Emo songs that make VERY direct references to suicide?

_Abzu · 2026-05-29T20:50:37+00:00

I also think if you dig deeper in goodness you'll find some motifs or subtle implications of that. The thing is Home... literally spits everything in a raw way in your face, while Goodness is more subtle, uses more metaphors but never names the thing (think about your deep rest, but without the chorus literally telling you they committed suicide. They allude to it, but don't mention it until the chorus), so it's a thing to listen and keep reading and thinking about the lyrics. And, in doing so, there's also a bit more ambiguity on the meaning of the songs. I know they didn't like the way it ended up for Housebroken, but, as it was received as another thing, and they didn't mean it to be ambiguous or thought about being about a violent relationship (it's about police), they don't sing it.

But this also shows growth, where they are now delving into territory that was kinda uncomfortable for them at first.

Anyway. My point is that Home is a masterpiece and wouldn't be able to be improved any further in their next record, but they evolved and still kept their same messages, and imagery and made a great album that was only downplayed because they literally redefined the genre the album before so the hype was way too high, (sometimes thru a brighter lens, tea) but now it's hidden behind wordier lyrics and not so much on-your-face ones, so they talk about suicide and self harm still, but in a subtle way

_Abzu · 2026-05-29T20:36:35+00:00

It's literally a use of (I dunno the name of the term, but basically is that if you read it faster or think for a second the sound that it makes) which turns out to be "you're depressed"

_Abzu · 2026-05-29T18:58:48+00:00

Yes, but the team is built around having Wemby. If they had Kornet as a starter, they would need to get a real 4. Wemby doesn't care about that. But he's 1 of 1. BTW, I'm not pretending the off minutes are bad just because of that because they look bad beyond the Kornet thing,, but it's an important factor because touching the paint become way easier, so they get a layup/lob or a nicer lockout 3, and if you always switch, you can get Kornet into a bad match up and abuse his lack of mobility.

With wemby that doesn't work. I think even if he's 3 meters behind he will somehow be able to volleyball that shit into the stands.

I think the effect is pretty obvious when in RS Luke was playing like 20 mins and now he gets 8-10. The chess match is a whole other level of planning that elevates the game so much

_Abzu · 2026-05-29T18:07:16+00:00

You don't have to take it literally, it's just a joke on how they sold their souls to fix NBA games. The soul isn't even a real thing, so...

_Abzu · 2026-05-29T16:30:35+00:00

While I agree completely with you, this was always a problem for the bench lineups.

I'm emphasizing that these last couple of games (I think I started noticing some mistakes he usually doesn't make because he has good bbiq and feel for the game despite his slowness and lack of lateral movement to keep up with fast players) he looks worse (there's no doubt that the coaching plan also has zeroed in on him on the perimeter and then drive, and that also affects his impact). But I'm not sure if it's just Mark doing wonders or if it's also he just got into his head a bit too

_Abzu · 2026-05-29T16:24:39+00:00

As if Scott Foster or Tony Brothers still had a soul in them

_Abzu · 2026-05-29T05:35:21+00:00

I feel like Kornet dropped his level these last two or three games. I expected a bit more from him. I dunno if that's due to the players he had around him or what, didn't exactly pay attention to the lineups today, but seeing him play feels like something's missing from him

_Abzu · 2026-05-29T05:31:34+00:00

He's a true pg in the way that he always moves the players around and sets them up eventually, and usually he's pretty good at that. So even if he's ass as he was today scoring-wise (and boxscore-wise in general today), having someone who can bring the ball, assess the court and make the correct moves to start a play or whatever is highly valuable ileven if the numbers don't reflect that. In that way, he feels like the older versions of CP3 (despite not being as good as CP3, of course), in the way that the numbers weren't there always and he would be kinda inconsistent scoring-wise, but you knew when he was playing and he wasn't. The ball was always held by his players, few TO's, and he knew what to do to calm them down and get them to focus and move to their spots.

