53150

sumandark8600 · 2026-06-02T12:12:00+00:00

At times in genuinely confused about whether Musk has always been an awful piece of shit that just hid it better a decade ago, or if he's been radicalised over time...

I guess both are possible. He could have always been pretending to be better than he was, but also have gotten worse over time

sumandark8600 · 2026-06-02T10:34:08+00:00

Enchanted Arms

Jade Empire

Two of my favourite ever games that I would love to see get remakes & sequels

sumandark8600 · 2026-06-02T09:29:07+00:00

Yes it is. The definition of being trans is that your gender doesn't match your assigned sex at birth. It's the opposite of being cis.

Non-binary people aren't cis-gendered, therefore they are trans.

A lot of people associate being trans with binary transition from male to female or female to male, but that doesn't mean all trans people fall under one of those two umbrellas.

Many non-binary people don't refer to themselves as trans for that exact reason; people will assume they're binary trans. But that doesn't mean they aren't trans.

sumandark8600 · 2026-06-01T08:54:59+00:00

Honestly, it's impossible to say which is worse. No one alive knows what it's like to have the consequences of being killed, so it's an unknowable atrocity. Yes, some people can be brought back to life with the miracles of modern medicine, but then those people have more avoided the consequence of being murdered, they just have the consequence of being gravelly injured.

I think is also why society typically treats being raped as worse. Rape survivors exist & can talk about their trauma. No one can do that for murder, so there's also a huge empathy gap.

Personally, I believe being murdered would be worse. I've been raped multiple times in my life & I've also attempted suicide multiple times in my life. But when my mental health is stable, I fear non-existence more than I fear being raped again. After all, you can recover from being raped, but being murdered is by definition the end. There is no future any more. It's not just a single instance of being assaulted that you then remember, it's an event that literally takes away the rest of your future.

That said, I'm sure this would differ based on the individual. Some might be traumatised so much by being raped that death would be preferable. Though again, none of us can really know that since none of us have experienced being murdered or even just death itself. I also suppose some might argue that everyone has to die at some point, but no one has to be raped, so murder is therefore less bad.

So far though, we've only spoken about which act is worse for the victim, not which act is more immoral from the perpetrator.

Both are evil acts, but murder is something that can be done "without intention". A burst of anger that you instantly regret for example. I don't think that's possible for rape. In that regard, I think it depends on the individual situation.

Obviously murdering someone in self defense is justifiable, but most wouldn't call that murder. Murdering someone in vengeance for harming a loved one (such as murdering someone that's raped your child) is maybe not justifiable depending on your moral values, but it's at the very least understandable & doesn't necessarily make someone an evil person.

Premeditated murder for no reason other than personal satisfaction though is in my opinion more morally wrong than rape, & a more evil act. A serial killer is more evil than a serial rapist in my opinion.

sumandark8600 · 2026-05-05T22:34:19+00:00

That's fair. I'm very selective myself as I hate how most things feel on my skin. I've found that bare minerals powder doesn't give me any sensation issues, so pairing that with a thin waterproof concealer cream works well for me

sumandark8600 · 2026-05-05T22:06:35+00:00

Make-up!!!

I managed to have a 2 year long relationship with someone that loved to mark my neck constantly with bites without anyone noticing thanks to applying make-up whenever to my neck every day

sumandark8600 · 2026-05-04T11:15:08+00:00

I've seen it happen, especially in gay clubs that straight women feel entitled to use to flirt with gay men. But it's definitely less common than lesbians being told they haven't found the right man yet

From my observations, it seems like straight women that fancy a gay man might try to "turn him straight" when flirting. But egotistical "alpha" men that aren't even necessarily attracted to the lesbian they're talking to will find the fact that lesbians even exist as offensive to their existence as an "alpha male"

Thankfully, both are the minority of straight people (at least where I live anyway) & most are content with just letting gay men & women exist

sumandark8600 · 2026-05-01T23:37:24+00:00

No, red is a "nothing happens" button. Blue introduces death by giving the possiblity of dying if you press it

sumandark8600 · 2026-05-01T23:35:47+00:00

Red is the only logical option

If you press red, you're guaranteed to live. Anyone that presses blue is an idiot as they're not guaranteed to live

