Pretty sure if I was in an anime, I'd be the scientist/researcher guy that helps the main villain out in order to get access to the superweapon/promised land/god machine and near the end of the story I'd finally learn the amazing secret I was looking for and then just disappear now that I had what I was looking for while the hero and the villain go fight over whatever, fuck that shit I just learned the source code of the universe and went crazy.
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
We should be anime
I'd be the sarcastic friend who learns to express himself at the end and dies sacrificing himself
+3
Options
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
I don't like RTJ. I feel like the violent call to action is wrong.
but maybe i'm a part of the problem idk.
in the RTJ3 album one song has a clip from, MLK that goes something like, "Riots are the language of the unheard."
Which is a very apt description. if a persons are being stuffed into the dirt and their righteous concerns aren't being at least considered and validated, then what choice to they have but to speak in a language that they know their oppressors will understand?
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Pretty sure if I was in an anime, I'd be the scientist/researcher guy that helps the main villain out in order to get access to the superweapon/promised land/god machine and near the end of the story I'd finally learn the amazing secret I was looking for and then just disappear now that I had what I was looking for while the hero and the villain go fight over whatever, fuck that shit I just learned the source code of the universe and went crazy.
i would probably be the shopkeeper who was the protagonist's caring uncle and whose cart gets overturned during a chase/fight scene
I am perhaps unreasonably upset about my fucking sandwich being gone
I really really want to move out of here. But can't until we get our security deposit.
God forbid someone speak to me like a human being and ask me about it, nope, just gonna eat it or dispose of it without asking at all.
It is less the specific sandwich and more the principle of living with people who do not give a shit about my stuff at all unless it bothers them and then they do whatever they want with it. Because I'm subhuman garbage apparently.
+2
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I don't like RTJ. I feel like the violent call to action is wrong.
but maybe i'm a part of the problem idk.
in the RTJ3 album one song has a clip from, MLK that goes something like, "Riots are the language of the unheard."
Which is a very apt description. if a persons are being stuffed into the dirt and their righteous concerns aren't being at least considered and validated, then what choice to they have but to speak in a language that they know their oppressors will understand?
tbf when has an oppressor been like oh your riots have made me realize and accept your grievances so let's work to make your situation better?
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+1
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
Nah I can choose my anime role it's cool I'm that anime guy
i don't see that establishing he's a bigot proves he's not witty or funny
I'm sure he's absolutely side splitting if you find homophobic jokes funny, which I suppose most people in his age cohort do.
alright
Well, if there were a politician or former SCOTUS member who was known for making 'sharp & whitty' anti-Semitic jokes, would you give that a pass?
just for a second- do you realize how insulting it is to suggest that i'm only bothered by wrong acts that target groups to which i belong? maybe you actually think i'm a piece of shit, in which case i guess this is a legitimate, probing question. but if you don't, then take note of it next time you're in this situation.
to answer your question, though- i wouldn't give virulent antisemitism a pass any more than i would virulent anti-black bigotry or homophobia. i'm not giving scalia 'a pass', in whatever litmus test context you're suggesting. whatever gross things he's said remain gross. what i'm taking issue with is what seems like the suggestion that holding bigoted views is the sum of a person. i don't believe there are beliefs that so fully inform someone's identify as to squeeze out any possible room for other traits or descriptors. maybe if someone holds reprehensible views you could say 'these are so bad that i don't care if he's funny, or charitable in his community' or whatever. and maybe scalia wasn't actually funny! like i said, a quick google didn't produce many chuckles from me. but i'm still comfortable with the idea that a truly horrible person can be clever or loyal or whatever.
+5
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
Man this magicians episode
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I don't like RTJ. I feel like the violent call to action is wrong.
but maybe i'm a part of the problem idk.
in the RTJ3 album one song has a clip from, MLK that goes something like, "Riots are the language of the unheard."
Which is a very apt description. if a persons are being stuffed into the dirt and their righteous concerns aren't being at least considered and validated, then what choice to they have but to speak in a language that they know their oppressors will understand?
