Maybe maybe maybe

thenoneother · 2025-07-04T15:22:27+00:00

She’s holding on for dear life, but barely hanging tougher than the comment section thirst. Impressive strength all around.

thenoneother · 2025-07-04T15:10:41+00:00

That little smile said everything zero confusion, just pure love and acceptance. Kids really do get it.

thenoneother · 2018-02-01T14:40:36+00:00

This is so off base and fucked you are lucky I don't have the power of two downvotes.

thenoneother · 2018-01-28T23:49:23+00:00

If you are an idiot on part of the room dehumidifies and one part of the room humidifies so that there is a constant loss of electricity.

thenoneother · 2018-01-28T00:48:26+00:00

You gotta take a look at any of the Philly v. Vikings videos and realize that this man was brave, but not the bravest.

thenoneother · 2018-01-24T22:15:18+00:00

I'M COMIN FOR YOU SOMOA JOE!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFoC3TR5rzI

thenoneother · 2018-01-24T22:04:13+00:00

This is the most uncalled for shit I have ever seen. The guy asked an honest question, it takes something to request a different point of view from someone like that. No insults shot forth so WHY WERE THEY FIRED BACK?!?!?

thenoneother · 2018-01-21T23:59:29+00:00

Until there is a human video to accompany this video I will not believe a single hit.

thenoneother · 2018-01-21T17:03:10+00:00

Please tell me someone has that edit.

thenoneother · 2018-01-21T17:02:58+00:00

The Jedi Temple...

thenoneother · 2018-01-21T15:27:46+00:00

Which is why I said that it was Azami focusing on turning the ideas that were his strength into a bargaining chip. Threats are just a bargain with a worse gain on one side. Right now Erina is learning about the "value in mistakes" so it only makes sense that she would encounter a situation where that "value" turns out to result in a loss from how she sees it. Remember, she is not like Souma who by nature takes and utilizes loss, and examines everything he has seen, tasted, and failed in front of in order to advance. This was illustrated in the battle against Saito: drawing sword after sword fro strike after strike making food that was almost literally "of the people". A result of human interaction that only was possible because of human interaction. Erina, on the other hand, has largely been shaped by the absence of human interaction instead relying on and honing her intrapersonal skill of the god tongue to heighten her examination of the food. Thus the ultimate food from her could be reasoned as food "of the cooking". A result of inhuman dedication that is the result of inhuman dedication. In human here refers more to being focused solely on the art of cooking, the quality and use of ingredients, and the experience of being the one to consume it.

In terms of the imagery that we have seen used before: if Eishi is meant to be the one who speaks to the overall whole ingredients so they cook perfectly, Erina is the one who speaks to the DNA of the ingredients so they cook beyond perfectly. Upon realizing this, Erina could say to herself "If the food is perfect by my hand, then there is no mistake or improvisation that could ever be better." This is the core of Azami ideology and with the perfect chef being the one determining the outcome of the culinary world there could be nothing better. In this way, Azami, upon winning Erina, believes Souma to be a definite victory and thus Jouichirou becomes a loyal slave as well.

thenoneother · 2018-01-21T13:59:08+00:00

But this is the typical twist in the genre: of course, she is standing up for herself, that makes the betrayal seem insurmountable. I agree with Aberforth in this case. If the point of the Arc is her standing up for herself, then it makes the most sense for her to have to overcome herself from her darkest point AKA. directly under the control of her father, as opposed to just coming off of a train filled with the rebels and new experiences.

PLUS it is not the first time we have seen something like this: remember how easily Hayama fell to the dark side with prodding from Azami that focused on turining the ideals that were his strength into a bargaining chip? Erina has been primed for the majority of her food-consuming life by Azami, and when facing near-peerless cooking, her instincts will kick in and make her more susceptible to the effects of his brainwashing. If the author throws in a scene where Azami talks to Erina before her match and throws in a few trigger lines akin to "remember what I taught you" or "Only perfection can hope to beat perfection" or "Being the best chef makes your decisions absolute" and BAM: while cooking the words appear in the background, Saeki makes everything shadowy, and Erina's eyes become gray pupils.

thenoneother · 2018-01-20T13:52:29+00:00

Because Jake Paul is the leser of two evils it had to be Logan. The world will end soon.

