Lurker > StealThisSheen

I played for like an hour and got some mage woman and she was the best.

Which one is she?

The_shibe posted...

for the same reason they can have pillow fights and pajama parties and guys cant lol.

imagine walking around in your boxers and a t shirt having a sleepover with a bunch of dudes, cuddling in bed and having pillow fights lmao

These things don't actually happen in any notable number. I assume you don't actually know many women.

BurmesePenguin posted...

Why did you link to the same post made by 4 different entities, one of which is quoting another one of your links?

TC wanted to include multiple sources, assumedly to avoid the "You just dropped a Twitter link and left!" posters, presumedly.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

Girls ain't as fucked in the head as men when it comes to needing to make sure everyone knows they are straight.

This is the truth, honestly. I've never thought twice about calling one of my friends "girlfriend," but there was absolutely a time when my guy friends would have completely scoffed at the idea of calling a male friend a "boyfriend" due to the homophobia attached. And that still, sadly, exists today.

All is right in the world. There is still hope. We can continue to fight for the things we believe in.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/4/2/AAXqxlAAE6Xa.jpg
Apparently this came out months ago and Insomniac confirmed the character model is the same actress in both games but they changed the hairstyle in SM2. To me it looks like a completely different person.

I assume the face scan/animation technology just improved, and the SM2 version is closer to the actual model, since it's built from the ground up for PS5 vs. PS4. Both models have the exact same nose, so I fully believe it's the same actress.

bsp77 posted...

Oh, wow. I did not report him btw. I'm not that fragile.

I mean, to be fair, telling somebody you wish they'd die is pretty much an instant suspension, at the least. It has nothing to do with being "fragile."

Naysaspace posted...

It means they are promiscuous. Needed to differentiate due to the high volume of male "friends"

...No.

Kradek posted...

I can only imagine the people here adamantly saying pets are items because they can be bought, sold, and owned, so therefore are "items" or "objects" making the same argument to justify human enslavement. The logic is the exact same.

Tons of pet lovers vouch for the abolishment of them being bought and sold and the end of pet stores/breeding for money

The crazy thing is that you don't even need to go to slavery. Professional athletes, in practice, are bought, sold/traded, and owned. On this very day, in 2023, there exists people that, according to the logic of certain people here, are "items."

That said, I stopped giving A_good_boy the benefit of the doubt, since he tried to pull the "Nobody is actually calling them items!" while he was conveniently ignoring that pnut was straight up openly trolling about it.

Revelation34 posted...

Lol.

"Being dumb" isn't a personal attack when what he did was, quite literally, dumb, because he apparently didn't actually fully read or comprehend the posts he told me to answer, and therefore didn't realize they proved me right. I called out his actions for being dumb. Nothing personal about that.

Wanna try again?

dave_is_slick posted...

Not once, in all the mac and cheese I've ever had, has anyone put chicken or broccoli it.

Literally all you have to do is Google to see how common the recipe is.

https://www.gimmesomeoven.com/broccoli-chicken-mac-cheese/

Yeah, TC wants plain macaroni with cheese dust on top.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


GotG3 was fantastic.

But regardless, that user's post went far beyond "Marvel movies are worse," he was specifically critiquing this movie, already, and judging what responses will be.

Dudes on the internet usually decide that, if they can't get super models without kids when they're like, 50, then the "system" must be skewed against men, somehow.

streamofthesky posted...

^

No one ever calls the super-questionable glut of 10/10 reviews of movies/games w/ one full sentence at most "review bombing".
I think it will be a legit terrible movie, and when it underperforms, the cast and writers will blame and insult Marvel fans.

Yeah, see, this guy proves my point completely. He has already made up his mind, based entirely on who is in the movie/what it's about. And he has already decided what reactions will be, regardless.

Kajagogo posted...

Mac and cheese is just that. If you add anything else, it becomes a casserole.

You don't know what a casserole actually is, do you

xlr_big-coop posted...

This. How will they spin the narrative if the movie is legitimately bad? I remember Antman having initially good reviews which got lowered after the first week. Reminds me of the rotten tomatoes scandal from last month.

They don't have to spin any narrative, since when people like you judge a movie before it even comes out, based on women being it it, most people know not to take you seriously. People will dismiss you as they properly do, regardless. And if the movie is bad, it's just bad, and has nothing to do with whatever your incel brain cooked up.

creativerealms posted...

It's inevitable.