I don't disagree but my biggest problem with their music is that it doesn't present those nuanced arguments up front.
i don't see that establishing he's a bigot proves he's not witty or funny
I'm sure he's absolutely side splitting if you find homophobic jokes funny, which I suppose most people in his age cohort do.
alright
Well, if there were a politician or former SCOTUS member who was known for making 'sharp & whitty' anti-Semitic jokes, would you give that a pass?
just for a second- do you realize how insulting it is to suggest that i'm only bothered by wrong acts that target groups to which i belong? maybe you actually think i'm a piece of shit, in which case i guess this is a legitimate, probing question. but if you don't, then take note of it next time you're in this situation.
to answer your question, though- i wouldn't give virulent antisemitism a pass any more than i would virulent anti-black bigotry or homophobia. i'm not giving scalia 'a pass', in whatever litmus test context you're suggesting. whatever gross things he's said remain gross. what i'm taking issue with is what seems like the suggestion that holding bigoted views is the sum of a person. i don't believe there are beliefs that so fully inform someone's identify as to squeeze out any possible room for other traits or descriptors. maybe if someone holds reprehensible views you could say 'these are so bad that i don't care if he's funny, or charitable in his community' or whatever. and maybe scalia wasn't actually funny! like i said, a quick google didn't produce many chuckles from me. but i'm still comfortable with the idea that a truly horrible person can be clever or loyal or whatever.
RBG considered him a dear personal friend.
I believe when considering Scalia the man, that should factor in.
spool32 on
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i don't see that establishing he's a bigot proves he's not witty or funny
I'm sure he's absolutely side splitting if you find homophobic jokes funny, which I suppose most people in his age cohort do.
alright
Well, if there were a politician or former SCOTUS member who was known for making 'sharp & whitty' anti-Semitic jokes, would you give that a pass?
just for a second- do you realize how insulting it is to suggest that i'm only bothered by wrong acts that target groups to which i belong? maybe you actually think i'm a piece of shit, in which case i guess this is a legitimate, probing question. but if you don't, then take note of it next time you're in this situation.
to answer your question, though- i wouldn't give virulent antisemitism a pass any more than i would virulent anti-black bigotry or homophobia. i'm not giving scalia 'a pass', in whatever litmus test context you're suggesting. whatever gross things he's said remain gross. what i'm taking issue with is what seems like the suggestion that holding bigoted views is the sum of a person. i don't believe there are beliefs that so fully inform someone's identify as to squeeze out any possible room for other traits or descriptors. maybe if someone holds reprehensible views you could say 'these are so bad that i don't care if he's funny, or charitable in his community' or whatever. and maybe scalia wasn't actually funny! like i said, a quick google didn't produce many chuckles from me. but i'm still comfortable with the idea that a truly horrible person can be clever or loyal or whatever.
it is true a person can be a bigot and also otherwise useful
there's a thoroughly awful dude at work who also consistently has the highest sales numbers
scalia is just maybe not the easiest example for people to see this because his asshole views, often couched in shitty jokes, actually harmed thousands of people at once
so like, yeah he really knew how to game the law to support his deeply stupid and regressive viewpoints but
that's not admirable. he was an asshole
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
Remember when community sucked for the first few episodes
i don't see that establishing he's a bigot proves he's not witty or funny
I'm sure he's absolutely side splitting if you find homophobic jokes funny, which I suppose most people in his age cohort do.
alright
Well, if there were a politician or former SCOTUS member who was known for making 'sharp & whitty' anti-Semitic jokes, would you give that a pass?
just for a second- do you realize how insulting it is to suggest that i'm only bothered by wrong acts that target groups to which i belong? maybe you actually think i'm a piece of shit, in which case i guess this is a legitimate, probing question. but if you don't, then take note of it next time you're in this situation.
to answer your question, though- i wouldn't give virulent antisemitism a pass any more than i would virulent anti-black bigotry or homophobia. i'm not giving scalia 'a pass', in whatever litmus test context you're suggesting. whatever gross things he's said remain gross. what i'm taking issue with is what seems like the suggestion that holding bigoted views is the sum of a person. i don't believe there are beliefs that so fully inform someone's identify as to squeeze out any possible room for other traits or descriptors. maybe if someone holds reprehensible views you could say 'these are so bad that i don't care if he's funny, or charitable in his community' or whatever. and maybe scalia wasn't actually funny! like i said, a quick google didn't produce many chuckles from me. but i'm still comfortable with the idea that a truly horrible person can be clever or loyal or whatever.
RBG considered him a dear personal friend.
I believe when considering Scalia the man, that should factor in.
