Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBear„Initials” ( by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (
Posts 0
Comments 151
The worst pick-up line I've ever gotten
  • Well, based off the little illustrations in each chapter he's pretty similar to how he was portrayed in the movies. You can look up Mary grandpré hagrid to see what I would guess is Rowlings original vision.

  • Housing Crisis
  • Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    How do you make sure there are enough houses though.

    Capitalism solves that problem, albeit imperfectly, by making housebuilding profitable when there is a supply shortage (home building has gone up as prices have shot up in the US.)

    A command-style economy (government owned) solves that problem more directly by directing resources to build more homes.

    I don't see how anarchism solves this problem at all. Say you have an anarchist society where there isn't enough housing, due to population growth or natural disaster or whatever. What mechanism is there to build houses for the homeless? Sure, they can try to build something their selves, but good luck making anything more complex than a lean-to without professional help. You can ask nicely for someone to build one for you I guess... that's really more communism than anarchism though, and it doesn't have a great track record of working on a scale larger than a few hundred people who all signed up to live in a community together.

  • Rush order
  • Yeah, I know that's how it's explained, but... why though? Why would fighting in one battle fulfill their oaths? Presumably, Isuldur wanted them to fight for the whole war, that's how conscription usually works. So I don't see why one battle would do it, especially since as undead they have nothing to lose.

  • The worst pick-up line I've ever gotten
  • I feel like most of those things are not accurate, or are not good faith criticism. It's worth remembering that until the whole trans thing, the Harry Potter series was seen as very liberal to the point where some conservatives boycotted it.

    -Harry isn't a "cop", like hes not walking the beat arresting people, hes a dark wizard catcher. Which is perfectly rational given dark wizards killed his parents and they're pretty explicitly fascists.

    -a pretty huge part of the books is devoted to how good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. Barty Crouch Sr is a whole character who is there to show how the good guys can end up being nearly as bad and brutal as the bad guys because they think the ends justify the means and in times of crisis people are willing to compromise their morals.

    -Hermione is ridiculed for sticking up for house elves but she's also right, as Harry starts to realize by the end of the books. It's worth noting that the two most steadfast supporters of house elves are Hermione and dumbledore, aka Rowlings "always right about everything" characters

    -Seamus is pretty yikesy in the movies but 90% of the stuff isn't in the books. Idk I thought he was a little racist, although still ultimately a good guy. Cho Chang has a stereotypical name but so what? I don't think it's racist in itself. I literally work with a guy named Ying Yang.

    -I don't think obesity is used as a failing, gluttony is used as a failing, as in a favorite expression among leftists, the "fat cat". There are plenty of other overweight characters that are good and righteous like Ms Weasly, Slughorn (kinda), and Hagrid.

    -I'm not sure who you're referring to with regards to describing teenage females as unattractive but that seems kinda cherry picked. Harry ends up with Ginny who in the books is described as a tomboy. The biggest female villain is arguably Umbridge who is very stereotypically feminine

    I'm not defending Rowling as a person at all, or her statements about trans people, but the criticism of Harry potter feels very much like going back and reexamining them with an agenda. You can do the same uncharitable thing with any fantasy series. Hell, off the top of my head I can think of much worse criticisms of lord of the rings or game of thrones but people don't seem to want to nitpick those the same way.

  • Anon is anti drugs
  • Not a great analogy honestly, you can drive a car your whole life and your odds of dying in a car accident are probably like 1%. Meanwhile your odds of dying, or at the very least having very serious health effects, from using hard drugs your whole life are basically guaranteed.

  • City Street Orientation Visualization
  • I think this graph is just skewed by which roads are included and which aren't. Like most urban centers Charlotte has a clean grid for its downtown and then a bunch of squiggly roads in the surrounding suburbs. I think the difference is that Charlotte proper extends farther into these suburbs than many other cities but it's definitely less pavement overall than many other cities like Atlanta. The mass transit options are very lacking but that's a different conversation.

  • Rush order
  • It would be more like, they invented the atomic bomb, use it to take Iwo Jima and then the United States goes back to sulking and wondering how the hell they're going to take the home islands.

    In lotr they use the undead to win the battle of pellenor fields but they don't use it to win the war. It's a legitimate plot hole.

  • Rush order
  • Right but, why bother with smoke and mirrors when you have an immortal unbeatable army in the first place.

    Even in the book its not really explained why the oathbreakers only help out for one fight; the only difference is in the books they never actually go to Minas Tirith they just help against the corsairs.

  • Penguins ❤️
  • Haha I'm committed to the truth but not that committed. Anyone can edit an article to put in whatever blurb they want, but it won't stick for long if most of the community agrees with it and it has decent citations (none of which are in the screenshot). Also the text isn't written professionally, "love to cuddle" is not language that would normally appear in a scientific wiki article.

  • Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
  • That is true, thank you for explaining that to me. Although I read the dissent and what Sotomayor said was that the president would get their day in court to determine if those actions were constitutional, not that this ruling pre-approves them to do so. Meanwhile Roberts said these concerns are overblown... idk really, I don't like the ruling, it basically feels like an expansion of qualified immunity to the president, which makes things more difficult for prosecuters but not impossible.

  • Penguins ❤️
  • I'm not saying this fact about penguins isn't true, I don't know, but this isn't a real wikipedia screenshot like it acts like it is. In fact, searching for "homosexuality is common in penguins" only returns results for transcriptions of this meme.

  • Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
  • The big thing everyone is missing here is the ruling says the president cannot be prosecuted for actions that are constitutional. So this does not mean the end of democracy or whatever people are saying. The president can't stay in office after his term expires. The president cannot order his political opponents killed- in fact, the Supreme Court issued a statement on that just this year. Amici Brief 3.19.24.pdf