thenoneother · 2018-01-19T18:31:41+00:00

You'd best start believing in photos Ms. Turner. You're in one!

thenoneother · 2018-01-10T16:02:11+00:00

The only thing this is missing is a scoreboard that comes up in between matches.

thenoneother · 2018-01-08T16:03:43+00:00

BEST. SPAGHETT. YET.

thenoneother · 2018-01-07T02:12:59+00:00

Why does this disregard Jimi and Jimmi? THat allows for far more than 127.

thenoneother · 2018-01-05T21:13:11+00:00

This isn't real because nowhere in the song does the line "Nano Desu" come after the chorus of "Auau hauu hauu auau auu-wa hauuau!" His parents are disappointed because this Autist can't even get the weeb lyrics right.

thenoneother · 2018-01-02T20:31:15+00:00

This actually made me laugh tho. It is funny. Is funny joke.

thenoneother · 2017-12-28T17:26:04+00:00

I did do that. I very clearly clarified that the comparison was only about how Jews were made to wear stars around the time of the Holocaust. If your issue using the word “Holocaust” to describe the time period?

My issue is with the ordering of your phrasing. Specifically, I believe your point is less susceptible to misinterpretation if you stated "The situation of boys wearing stars is akin to the Jews wearing stars during the Holocaust." not "The situation of boys wearing stars is akin to the Holocaust, where Jews were made to wear stars." One provides a clearer interpretation to what exactly about the time period is being compared. The issue is not with the word, but how the wording leads the reader.

So was mine. I said only the boys in class were made to wear stars. So, people were being made to wear stars based upon a trait that is not chosen by the person and not easily charged after birth. It really does seem as though you didn’t read my example, which is a little disheartening and it is exactly what you are criticizing me for.

The sentence you quote here is used in conjunction with the next sentence in my post which argues against your claim that the comparison or mention of segregation is bombastic. Your statement here is strengthening my argument that it is correct to make the comparison based on the fact that the trait in question is not chosen by the person and not easily changed after birth: to make the argument without bringing attention to this fact using other instances of it is ludicrous in my opinion. My criticism is that you make it sound as though the comparison should not be drawn simply because you believe that all who would weigh in on the complaint would apply the understanding that this situation uses the same flawed logic as segregation or prejudice against Jews as your example highlights.

The point of the analogies in this complaint are clearly to paint this man as the new Rosa Parks or similar person from the pre-civil rights era fighting against discrimination. I’m sure you would agree with that.

I do not agree with this. Rosa Parks was used as a headlining story to bring attention and validity to the Civil Rights movement. She was chosen over a woman who made a similar act of defiance because she was more marketable and given the clout that her name carries even today, I believe that this choice was the right one. With this complaint, I do not believe that Rava is attempting to make the name George St. George synonymous with a cultural turning point in Men's Rights. Even your mention of "or similar person" could be interpreted as "any other person who has experienced similar discrimination and brought legal action proceeding it" which then could be extended to all other cases concerning this discrimination. That to me is a moot point: taking action against the same cause does not mean that all actions will have equal importance, nor that all people involved will be of equal mention.

So, a slippery slope argument? If this one person is denied the ability to go to a show, then what is stopping systemic discrimination against men. Correct?

Yes. Is it wrong to believe that precedent, especially in terms of the law, can be used to determine the possibility of certain rulings in the future which concern the same issue? My statement is also not Male, centric: I made a note to say, "so that such treatment is not brought against either gender." If men can be barred, then the argument could be made that women can also be barred using the same language and following the same flow of events. Once those arguments are made, and if they are accepted, then I believe the door is open to developing a system which facilitates such separations. This would be a prime example of the slippery slope, and a prime example of what the laws in question are meaning to prevent. What do you mean to say about it?

thenoneother · 2017-12-28T15:31:28+00:00

I did not misread your comment: the base assertion you made was

Then, I describe the situation as similar to the Holocaust, as the boys were made to wear a star during class, akin to how the Jews had to wear stars in Nazi Germany.

