this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
1046 points (98.6% liked)
Aged Like Milk
255 readers
6 users here now
A community dedicated to all those things in media and elsewhere that didn’t stand the test of time, at all.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Jean-Paul Sartre said it best I think.
"Never believe that anti-Semites [fascists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
Did it "age like milk" when they were just lying the whole time?
Aged like cheese.
Cheese is good, though. Bullshit seems like a more appropriate comparison.
Nattō then
Aged like racism.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Stop slandering Orangutans. That’s a candid shot of a fine gentleman.
Comparing them to MTG is a horrific action.
Isn't this a howler monkey? Point still stand though.
You’re probably right. I don’t know my monkeys very well.
Clearly, for the orangutan is an ape!🤦
/s, just teasing, although it IS an ape, just like my mother.
Oook
hands librarian a banana
GNU Terry Pratchett
load more comments
(4 replies)
As an enjoyer of Magic: The Gathering, I think her sharing the same acronym is a horrific action.
Lol that's what my brain thinks every time, it always takes me a second to get past the "why is everyone so mad at magic??" (Aside from obscene prices, but that's why I just print fake cards for casual play)
that is actually a howler monkey, orangutans are actually quiet.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'm sorry but that one is one of the most punchable faces to ever exist.
Both sides are same /s
"Entitlement Reform" has been a watchword in both parties going back to the Reagan Administration.
Democrats will tell you they've got an innovative exciting new solution to slow the rate at which health care costs rise, then shift a bunch of public sector money over to private sector subsidies.
Republicans will tell you they're cutting fat out of the system, then transform a bunch of public sector spending into private sector tax breaks.
Healthcare gets more expensive and less accessible. Each team blames the other one. A few socialists in some of the bluer states suggest we try a public Medicare-for-All model, then get primaried out of office in the next cycle by a pack of lobbyists in blue waist coats.
"Ah, but the pawl and the gear are clearly two different components doing separate things!" I cry, to any sucker who will listen.
Don't work, Daddy musk is here to make a 3rd party which will toxify the potential of any legitimate 3rd party, and we will continue on with the same system.
If their plan for not having elections at all doesn't come to fruition
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Damn it's a shame they didn't put in any protections against gutting these essential programs.
That was actually just one of the mating calls of the Samsquanch
What sucks here is she opposes Trump's bill.
She says she opposes it after voting for it. Don’t let her off the hook.
Oh indeed: that's part of what really makes this curdle.
load more comments
(1 replies)
She voted for the bill in the House, then came out against it stating that she didn't know the bill limited AI regulation.
The bill then went to the Senate where the provisions limiting AI regulation were removed, and then passed.
The House will once again vote on the bill, which now does not restrict AI regulation.
She hasn't made any statement but presumably she now supports the bill, given her only complaint about it has been removed.
i have a feeling she was going to support the bill anyways, she wanted some way to not take the blame for supporting the bbb as a whole.
I agree that is the most likely, same as the Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Although she didn't even have the decency (?) to say which part she didn't like, she just said it wasn't ready, but still voted for it.
To quote her directly,
“And I’ve been here quite a while, and you all know I’ve got a few battle scars underneath me. But I think I held my head up and made sure that the people of Alaska are not forgotten in this.”
So in true Republican fashion she gets hers, so fuck everyone else. Of course the small victories in no way offset the amount of damage done by the bill at large. But now she can campaign that she "Fought for Alaska" while screwing over everyone, including Alaskans.
she has forgotten about alaska, the parlimentarian removed her carveouts.
load more comments
(1 replies)
she didn’t know the bill limited AI regulation
Why vote for a bill that you haven't read? If I was a rep and didn't have time to reasonably understand a bill, I'd knee-jerk vote no.
She'll fall in line like the rest of the spineless Reps.
Like the rest of them, she voted for it, then had her staffers read it and they found something she didn't like, so she complained.
This fucking missing link should not be in congress.
Don't believe her words, believe her actions. And those says she supports it.
view more: next ›