marvel's biggest bone-liner

[PhantomCatClock]

MAYBE THE DISCORD iSN'T SO BAD

[JooceClock]

𝓓𝓮𝓶𝓾𝓻𝓮

[Slurpee]

did I miss something

[PhantomCatClock]

no but I do get @ed every Friday for the Slurpee Memorial Game Night





which they did not rename during the Great Slurpee Health Scare of '24, now that i think about it

[PhantomCatClock]

2024 to be clear. i've been trying to avoid ambiguous language like the plague

[Slurpee]

lady I love my cigar but I take it out of my vagina sometimes

[Slurpee]

this probably isn't going to mean anything to any of you but I'm playing fire emblem three houses and I don't understand how Ashe isn't pretty much everybody's favorite character

not that he's my favorite character exactly but just based on his interactions and personality I was like "this dude would be drowning in pussy"

I don't even have a word for it, it's not "gee shucks" exactly, it's better. he's just kind and nonthreatening and morally uncomplicated even in the face of great strife. chivalrous. like galahad, like he's the young knight that actually takes all the shit about being a good person and a stand-up guy seriously. a very positive and shiny boy. like the definition of "doing his best" but having had a hard enough life that doing his best is impressive, and also competent enough for his best to mean something

he's what I assume everybody mistakenly thinks I am when they think they like me because they realized I'm not a horrible rat man and they haven't realized yet that no yeah they were right the first time I'm a horrible rat man

but nope he's like the 20th most popular character
I found this out because I'm watching random sungwon cho videos on youtube and he has a "ranking every three houses character" video and he ranked ashe a D tier and I was like "that's kinda harsh" but I looked around and nah I guess he's just actually not very popular. people ain't see what I see

sungwon also called dimitri "this macaroni rat boy" which made me laugh and that sent me down a wikipedia rabbithole looking up what the hell "macaroni" means besides what I know it means. macaroni was basically rich metrosexual hipsters in georgian england. wealthy young british men would traditionally travel abroad as a rite of passage and they typically really liked italy and thought macaroni noodles (which hadn't spread to england yet) were awesome. they were also known for adopting a bunch of annoyingly pointless fashions and behaviors and used "macaroni" as a slang term for anything hip, so people started calling them macaroni- look they were hipsters okay I'm literally just describing hipsters from another century

anyway that sent me to the wikipedia page for molly-houses and that sent me to the wikipedia page for sodomy and did you guys know sodomy didn't even mean buttsex until like the 6th century? wtf.
I knew the actual scripture is pretty explicit that the sin of sodom was that they were haughty and uncharitable but it's kind of insane that jesus had been dead for 500 years before people started just making up some other bullshit. and of course it was the romans. I'm developing an extremely well-researched and theologically sophisticated theory that everything stupid about christianity started with the romans coopting it and imposing their fucked up values. and also saint paul being kind of a weird shut-in with some serious hang-ups that he mistook for morals sorry saint paul just calling it like I see it. anyway the important part is that led me to the wikipedia page for Nīþ and lmao at this sentence

and/or

[Slurpee]

naming the background characters in harold and kumar "rosenberg and goldstein" was a really funny joke

they're rosencrantz and guildenstern but they're jewish so they're rosenberg and goldstein

[Slurpee]

but like the tom stoppard rosencrantz and guildenstern. it's not really implied in hamlet that they go on a parallel adventure or anything, we only really think of them like that because of stoppard. in hamlet they're just childhood friends of hamlet who were sent by claudius to determine if hamlet's madness was genuine but he doesn't trust them and after hamlet kills polonius claudius tells them to go with hamlet to the king of england and gives them a letter to give to him that says to kill hamlet but hamlet changes the letter so it says to kill them instead and then you just don't hear from them for a while and then richard attenborough says they died

[Slurpee]

I'm captain basch fon rosencrantz of dalmasca
don't believe ondore's lies
I'm captain basch

[Slurpee]

but I mean even stoppard's play was a little more surreal and beckett-esque than people tend to think if they haven't seen it. that was kind of the joke, they don't have an adventure because they don't really have lives and an identity of their own, they exist to be minor characters in someone else's story, and the play is like "well what would that be like though, really? it's absurd and kinda horrifying to think about"
in that sense it's less like the chester and aj episode of fairly oddparents and more like that late simpsons joke when homer leaves moe's tavern and moe is like "okay, everybody, back to standing in place and staring at the wall"

[Slurpee]

there was actually a pre-cleveland show family guy joke where cleveland makes reference to something that we as the audience haven't seen and peter and joe just look at him blankly and cleveland's like "what, you think the only thing I ever do is get involved in your shenanigans? I've got a life, too, you know"
I'm not sure if the later existence of the cleveland show makes that more or less funny. less, i think

[Slurpee]

okay I need to make one more post because I really don't want to end the night on a family guy reference uh... uhhhhhhhhhhhh hmmmmmm,mmmmmmmbipbipbipboooooooo......
you guys seen that uh hmmmmmmmmm

[Slurpee]

here have an old one I didn't bother finishing:

logic lesson
a proposition has two parts, the antecedent and the consequent
this is often summarized as "if P, then Q"
P is the antecedent, Q is the consequent
for example, in the statement "if it's raining, then it's wet" the antecedent is "it's raining" and the consequent is "it's wet"

there are some fun things about the truthfulness of a proposition
for example, "if it's raining, then it's wet" does NOT imply that "if it's not raining, then it's not wet." (this is called the "converse" of a statement). you can see that that's true because, while rain wets things, other things can wet things as well
for another example, "if it's raining, then it's wet" also does not imply "if it's wet, then it's raining." (this is called the "inverse")
this is a good intuitive example because we understand that there are other reasons it could be wet
another fun one is that "if it's raining, then it's wet" DOES imply that "if it's not wet, then it's not raining." (this is called the "contrapositive") because it raining is a sufficient condition for it to be wet

