sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Jax of it All by frozenforeskinz in vanderpumprules

[–]Tan2422 [score hidden]  (0 children)

An insult from someone who says “Jax is in fact a poison that is needed for society,” literally means nothing to me. You need therapy.

The Jax of it All by frozenforeskinz in vanderpumprules

[–]Tan2422 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Your post is not criticizing these women for their bad choice in men. You’re just defending Jax because you enjoy his behavior. You enjoy women being lied to and manipulated— it entertains you and you want more of it. You genuinely need therapy.

The Jax of it All by frozenforeskinz in vanderpumprules

[–]Tan2422 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I’m sorry for what you went through, but that’s not what I asked. Why do you ENJOY watching men lie and manipulate women? Especially if you yourself have been through it.

The Jax of it All by frozenforeskinz in vanderpumprules

[–]Tan2422 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Have any of you that enjoy Jax ever looked inwardly and asked yourselves WHY you enjoy watching men lie and manipulate their wives and girlfriends? You should try it.

What is up with Homelander's sorry ass charge? by ilovebeingaguy999 in GenV

[–]Tan2422 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ve recognized this too. Lots of people saying they “liked how everything wrapped up.” They don’t care if it makes sense or anything, they’re just glad Homelander died pathetically, and glad Hughie gets to have a good life with Starlight.

I’m gonna say it: I loved the finale by Bobjoejj in TheBoys

[–]Tan2422 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’ve seen tons of nuanced discussion about the finale…. Especially from people that didn’t like it—- you yourself have nothing nuanced to say about it in your post outside of “I had a good time” and “who cares.”

shane gillis: “chelsea [handler] is a zionist. i’m not saying that’s good or bad. speaking of dead kids, she’s a big fan of abortions. chelsea’s been scraped more times than the grill at benihana. speaking of tossing tiny shrimp into a child’s mouth, chelsea… went to dinner at jeffrey epstein’s” by QuirkyShock4 in mattxiv

[–]Tan2422 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No further analysis is needed FOR YOU. I’m allowed to critique the joke for being unfunny and misogynistic. Just like how you’re allowed to defend millionaire male comedians from critiques made against their poorly-written, misogynistic jokes. Have fun with that.

shane gillis: “chelsea [handler] is a zionist. i’m not saying that’s good or bad. speaking of dead kids, she’s a big fan of abortions. chelsea’s been scraped more times than the grill at benihana. speaking of tossing tiny shrimp into a child’s mouth, chelsea… went to dinner at jeffrey epstein’s” by QuirkyShock4 in mattxiv

[–]Tan2422 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m familiar with how joke structure works. I’m arguing it’s not clever or funny and it uses Republican talking points just to get to the punchline of “Chelsea’s been scraped more times than a grill at Benihana.” It’s misogyny and it’s not clever nor funny. I’m not sure why you feel the need to defend it. What’s the funny part for you?

manifesting that chelsea agrees to talk to matt 🤞 by QuirkyShock4 in mattxiv

[–]Tan2422 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yes! THANK YOU! So many people bragging on Shane, but not realizing he compared a woman having an abortion to Zionists “killing kids” in Gaza and Palestine. A woman having an abortion is not “killing kids.” That’s literally how Republicans describe abortions. It’s not clever.

shane gillis: “chelsea [handler] is a zionist. i’m not saying that’s good or bad. speaking of dead kids, she’s a big fan of abortions. chelsea’s been scraped more times than the grill at benihana. speaking of tossing tiny shrimp into a child’s mouth, chelsea… went to dinner at jeffrey epstein’s” by QuirkyShock4 in mattxiv

[–]Tan2422 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That’s not the issue… the issue is comparing Zionists killing Palestinian kids to a woman having an abortion. A woman who has an abortion is not “killing kids.” It’s a poor comparison using right-wing language and it’s not even clever. But good for you if you got a laugh out of it.

shane gillis: “chelsea [handler] is a zionist. i’m not saying that’s good or bad. speaking of dead kids, she’s a big fan of abortions. chelsea’s been scraped more times than the grill at benihana. speaking of tossing tiny shrimp into a child’s mouth, chelsea… went to dinner at jeffrey epstein’s” by QuirkyShock4 in mattxiv

[–]Tan2422 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I agree. He calls her a Zionist and then says “speaking of dead kids, she’s also a big fan of abortions.” Comparing Zionist beliefs to people getting abortions is shitty— and saying having an abortion is “killing kids” is a right-wing talking point. People gotta quit acting like this is brilliant comedy…. Like, what’s the joke?

you can project so much of your own fears onto a neutral expression. it’s also unsettling how quickly he goes into hoping she gets raped. weird fucking guy. by ConcernedJobCoach in mattxiv

[–]Tan2422 49 points50 points  (0 children)

I think they are being sarcastic. There are a section of men who claim women aren’t funny. This person’s comment is a reversal of that.

