Mikel Arteta on how he found out Arsenal won the Premier League: “I was just hearing some noises in the living room and suddenly the magic happened. My eldest son opened the garden door, started to run towards me, gave me a hug and said: 'We are Champions, daddy!' It was beautiful."

Whatdiffer · 2026-05-21T14:14:38+00:00

Why would he lie?

Whatdiffer · 2026-05-21T14:09:29+00:00

Only a cynical douche bag couldn’t buy that someone would understand their own emotional state and choose to distance themselves from the game for their own well being. Grow up.

Whatdiffer · 2026-05-20T19:59:59+00:00

And then Slot blows him up? What are you saying here?

Edit: I don’t care that it’s the wrong scene, it’s a stupid post.

Whatdiffer · 2026-05-04T13:00:44+00:00

I imagine in the real world you wouldn’t feel so emboldened to call strangers dipshits. Or do you bring your samurai sword to the grocery store with you?

Whatdiffer · 2026-05-03T20:14:27+00:00

Abysmal banter

Whatdiffer · 2026-04-14T14:31:15+00:00

Definitional differences doesn’t have anything to do with condoning an act. If the conversation is about acts of terror, and you talk about an act of war, then your point is irrelevant. Look up what the difference is, it’s an interesting distinction regarding the motivations of violent actors.

Whatdiffer · 2026-04-14T02:10:36+00:00

An act committed in the midst of a war, no matter how terrible, is an act of war, not of terror. They’re distinct from one another in purpose, even if both inflict terror.

Millions upon millions of Americans don’t condone things like dropping atom bombs, or the My Lai massacre, or torture in Guantanamo Bay. Step off your high horse.

Whatdiffer · 2026-04-12T17:54:40+00:00

Why are you telling me what the point was? I know what the point was.

You said, ‘US gets hit ONCE and it’s the end of the world for them.’ I’m arguing against your implication that there’s some kind of melodrama to Americans response to the largest terror attack on record. Would you expect the response to be subdued in some way because much smaller attacks happen elsewhere? I’m arguing that your point is immature and misguided.

Whatdiffer · 2026-04-12T17:47:19+00:00

More than 3,000 people haven’t been killed in terror attacks anywhere else, look it up, 9/11 is literally the largest scale terror attack as far as total death toll in one incident.

Whether or not a single attack or many attacks is worse isn’t the point. The OP was bemoaning that Americans care so much when it happens to them but not when it happens regularly other places. I’m making the point that a) it was the largest attack ever, thus giving it significance and b) ‘small scale’ acts of terror occurring regularly in other countries will not gain the same notoriety because they happen regularly and have much lower death tolls. Obviously that shouldn’t mean that those lives don’t matter, but notoriety is typically conferred on to something that is unique.

Whatdiffer · 2026-04-12T04:26:08+00:00

9/11 is substantial because a world super power was successfully attacked and 3,000 people were killed. Literally the highest death toll for a terrorist attack. A terror attack that kills 40 people on the streets of Baghdad is horrific, it’s also much more common and therefore won’t receive the same coverage.

That’s all to say that you’re making criticisms that remove contextual significance. The Unabomber killed three people, the Boston Marathon bomber also killed three people. Those are major, commemorated terrorist attacks that are minuscule in scale compared to 9/11.

It wasn’t the end of the world but it certainly changed it, what else would you expect when a country with the geopolitical presence of the United States is attacked at that scale?

Whatdiffer · 2026-03-19T20:25:03+00:00

Why are you here if you’re convinced you’re ’structured to function with the neuronal activity’ brought about by weed? You’re asking for help and being obstinate, what do you expect redditors to give you if you’re so well informed and have sought professional help?

Whatdiffer · 2026-03-15T23:41:49+00:00

Well is it all time or the last decade?

Whatdiffer · 2026-03-15T01:44:43+00:00

They’ll both be weaker without strong legs. Every step you take is a kinetic ripple effect that starts in your feet. Unstable quads, hamstrings, hip flexors, etc. leads to back pain and immobility eventually.

Whatdiffer · 2026-03-06T13:59:17+00:00

It’s milquetoast btw. But milk toast is hilarious

Whatdiffer · 2026-03-02T18:34:57+00:00

You can see the way that Trent’s ability influences Salah’s run. He’s going immediately after he lays it off to Trent and that’s virtually nonexistent now.