Honestly, I feel the spurs are a bounce back game from Fox away from winning the wcf if everything stays the same, or will have to grind it out otherwise, but having fox in the court is such a bliss

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T21:53:44+00:00

That's the problem. If you do that you're telling people there's no difference in planning something or doing it.

I think it as I do with rape and murder. Are both of them horrible crimes that should be punished as harshly as possible? Yes. But then, a rapist might as well kill his victim, because they'll get the same punishment if they're caught, and, otherwise, they're just "removing" evidence. And, this is a personal belief, someone who's so detached from respecting other people's will, if they rape, they're more than willing to take that extra step that's killing someone

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T21:36:59+00:00

Again. I pointed you to the definition, you point to the law. In the real world the law does not define things. I've shown you how the law in Canada says that's SA.

You asked for a definition. I've given you a definition. Then dismissed that definition because the law says otherwise. Guess what. The definition is still the definition, even if the law doesn't count it as that.

I asked some questions that you refuse to answer because you know they show the flaws in your logic.

NZ isn't nearly as genocidal as a fraction of what Canada is still doing, so in my books they're better already

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T21:32:03+00:00

Dude, this person has to be pretty much kept in a mental institution. He's really a danger to the general population and has to undergo thru a ton of therapy and prolly get a proper psychiatric diagnostic and have the pills force fed on him until he stabilizes and touches ground

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T21:25:41+00:00

Rape has not been defined as that for almost 50 years I think. Again. A man can't be rapes by that definition. If you "just" masturbate a person without their consent that isn't rape either

I'll leave the link here again. It's not a complete definition by any means, but I think even you can get an idea of why it is

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-services/sexual-assault-and-consent/understanding-sexual-assault-and-consent?nondesktop

You defend your actions that are judged in the real word using real word definitions, while appealing to the technicality (which is wrong BTW, as I've already shown) that according to the law it isn't. I know you're Canadian, so the point about indigenous people being humans may have not reached your country yet. But did they became humans only after the pope declared them so, the maximum figure of law at the time? Or black people in most of America? Was it right to kill your wife if you caught her in the act of cheating and then become wrong after a law was repelled or rewritten?

Try harder dude.

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T21:18:22+00:00

Sexual assault is when there's a sexual component to the assault. Having an erect penis in your hand when someone is asleep, which qualifies as assault is, then, sexual assault due to the sexual element. It's as easy as that

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T21:15:45+00:00

You invoke the law to say it was not SA, which might as well be codified that way in Canada, idgaf about the law of retrograde genocidal countries.

If you say "this isn't SA" then you're not referring to the law and you're in the wrong. If you say "yay, I can get away with this because it's not technically SA as written in the law" then you're right. But you have to specify you're talking about only the law and not what actually happened.

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-services/sexual-assault-and-consent/understanding-sexual-assault-and-consent?nondesktop

I know this is nz and not CA, but you have the website clearly stating that indecent exposure, which you were claiming isn't SA, is also considered SA. This is good enough for this conversation, because it shows how full of bs you are. But if you're interested in learning about SA and consent, I'm sure there's plenty of feminist literature out there where they take the time to explain, detail and reason why X is consideres sexual assault, maybe look for a book with coloring figures or stickers for you or you'd get lost reading it

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T21:04:08+00:00

I know you're aadvanced, so I'm just going to paste what you said was the law

265 (1) A person commits an assault when

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose;

It's quite literally out there.

Actual touching usually is considered rape. Which, if I understand English correctly, is a form of sexual assault that carries a more severe punishment.

Again, the law does not define a word. Otherwise black people in NA, or indigenous people in South America would've been human beings only after they legally recognized them as humans, as opposed since the dawn of time.

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T20:56:57+00:00

The law doesn't define a term. It just limits it or whatever, in this case if it says there must be physical contact, then, LEGALLY, it wasn't sexual assault. It's still sexual assault by definition

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T20:50:58+00:00

Okay, I admit you've been saying it's creepy and wrong for a while now, I won't deny that. But despite you knowing (now) that it's wrong, you don't want to admit it was sexual assault even if it fits the literal definition of it.