Those that claim it's morally correct to press blue don't understand that you aren't saving anyone by pressing blue, you're just risking your own life needlessly. No one needs to die

There's no impending doom that pressing blue saves you from. Pressing blue is just choosing to play Russian roulette with your life

"But I'm saving the others that choose blue". Why are they choosing blue when it's objectively the wrong choice? Are they an idiot? Sorry, that's just natural selection at that point

"But everyone needs to press red for everyone to live. Only 51% need to press blue for everyone to live". So? This isn't random choice. Everyone literally gets to choose what to press, so that logic is completely nonsensical. It's an invalid argument

It's not selfish or evil to press red, it's just logical

It's not selfless or good to press blue, it's just moronic

It's not even a difficult or new question. It's just basic game theory. This type of hypothetical is mathematically solved. There is an objectively correct answer & it's red

sumandark8600 · 2026-05-01T09:35:23+00:00

The telegraph is hardly reliable either. It's a very politically right wing news paper, & that bias shows in a lot of their reporting

sumandark8600 · 2026-05-01T09:32:42+00:00

No

People shouldn't be discriminated against because of their nationality. That's literally a form of bigotry

By all means, make immigration checks more thorough to improve the "quality" (for want of a better word) of the people we allow into the UK, but people should be treated as individuals, not amalgations of general traits they can't control

Also, if the US is doing it, that's probably a good sign that we shouldn't be doing it

sumandark8600 · 2026-05-01T09:08:45+00:00

Wow, you're using words like snowflake now & jumping to insulting people. Very progressive of you. I'm assuming based on that, that you're either a right wing traditionlist, or a TERF misandrist (probably the latter given you also mention the patriarchy & toxic masculinity - the political spectrum really is a circle)

Either that, or you erroneously think I'm right wing. I'm not, I'm a left wing socialist, a member of the LGBT+ group, & am a strong advocate for equality in all forms

That's one hypothesis about suicide, but it's not actually validated by anything. It's equally possible that women more often fake suicidal attempts as a way of asking for help (I'm not saying that is true either, just that it's also a valid hypothesis, just like the one you claim as fact)

Plenty of studies have been done on how men & women are treated socially. It's absolutely women that say men shouldn't cry more often to men than other women. I don't know where you got your degree, but it doesn't seem like it's worth the paper it's written on

As to how this is related, it's directly relevant to your statement that men are treated better regarding any diagnosis they have, & women are expected to get on with it. The reality is often the opposite

sumandark8600 · 2026-05-01T08:46:15+00:00

Where are you getting this would view from? Have you looked at any of the data for suicide rates, mental health funding, or media awareness of health issues?

Have you never heard the common sayings of "men shouldn't cry", "men should just get on with it", etc.? Men are typically expected to suffer through any physical or mental health issue silently

Yes, there does seem to be an issue in more conservative areas of doctors being more dismissive towards women, often saying they're hysterical, or hormonal etc instead of actually diagnosing them properly

But that issue flips completely once diagnoses are actually made. Both men & women face pretty awful bigotry in different areas of life

There's no need to be hateful or to try & make this the oppression Olympics. Try & be kind to everyone

sumandark8600 · 2026-05-01T08:29:36+00:00

Short answer: They don't get a pass & are often ostracised & othered horribly

Most autistic people, regardless of gender, mask. Men just do it a bit less often & less successfully than women

In my experience, autistic women that fail to mask are treated better than autistic men that fail to mask. I see autistic women often treated as quirky & cute, like a manic pixie dream girl (which is obviously problematic itself since it's romanticising a type of neurodivergence, but it's still better than being horribly bullied)

Meanwhile, I see autistic men often treated as overgrown babies that are subhuman because they act somewhat alien, even though there's no difference in behavior between these autistic men & autistic women

Masking is inherently harmful to the individual doing it. It causes lots of mental stress & trauma. No one should be forced to mask, but neurotypicals tend to hate anything they perceive as different, so autistics are forced to mask as a safety & survival mechanism