And now Cheeto will be replacing both of them with actual literal demons from hell. Friendship with him sure did a lot of good for the country, eh?
i don't see that establishing he's a bigot proves he's not witty or funny
I'm sure he's absolutely side splitting if you find homophobic jokes funny, which I suppose most people in his age cohort do.
alright
Well, if there were a politician or former SCOTUS member who was known for making 'sharp & whitty' anti-Semitic jokes, would you give that a pass?
just for a second- do you realize how insulting it is to suggest that i'm only bothered by wrong acts that target groups to which i belong? maybe you actually think i'm a piece of shit, in which case i guess this is a legitimate, probing question. but if you don't, then take note of it next time you're in this situation.
to answer your question, though- i wouldn't give virulent antisemitism a pass any more than i would virulent anti-black bigotry or homophobia. i'm not giving scalia 'a pass', in whatever litmus test context you're suggesting. whatever gross things he's said remain gross. what i'm taking issue with is what seems like the suggestion that holding bigoted views is the sum of a person. i don't believe there are beliefs that so fully inform someone's identify as to squeeze out any possible room for other traits or descriptors. maybe if someone holds reprehensible views you could say 'these are so bad that i don't care if he's funny, or charitable in his community' or whatever. and maybe scalia wasn't actually funny! like i said, a quick google didn't produce many chuckles from me. but i'm still comfortable with the idea that a truly horrible person can be clever or loyal or whatever.
RBG considered him a dear personal friend.
I believe when considering Scalia the man, that should factor in.
Most decent people have terrible opinions about something, but are usually a decent human being at the end of the day.
However, someone in a position like the POTUS or SCOTUS.. they should be elevated and probably hold opinions that won't be punitive against a lot of people just because they personally feel one way or another.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
i don't see that establishing he's a bigot proves he's not witty or funny
I'm sure he's absolutely side splitting if you find homophobic jokes funny, which I suppose most people in his age cohort do.
alright
Well, if there were a politician or former SCOTUS member who was known for making 'sharp & whitty' anti-Semitic jokes, would you give that a pass?
just for a second- do you realize how insulting it is to suggest that i'm only bothered by wrong acts that target groups to which i belong? maybe you actually think i'm a piece of shit, in which case i guess this is a legitimate, probing question. but if you don't, then take note of it next time you're in this situation.
to answer your question, though- i wouldn't give virulent antisemitism a pass any more than i would virulent anti-black bigotry or homophobia. i'm not giving scalia 'a pass', in whatever litmus test context you're suggesting. whatever gross things he's said remain gross. what i'm taking issue with is what seems like the suggestion that holding bigoted views is the sum of a person. i don't believe there are beliefs that so fully inform someone's identify as to squeeze out any possible room for other traits or descriptors. maybe if someone holds reprehensible views you could say 'these are so bad that i don't care if he's funny, or charitable in his community' or whatever. and maybe scalia wasn't actually funny! like i said, a quick google didn't produce many chuckles from me. but i'm still comfortable with the idea that a truly horrible person can be clever or loyal or whatever.
it is true a person can be a bigot and also otherwise useful
there's a thoroughly awful dude at work who also consistently has the highest sales numbers
scalia is just maybe not the easiest example for people to see this because his asshole views, often couched in shitty jokes, actually harmed thousands of people at once
so like, yeah he really knew how to game the law to support his deeply stupid and regressive viewpoints but
that's not admirable. he was an asshole
i ain't defending anything about scalia's career as a jurist
The idea that Scalia acted based solely (edit: or even sometimes) on his personal bigotry is extremely hard to support without some base assumptions that certain legal and philosophical positions are wrong and known to be wrong by all.
Basically, if you start with the assumption that he is obviously evil it's easy to conclude that he conducted himself as SCOTUS justice based on evil personal intent.
i don't see that establishing he's a bigot proves he's not witty or funny
I'm sure he's absolutely side splitting if you find homophobic jokes funny, which I suppose most people in his age cohort do.
alright
Well, if there were a politician or former SCOTUS member who was known for making 'sharp & whitty' anti-Semitic jokes, would you give that a pass?
just for a second- do you realize how insulting it is to suggest that i'm only bothered by wrong acts that target groups to which i belong? maybe you actually think i'm a piece of shit, in which case i guess this is a legitimate, probing question. but if you don't, then take note of it next time you're in this situation.
to answer your question, though- i wouldn't give virulent antisemitism a pass any more than i would virulent anti-black bigotry or homophobia. i'm not giving scalia 'a pass', in whatever litmus test context you're suggesting. whatever gross things he's said remain gross. what i'm taking issue with is what seems like the suggestion that holding bigoted views is the sum of a person. i don't believe there are beliefs that so fully inform someone's identify as to squeeze out any possible room for other traits or descriptors. maybe if someone holds reprehensible views you could say 'these are so bad that i don't care if he's funny, or charitable in his community' or whatever. and maybe scalia wasn't actually funny! like i said, a quick google didn't produce many chuckles from me. but i'm still comfortable with the idea that a truly horrible person can be clever or loyal or whatever.
RBG considered him a dear personal friend.