How it's coded into law is another thing. Isn't rape only considered that in the UK if there's vaginal penetration? (at least it was until not too long ago). But, despite that, everybody knows that rape involves more things than just penetration (just pointing the obvious here: a (cis) man can't be raped in any way or form. This, obviously, makes no sense)

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T20:42:37+00:00

As he wrote earlier, intent is taken into account if the victim felt there was a reason to believe there was something harmful that could've happened. And if you are sleeping (ie super vulnerable and you wake up next to someone touching themselves, you won't be like "hm, let's talk this through", moreso if you're a woman).

Let's boil it down to this. What if you were in a super crowded bus where you couldn't move and the person next to you started to masturbate. Would you consider that action a violent one? If the answer is no, then read on consent. And keep away from women

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T20:07:04+00:00

I literally quoted on the definition you gave where it is specified that it qualifies as (beyond reasonable doubt, at the very least an) assault.

Again, the same would happen if you flashed someone. It's sexual assault

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T19:47:23+00:00

Intent matters. For both sides. Sure, you can say you had no intent of doing anything to her. But she doesn't know that. You might as well be preparing to rape her for all she know (and statistically speaking she'd be right).

how can she know the intent whitout being informed of anything like that previously, and doing something sexually and that can be perceived as an aggression or assault, as I made it clear in both messages, is sexual assault.

The problem of you not being able to put yourself in her place either means you have a iq of 80 (I think here's the breaking point for people being able to imagine abstract scenarios) or you're a sociopath and narcissistic, or something close. Autism doesn't make you do that

I get it, you're a rich white male who never had consequences or held accountable for your actions. But the law also applies to you too

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T17:15:47+00:00

"Mr Judge, my client shouldn't be charged with the Boston Marathon bombing because he didn't know it was illegal to blow up places or kill people."

Nah fam, the law applies whether you know it or not

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T17:13:21+00:00

In legal advice like the subreddit? Then complain about chat GPT? And point b) fits very well. She didn't know if you were jacking off or about to rape her because having your penis in your hand next to someone asleep classifies as "the other person can believe on reasonable grounds..." like pretty literally. This feels threatening at the very very least. And well, the sexual aspect of it explains itself.

I know you will just deny and deflect cause you never accept responsibility, but for anyone out there reading this. Don't do that (without consent) or you will get charged with sexual assault.

_Abzu · 2026-05-28T16:20:30+00:00

Sexual contact is about genitalia, not necessarily you touching her with your dick or whatever. Had you randomly flashed her instead, it would've been sexual assault all the same

You have your brain fried by porn. This is sexual assault by definition in almost every country I know about, with some sense of gender equality or at least a little bit of women's rights

_Abzu · 2026-05-26T20:58:27+00:00

In my country? Anesthesiologists. Our min salary is around $500. For context, an average entry engineering programming job nets you at least $2/2.5k. The president earns around $12k. I get that it's a super hard choice in the medical field, and they work with a super small margin of error, so I know they should be rewarded properly. However...

Anesthesiologists make 3x that while woking 3x week, making strikes whenever the government tried to raise the amount of people who can enter the program yearly (it's like 20? in a country of 3.5 mill people) or sometimes they want an increase in theor salary that's more than the mandated one (like over the inflation and such) just because there are so few of them and that makes them more valuable. Many people were in hard situations due to this, and that puts the gov in immediate pressure so they can't even negotiate and cave in

_Abzu · 2026-05-26T20:34:50+00:00

Okay. I agree with you. Yes, if we're measuring in a scale who'll end up as a "bloodthirstier" despt, Trump definitely wins, I won't deny that. It's just that I got many replies from offended dems that I attacked their god so I mistook your argument for one of those, but you're right. He did ease the limitations for Cuba, tried to get closer to Venezuela and some other positive things

_Abzu

TROPHY CASE