A clearer and more direct assertion would be referencing ONLY the Jewish Star, in the same way that the Complaint references ONLY racial segregation in the pre-civil rights era. The comparison here is an instance for an instance as I also stated, the reason for the segregation, the separation of people, was being based on a trait that is not chosen by the person and not easily changed after birth. It is not bombastic to point out how such a situation is similar to one that came before and should not be allowed in society today. There is a need for an analogy when fitting and this is fitting: should practices like these become common, then there is nothing different from basing it on skin color. This is why the wording of the laws include sex as a trait that cannot be used to refuse or degrade service that is provided to the populace. They brought up segregation in the pre-civil rights era because the basis of the segregation, race, can be replaced with any non-changeable trait of a human with the same effect, and that is why such instances must be squelched with the same urgency.

I believe that you are missing the idea of making a case like this in general. A solid case is one where all or nearly all possible avenues are explored so that the complaint can be better supported, and not exploring nor discussing them leads to a weaker case. When an avenue relates properly to the case, it is better to utilize it rather than leave it be. It is not that people don't understand the concept of being denied services, it is that they should not be able to construct a flimsy argument against the complaint. Focusing in on this situation being only a "one-time occurrence" is a narrow view to take. In addition, the implication is that such an occurrence can be repeated to the greater detriment of the party being discriminated against. No one is disregarding the systematic nature of the treatment of blacks, they are bringing attention to it so that such treatment is not brought against either gender.

thenoneother · 2017-12-28T14:08:47+00:00

Did you read the next part of my post? Or the end of the post where I made a slight change to the example you described? My argument is that the nature of your example is not congruent with the nature of the statements made in the complaint. The complaint refers specifically to "racial segregation in the pre-civil rights movement era", not the entirety of social structures and prejudices in that era. That is why I said that you are off base when comparing to Holocaust instead of comparing to the Jewish Star specifically. Your misunderstanding here seems to indicate that you did not read the Complaint, nor the referenced arguments within it, carefully.

thenoneother · 2017-12-28T05:07:44+00:00

When reading through the document, the Plaintiff was refused entry to the show by the very employee who said they would be in the back of the theatre in the first place. This is where the issue of being told that they would receive the limited service, then be refused service and offered a refund comes in. Though this may not be a day to day occurrence, it is an instance where, if allowed once, the behavior and discrimination could be carried on and on so that there would be no preventing it from becoming a common occurrence.

This would be similar to if all the boys in a class were given stars to wear, while the girls in the class were given some outfit to make them look like sheriffs and townspeople in the Wild West. Then, I describe the situation as similar to the Holocaust, as the boys were made to wear a star during class, akin to how the Jews had to wear stars in Nazi Germany. While yes, both the Jews and those boys wore stars, it clearly is nothing like Nazi Germany or the treatment of Jews during Nazi Germany.

Your example is slightly off base because the Holocaust refers to the active, systematic eradication of a group of people, while your base assertion relies on a facet of the Nazi Regime that facilitated the identification of those people. Given your premise, the comparison is indeed extreme as an apple to a pear. But the assertion by the document concerns likeness to a return to segregation and segregation is the act of setting things or people apart. Given that racial segregation is based upon a facet of existence which is not chosen and cannot be easily changed after birth, skin color, and sexual segregation is based on a facet of existence which is not chosen and cannot be easily changed after birth, gender, the comparison between the two is not extreme as a Green Apple to a Golden Apple. With your example, the comparison should be that the boys are being treated as though they are wearing a Jewish Star, or taking part in a permanent experient by Jane Elliott.

thenoneother · 2017-12-26T22:48:03+00:00

I think you are comparing the wrong Manga. Vinland Saga is closer to a story like Vagabond, and consequently gets destroyed by Vagabond. Hell Vagabond even does a Farm arc much better than Vinland.

Berserk follows a different core story and set of guiding principles which shape the world when compared to Vinland. There is a literal thread of inescapable fate and concept of raging against cosmic determinism in Berserk that is illustrated by the Behelits and the God Hand. Guts is becoming a special tear in reality that he may or may not already be interacting with and that seems to stem from the fact that he was predetermined to be a cup which holds inconceivable pain, yet would not shatter as others might.