I believe when considering Scalia the man, that should factor in.
And now Cheeto will be replacing both of them with actual literal demons from hell. Friendship with him sure did a lot of good for the country, eh?
Her friendship with him had zero effect on trump getting elected so
i don't see that establishing he's a bigot proves he's not witty or funny
I'm sure he's absolutely side splitting if you find homophobic jokes funny, which I suppose most people in his age cohort do.
alright
Well, if there were a politician or former SCOTUS member who was known for making 'sharp & whitty' anti-Semitic jokes, would you give that a pass?
just for a second- do you realize how insulting it is to suggest that i'm only bothered by wrong acts that target groups to which i belong? maybe you actually think i'm a piece of shit, in which case i guess this is a legitimate, probing question. but if you don't, then take note of it next time you're in this situation.
to answer your question, though- i wouldn't give virulent antisemitism a pass any more than i would virulent anti-black bigotry or homophobia. i'm not giving scalia 'a pass', in whatever litmus test context you're suggesting. whatever gross things he's said remain gross. what i'm taking issue with is what seems like the suggestion that holding bigoted views is the sum of a person. i don't believe there are beliefs that so fully inform someone's identify as to squeeze out any possible room for other traits or descriptors. maybe if someone holds reprehensible views you could say 'these are so bad that i don't care if he's funny, or charitable in his community' or whatever. and maybe scalia wasn't actually funny! like i said, a quick google didn't produce many chuckles from me. but i'm still comfortable with the idea that a truly horrible person can be clever or loyal or whatever.
it is true a person can be a bigot and also otherwise useful
there's a thoroughly awful dude at work who also consistently has the highest sales numbers
scalia is just maybe not the easiest example for people to see this because his asshole views, often couched in shitty jokes, actually harmed thousands of people at once
so like, yeah he really knew how to game the law to support his deeply stupid and regressive viewpoints but
that's not admirable. he was an asshole
i ain't defending anything about scalia's career as a jurist
i know i'm just saying he's probably a difficult figure to be your example of just because he's an asshole doesn't mean he's not funny tack
because i mean yeah your underlying argument is true
but also he wasn't funny either outside of a few chuckle-worthy vocabulary words
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
I'm saying be good friends so that people speak highly of you. Some comments here are lacking. This conversation is a poor one on a cold night, friends.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
The idea that Scalia acted based solely (edit: or even sometimes) on his personal bigotry is extremely hard to support without some base assumptions that certain legal and philosophical positions are wrong and known to be wrong by all.
Basically, if you start with the assumption that he is obviously evil it's easy to conclude that he conducted himself as SCOTUS justice based on evil personal intent.
the fact that he contradicted his own legal opinions dependent on whose side would win a case might support the theory he was just a partisan shitbird
The idea that Scalia acted based solely (edit: or even sometimes) on his personal bigotry is extremely hard to support without some base assumptions that certain legal and philosophical positions are wrong and known to be wrong by all.
Basically, if you start with the assumption that he is obviously evil it's easy to conclude that he conducted himself as SCOTUS justice based on evil personal intent.
most people make decisions based on their personal belief system
SCOTUS is no exception here. It's hard not to look at his interpretation of the constitution as anything other than one based on his belief system. Though his is probably most aligned with the "man the constitution isn't meant for this kind of shit, this is a state issue" philosophy (which is what a true GOP should probably be like).
The issue is, ultimately, that states are fucking terrible at denying good rights to others, and slow to adopt something that's being culturally pushed from around the world and most of the other states (looking at you red states) just because "culture" or "tradition" and this is why SCOTUS needs to get involved... and should probably not have someone be like "nah states should decide to fuck over their people, that's their right, it says so in the constitution, just elect better state people you fucktards" is a great philosophy in theory, but terrible in reality.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
I hate that photo because my long eyelash makes me look seriously weird
I'd be the sarcastic friend who learns to express himself at the end and dies sacrificing himself
in the RTJ3 album one song has a clip from, MLK that goes something like, "Riots are the language of the unheard."
Which is a very apt description. if a persons are being stuffed into the dirt and their righteous concerns aren't being at least considered and validated, then what choice to they have but to speak in a language that they know their oppressors will understand?
i would probably be the shopkeeper who was the protagonist's caring uncle and whose cart gets overturned during a chase/fight scene
You have to take one of those 15 question pseudo-personality tests to see which role you truly belong in.
I really really want to move out of here. But can't until we get our security deposit.
God forbid someone speak to me like a human being and ask me about it, nope, just gonna eat it or dispose of it without asking at all.