Also if it under preformed expect claims of "Go Woke get broke." And if it preforms well expect conspiracies about Disney buying theaters.

This.

If it doesn't underperform, certain types on the internet, from MAGA to typical nerds who just hate women/Brie Larson, will say Disney bought reviews/theaters/etc., so it literally cannot win.

ClayGuida posted...

Probably. Feel like nerds online hate women for whatever reason.

Especially Brie Larson.

Yes, pretty obviously. It might end up sucking, but it will get review bombed before anybody has had an actual chance to see if it sucks or not, just like Captain Marvel did, before it.

Zikten posted...

In the comics, she is an internationally famous model and actress. Here she looks kinda goofy.

That's a remnant from when they meant her to be a side character, and not Peter's love interest. Once she started consistently being Peter's love interest, they started consistently making her less "model" attractive. Initially, Peter was meant to get with Gwen, and Gwen was less "hot"/more like Peter. Once they shifted gears, they started portraying MJ more similar to Peter, and made Gwen the attractive one.

EDIT: ...Granted, that was their stated intention. I think they ended up still drawing MJ "hot" with big breasts and what not because... Comics.

trivialbeing posted...

Mary Jane is supposed to be a bombshell

why do they make her look so plain?

That hasn't been true for a long time. It was true initially, when they intended for Gwen Stacy to be Peter's "true love," and for Mary Jane to just be a side character. Ever since they shifted to MJ being the love interest, though, they've typically portrayed her as the more "plain," of the two, and Gwen is the "hot" one.

EDIT: Basically, they always intended for Peter Parker's love interest to be more like him. When they initially intended it to be Gwen Stacy, they made Gwen more like him, and MJ the "hot" one. When they shifted gears to MJ being the love interest, they made her more like Peter, and Gwen the "hot" one.

What that means is that they never intended for Peter to get with the "hot" one, they always intended for him to get with a character more like him.

C_Pain posted...

I agree if you're talking about Kraft mac and cheese. A splash of milk is all you need.

TC said "no" milk, though, which means a "splash" would be too much.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Why isn't her hair red

It's in line with what natural red hair actually looks like. How "red" red hair looks naturally depends on lighting.

It's clearly a render, and will almost certainly look different in actual action, so... Cannot judge.

dameon_reaper posted...

Yeah but it beats FM and AM stations. Cool thing about XM is when you're traveling cross state and you don't have to go seeking out a cool station. Then again, I stick with spotify for music.

I love Spotify. I have literally no need for live radio anymore. I can just play a fake "radio station" of music I know I'm gonna enjoy.

dameon_reaper posted...

I know what the topic is about, sorry, I was making conversation that was semi related to the topic lol..

It's all good.

lilORANG posted...

I am fine with recorded shit. But it's mildly annoying when I turn on a show at 7:45 and get a message that I can either watch just the ending or wait 15 minutes to start over.

Well, that's what I'm saying. Stuff like Youtube TV don't/can't record stuff, which is why you don't have a "Play from beginning." They pay ONLY for streaming rights, which means they can only show what's currently playing, they can't give you any actual "Restart" options.

dameon_reaper posted...

Honestly, there's some pretty free options out there. There's one that came with my Roku that lets me watch some Korean dramas and anime when I'm not in the mood of searching shit out. A whole channel just for One Piece, hell yeah

I mean, those options are pretty clearly not what this topic is talking about, since they're clearly not "live TV" options, they just... Stream a certain show/genre/whatever all day, as a "channel," from their current streaming options.

lilORANG posted...

YouTube TV doesn't let you start from the beginning if it's live either. I don't get it tbh.

Most of those "Live TV" services don't actually have the rights to record live TV, which means you can't restart from the beginning. They love to claim to be a good replacement for cable, but if you truly depend on live TV, they simply can't match up. They take shortcuts, by providing a service that can stream live TV, and later provide streaming options after it has already aired, but they don't pay for the rights to actually have all "live" features.

News is also about the last thing you need "live," since they report the exact same stuff over and over again all day.

If something happened that day, you can tune in to any news channel, at any time, and they'll be talking about it. And if you can't "tune in," you can load literally news source on the internet and get the exact same stuff they're talking about on TV.

pnut027 posted...

Brb. My item is barking at the neighbor.

I hope you find peace with whatever is causing you to act this way, purely for attention. You will be getting no more attention from me, unfortunately for you.

pnut027 posted...

I justified why the AI considered it an item.

