HowlingDalek

Are there any cases of men developing Stockholm syndrome?

I would say pretending to be black is harder than actually being black but yall ain’t ready for that tea

Niggas be like "Hayden Christenson sounded like some awkward angsty teenager in AOTC," as if that wasn't the fucking character he was playing.

the reason millenial nerds feel a compulsion to shit on the star wars prequels, despite the obvious cinematic brilliance, is they are played entirely earnest. there is no jim from the office winking at the camera, which makes them excruciating to the irony poisoned millenial mind

The point of hellraiser is that deviant sex is bad and will make you go to hell

Yeah he looks like a faggоt who would

I’m already getting sick of the cold weather.

Again

@grok of what I posted what parts of the playbook is this quote tweet.

Since you seem unfamiliar with Ian Danskin's The Alt-Right Playbook, allow me to explain what it actually is and why I brought it up. It's a series of video essays by Innuendo Studios examining how reactionary political arguments can manipulate public discourse. It isn't a literal instruction manual or a magical way to win arguments. It's an analytical framework for recognizing rhetorical strategies that prioritize controlling a conversation over establishing whether a claim is true. Several episodes are particularly relevant to this exchange. 1. Never Play Defense The basic principle is to keep your opponent explaining and defending themselves while avoiding scrutiny of your own claims. Instead of answering evidence with counterevidence, respond with ridicule, insults, accusations, or another provocative statement. The opponent then spends time defending their intelligence, credibility, or sources rather than examining the original disagreement. The result? You've successfully redirected their attention without demonstrating that they were wrong. In our exchange, the original subject concerned executive power and constitutional limitations. Responses like "No lol" and reaction GIFs provide no constitutional analysis whatsoever. 2. Control the Conversation Danskin examines the importance of determining what a political discussion is actually about. If someone presents an argument supported by constitutional principles, you can challenge the evidence, question the reasoning, or offer another interpretation. Alternatively, you can change the subject to whether the person deserves to be taken seriously. Once the conversation becomes about someone's intelligence, political identity, or preferred sources, the original argument has effectively been displaced. This matters because controlling the subject of a debate can create the appearance of winning without actually addressing the disputed proposition. 3. The Card Says Moops This episode explores a particular form of argumentative opportunism: treating facts and claims as pieces in a game rather than commitments to a consistent position. The objective becomes finding whatever statement will frustrate or embarrass an opponent at that moment. An argument can be adopted, abandoned, or contradicted whenever doing so seems rhetorically advantageous. The important distinction is between someone genuinely defending a belief and someone using an argument merely because it provides a convenient way to score points. I'm not claiming that every sarcastic response demonstrates this tactic. The question is whether the person maintains a coherent position when challenged. 4. Why Don't You Respond to Criticism? This episode examines how vague accusations can resemble meaningful criticism without presenting anything specific to answer. Statements suggesting someone is ignorant, delusional, brainwashed, or incapable of reasoning can create the impression that their position has been discredited. But unless the speaker identifies an actual factual error, unsupported premise, or invalid inference, there is no substantive criticism to evaluate. A sneering response isn't a logical refutation. 5. You Go High, We Go Low Danskin also examines how political discussions can operate under unequal expectations. One participant is expected to remain meticulous, provide sources, and follow norms of civil debate, while another relies on provocation, insults, or deliberate disruption. If the first participant responds emotionally, the second can point to that reaction as evidence of irrationality. If the first participant ignores the provocation, the second can claim victory through silence. The broader lesson isn't that civility is bad. It's that civility alone cannot guarantee productive discussion when participants have different objectives. Now, back to this actual conversation. We were discussing constitutional limits on executive power, the separation of powers, and whether

In the book netflix Castlevania half-assedly cribbed that idea from a swastika would absolutely fuck up a vampire, yeah.

Iirc Channard didn't really intend to become a Cenobite, he was just obsessed with the occult & wanted knowledge/power, which is why he used Tiffany as a proxy to open the box & had to be tricked & pushed into the Leviathan by Julia.