Tahir shahzad: November 2020

Monday, 30 November 2020

More people would donate to Wikipedia if they shut off the site for a day to make us realise what we'd be missing

submitted by /u/bigmeepslarryhoova to r/Showerthoughts
[link] [comments]

The range of a M132 Armored Flamethrower

submitted by /u/DAVID-CRAPPENSHITZ to r/interestingasfuck
[link] [comments]

Spark that up son

submitted by /u/Mister_Mike_ to r/BlackPeopleTwitter
[link] [comments]

slippers provides for the house now!

submitted by /u/sherlock_er to r/Unexpected
[link] [comments]

How is "support local black businesses" not racist? Aren't you just judging the proprietor on the colour of their skin instead of what they produce?

I keep seeing it after the BLM protests and I don't understand how singling out black people isn't still racist. Positive discrimination is still discrimination and this is based entirely on the colour of their skin, not who they are or the quality of their goods.

submitted by /u/thedarkthor to r/TooAfraidToAsk
[link] [comments]

Top /r/Libertarian thread locked after sub can't agree on whether you have the freedom to punch Nazis or to be killed by them

OP comes blazing into /r/Libertarian with the blistering hot take that not only is punching Nazis bad, but that that Nazi killing you in retaliation is good.

Full Thread: If you physically attack a person because you dislike their political ideas, you might be injured or killed. And it will be a good thing

Thread rockets to the top of the sub, but not all the commentators agree, leading to the thread eventually being locked, not due to all the Nazi defending, but because advocating violence against Nazis is just a line that /r/Libertarian is not willing to cross.

First, they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out...

OP drops the "nazis were socialist" line

An extended slap fight over whether the death of people at Nazis hands is a "good thing" like OP suggests.

One compares punching people for wearing swastikas to raping someone for wearing a short skirt

OP doubles, triples, and even quadruples down on "the nazis were socialists"

Wearing a swastika is essentially no different than wearing a pussyhat

And as a final treat

OP of the /r/Libertarian thread saying elsewhere that "Ayn Rand is ok, but too socialist for my taste."

submitted by /u/NovaDeez to r/SubredditDrama
[link] [comments]

Menstruation in Media Examples?

I was watching "Queen's Gambit" on Netflix with my boyfriend yesterday, and (very minor spoiler), there is a scene where the lead has finished a game and starts looking like she's in pain. I immediately said "oh, no, did just she get her first period???" and my bf pointed out we didn't have evidence (at that point in the show) that it was necessarily her first, since she was old enough to have had it for a while.

I told him "women in media never get their period unless it's their first time," and, sure enough, it was hers. But I then tried to think of counterexamples. I have so far failed to come up with any.

Reddit, any counter examples you can think of? At any given point roughly 1/4 women on screen should have it, and it's not like you just get the cramps and whatnot the FIRST time, so...

submitted by /u/jbluphin to r/TwoXChromosomes
[link] [comments]

Today I turn 50, but here I am at 18- summer of 1989

submitted by /u/mtnmamma to r/OldSchoolCool
[link] [comments]

This Country Can't Survive If 43% of Us Live in Unreality

submitted by /u/mykl66 to r/politics
[link] [comments]

Why is so much of the high fantasy genre slow paced and requires you to read 300-500 pages before something is happening with the plot?

As someone who enjoys fantasy storyline, I just cannot fathom why so much of the genre is hung up on long and tiresome characterizations and descriptions about the setting etc. Why do authors think I'm more interested in how a castle looks like or how many generations there are to some lord than the actual plot?

I find that many authors are obsessed with small details that can take up 100+ pages that have no actual bearing on the plot.

Why?

submitted by /u/LittleMixHistory to r/books
[link] [comments]

I mentioned the verse that says it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven to a friend. His reply? “It’s not talking about a literal needle.” Isn’t it convenient how the Bible stops being literal the moment it says the rich will burn in hell?

I’m talking about Matthew 19:24 in which Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

When I pointed this out to one of my conservative Christian friends, he suddenly claims the Bible isn’t to be taken literally in this passage.

He takes the virgin birth literally.

He takes the resurrection literally.

He takes the flood literally.

He takes all passages condemning gay people literally.

But the moment the Bible says that rich, greedy folks will burn in hell? Of course that isn’t literal.

How fucking convenient.

submitted by /u/relevantlife to r/atheism
[link] [comments]