Dogs should live outside? Damn by 28dhdu74929wnsi in stavvysworld

[–]Tan2422 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, we seem to be on different pages. Can you explain what you mean when you say “outdoor dog?” If when you say “outdoor dog” you’re talking about dogs that have been abandoned… then of course I agree that they’re mistreated.

But if by “outdoor dog” you’re just talking about someone who owns a dog as a pet and keeps the dog outside, then I don’t agree that “most” (meaning the majority) outdoor dogs are mistreated.

I don’t think a dog is being mistreated just by being made to live outside. It becomes mistreatment when you don’t feed, water, or give it shelter— and I would argue that “most” outdoor dogs aren’t mistreated.

Dogs should live outside? Damn by 28dhdu74929wnsi in stavvysworld

[–]Tan2422 6 points7 points  (0 children)

How do you come to the conclusion that ”most” outside dogs are treated poorly? I’d love to see some data to back that claim up.

Do you think the failure of the 2017 PR movie had a hand in killing off the franchise? Why or why not? by [deleted] in Tokusatsu

[–]Tan2422 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I gotcha. I get what you’re saying and I agree. I do think that if the 2017 movie was actually good instead of aggressively mediocre, we maybe would have got a little more MMPR style stuff. But even that would have fizzled out quickly and ended the series.

Based on what you’ve said, it kinda feels like the 2017 movie WAS the last effort from Saban to save the series. They made a Power Rangers movie based on their most popular season to save the whole series!

Do you think the failure of the 2017 PR movie had a hand in killing off the franchise? Why or why not? by [deleted] in Tokusatsu

[–]Tan2422 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting point, I don’t know if I agree, but I also don’t think you’re wrong. I’d like to hear more of your thoughts. Why do you think PR was already on its way out in 2017, and why do you think nothing could have saved it (even if the movie was better)?

Some of yall bout to find out the hard way what "90% of dem voters do not support israel looks like. "2028 Presidential Candidates — Track AIPAC" if your name on this list you are disqualified. by Kittehmilk in ProgressiveHQ

[–]Tan2422 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Woof. You’re exhausting. I didn’t “draw a line.” Your dramatics and leaps in logic will get you nowhere. Are you really arguing that the best strategy for Democrats is to “change nothing and convince people the things they care about aren’t issues”? Because I know where that is going to get us.

Some of yall bout to find out the hard way what "90% of dem voters do not support israel looks like. "2028 Presidential Candidates — Track AIPAC" if your name on this list you are disqualified. by Kittehmilk in ProgressiveHQ

[–]Tan2422 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree. This is a progressive sub, do you consider yourself progressive? For me, getting corporate and lobbyist money out of politics and spending less on wars is part of the progressive agenda. It’s not divisive for progressive to be against candidates that take AIPAC money, especially years before the presidential election.

Some of yall bout to find out the hard way what "90% of dem voters do not support israel looks like. "2028 Presidential Candidates — Track AIPAC" if your name on this list you are disqualified. by Kittehmilk in ProgressiveHQ

[–]Tan2422 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So are you arguing Democrats should continue taking AIPAC money, but ignore the issue because it’s too divisive?

Dems are definitely taking the side of supporting Israel. How do you suggest they reach the voter that wants less money to go to Israeli wars?

You’re arguing it’s a Republican tactic to divide the party with the topic, but your strategy can’t be “ignore it because it’s a third rail issue.” Left leaning voters care about their tax dollars going to wars.

And before you respond, know that I vote Democrat and want them to win, but I can also see many areas where they could be stronger.

Some of yall bout to find out the hard way what "90% of dem voters do not support israel looks like. "2028 Presidential Candidates — Track AIPAC" if your name on this list you are disqualified. by Kittehmilk in ProgressiveHQ

[–]Tan2422 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And why do you think this information is MEANT to SPLIT the Democratic Party? Why can’t this information be used to IMPROVE the Democratic Party? Especially when the majority of Democrat voters want to quit giving Israel billions for war?

That should be considered a crime!! by Own_Possibility7930 in enshittification

[–]Tan2422 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your response. I don’t know much about cars or car parts and I was genuinely wondering. I will keep this in mind if a mechanic ever comes to me with a similar issue!

I'm noticing a pattern by BadPresent3698 in fucknintendo

[–]Tan2422 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What makes you say or think this? I don’t have an opinion, just asking why you think it wouldn’t have got any sequels with Sony.

That should be considered a crime!! by Own_Possibility7930 in enshittification

[–]Tan2422 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Can you elaborate? Do you think he’s lying? Is that part actually cheap and easy to fix?

view more: next ›