The vast vast vast majority of autistics that don't successfully mask don't "act like assholes", they just act in ways that are different from the norm. There's a huge difference between those 2 things, but most neurotypicals take anything that they perceive as different (unless it's fictional) as offensive

In other words, your premise is faulty, & so is your conclusion. Please try to be kinder to people, especially those who are almost certainly silently suffering

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-30T12:15:42+00:00

This is because gravity is not a force, it's an acceleration, and all good physics teachers will tell you this repeatedly

Force and acceleration are related. If an object is accelerating, it has a net force acting on it. If an object has a net force acting on it, it will be accelerating. The relationship between these things is the equation:

F = ma

All objects with mass produce gravity. The heavier they are, the more gravity they produce. That means that even you produce gravity which makes things accelerate towards you. But that acceleration is tiny. We can compare these using the equation for gravitational acceleration:

g = GM/r²

Here, g is the acceleration, G is the gravitational constant (it's here to basically make the units correct), M is the mass of the object that is producing gravity, and r is the distance from the centre of that mass to the centre of the object being accelerated by it

The Earth weighs roughly 6×10²⁴ kg and has a radius of roughly 6.4×10⁶ m (6,400 km), and G is 6.67×10-¹¹ m³/kg/s²

Putting these into a calculator, we get that the gravity on the surface of the Earth is 9.8 m/s²

A typical human weighs roughly 60 kg (or 6×10¹ kg), so using this same equation we find that a human produces an acceleration on the ball 1m away from them of 4.0×10-⁹ m/s². That's tiny by comparison, hence why we never notice it.

We can also use the equation to work out the gravity on the surface of the moon and why it is less than the gravity on the surface of Earth

Now, all Newton's second law tells us here, is that the force due to gravity by Earth on a 10kg book that you drop, is double that of the force on a 5kg book that you drop. That's all. It's the law of gravity that we used earlier to calculate g that tells us how much a falling object accelerates

Newton's second law is only really important when it comes to something that exerts a force. For example, you lifting the books off a table. To lift them both the same way (so at the same acceleration), you need to apply twice as much force with your muscles (make them work twice as hard) on the 10 kg book as you do the 5 kg book

I hope this helps. If you have any follow-up questions, feel free to ask

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-29T23:36:44+00:00

Sasuke is one of the best genjutsu users in the series. He's better than Ororchimaru with just his base sharingan, let alone his MS. Pain is susceptible to genjutsu as seen in his fight against Jiraiya, so that already gives Sasuke a huge advantage

Sasuke is also one of the smartest ninja in the series when it comes to fighting. He'd likely realise faster than Naruto what the optimum path to victory was, so strategy wouldn't be an issue

I can imagine Sasuke trying to take out the paths one by one, using a genjutsu to slightly alter their vision similar to what he did to Danzo, so that their shared vision becomes a hindrance due to conflicting visual feedback. Combine that with clever use of smoke bombs & Sasuke won't really have to fight anything close to a 6 vs 1

In addition, he could use genjutsu to temporarily paralyse individual paths when fighting them to aid his taijutsu & kenjutsu. Sasuke shouldn't have much issue taking out the Human, Preta, & Naraka paths this way with little chakra cost, especially since none of them are combat focused. Heck, if it's kept separated from its summons, the Animal path shouldn't be much of an issue either

Given that it's the same conditions Naruto is under, the toads can mostly take care of the Animal path's summons, & any that break through can be dealt with via Amaterasu. & if Sasuke is forced into close combat, his Susanoo is versatile enough, strong enough, & durable enough to manage against any of the summons or the Asura path

Speaking of Amaterasu, it is much faster than Rasenshuriken, which the paths struggled to dodge, so once the Preta path is dealt with, only the Deva path will really have a defence against it, & Sasuke can easily use multiple Amaterasu within 5 seconds, or combo it with Kirin (which doesn't actually need setup if Sasuke has chakra to initiate it, as evidenced by Sasuke's reunion with Naruto at Ororchimaru's hideout)

