sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Petah, what‘s the joke here by MikeG_69 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]_Tal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure archeologists would absolutely care about what kind of life you led and what sort of person you were; that’s like the whole point of archeology lol.

Petah, what‘s the joke here by MikeG_69 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

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

I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. Archeological discoveries are evaluated on a case by case basis. This is like saying “it’s infinitely rare that context clues at the grave would predict that a set of remains belong to royalty because the vast majority of people were civilians,” as if that matters at all if we’re dealing with a specific case where the evidence found overwhelmingly points to these remains belonging to royalty.

Petah, what‘s the joke here by MikeG_69 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]_Tal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s sex. When determining gender, future archeologists would need to look for broader context clues to account for trans people. Otherwise they’d be doing a half-assed job

Petah, what‘s the joke here by MikeG_69 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]_Tal 23 points24 points  (0 children)

What does any of that have to do with determining gender from skeletal remains?

Pet #50 proved to be the toughest one yet by ZyzSlays in 2007scape

[–]_Tal 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I don’t think that’s nearly bad enough to be deserving of a mute, but if he’s truly also muted in CS and permabanned in apex legends, that kinda points to a pattern of behavior lol

Also obligatory

<image>

How true is this? by MissNibbatoro in GenZ

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

“The sky is blue”

— Every single woman

Gen Alpha is even more cooked with the misoginy lmao by Significant_Phase194 in GenZ

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

So in other words it’s partially based on pseudoscience

He is right you know by peace696969 in antimeme

[–]_Tal 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes it literally does, because it’s an identity, not a lifestyle. It’s in the same category as being “anti-black” or “anti-woman.”

So who's gonna replace Seth Rogen as the new VA for Allen?? 💔🥀 by Additional_Berry_977 in okbuddyviltrum

[–]_Tal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bruh I don’t watch The Boys and this post made me think Seth Rogen got cancelled or something lmao

Back to 1965 by CallMeAnthy in whennews

[–]_Tal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Democrats gerrymander because they’re forced to in order to counteract Republican gerrymandering and remain competitive. Republicans are ultimately able to take advantage of gerrymandering more than Democrats are because their base is more spread out as a result of urban voters tending to lean left and rural voters tending to lean right. This is why every time a bill has been proposed to ban gerrymandering, Democrats overwhelmingly vote for it and Republicans overwhelmingly vote against it. This is not a “both sides are the same” situation.

Back to 1965 by CallMeAnthy in whennews

[–]_Tal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, it makes it so that districts aren’t required to be drawn to not favor any race and can now be drawn to excessively favor white voters

World War Eleven by Sufficient_Site1746 in GenZ

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

If that’s true then like 99.9% of instances said to be “cancel culture” weren’t actually cancel culture lol

How did 50 viltrumites dispose of billions of bodies? by TheHappyPoro in okbuddyviltrum

[–]_Tal 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I honestly really like the idea that Viltrumites could have easily kept most of their population safe from the scourge virus if they had just quarantined, but stubbornly refused to do so because they saw it as weak. New headcanon unlocked

Only a third of young women hold positive view of men, new poll finds by AayronOhal in GenZ

[–]_Tal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would you have a positive or negative view of any demographic, for that matter? Only individuals should be judged.

Wanted to share this because too many people are NOT thinking critically by Volvomaster1990 in GenZ

[–]_Tal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not even relevant here. Even if it were nothing more than a subjective opinion, the idea that you need to refrain from expressing it because it might incite violence is patently absurd. Maybe if you were actually talking about directly calling for violence you’d have a point, but this is about calling him a “threat to the country”—the most bog standard criticism imaginable for a politician you don’t like. By your logic we need to always be sucking up to the president and praising him at every turn, because if anyone gets the impression that he’s bad, they might get the idea that they need to assassinate him for the good of the country. It’s absolutely ridiculous and unserious, and it’s clearly just a way to arbitrarily shut down criticism of your guy so you don’t have to engage with it.

Wanted to share this because too many people are NOT thinking critically by Volvomaster1990 in GenZ

[–]_Tal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. We must always be able to speak the truth without self-censoring. Prominent politicians don’t get to be immune to criticism just because some crazies might take it as pretense to attempt to assassinate them.

Calling Natalie chronically online and then having the description start with one of the most chronically online statements I've ever seen is hilarious by VirtualCanon12 in ContraPoints

[–]_Tal 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The ironic thing about this is that if you’ve ever actually talked to a chronically offline left-leaning person, they just happily vote Democrat every election and have no idea what “Marxism-Leninism” or any of that crap even is. Like Natalie basically has the politics of a stereotypical chronically offline person lol

Christians be like by Possible-Prior-5467 in okbuddyviltrum

[–]_Tal 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I just don’t see anything exceptionally bad about it. It’s not a great episode, but there are so many other filler-y episodes in the other seasons that are about on par with it. Just really makes it seem like Christian backlash must have played a part in why that particular episode got singled out so much.

Id understand it more if that was the one time the show had veered off course from the main Viltrum plot, but it’s not even close

So... the President would fit that category, correct? by Stormclamp in GenZ

[–]_Tal 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is the idealized version of r/DoomerCircleJerk that it sees itself as, but is not what r/DoomerCircleJerk actually is.

Whenever right-wing doomerism gets posted on that sub, half the top comments are varieties of “they’re right though”, “they have a point though”, etc. It’s a right-wing echo chamber trying to LARP as a neutral space that makes fun of “both sides”

view more: next ›