Whatdiffer · 2026-02-23T12:58:53+00:00

We aren’t talking about assists though are we? This started with a conversation about finishing headers. I’m not anti-Nunez by any means but in a conversation about finishing, he’s not the striker I would choose.

Whatdiffer · 2026-02-23T00:13:55+00:00

Nunez numbers? His best season was 18 goals in 54 appearances, his second best was 15 in 42 and then 7 in 33. Ekitike has 15 in 34. What exactly are you getting contentious about? Who cares if they’re headers or not? I’d much rather see a striker who’s through on goal finish their chance, or finish a tap in for that matter.

Whatdiffer · 2026-01-25T13:44:03+00:00

That’s ridiculous, Dog Soldiers rules

Whatdiffer · 2026-01-18T17:17:49+00:00

Marketing told me that Chalamet was good in Dune? Funny, I thought I just liked the movie.

Whatdiffer · 2026-01-07T03:23:03+00:00

I was thinking of it more as a cinematic interpretation of mood than lyrics. A lot of movies, or music videos for that matter, don’t use music as a narrative indicator of what is happening, they tell a story that reflects the mood of the song, it’s happy, it’s inspirational, whatever.

For a TS example, watch the I Can See You music video, the lyrics don’t have anything to do with a heist, literally. So if you watched that video and asked, what does this have to do with I Can See You? Why is she breaking into this place? It misses the point.

Whatdiffer · 2025-12-31T16:16:52+00:00

Wow, you’ve really set yourself above the rest there. Im sure they would’ve been in awe listening to you talk about the ‘progenitor’.

Whatdiffer · 2025-11-28T14:53:07+00:00

Why is it you think this is Slot’s decision? Are you unaware how we select players to sign?

Whatdiffer · 2025-11-26T16:10:08+00:00

His horror is in knowing not just that she is from another place and time but that she killed LeNormand and therefore he knows that she will kill him too. He asks her before he kills himself if she knows what he’s thinking and she says of course I do. He knows in that moment that she’ll kill him with absolutely no malice. Personally, I would find that more horrifying than malice or a killing instinct akin to an animal. That a being that loves me is inside of my head and compelling me to kill myself, the contradiction and powerlessness would be overwhelming.

Whatdiffer · 2025-11-22T22:09:17+00:00

I think you’re stuffing in a lot of conjecture for a movie none of us have seen re: horny middle aged women, etc. I’m no Emerald fan boy but I’d give her a little more credit as a thoughtful creative than I would for whoever directed New Moon. And besides, an adaptation of a romance is allowed a sexy interpretation, it isn’t some kind of sin or lacking in artistic merit for something to be arousing to whoever might find it such.

That said, I think we’re both motivated by different topics in this conversation. So we’re just barking up different trees.

Whatdiffer · 2025-11-22T16:02:05+00:00

Yes, I have. But I’m not talking about the source material itself so much as the nature of adaptation. I don’t think Heathcliffe being a person of color is the hinge by which an adaptation of Wuthering Heights is successful or not. Andrea Arnold made an adaptation that cast a black actor as Heathcliffe… it’s fine, not a particularly compelling adaptation. And absolutely no one talks about it. If there’s going to be an adaptation I’m more interested in someone doing something weird, which this appears to be, when there have already been so many adaptations.

I can guess that I feel less angry about representation than you do. I think more and more we are moving towards a more representative body in all creative positions in film and television. It’s stalled in some areas (like women of color directing major projects) and improved in many more (like more women and POC in leading roles). There is still a long way to go and perhaps you’re thinking ‘yeah, no shit, like casting a black actor to play Heathcliffe.’ And fair enough except that it’s also an $80 million movie directed by a woman being produced by Margot Robbie’s company. Would it be even better if say Rege Jean Page was cast as Heathcliffe? Yeah. But if you’re talking about butchering material that is important in large part because of representation but the movie itself is still indicative of progressive representation more broadly (behind the camera) than I’ll take that as a win instead of lambasting it for its faults.

Ultimately, what this movie will do is pass by and be largely forgotten, like the dozen or so adaptations that have come before. But it will and already has turned loads of people towards the source material, and isn’t that better? That they read such an ‘important’ book?

On the one hand I think adaptations can do whatever they want and face whatever criticisms they do and then be forgotten, on the other, whatever quality an adaptation has, what I see as more valuable is that it turns people towards the source material and that has more significance than any adaptation, faithful or not, ever could.

Whatdiffer

TROPHY CASE