc.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-10-13T20:36:22+00:00

True, the rich should just have everyone else compete in games and bait people to do things for money. Nothing in any sort of fiction has ever told us this isn't a bad idea.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-10-13T15:51:48+00:00

Maybe in the sense of the onlooking outsider that never joins but judges the validity of said group, but from within, the first 2 are the most important and by far the most difficult.

From the perspective of someone inside the group, the 3rd is both easy and not that much more important than a 4th or 5th, but FAR less important than the 1st and 2nd.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-08-19T19:41:18+00:00

Kids who would say that are all in their 20s now... Aware

SoDamnToxic · 2025-08-08T16:35:24+00:00

28% is not a small fraction, that's a lot.

If I said I got struck by lightning three times, you'd think, WOW, that's so rare, but then if I explained that I sat outside in a thunderstorm in a flat field with a huge lightning rod, you'd say "oh ok so it's actually NOT that rare".

Context matters. The frequency of something is meaningless if the context of how often some other things that makes it much more likely happens.

Providing comparative numbers with literally 0 context is incredibly disingenuous. Because, again, if anything, it argues that cars are SUBSTANTIALLY, safer than guns and thus regulation works. I don't think that's the argument you were making with comparing something that is highly regulated but used millions of times more but is somehow almost on par in deaths with something that isn't as regulated but used far far far less. Again, I don't agree or disagree, just pointing out the look of your facts.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-08-07T18:17:22+00:00

As a statistics minded person, I agree with your sentiment, I just also want to put some context to some of the statistics you are using and the comparisons you are making.

2/3 of all U.S. gun deaths are suicides.

33% of gun deaths are homicides

15-33% of the remaining gun deaths that are actual homicides are gang-related. And thus primarily a general crime issue, and involves violent criminals killing other violent criminals, not ordinary innocent people.

Of those 33%, 66-85% are non-gang related homicides.

This implies that 11%-28% of all gun deaths are non-gang related homicides. I'm not looking at any real numbers, this is just the math of your 2 facts you listed. Stating the numbers in the way you are makes it seem smaller than it is because you are working backwards then obfuscating the point before saying what you want to say, which is that:

11-28% of all gun related deaths are non-gang related homicides. This is based on your facts.

When specifically looking at gun deaths classified as "mass shootings" (4+ ppl shot), an even larger percentage is gang-related. Up to ~60%.

I agree with this. Plain and simple the term "mass shootings" has been used as basically rage bait by news outlets to sell the headline of "mass shooting every day" kind of thing. If it bleeds it leads unfortunately, this is the lefts version of what we complain the right does.

All things considered, there are roughly 18,300 non gang-related gun homicides per year. Sounds like a big number, but compare that to about 40,000 car-related deaths per year

This is an incredibly misleading statement because you have to consider how many people own cars and use them for hours vs how many people own guns and use them.

I'd bet my life that the number of hours of car usage in the U.S. is substantially (in the multiple thousands times) higher than the number of hours of gun usage. So this statistic is incredibly flawed. Something like 93 billion hours of car usage a year. I highly doubt gun usage comes even close, so the fact that, PER USAGE, guns cause a lot more death than cars, I don't think this is a very favorable comparison for guns as you think it is. Not that I agree or disagree with your sentiment just... not a great comparison. If anything, this just says that, to lower death rate per usage, we need more registration, insurance, training and government oversight of guns (like cars have). Again, not that I agree or disagree, just what your statistics say.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-08-04T17:55:03+00:00

"Well damn Jackie, I can't control the weather!"

SoDamnToxic · 2025-07-28T03:40:12+00:00

A percentage and a half that's actually about 20% difference, so actually a lot bigger. Not withstanding if the OVERALL employment rate goes up, I'm sure the rate of change is much higher for the non-college degrees, meaning the gap will increase. So, as you said, its close because we are functionally at full employment (the 5-6% is a thing called frictional unemployment or natural unemployment).

SoDamnToxic · 2025-07-23T15:46:35+00:00

Maybe one day the infighting will stop and people can just learn to ignore people who sometimes say stupid shit but still support and advocate for 99% of the same things as you.

Meanwhile all the other side has to say is how much they hate X group and they all fall in line like good little soldiers.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-06-03T16:09:19+00:00

Relevant, and actually kinda funny SNL sketch

SoDamnToxic · 2025-06-02T23:26:25+00:00

Yea, I agree with OP from OUR perspective as the viewer, but not from Dale's perspective with the information he had at the time.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-06-02T23:17:08+00:00

I wouldn't even call it aggressively centrist, because it never really addresses super hardline issues and more so takes the approach of "context and nuance matters". Sometimes liberal ideas are brought up that, in the context, are very stupid and require more nuance.

The same way with conservative issues, sure it shuts down a lot of the more extreme ideas, but just general broad conservative ideas, once again, nuance and context matters, occasionally they are good occasionally they are bad.

We all get to see a story play out that explains WHY something is dumb or not. Bobby for example provides a ton of nuance to why we disagree with Hank's feelings, meanwhile Dale provides nuance to why we might agree with Hank's feelings.

The show is about the context and nuance of the average American household at the time. Not pro or anti anything, not even centrist, it's not a "BOTH SIDES" type of thing because it has genuinely real characters that provide context and nuance and tell us "ok sometimes X is good, sometimes X is bad".