It is less the specific sandwich and more the principle of living with people who do not give a shit about my stuff at all unless it bothers them and then they do whatever they want with it. Because I'm subhuman garbage apparently.
tbf when has an oppressor been like oh your riots have made me realize and accept your grievances so let's work to make your situation better?
just for a second- do you realize how insulting it is to suggest that i'm only bothered by wrong acts that target groups to which i belong? maybe you actually think i'm a piece of shit, in which case i guess this is a legitimate, probing question. but if you don't, then take note of it next time you're in this situation.
to answer your question, though- i wouldn't give virulent antisemitism a pass any more than i would virulent anti-black bigotry or homophobia. i'm not giving scalia 'a pass', in whatever litmus test context you're suggesting. whatever gross things he's said remain gross. what i'm taking issue with is what seems like the suggestion that holding bigoted views is the sum of a person. i don't believe there are beliefs that so fully inform someone's identify as to squeeze out any possible room for other traits or descriptors. maybe if someone holds reprehensible views you could say 'these are so bad that i don't care if he's funny, or charitable in his community' or whatever. and maybe scalia wasn't actually funny! like i said, a quick google didn't produce many chuckles from me. but i'm still comfortable with the idea that a truly horrible person can be clever or loyal or whatever.
is it terrible?
You're terrible! did you take my sandwich
link me. i wanna know what anime i am
I made a really tasty roast beef and swiss sandwich for lunch, and still have all the ingredients.
Red rising started really slow too!!
Make and eat thine own sandwich, in memory of ham and cheese that has passed.
*dies*
I have half a mind to ignore mens tights and just get women's since holy fuck are they expensive as fuck since they're aimed at sports nerds
I guess I will be a pretty princess in my tights
I don't disagree but my biggest problem with their music is that it doesn't present those nuanced arguments up front.
RBG considered him a dear personal friend.
I believe when considering Scalia the man, that should factor in.
it is true a person can be a bigot and also otherwise useful
there's a thoroughly awful dude at work who also consistently has the highest sales numbers
scalia is just maybe not the easiest example for people to see this because his asshole views, often couched in shitty jokes, actually harmed thousands of people at once
so like, yeah he really knew how to game the law to support his deeply stupid and regressive viewpoints but
that's not admirable. he was an asshole
Me either but it did
And now Cheeto will be replacing both of them with actual literal demons from hell. Friendship with him sure did a lot of good for the country, eh?
idk what causes your knee pain but mine is solved by 12-15 trips to the squat rack at about 130-150lbs, 10x5
it was interesting and not stupid though
Most decent people have terrible opinions about something, but are usually a decent human being at the end of the day.
However, someone in a position like the POTUS or SCOTUS.. they should be elevated and probably hold opinions that won't be punitive against a lot of people just because they personally feel one way or another.
i ain't defending anything about scalia's career as a jurist
mostly damage from working at UPS, kind of similar to a sports person's knees
it is exacerbated by my weight, but that's dropping and the pain is still mostly there
for the most part my knees are still okay and don't need surgery so he wants to see if this will work
Lets do it
Glen beck can't turn around lets get im
Lets get them all
Do it do it do it
Basically, if you start with the assumption that he is obviously evil it's easy to conclude that he conducted himself as SCOTUS justice based on evil personal intent.
Friendship matters to each individual. It does not matter to the people your decisions are actively fucking over.
Alternate Post:
Maybe the real justices are the friends we made along the way.
Her friendship with him had zero effect on trump getting elected so
What are you trying to say here
weight lifting has helped, but my one knee just aches constantly, especially in this winter weather
i know i'm just saying he's probably a difficult figure to be your example of just because he's an asshole doesn't mean he's not funny tack
because i mean yeah your underlying argument is true
but also he wasn't funny either outside of a few chuckle-worthy vocabulary words
the fact that he contradicted his own legal opinions dependent on whose side would win a case might support the theory he was just a partisan shitbird
most people make decisions based on their personal belief system
SCOTUS is no exception here. It's hard not to look at his interpretation of the constitution as anything other than one based on his belief system. Though his is probably most aligned with the "man the constitution isn't meant for this kind of shit, this is a state issue" philosophy (which is what a true GOP should probably be like).
The issue is, ultimately, that states are fucking terrible at denying good rights to others, and slow to adopt something that's being culturally pushed from around the world and most of the other states (looking at you red states) just because "culture" or "tradition" and this is why SCOTUS needs to get involved... and should probably not have someone be like "nah states should decide to fuck over their people, that's their right, it says so in the constitution, just elect better state people you fucktards" is a great philosophy in theory, but terrible in reality.