The Matrix did. Imho.

Illustration by Escher.

Learning to distinguished between what actually happened and the narratives my mind has about what happened.

I was once stopped at a red light waiting to turn right. I glanced left, saw it clear, and started moving forward…but a tattered, sunburnt dude in a wheelchair had appeared out of nowhere and tried to cross in front of me.

I stopped in time, didn’t hit him, but must’ve scared him (or something), ‘cause he lost his fucking mind and started shrieking bloody murder, backed up a bit and started CLAWING at the passenger side window — not trying to open the door, just clawing, freaking my friend the fuck out — and screamed (exact quote), “I’LL KILL YOU, YOU MISERABLE BASTARD!!!”

You can also run a spoon under hot water for a more improv tool. Works great.

If it flies, look for a huge spike in stds

Love it. Thanks!

when nessa

Omg, thanks I hate it…is this a thing? I mean I might love it, not sure yet.

Honestly curious and hoping for serious replies:

What do trans people think about the possibility of a child or preteen “getting it wrong”? Ie, maturing into an adult that realizes/decides that they actually want to live out their life as initially assigned at birth?

Note: I know so little that I’m actually not sure if this question itself is massively offensive or not…if so, sincere apologies. Just want to learn more about this and stop imagining things!

It’s just the rise of loud, groupthink edgelords, refusing to think past a hyper-emotional brainwash.

My understanding is that even after Hiroshima, the Imperial Army attempted a coup to avoid surrender.

The Japanese were not stopping. The only alternative at hand was a full invasion, which would have killed many, many more.

Praying that Tyson floors him, but it’s a performance, not a fight.

…Unless Tyson has an oopsie.

;)

Stop.

Murr? Derr?

Only on religion.

Christmas Rapping by the Waitresses

Gnu’s Not Linux!

Riiiiiight.

If you were accused of a war crime, who would you want involved?

Accuser, defender, and as close as possible to a neutral host/judge/jury?

It seems that’s the best we can do.

I think the question is deliberately naive and baiting.

The accusation of “war crimes” requires an actual, full investigation (and trial) to be completely valid and/or meaningful.

Instead, it’s thrown out any time an act of war appears to be particularly unfair or evil, often without full context or detail.