this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
584 points (99.7% liked)

Tumblr

146 readers
1048 users here now

Welcome to /c/Tumblr

All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.

Rule 1: Be Civil, Not CursedThis isn’t your personal call-out post.

  • No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
  • No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
  • Keep it fun and weird, not mean-spirited

Rule 2: No Forbidden PostsSome things belong in the drafts forever. That means:

  • No spam or scams
  • No porn or sexually explicit content
  • No illegal content (don’t make this a federal case)
  • NSFW screenshots must be properly tagged

If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.

founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WhiteRabbit@lemmy.today 65 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

What a coincidence - I just finished the Manhunt: Unabomber TV series. It’s well made, reminded me of Mindhunter. And very sympathetic towards Ted Kaczynski actually. Highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it.

[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 56 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I am staunchly against randomly murdering people with package bombs. But they put that poor man through hell with the MK Ultra stuff.

The big monsters that run our world turned a brilliant mind into a little monster. A massive tragedy from every angle

[–] RFKJrsBrainworm@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do you know what they actually did with Ted in MKULTRA? It wasn't drugs in his case.

[–] scathliath@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

He was the isolation subject, no? Pretty much made the guy a patsy to get him socially exiled from his college campus while they ran him through the program?

[–] RFKJrsBrainworm@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

No they set him up with a prosecutor out of Boston that Ted thought was another student. The prosecutor's job was to argue against any position that kaczynski took... Completely undermining his internal Tom Tom

Debating

[–] scathliath@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago

Right! Thank you, frankly that era of Cold War adjacent shit makes me feel like I need to give my computer a bath just thinking about it. Appreciate the reminder!

[–] PoopingCough@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sounds interesting, where did you watch it?

[–] WhiteRabbit@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago

Ah sorry for the tease lol it was free on Prime yesterday but the deadline JUST passed. Had to binge watch it quick over the last 2 days. But I’ve seen it before on Netflix too, so I’m sure it’ll get rotated to another platform at some point.

[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 46 points 1 week ago (7 children)

That’s going to be me and my peeve regarding the malapropism “assless chaps”.

Chaps with asses are PANTS!

(Turns back to manual typewriter and resumes typing furiously.)

[–] calliope@retrolemmy.com 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Indeed, chaps by definition have no ass.

They’re assless pants, really.

Tangentially, I hate it that pulling someone’s pants down became popular and was called “pantsing.” You’re not putting pants ON the person…

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

My (completely un-researched, straight from my ass) hypothesis is that the term comes from British English and not American English. In the UK "pants" are your underwear, so "pansting" somebody is exposing their underwear.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I hate it that pulling someone’s pants down became popular and was called “pantsing.” You’re not putting pants ON the person…

Do you feel similarly about shelling peanuts?

[–] calliope@retrolemmy.com 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Oh excellent point, I hadn’t thought about it.

I think it’s different for parts of living things.

Shelling is removing the entire shell. “Peeling” something doesn’t mean adding peel, and “pitting” means removing the pit.

However, for bodies, removing skin in general is “skinning,” but if you lose the skin of just your hand it’s called de-gloving. Removing the bowels isn’t called “boweling,” but “disembowling.”

If I said someone did a “shirting,” maybe I’m weird but I’d think of getting hit with a shirt before removing someone’s shirt. And in hockey, a “jerseying” is more about pulling the jersey over the head than removing it.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Removing the bowels isn’t called “boweling,” but “disembowling.”

But the synonymous process of removing the guts is called gutting.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

To me when someone says assless chaps it refers to the configuration of wearing chaps without anything underneath. Similar to "going commando" being a configuration of clothing meaning pants with no underwear.

[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 week ago

Yeah, but I’m still gonna be salty about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

The difference between pants and chaps is more than just the presence or absence of an ass. There's the whole area between the legs. You can have chaps with an ass in the same way you can have a shirt with sleeves.

