Oh hell yes!!!!

I didn't see the leash at first so I thought she was just hauling ass with her tiny little feet

@goat-yells-at-everything’s daughter

I just watched The Room (2003) for the first time with some friends and I. I cannot. this broke me

the pizza? the one that Lisa orders? the half-hawaiian, half pesto-and-artichoke?

that’s my favorite pizza

that’s the pizza I order every. single. time.

what does this mean?

like, have all of the pizza places I’ve ordered from for the past decade thought I was referencing The Room? have I been getting silent judgement from the local Dominos without my knowledge?? is this why that guy at Mod Pizza laughed at me that one time??

how did I, a person who had never seen The Room, choose this as my favorite pizza? is this fate? happenstance? 

what does this say about me?

I’m having like. an existential breakdown over this

is this….tearing you apart?

goddammit

why do all the killers in s1 want to date hannibal so bad. he’s the hottest girl in school and they’re all down horrendously bad but he’s obsessed with will, the sad loser in the corner who doesn’t even notice him… what in the high school romcom is this

the actual dialogue:

i see no difference

"killing must feel good to god, too. he does it all the time. and are we not created in his image?" dr lecter you are a HORRIBLE therapist but that line FUCKS

rewatching mash isn’t enough i need to hunt down alan alda

hey girl is your name anronpa. cause dang

Everytime I make a post like "don't spend money on gacha" I get a bunch of angry replies to tell me "actually it's POSSIBLE to gamble responsibly" and "mh how AM i a bad person for deciding to spend MY own money that I earned MYSELF?"

and man... I really wish that people understood that when I say "Don't spend money on gacha, it might kickstart a gambling addiction" or "if you regularly spend money on gacha you might already have one" I don't mean it as a moral judgement. Addiction isn't something that solely affects "bad" or "stupid" people. Addiction isn't some punishment that is deserved. If you suffer from any kind of addiction, you deserve help. But the first step of getting that help is acknowledging there is a problem in the first place.

also: while this applies to all addictions, gacha addictions especially suck because people keep trivializing it. There are so many memes and so much enabling like "lol just spent all my savings on gacha :p" "3000$ for my waifu, a pretty cheap price!" "lol it's too late for me I already spend so much on it but you guys stay safe!" "Don't spend on gacha? No, spend MORE on gacha!" which I believe only adds fuel to the virulent hostility against any post that goes "hey, this isn't normal, please be careful."

So yeah all this talk to say: the best way to not get a gambling addiction is to not start gambling at all, so don't spend money on gacha. If you do spend money on gacha, be careful and watch out that "I'm just spending ten bucks and nothing else" doesn't morph into "I just spent 140 bucks and got nothing out of it, might as well add ten more at this point." If you have a gacha addiction and are aware of it, I wish you safety and recovery.

Ed, it's...Ed, Ed, it's September 1st, boss.

What's that, mate?

It's September the 1st.

Dickfuck, no, it's not.

He's right. It's the 1st.

Suggested Alternatives to the One China Policy

Currently, the policy of the United States on the Taiwan question is that the US recognizes that polities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait hold that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China. In the current tense international climate, it may be useful to considers alternatives to that policy.

Two Chinas Policy: The United States recognizes the independence of Taiwan as a sovereign state, separate from the People's Republic of China.

Three Chinas Policy: The US recognizes Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the mainland as independent states.

Four Chinas Policy: The US recognizes Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and the mainland as independent states.

One China Policy (Retro 1978): The US switches its diplomatic recognition back from the PRC to the ROC.

One China Policy (Retro 1911): The US recognizes the Qing Dynasty as the legitimate government of China and finds some schmuck to play Emperor-in-Exile.

Many Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every Chinese province.

Too Many Chinas Policy: Hong Kong makes a perfectly fine city-state, so why not let everyone do that? The US recognizes every Chinese municipality as its own independent state.

1436506450 Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every Chinese person.

2^1436506450 Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every subset of of the set of all Chinese persons.

2^1436506450-1 Chinas Policy: Same as above, but not including the empty set, because that doesn't even make sense because it's already claimed by Germany.

Infinite Chinas Policy (Countable): The US recognizes that (1) The PRC is a China and (2) for every China c, the successor S(c) is also a China, and (3) for every China c, c != S(c).

Infinite Chinas Policy (Uncountable): The US recognizes that the set C of all Chinas is an ordered field, and that every non-empty subset of C with an upper bound in C has a least upper bound in C.

No Chinas Policy: The United States embraces mereological nihilism and recognizes only atoms and the void.

@deaths-accountant replied:

Oh, dangit, you're right. Hold on, gotta send a quick memo to the State Department.

Infinite Chinas Policy (Countable) (Amended): The US recognizes that (1) The PRC is a China and (2) for every China c, the successor S(c) is also a China, (3) for every China c, c != S(c), and (4) for Chinas x and y, x is equal to y if and only if S(x) is equal to S(y).

I'm afraid this hasn't fixed it. This is still consistent with any number of China's greater than 1. E.g. it is consistent with

s(PRC) = ROC

s(ROC) = PRC

any other finite cycle would work, and you still haven't guaranteed that the only Chinas that exist are produced by applying the successor function to the PRC finitely many times. There could be floating China's that exist in cycles on their own, not connected to the main bunch.

I think it would be sufficient to say:

(1) the PRC is a China (2) for every China c, the successor S(c) is also a China (3) for every China c, S(c) is not the PRC (4) for Chinas x and y, x is equal to y if and only if S(x) is equal to S(y) (5) if for every first order property, a of a China, for any China c: a(c) implies a(S(c)), and also a(PRC) is true, then a is true of every China

(you need the induction axiom to prevent floating Chinas)

an alternative would be:

every set of Chinas is either bijective with the set of all Chinas, or is not bijective with any proper subset of itself (assuming choice)

we can only sext if we roleplay as key figures from the cold war 

im gorbachev who wants to be reagan

Mr. gorbachev tear down those pants

RIP Gorbachev (2 March 1931 – 30 August 2022)

I cannot believe this is where I heard the news.

ppl keep talking abt Ed's emotional hangups and I'm in love with it but can we acknowledge that out of the two of them clearly Stede has the biggest self-esteem issues like

he's so utterly convinced of his own worthlessness. And it's at a level when he isn't even angsty about it - it's just a natural fact of the world for him. The sky is blue, the earth is round, nobody enjoys Stede Bonnet's presence.

Whenever someone plots an attempt on his life his reaction basically boils down to "Oh yeah, that's valid, who would blame you". After everything that happens, after the damn kiss, after Ed asks him to run away together, he still doesn't consider that him leaving might have a negative effect.

And it's also why his marriage to Mary was such a shitshow, like Mary is really trying, and I am certain they could have made a relationship work where they're both on friendly terms and otherwise just do their thing. But he doesn't even consider the possibility. That scene when Mary tries to reach out to him and he pretends to be asleep? He doesn't do that because he wants to pretend everything's alright. He's just unable to see that there's still options here. That they both deserve to be happy, that life can be more than this.

He's convinced everyone is just reluctantly putting up with him because they have to and would always be delighted to see him go. And again, he's not angsty about it! Which is worse.

He's so out of touch with his own emotions he doesn't even realize he's in love with Ed after all that happens in ep9. I'm not even sure he realizes Ed is in love with him by the end of the show.

And this absolute lack of self-worth kind of makes him a dick? Because he thinks he couldn't possibly have a positive impact on anyone. He thinks he's gonna get rejected anyway so his own actions don't matter.

Desaster man. I love him.

a bath can be considered a character study; conversely, a shower shares many characteristics with the heros journey