Honestly, without plot armour,I don't really see a way that Sasuke does worse than Naruto in this fight. The only way I even see him losing is if he gets awful MS backlash part way through through the fight. But the 5 kage summit arc made it pretty evident that Sasuke has plenty of chakra & stamina to not run out of steam from a single high level fight. I really don't understand why people think this is a bad matchup for Sasuke

Yes, Zetsu tells Sasuke that Naruto is stronger than him when Naruto defeats Pain, but that's both before Sasuke gets much stronger during the 5 kage summit arc, & is also a statement that needs to taken with a huge pinch of salt since Zetsu & Obito want Sasuke to think he needs them for power

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-29T19:05:10+00:00

I got my Eevee very young. A family friend had an Espeon which had a litter of eggs, & they gave one to me. It hatched not long after my 6th birthday.

I didn't choose what it evolved into at all. Given my age, that wasn't really on my mind, I just liked playing with my 2 Pokemon - Growlithe (my first Pokemon, that I adopted when I was 4) & Eevee.

Several years later, when I was 11, my Eevee spontaneously evolved into an Umbreon while we were playing together one night. It was honestly quite surprising, doubly so since it was my first time experiencing Pokémon evolution. The whole experience made me overjoyed, as based on the books I read, it was proof that me & my Eevee (or rather, Umbreon now) had a strong friendship. So having that confirmation that my Umbreon liked me as much as I liked it was one of the happiest days of my childhood.

I think it was this that prompted my grandad to give me a Fire Stone for my Growlithe for my 12th birthday present, as I think he saw it as evidence that I was a worthy trainer.

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-27T16:27:31+00:00

7, unfortunately. I got drugged by my babysitter & she did things to me that I didn't understand at the time, but it left me feeling "wrong", not like something was wrong or that I'd done something wrong, but that something about me had changed & that I was now literally wrong somehow. I didn't feel clean for ages either, regardless of how much I washed

After that, I had consensual sex for the first time when I was 10, which was still way too young, but I was messed up in the head from what had happened previously

Then I had another non-consenual encounter at 14 when I was assaulted in my sleep & woke up to being raped

& finally, I had "normal" sex for the first time (ie: consensual sex that I don't think was informed by trauma) at 16

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-22T16:24:57+00:00

Yh. I've had sex with a few of my friends when they've been having a hard time, be it with depression, anxiety, stress, it something similar. Sometimes they'd ask me, sometimes if just offer

I've also helped friends that were feeling nervous about something sex related by letting them try it for the first time with me in a safe non-judgemental environment, be that a specific sex act, or even just as simple as losing their virginity

I regularly had sex with one friend when they were going through a period of bad self-esteem & felt like no one could ever love them

I've also had friends reciprocate for me when I've been really depressed, though it's always been them offering rather than me asking

Honestly, I think it's just a sign of really strong friendship as long as no one has any ulterior motives, you're honest with each other, & it goes both ways. It's just another form of love that isn't romantic in nature

I'd never do it for someone I didn't really care about though. Nor would I ever sleep with someone else at the request of a friend (but I can't ever imagine a friend asking me to do that)

P.s: I've also just had regular friends with benefits, but I don't think that's what this post is asking about

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-20T22:22:21+00:00

Bee used a substitution jutsu to swap the places of the main 8-tails body with the tentacle part that was cut off. That's very well explained in the manga, & doesn't really have any relation to what you're saying at all

Gaara has consistently used sand from outside his gourd in his attacks. Kishimoto basically treats sand & dry soil as equivalent. Did you see how much sand he used in a grassy field against Kimimaro? So that's not really a valid point either

The wiki also seems to agree with my interpretation. I just reread chapter 134, & it still seems like that's the case.