Which it is.

So, yes, you're intentionally trolling, at this point.

Basically, if your dogs will kill anybody who enters your property, circumstance be damned, then they deserve to be put down. I'm sorry if you disagree with this, but your dog's first instinct upon seeing somebody should NOT be "kill." If you breed/train your dogs to indiscriminately kill on sight, that is a problem. Period.

If the only thing stopping your dogs from killing somebody is your presence/you stopping them, that is a problem. Period.

If your dog's literal first instinct is "Kill," no matter what, that is a problem, period.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Fun fact, you cannot just kill people on your property. Not even with guard dogs.

I'm kinda baffled why this seems to keep escaping people. You can't just kill literally anybody that enters your property, regardless of signs, and ESPECIALLY not with dogs. A "Beware of Dog" sign is not legal murder, neither is "No Trespassing." There are limits/mandatory factors. One of those is having a LOCKED fence that somebody would purposely have to climb across, for example. If a person can accidentally enter your property, it doesn't matter what sign you have posted, you cannot legally kill them just for entering your property.

Alright, we're gonna nip this now. See ya, a_good_boy.

Karma: 970
Registered: 8/18/2017 7:43:59 PM

You were an obvious troll account, anyway.

Are you thinking of The Dead Pool, maybe?

pnut027 posted...

No.

Yes.

And the fact you chose this topic to troll in is especially telling.

The topic is literally about a guy who was extremely distraught over the treatment/abduction of his pet, and you ran in to go "PETS ARE JUST OBJECTS ANYWAY"

So, uh...

I'm sorry for whatever is going on in your life that causes you to act like this.

pnut027 posted...

1. Fuck off.
2. Close your account.
3. Feed your item.
4. Get paid.

I mean, you are literally intentionally trolling, at this point, so, uh...

pnut027 posted...

Close your account.

Close yours.

SwayM posted...

Lotta crying in this topic.

You're not helping the idea that you just say shit for attention.

SHRlKE posted...

Stop engaging with him. Youre giving him exactly what he wants. Attention.

Yeah, don't worry. I'm done, now.

A_Good_Boy posted...

I didn't misread anything in those posts homie. You just want the word "item" to have a significance associated with a pet in a way that nobody was arguing against in the first place. But keep going off I guess.

Oh boy, the backpedal is incredible, here.

Keep crying.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Hey at least this time when you ran off in a huff you didn't make up some shit about me being a fascist or a chud this time.

I didn't have to say anything. You literally caught yourself in the act of being dumb by going "Hey, look at these specific posts!" and they... Proved me right.

Sorry that upsets you so much. I hope you recover. I can tell I've apparently upset you very much, since you've resorted to personal attacks.

Questionmarktarius posted...

can a 17-year-old even be a pedo?

It apparently wasn't the 17 year old he had an issue with, it was the 18 year old. And in this case, they weren't somebody he specifically tried to trap, local reports say he went there to eat, recognized the 18 year old from a "prior encounter," and it escalated from there. So we don't really know the actual details, and we likely won't for a long while.

MarcoRubio posted...

I mean, you are correct in that you don't use milk. You replace it with sour cream.

Okay, this is an even worse take. Congratulations.

Arcanine2009 posted...

I mean that's fine. You won't really have to be a step parent till marriage anyway.

If you're in your 40s though, you have less option s vs when you are in your 30s.

This. You don't have to be a step parent if you don't want to be. And there are plenty of women in their 30s and 40s without kids.

That said, you also have to accept that if you are in your 40s, and you DON'T want kids, then your options are, naturally, going to be more limited than they would otherwise. And that's not a problem, or some "attack" on men, like certain people love to try to argue.

A_Good_Boy posted...

OK so the item in question is a pet, which is a person's property.

You happy now?

So you're admitting you either completely misread the argument, or tried to turn it into something it wasn't, in order to be a contrarian?

Cool, then we're done.

A_Good_Boy posted...

What's going on in post 258 and 260?

Like are you sure I'm the one that's misunderstanding the conversation instead of you?

You mean like this post, here, which is literally, quite literally, objecting to the use of the word "item," like I said?

spikethedevil posted...

pnut027 posted...
If you can legally buy, sell and own it, its an item.

No its a living thing now fuck off.

Huh.

Since you posted before my edit, I'll repeat:

They aren't objecting to the "property" bit as much, either, as they are the usage of the word "item." But I think you knew that.