(you may be thinking of giant umbrellas right now. that is because you are silly)

interestingly, the inverse of the original proposition is the contrapositive of the converse of the original proposition. they are "logically equivalent"

another fun one is e.g. "if I'm an octopus, then you are handsome"
this statement is always true, because I'm not an octopus. this statement is called "vacuously true"– the whole proposition is true, but it doesn't give us any useful information, because the antecedent is always false. we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions about whether you are handsome from this proposition alone (we would have to use our eyes... handsome.)

similarly, "if it's tuesday, then the ground is beneath the sky"
this is always true, because the consequent is always true. it doesn't matter if it's tuesday, or that the ground is beneath the sky when it's not tuesday, because it implies no information about the relationship between the ground and sky when it's not tuesday



now that we understand logic let's use logic to determine if everyone on earth is matthew lesko

there are two possibilities. either everyone on earth is matthew lesko, or there exists at least one person on earth whom is not matthew lesko

possibility 1: everyone on earth is matthew lesko
then for any given person, the statement "if this person is matthew lesko, then everyone on earth is matthew lesko" must be true, because remember, under this possibility, everyone on earth is matthew lesko. the consequent is always true, so the proposition is always true. let's call that proposition A

possibility 2: there exists at least one person on earth whom is not matthew lesko
for that person, let's once again consider proposition A: "if this person is matthew lesko, then everyone on earth is matthew lesko."
well, we know that this person is not matthew lesko, and as we learned earlier, since the antecedent is false, this makes the proposition vacuously true

∴ under all possibilities, the statement "if this person is matthew lesko, then everyone on earth is matthew lesko" is true

now we consider the case of matthew lesko. is this person matthew lesko? yes.
then, since the statement "if this person is matthew lesko, then everyone on earth is matthew lesko" is true, we can conclude from pure logic that everyone on earth is matthew lesko∎

[zl]

Has anyone read Babbitt? The 1920s satire of self-aggrandizing republican business boys? It's so good.

First of all the slang of the times was superb.

Ted observed that her friends were "a scream of a bunch-stuck-up gabby four-flushers."

Does 'four-flusher' refer to someone with pipe-challenging evacuations? I like to think so.

The sarcastic capitalization of insincere High Concepts also gets me.

[Babbit claimed to possess] a thing called Ethics, whose nature was confusing but if you had it you were a High-class Realtor and if you hadn't you were a shyster, a piker, and a fly-by-night. These virtues awakened Confidence, and enabled you to handle Bigger Propositions. But they didn't imply you were to be impractical and refuse to take twice the value of a house if a buyer was such an idiot that he didn't jew you down on the asking-price.

Historic Trumpiness.

As always he noted that the California Building across the way was three stories lower, therefore three stories less beautiful, than his own Reeves building.

I have multiple times encountered such sick burns of masculinity that I've whispered, "daaamn."

The men leaned back on their heels, put their hands in their trousers-pockets, and proclaimed their views with the booming profundity of a prosperous male repeating a thoroughly hackneyed statement about a matter of which he knows nothing whatever.

He coaxed her with booming sounds, with affable smiles, like a popular preacher blessing an Easter congregation, like a humorous lecturer completing his stint of eloquence, like all perpetrators of masculine wiles.

Which of them said which has never been determined, and does not matter, since they all had the same ideas and expressed them always with the same ponderous and brassy assurance.

Sometimes the prose is beautiful.

Outside the car window was a glaze of darkness stippled with the gold of infrequent mysterious lights.

And sometimes it's gotten real laughs out of me.

He enjoyed being sick in February; he was delighted by their consternation that he, the rock, should give way.

He had eaten a questionable clam.

I shall tell the fellows in Nottingham your ideas about Visions and Real Guys.

It's good, fellas.

[Slurpee]

He enjoyed being sick in February; he was delighted by their consternation that he, the rock, should give way.

He had eaten a questionable clam.

lol

[Slurpee]

I've actually never heard of it* but you make a compelling case

this:

Which of them said which has never been determined, and does not matter, since they all had the same ideas and expressed them always with the same ponderous and brassy assurance.

is absolutely brutal and immediately conjured to mind a Type of Guy that evidently has not gone away despite having had the last hundred years to do so

also yeah, the choice to imply insincere loftiness with capitalization is a curiously modern one, or at least I thought it was? maybe it's one of those things that goes in cycles (I swear it was considered proper to use an apostrophe for pluralizing initialisms and decades within my lifetime)

wiktionary is an amazing website and my go-to first step for unfamiliar terms or digging into a word's etymology or looking up synonyms for sex parts and giggling. I bring it up because they have an entry for four-flusher and I will leave it to you if you want to find out

*it was hidden! the bastards don't want us to know about it!

[JooceClock]

Wut

[VCRClock]

i appreciate this highbrow literary ccbt page but i have little to contribute

the letters of st. paul are meant to be read pronouncing 'fornication' in a mr. crocker 'fairy godparents' voice, i don't know why most churches don't do that

[PhantomCatClock]

the original hebrew said, specifically, reverse-cowgirl every time the more conservative modern translations say fornication



i don't know why st. paul wrote those letters in hebrew but i guess they knew what he meant