There are of course leftist critiques of him about how he's kind of obviously partisan on China when it comes to the fashion industry and shit like that.

But at the end of the day his fashion advice/critique shit is literally just regular advice about one specific type of fashion delivered in a layman friendly tone, why the fuck do people talk about him like he has some kind of dictatorship police state in place on twitter? Most annoying shit ever.

For as annoying I think the twitter menswear guy is, I have to imagine he's 10 times as annoyed by the twitter culture around him, and that makes me smile.

Seeing posts like "I've seen TWO whole threads ripping the menswear guys latest thread apart, his reign of terror is ending" and then the two linked threads are people being like "Hey sorry, your pop history is too pop, your direct comparisons are inaccurate and misleading, but hey I think your overall point is pretty good!"

Literally how are people completely incapable of being the slightest bit normal when it comes to a guy who's kind of annoying but good at communicating weird fashion rules in a descriptive rather than prescriptive way? Literally 90% of his posts are just talking about how guys who pretend to be trad dont actually know how to dress trad so they look like shit, it's not some kind of nuclear attack it's just very neutral lib critique.

If he was willing and prepared to do that then he should have spent the last 8 years doing so.

Unless he admits to having acted like a coward and an opportunist then there's no reason for anybody to trust him, he switches effortlessly between closing blue ranks and offering carefully measured critiques that will permit him to stay at the table.

The problem is he doesn't have any credibility, you can't show up in the aftermath and assert that you always thought the emperor had no clothes.

If he can't risk the basic embarrassment of being wrong about the Dems losing the election due to abandoning the working class, then what can he be trusted with risking?

I have to wonder if writers when deciding to create a fictional character, kind of just think about the minimum reasonable age to have achieved whatever is required for their story position.

Leaves you no blank stretch of time where you gotta wonder what the hell they were up to.

The specific critiques I saw when just skimming people talking about it don't even seem that unbelievable.

Like they said something like the game is too obnoxiously handholdy with tutorial dialogue and also they thought Luigi was basically an annoying obstacle to manage rather than a partner.

Now I haven't seen the game yet so I can't tell if that's true but that just seems like plausible things that a Mario and Luigi game might fuck up.

A lot of the hate was probably just nostalgia rage combined with Ava being kind of the annoying bratty kid archetype and doesn't really do anything except talk at you on comms in a game that already has way too many annoying people on your comms all the time.

But really she's far from the worst character in that regard, it's just that the more annoying characters like Vaughn are shielded by being returning characters and also not a girl with short hair dyed blue or whatever. Basically just became the easiest target to complain about.

Doesn't actually address the content of the words he spoke, just appeals to the content of his soul and innermost thoughts.

Sadly they haven't invented a way to observe those parts of a person yet so this doesn't mean anything.

Pretty sure you would get all the substance from watching Taxi Driver and then The King of Comedy.

There is something morbidly funny to me in the Zionist line that Yahya Sinwar "died like a dog." Basically just confessing that they regularly kill dogs using drone surveillance and tank shells.

It never looks quite good to compare the killing of your enemies to killing a dog, but if you're gonna use it it needs to be embarrassing for the victim and not your own side, like death by starvation or just plain execution.

That looks like curiosity rather than fear.

There's like one German general that people generally know about and he's literally the one that didn't understand logistics and also got involved in a coup plot.

His last sentence literally just sounds like the hasbara claiming that Muslims have a fundamental hatred in their blood against Jews.

Also with the moronic anti-communist talking point comparing political ideology to religion.

I'm sorry but this is just wishful thinking and active whitewashing, sure he doesn't say Sinwar individually killed 1,200 "innocents", but he says Sinwar masterminded the attack that killed 1,200 "innocents."

The only way history will show that Bernie had a good heart is if someone donates him a new one, where is the good heart in calling IOF soldiers innocents? He is treating Israelis as ontologically innocent.

It's a fundamental issue, Bernie showing his ass on it either means he considers Israelis ontologically innocent, or he is deeply lazy and dishonest figure who abandons any gesture towards integrity to instead appeal to American fascism.

So frightened by literal sticks and stones thrown at their stupid drones by a one armed man, that they resort to shelling the building.

You can move a pot or pan around pretty well on an induction, the only annoyance comes with dogshit "smart" features that beep and turn stuff off automatically without your control.

I think there just plain is a valid argument for both personal and collective safety to move away from open flames and inflammable gas supplies in average homes.

That literally does just look like what people do when hunting if they aren't interested in doing anything with the innards, it's simpler to get everything out right away so that there's no risk of contamination.

I'd say that assuming this is near a regular walking route its definitely some extremely bad manners from whoever did it in that case though. It's one thing to leave stuff out where it's safe to assume other animals will get to it, but near where regular people walk is nasty.

Apparently there isn't supposed to be hunting around there, but the alternative scenario in that case surely would be that some other animal carried it there or whatever. What sort of supposed satanic ritual just coincidentally leaves a set of internal organs that look identical to when a hunter is trying not to puncture anything and get nasty organ stuff all over?

I think this kind of anti-African panic has been long simmering in the UK too, I recall reading about a 2002 case where the remains of a young black boy were discovered in the Thames, and the "loony" opinion was that it was satanists, while the measured and reasonable opinion printed in shit like the Telegraph was that it was probably "African witch doctors"

Aside from that, the organs in the attached photo just actually look intact and relatively unremarkable aside from not being inside of an animal, surely the only thing you could test for in that case would be if stress hormones or similar are built up, which could be any kind of pain and stress, or like if they find weird poison in a stomach?

Sorry but just feels kind of besides the point, like the show has uniformed soldiers be unable to shoulder a rifle when firing it for no good reason.

They launch plenty of sophisticated ambushes with RPGs or machine guns offscreen, once in a while an RPG might actually be shown firing onscreen, they have no issues wanting to hit their targets.

The show might even have US soldiers commend the dead bodies of Iraqis for being brave or clever, but the second one is shown fighting on camera they adopt some mandated jihadi firing stance that involves squatting and firing wildly over their heads.