[–] FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Counterpoint, saying "assless" is fun, and saying "assless pants" would probably make most people confused

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] moody 5 points 1 week ago

Chaps with asses are gentlemen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (17 children)

Is it really pedantry if the phrase makes no sense with the incorrect order

Its like "I could care less" - so you do care? Start making sense and I'll understand you. Words have meaning god damn it.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

I see this one a lot, and it always says to me that people just use these phrases because other people use them, without ever thinking about what they mean.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

If a phrase conveys the opposite of their literal meaning, and the speaker and the audience both know it, then it is pedantic. Choosing to derail whatever the topic is in favor of criticizing someone's understandability when everyone did understand them is pedantic.

I get it, I hate the way people use "literally". It's terrible, it's usually unneeded, and it just makes any actual correct use of literally have less impact. But I'm not gonna correct people who say it wrong, because I do know what they meant.

If they said "I could care less" and you're comfortable enough in your understanding of the conversation to know for a fact they actually mean they do not care about it, then they did make sense and you did understand them.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's a problem, because I'm never quite sure if they're saying they care a little bit, and are using the phrase literally, or don't care, and are a moron.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

That's quite a problem. You tend to get those by dividing things into black and white like that. I've known quite a few smart people that just still don't care about English being imperfect, and I've met a few dumb ones that care greatly about details like word choice and ignore the conversation to focus on errors.

Splitting the world between "people who do a thing you agree with" and "morons" is a choice, but its one I try to avoid as a rule.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago

If they said "I could care less" and you're comfortable enough in your understanding of the conversation to know for a fact they actually mean they do not care about it

And what if I am not comfortable enough in my understanding? When someone is hard to understand because of how non-standard their use of language is, it is a communication barrier, not just pedantry.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AugustWest@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It’s not like that at all. “I could care less” is just wrong. The phrase is “I couldn’t care less.” “I could care less” is more like “one and the same” or “for all intensive purposes.”

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

“I could care less” is more like “one and the same” or “for all intents and purposes.”

I think you got that mixed up there 🤔

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] binarytobis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Just because you’re being pedantic doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong to say it.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

yes it really is

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 week ago

There was a reverse of that scenario in our neck of the wood where the murderer phoned the cops with details only he would know (from a payphone close to where he worked), and although his voice was recognized by a relative, his (somewhat successful) defence was that he never pronounced "creek" as "crick."

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

The phrase makes no sense to me at first glance because if I say "I'm going to have some cake" what I mean is I am going to eat it.

[–] Logical@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Weirdo. The rest of us mean that we are going to posses some amount of cake for a period of time.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What do you want to do with cake other than eat it though? Apart from saving it for later because the only thing you'd be saving it for later is to eat it later.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Own the cake, obviously.

[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

Don't speak on my behalf. That's not what I mean when I say I'm having some food. "Yes waiter I'll have the steak. Not for eating. Just for possessing ike a psychopath."

[–] phlegmy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can't eat your cake and eat it too!

load more comments (1 replies)

that brother is a fucking snitch

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Apparently I never understood this saying until today.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I still don't think I fully understand, even as the unabomber put it. Can't eat it and have it? Like, I can't consume and expect the thing to remain, that it?

Side note: only in English, one can "understand", but nobody can "overstand" and anybody that "stand" is doing a wholly different thing.

[–] Kovukono@pawb.social 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It comes down to "You can't have the best of two situations. Pick one."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RFKJrsBrainworm@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Pretty sure his brothers wife played a big part.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

LOL that's awesome.

The statement has been around since the 1530s; it's probably due for some modernization.

[–] ComradePorkRoll@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'd love to hear the Unabomber's takes on "taking a piss/shit."

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

It would actually be quite funny to say you're going to leave a shit, come to think of it.

load more comments (1 replies)

That's goddamn wild

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Reminds me the advice "when commiting crime put a rock in your boots so people can't recognize you by your walking style."

load more comments
view more: next ›