It Wouldn’t Be A Very Big Difference, But It Would Be A Difference. 

This sounds like a joke but I’m pretty sure this is how 80% of Little Cup teams are created.

(Little Cup is a format on one of the main online Pokèmon simulators where you can only use unevolved Pokèmon that are capable of evolving, making it very optimized for cute swoosh swoosh Pokèmon.)

me: “that Pokemon looks cool” Some buttman: “sure, but it’s attack stat is shit and not to mention it’s ability makes it worthless. It’s move pool is so shallow, it can’t even learn good tms. Not to mention that it’s 4x weak to fire.” Me: “he go swoosh swoosh and its cute”

The moral of Rudolph the Red nose reindeer is that no one likes you unless you’re useful.

I’m still laughing at this because it’s obviously not red, it’s blue and black, geez.

This is by no means an original take, and I probably did not spend as much time as I should have editing the writing into being a coherent take, but:

In an awful lot of movies, Steve Rogers would have been right.

(Or, well, treated-as-right by the narrative, at least; in some of those movies many, many people would have died for his idealism, but this wouldn’t have been treated as wrong.)

When faced with this sort of explicit trolley problem, there are two main messages in pop culture: either you should never pull the level (you might kill a named character) or you should find a way to save everyone. For instance, take The Last Jedi: the narrative treats it as correct that Rose stopped Finn from sacrificing his life, not because his plan wouldn’t have worked, but more-or-less because we don’t trade lives. (Other examples: every fucking YA novel ever. ‘You can choose between your significant other... or saving the world.’ ‘Bye, world.’)

(She is absolutely trading lives, just not in the direction that, you know, saves people.)

(This is not to say that characters never trade off lives! The really obvious example here is that most movies are totally fine with killing the villain to protect innocents, although I’m pretty sure the message is generally closer to “the lives of villains don’t matter” than “pull the lever.” Characters will also sometimes do things like choose which of multiple locations to go to, which is generally understood in their narratives to be trading off lives at least a little. But when there’s this sort of explicit setup, the correct answer as portrayed in the narrative is almost never “pull the lever.”)

Now, I actually can think of counterexamples -- Wrath of Khan is very clear that you should pull the lever, for instance, and since I brought up The Last Jedi earlier I might as well mention Holdo’s choice at the end. But in said counterexamples, the person making the choice is almost always choosing to kill themself, not another person, and they usually would have died anyway.

But when characters are faced with the explicit choice of killing someone, maybe multiple someones, or letting far more people die, the treated-as-correct choice is almost never to kill them. 

And I’m glad that we have a movie where that’s not the case.

Get out.

The funny thing about the expression “carpe diem” is that people use it to mean “Go out and achieve your dreams” but actually it was a pick up line.

y'all want Trump to say ‘Deez Nuts’ I want him to say ‘I withdraw from the Presidential Race.’

What if instead of gilly weed Harry had showed up to the black lake challenge in muggle scuba gear like “like where’s your advanced magic now bitches? Got me a free fishing knife with this thing”

No one knew who the tabby belonged to, though they presumed Mrs Figg as the cat had been seen to enter her house. However, it also seemed rather fond of number four’s back garden and the green eyed boy with whom it played most Sunday afternoons when the Dursleys went out. Of course McGonagall would never admit she had a fondness for playing with Harry when she was supposed to be keeping an eye on him.

im going to start a thread of pokemon drawn to the sizes of the things theyre based on

here, i’ll start