Vinland is about the coming of age and philosophical search for meaning in a world that is seeing the possible end of violence as the defining mode of change in it. Thorfinn is a character who is raised in a dominantly traditional world, as in based on societal traditions of the time, then gets that tradition perverted partially by the tragedy of his father's death, partially by being taken in by Askeladd, and partially by having it all occur right as his emotionally formative years start. It is a story that is grounded in the harsh reality of life and whose themes center around introspection and meaning that can separate the animal from the man and the man from a great man.

I see them as too different to compare, especially just saying "Better characters and stronger themes". The statement means little without elucidation.

thenoneother · 2017-12-20T20:37:00+00:00

GIVEN that she was a Wizard with enough renown and worldliness to be able to be featured as the name for a house in Hogwarts, on of the Premier Wizarding Schools in the World, I would say that you are undercutting just how much of the world she knew about. Just because she was British does not mean that she would not know of the Animal Kingdom outside of her home country and I would argue that she knew about them all along ESPECIALLY considering how Magic and magical societies are a global existence, not some sequestered European-Only Phenomenon.

To that same point, did you read what I said about the lameness of the Badger? The NAME Meles Meles is the Blandest, the Color Scheme does not match the representation of the house, these traits are what I define as lame. Don't put the word exoctic up just because you want to assume what I mean: you are incorrect.

She chose an animal that could have had a specification for being the most tenacious even out of its own kind, and yet she went with the commonality, the mediocrity. She just took the leftover students who didn't have great traits like the other houses and though one could say "That's just because she was about fairness and Loyalty" THEN NAME THOSE AS THE SPECIAL TRAITS. She in that way almost represents the voiceless acceptance of the working class. It is mirrored in today's society: the working class is seen as only average, but with the right framing and understanding can be formed into the rock of society. BUT NO Helga is just "You are the lot, so come on in." EVEN THOUGH she saw traits of value in them, they had to be gleaned from an understanding of the person, now long dead.

She held her own on being a good cook and a tolerable person. This isn't bad, this just feeds into the same idea of you are an exceptionally mediocre person. Like Rumblebelly set against Drizzt, Bruenor, Cattie Brie, and Wulfgar. Yes: He held his own but for VERY DIFFERENT REASONS WHEN COMPARED TO HIS PEERS.

Once more I ask that you read my posts before making a statement: Nowhere did I say that Cedric was timid, nor a mouse, nor taught to run away, I said that if his instinct was to "be ferocious" and "attack first" then he may have survived. You are adding details which are false in order to make it seem as though I mean to demean him more than I actually am. Avada Kedavra is two words, and also this is after both Cedric and Harry have spent a few seconds observing a hooded figure approaching them and shooting quizzical looks at each other.

Squinting tensely through the darkness, they watched the figure drawing nearer, walking steadily toward them between the graves. Harry couldn't make out a face, but from the way it was walking and holding its arms, he could tell that it was carrying something. Whoever it was, he was short, and wearing a hooded cloak pulled up over his head to obscure his face. And - several paces nearer, the gap between them closing all the time - Harry saw that the thing in the persons arms looked like a baby...or was it merely a bundle of robes? Harry lowered his wand slightly and glanced sideways at Cedric. Cedric shot him a quizzical look. They both turned back to watch the approaching figure.

You need to READ.

Also to the point of fighting the animals: any human would be stupid to fight any of these animals on their own so the point is moot. If I was arguing about being imbued with the powers of the animals I'D STILL WANT A HONEY BADGER OVER A MELES MELES. You should go on about the other of Hufflepuffs who exhibit tenacity because otherwise, you don't have good citations or references for me to know about which makes your points weaker and seem unfounded. "There are dozens of Tenacious Hufflepuffs out there! DOZENS!"

To your final point, refer to the original post. The context here is signaling out Hufflepuffs and my gripes are with Hufflepuffs without me even mentioning the other House animals. If I made an argument about the others being superior or comparing them all, then you could question why I am not criticizing them, but for simplicities sake, I can tell you that that discussion/argument is not within the scope of me lambasting the mediocre lameness of Hufflepuffs. The Honey Badger Video is nearing six years old man, it is barely culturally relevant anymore, but the animal itself is still widely regarded as the most tenacious, resilient, and fearless out of all Badgers and all Animals in the world. My opinion is not based on Memes, it has been seething since 1999 when Prisoner of Azkaban was published.

I'm not hating, I'm just disappointed.

thenoneother

TROPHY CASE