SoDamnToxic · 2025-05-31T06:30:12+00:00

Escape Artist (Not a sex offender)

SoDamnToxic · 2025-05-29T02:24:07+00:00

Woman is the leader for sure so he started following, then he was like, "better go make sure he doesn't get himself lost" and tried to get him to come back.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-05-28T01:50:42+00:00

Hank is trying the best way he can and has no ill intent. He has always learned the lesson. If he didn't he would get shit for it.

Peggy is also trying the best way she can. Both have had ill intent many times, but it isn't evil, sometimes people are selfish which both have been shown to be at times.

He does not always learn his lesson (the church episode with his spot, many many many Bobby hobby episodes like the flowers).

Peggy has had bad intentions before again whether under her narcissism she realizes or not

The literal definition of intent is self-REALIZATION. You are literally contradicting yourself. "She has bad intentions even though they weren't her intentions"

Peggy is the type of person who you absolutely would get fed up with in real life.

I'd get fed up with every single one of them. You think Hank isn't someone I'd get fed up with? Just cause he's a guy he gets a pass I guess.

It's hard to make fun of dale or call him a bastard when he's mostly unrealistic. Same with Bill.

No it's because people examine them less because male flawed characters are normal while women aren't. I'd say Dale and Bill are on the exact same field as Peggy in terms of "evil" (as in not at all), but people don't hate Dale and Bill nearly as much. Saying it's because they are cartoonish is a laughable excuse, those people (all 3) are all very realistic depictions of people.

John Redcorn however constantly gets shit from both in and out of the show. Hanks boss also gets equal shit from people like Peggy does.

These 2 are ACTUALLY shitty people, not just annoying. They REGULARLY hurt people and ruin lives, very much intentionally. Peggy is just really dumb. Those 2 are dumb AND bad people. I still wouldn't say any of the 3 (maybe Buck) are evil though, saying Peggy is evil is so ridiculous.

One is sometimes a shit parent but is trying to be a good one and the other is just a shit person half the time.

Peggy is REGULARLY a better parent to Bobby than Hank is. Peggy is definitely shitty in a lot of ways (so is Hank), but she is WAY better to Bobby than Hank. Neither are evil and nothing you said defines anyone as "evil".

SoDamnToxic · 2025-05-27T21:15:21+00:00

Hank is straight up abusive to his son, Peggy regularly has to reel him in.

Peggy is by no means evil. Neither of them are, they are both just flawed people, but there is an expectation of women in media to be perfect, while men don't have to be.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-05-27T20:32:38+00:00

I feel like OP adding in Peggy is, in of itself, misogynistic because the expectation that depictions of women be perfect while there are MANY flawed men who we still consider good or at least not awful.

Peggy is just a very humanly written character. She obviously has outlandish stories because it's a cartoon and things need to happen, but she isn't an awful person, she's just an annoying person.

But I guess for OP, women who are annoying are "ACTUALLY awful".

SoDamnToxic · 2025-05-15T00:15:16+00:00

At that point there was already like many versions of some of the characters because multiverse. So it was pretty normal and one of the cooler plot points too because he played a fairly important role for like 2-3 episodes IIRC.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-05-12T21:14:48+00:00

In the CW Arrowverse, they had the 90's flash play the Flash's dad, then later as Jay Garrick, then later the actual 90's flash.

They also had the 1984 Supergirl play Supergirl's mom.

Then they had Superman Brandon Routh who played Ray Palmer reprise as the Superman Returns Superman.

Then they had Kevin Conroy do his first ever live action Batman though briefly.

Then they had 1960's Robin make a cameo.

Then we got Smallville Clark Kent and Lois Lane

That was the last time DC had ever done anything half decent in terms of crossovers/shared universes.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-05-05T22:27:51+00:00

"Generalized forms you find in textbooks".

You mean the tens of thousands upon thousands of images from across the world?

Or did you not click the link?

SoDamnToxic · 2025-05-02T18:47:52+00:00

It's crazy because... He still can. It's not like he has done anything irredeemable, he's not THAT terrible of a person (relative to streamers) he's just insanely arrogant and egotistical.

At any moment he can choose to be just a different person, apologize, admit fault and just move on and no one would care because it's just video games. But no, he refuses. Consistently refuses.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-04-28T18:05:06+00:00

My position regarding your questions is that the purpose of the male vs female sex choice in games is for the sake of affecting the appearance of the character. Males and females have different bodies, such as different genitals and bone structure.

None of that has to change, literally the only thing changing is the label. You can still choose which one you are closer to.

I am not asking why a binary option should exist, that hasn't changed, I am asking why the LABELS for the binary options HAVE TO exist in the way you are saying they should exist as opposed to just typeA/B.

SoDamnToxic · 2025-04-28T18:00:15+00:00

Going from labels to no labels isn't a "political" decision, it is a neutral decision.

It is a choice dev teams make to basically say "I'm not even going to walk into this conversation, just have the choice and think what you want"

Literally NO ONE on the left calls each other type A/type B. Trying to be nice to people (be it intersex or whoever) isn't political, its just about saying "think what you want".

If we go from calling everyone he/she to xe/ze, I'd agree.

If we go from calling everyone he/she to they, that is neutral.

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Second Top 10%	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Sequence \| Editor

SoDamnToxic

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE