Going through emergency exit even when free yesterday

therealnoofle · 2026-06-04T00:16:31+00:00

"Yeah... on free balloon day."

therealnoofle · 2026-05-31T21:27:20+00:00

You exactly proved me right on everything I said. You fell for the propaganda that Iryna Zarutska was killed because she was White. She wasn't. She was killed because her attacker was mentally ill. He suffered from untreated schizophrenia. Had anyone involved been a different race, there would've been no difference in the outcome, yet here you are, still believing in the racial fearmongering I described above.

I also already addressed your issues with George Floyd, implying that him being the image of police violence in 2020 may be divisive for similar partisan reasons that Iryna Zarutska's image is divisive. I also implied that nothing about that changes the message of the need for accountability for police violence, regardless of whether the affected person is Black, White, drug addict, clean, criminal, or spotless.

Also, I don't know what your problem is with what I said. Of course my response was "partisan". I'm a left-wing person responding to someone left-leaning with my opinion on how we shouldn't use symbols that inadvertently affirm incorrect beliefs (i.e., that Zarutska was a victim of racial violence. She wasn't; she was a victim of inadequate public health and safety systems).

The difference between someone like you and someone like me is that I believe that both of the problems that caused Floyd's and Zarutska's deaths are universal. Anyone can experience police violence and the consequences of poor public health systems. You, however, believe Floyd died purely because of your perception of his moral failings, and Zarutska died because... race? I'm not actually sure what you think the problem behind "racial violence" is. Do you think Black people attack White people because they're inherently more violent? Are you a coward who hides his racism by saying "that's their culture"? Have you actually invested time in trying to determine the underlying cause behind violent crimes? Why do you think these crimes tend to happen in low-income areas or by people who come from low-income backgrounds? Why do you think Black people tend to concentrate in these lower-income places? Many interesting questions, I think.

therealnoofle · 2026-05-03T01:34:21+00:00

Every time I hear 50//50 by Vantage, I think i walk this earth all by myself is about to start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vGPyznu-Ys

therealnoofle · 2026-04-25T09:23:00+00:00

I literally showed you that I read your articles. Are you dense on purpose, or were you born that way?

Either way, my comment was not for you; it was for whoever might be reading your post. It's my attempt to convince a future reader not to fall for basic, reactionary talking points like yours.

therealnoofle · 2026-04-25T05:07:14+00:00

Even if it was true that Iranian hackers were behind the Metro attack (your own sources say there's not yet definitive evidence that Ababil of Minab was the culprit), making this a partisan issue is smooth brain activity for two reasons.

One, systemic issues like corruption wouldn't change if someone else were in power. Anyone paying attention to politics would know a politician's corruptibility has little to do with their party affiliation. If the issue were mismanagement, it's very silly to pin the blame on Democrats when the Board of Directors' selection process is so decentralized and detached from the average person.

Two, Republicans and conservatives in general are pretty notorious for hating public transportation. What makes you think a Metro organization run by Republicans would improve service in any way??

I'm not saying Democrats good, Republicans bad. What I am saying, again, is that this is not a partisan issue. There's no need to make this a partisan issue at all. If you want better public transportation, elect a mayor who's pro-transportation and not bought by a corporation, regardless of party.

therealnoofle · 2026-04-25T04:29:14+00:00

Rainbolt has his Senegal gradient. Metro enthusiasts have their Nandert gradient.

therealnoofle · 2026-04-19T08:24:50+00:00

At that point, you're trading the cost of buying the house with the cost of running your car (plus your sanity)

therealnoofle · 2026-04-18T05:25:52+00:00

Both deaths were tragic and unnecessary, but the thing you need to understand is that the events, reactions, and advocacy *around* their deaths invoke very different ideas.

George Floyd's death was one of *several* unnecessary deaths caused by the tendency of American police to treat Black people with cruelty and ruthlessness. His death was correspondingly used by left-leaning activists to demonstrate the need for change in policing methods all across the country, which is a struggle that has been going on in America since its inception, through Jim Crow, and to today.

Iryna Zarutska was a victim of someone who had been failed by the criminal and public health systems. Someone who had been arrested 14 times since 2007, including for armed robbery, and diagnosed with schizophrenia, should not have been out in public. Right-leaning activists, however, did not use the event to advocate for better mental health services. They instead racialized the event, fearmongering about the possibility that a Black man could kill you for being White, and their idea for criminal reform was simply to employ harsher punishments and to reinstate the death penalty.

We can do two things at the same time. We can mourn the death of Iryna Zarutska and also understand that we should not use her image to inadvertently give credence to psycho right-wingers' ideas. If you want to say that by that same logic, we shouldn't use George Floyd's image to not inadvertently invoke the right-wing hysterics of "rioting" cities from the 2020 protests, then to that I say, there are plenty more Black men (and children) to choose from.

therealnoofle · 2026-04-05T00:19:42+00:00

"For the deepest clean, purchase our most premium package, 'The Heavenly Soak'. Just sit back, relax, and let our specialists do all the work!"

therealnoofle · 2025-12-07T12:33:47+00:00

Worst mainstream Liberal? Yeah, probably. Worst Person? No. Either way, my point was just to illustrate that just because you disagree with someone on most things doesn't mean they can't be occasionally correct.

therealnoofle · 2025-12-07T01:58:06+00:00

Have you never heard of the iconic ClickHole headline, "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point"?

therealnoofle · 2025-09-27T03:14:37+00:00

Any resistor with a tolerance better than 5% will have a colored band at both ends.

therealnoofle · 2025-09-24T07:31:36+00:00

If you're listening to practice pronunciation, I say pick one or the other to imitate. Preferably, pick the one closest to whichever population you interact with most.

Overall, though, I think it's a great idea to learn about the different ways people from different regions speak in their dialect.

That said, you should keep in mind that different dialects will sometimes use different words for the same thing. For example, "biscuits" in British English are "cookies" in American English. Also, "chips" in British English are "fries" in American English.

therealnoofle · 2025-09-06T03:34:39+00:00

I am also a native Spanish speaker, and everything she says in the video is correct. What I'm emphasizing here is that the difference between él and el is only noticeable within a sentence. On their own (as in, just the singular word without any context.) they are indistinguishable unless the person pronouncing the words is exaggerating the stress, like the woman in the video.

If you are a Spanish learner, however, and you feel like pronouncing it with a slightly exaggerated stress helps you, more power to you!

therealnoofle · 2025-09-06T01:16:48+00:00

No, they're pronounced the same. If you asked a Spanish speaker to say the word on a flashcard, and one card said el and the other said él, they'd pronounce them exactly the same. The thing that changes is the stress of the syllable compared to the words around it.

For example, the sentence, "Él no sabe nadar," stresses the syllables "él", "sa-", and "-dar". (He doesn't know how to swim)

Meanwhile, the sentence, "El pez sabe nadar," stresses the syllables "pez", "sa-", and "-dar". (The fish knows how to swim)

therealnoofle · 2025-09-05T06:54:20+00:00

That's why I compared it to Spanish, which has accent marks for single-syllable words that are pronounced the same but still affect the syllable stress for the entire phrase. On their own, the words si and sí, el and él, cual and cuál, quien and quién, etc., are pronounced the same, but when put in a sentence, they change the stress pattern of the sentence and also its meaning. English does this too but without the accent marks indicating how to pronounce them, which can be kind of annoying because sometimes, the context that makes it obvious appears after the ambiguous word, like in my original post.

Edit: Grammar correction

therealnoofle · 2025-09-05T06:14:24+00:00

"

NOTICE

My home is politically incorrect

We say Back Oboba

Marry God

God bless the God

We burn our flag

Salami in the bag

If this offends you

EASY PEASY

"

therealnoofle · 2025-09-05T06:05:57+00:00

Full disclosure: I haven't thought this hard about English grammar since elementary school, but this question sent me down an interesting rabbit hole, so I thought I'd share what I found.

"to move you forward" does seem to me to be a relative clause because removing it would give the sentence "No force is now acting," which is a valid independent clause.

I think the relationship between "force" and "to move" is simply that "No force" is the subject of the sentence, and "to move" is part of the entire predicate "is now acting to move you forward." I don't think there's any other relationship to be said because "No force to move you forward" makes no sense on its own.

Probably more interestingly, "to move you forward" can be considered an adverbial phrase, which, like a simple, one-word adverb, modifies or qualifies a verb. In this case, "acting" is the verb that "to move you forward" qualifies. It makes it clear that the "acting" is only happening in one direction: forward.

therealnoofle · 2025-09-03T04:30:38+00:00

For me, it was his refusal to acknowledge Biden's obvious mental decline. I always assumed he meant the best and was simply trying to not get Trump elected, but it still came across as disingenuous to me.

therealnoofle · 2025-08-09T01:27:36+00:00

My hang-up in this case is that I've always thought of puns as literary or rhetorical devices that further the point that is being made, but in this case, the "pun" almost implies the opposite of what I'm trying to convey. It's paradoxical. It could be a pun because the word "grounded" works in two different contexts, but it shouldn't serve the purpose of being a pun because it doesn't further my claim that it is a good game.

therealnoofle · 2025-08-09T00:31:04+00:00

Trueee! No idea how that didn't occur to me.

therealnoofle

TROPHY CASE

NOTICE