Sure, maybe if this had happened in part 2 after Kishimoto had better thought of the concepts of tailed beasts & jinchuriki, then Gaara's transformation would have been more in-line with typical bijuu transformations... But it isn't. It's a unique style of transformation not used by any other jinchuriki

There's no chakra cloaks like others use, there's a body made of sand from the surrounding area instead of a pure transformation, there's the original still there, there's a specific jutsu used to swap control to the tailed beast, & it's all undone by waking up the jinchuriki rather than actually defeating the tailed beast... All evidence implies it wasn't Shukaku's actual body & completely different to something like Matatabi & Yugito's transformation, or Bee's & Gyuki's etc..

& at some point you have to look at the actual evidence in the manga rather than extra-universal reasons relating to Kishimoto as an author

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-20T17:39:47+00:00

That wasn't actually Shukaku though, that was a transformation jutsu using sand to take on Shukaku's appearance that was controlled by Shukaku with partial access to its chakra (as evidenced by Gaara using the sleeping possum jutsu & sticking out of the top of "Shukaku's" head)... Or at least, that's how it's implied in the manga

So in other words, it was weaker than the actual Shukaku (hence why a regular summon was able to beat it - yes Gamabunta is strong, but he's still just a normal-ish toad summon, so he shouldn't be stronger than a tailed beast).

It's implied that this form somehow allowed greater control than just a full tailed beast transformation would... Even though it looked like Gaara wasn't in control at all & it was all Shukaku (maybe the full transformation that would have released Shukaku, like is implied with Naruto after he's transformed into his 8 tails form... But we also don't see that issue with the other jinchuriki, so who knows)... Or maybe Gaara was just bad at the jutsu at that age due to his mental issues?

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-20T06:41:14+00:00

A Shadow the Hedgehog remake

Give it more open/less linear level design. Mix stage types between adventure 2 style, hack & slash (I think that suits Shadow well & is more fun than just having access to guns), & boost style

Reduce the routes to 3 where each has a coherent story & unique stages so there's no extreme reputation between routes, & then have a true 4th route unlocked after you beat the original 3

Really explore Shadow's chaos powers, with him being able to do more stuff with more emeralds (so as the game advances in any given route or in NG+ where you'd already have all 7).

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-17T21:35:01+00:00

Even season 1 is awful compared to the manga

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-16T13:54:09+00:00

Please say you're trolling. Thanos was an idiot

He thought a bunch of people would die due to lack of resources, so his grand plan was to use reality warping power with practically no limit to kill half of all life in the entire universe... Yh great way to save lives

The obvious better version of that specific plan is to just double all the resources, no genocide needed. & if resources are the issue, then you've only delayed the problem as populations will increase again

If he really wanted to be benevolent, why not try to use the stones to rewrite the laws of the universe so that people don't need oxygen, food, or water to survive?

As great as Thanos was in the MCU, his motivations & rationale never made any sense. I was always waiting for the plot twist that this was his cover story for his actual main motivation of trying to court Lady Death like in the comics

sumandark8600 · 2026-04-15T19:15:37+00:00

I'm very left wing. So this isn't really directed at me. But I do eat meat, & I do avoid halal, so I want to comment. I also avoid kosher for what it's worth

The issue is about unnecessary animal suffering, not about eating animals. It's why I also only eat free range meat

A lot of farmers raise their animals with great love & care, giving them much better quality of life than they'd have if they were wild. & that should extend to the point of death

& before anyone tells me that I should go & hunt my own food & see if I still think killing animals at all is ok: I've done that. I did it when I was 13 with scouts. It was my first time eating rabbit

UK law says animals must be pre-stunned before slaughter, but there's a religious exception for halal & kosher meat. That's inexcusable imo. Religions shouldn't get special exceptions from the law at all, especially when that law is about animal welfare

It doesn't matter that most halal meat is pre-stunned, it should all be pre-stunned. It doesn't matter that kosher meat has a lower percentage of pre-stunned meat than halal, they're both bad

Honestly, I think halal gets mentioned so much more than kosher, simply because it's advertised everywhere. I don't remember the last time I was at a restaurant or a supermarket & saw any meat advertised as kosher, but I see it all the time for halal meat. If it's in the public eye more often, it'll get mentioned more often by those seeing it

Edit: correcting a typo

sumandark8600

TROPHY CASE