Akazora

Blame! I came for the sci-fi dystopia action flick by Polygon Pictures, stayed for the robo waifus. Also made me binge the manga so that's something.

Is this where we shitpost? Please be gentle with me.

Uhhhhhh soo, I hadn't realized you had posted this at all... until just today......... oops........ In order to keep my response as brief as possible, I'll just post an off-the-cuff reply. It'll prevent me from overthinking the conversation and will likely reduce the number of tangents I go off on. I admittedly overstepped my argument last time. From what he said, consent cannot be assumed and I was wrong to have suggested otherwise. But similarly, neither can coercion. We don't have any way of knowing what transpired during the events he was referring to in those tapes; it could have been consensual or it could have been coercive, and even then the line between what is legally allowed and what is not isn't entirely clear. If we view things through simplistic lens, in a merely sexual/physical sense, then perhaps things aren't too complicated. But sex is not merely physical, it is also emotional. Physical acts, whether they be acts of advancement such as kissing, groping, etc. or acts of repel-ment such as pushing (in the "away" direction), refusal, etc. are intricately linked to emotional and mental processes. Trying to land a sexual partner is a game, simply put, in which both sides enter the ring with a certain mindset and attempt to change the opposing player's mindset through emotional and physical appeal. And in this game, sometimes there is a disconnect between the mental and the physical. For example, occasionally men and women (who are generally above average in physical appearance) play hard to get in order to leverage the game in their favor. Perhaps a woman would be fine with having sex with a certain man, but only under certain circumstances. So when does her consent manifest? Let's say she'd only be willing once the man has demonstrated a sufficient amount of loyalty to her (taking time out of his schedule, being on time to dates, etc). At the beginning of the game, if the man attempted to have sex with her it would not be consensual, obviously. But through repeated interactions, mental games, sacrifices and compromises from both parties (and yes, physical and emotional manipulations that may be interpreted as "coercion" by certain people) a mutual agreement is eventually reached: either "yes" or "no." By the end of the game, things are consensual. Of course, this leaves a lot to interpretation, especially since people don't keep journals of their true intentions that clash with their public persona. And heck, sometimes people don't even know what they want. If two people have sex when they both believe they're consenting, but then one of them regrets the decision later (certainly reasonable, especially since no one is ever 100% certain about anything, ever) what should be done about that? The malicious thing to do would be to accuse the other person of rape, which is something women more often than men can rely on as a backup plan for obvious reasons. Anyway, this is getting way off topic. To put it shortly, consent is a moving, difficult-to-pinpoint target and coercion is far from self-evident. Since I'm rushing this, if you would like me to expand on this I'd be happy to, but for now this should be enough. Of course, I say that but I also recognize that state laws have done their best to stabilize these two concepts, and since I'm no law student and am in no place to criticize, I can only assume that they are satisfactory. But at the same time, this issue with Trump and the tapes is not a legal one. There is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions. Could it have been consensual? Yes. Could it have been coercive? Yes. Because I believe in innocence until guilt is proven, I will defend Trump as far as that goes. I understand the concern though, insofar as he uses pretty extreme language ("I don't even wait" and "you can do anything"), especially coming from a man of his social stature. But that's merely just another facet of the "game" I mentioned earlier. Physical attractiveness gives people a massive advantage, but social standing does as well. And with that advantage, some people are given an edge in the "game" of love (or sex, or relationships, or whatever, I'm making these terms interchangeable at this point since they aren't significantly independent of each other). They're free to wield that advantage however they'd like so long as they don't do anything illegal, even if that means being borderline coercive. Because at what point does strategy morph into manipulation morph into coercion? When is one's consent established as a result of genuine emotions and not determined by calculated manipulations of the heart? That's the million dollar question, and there's no answer to it. Does it suck that things are like this? Yeah, that's fair to say, I know as someone who doesn't view himself as particularly physically blessed I sometimes think so too. Is it troubling that people like Trump are able to use their status to push the envelope? Sure, but as a guy I also find it troubling that females (both anonymous catfishers and ones legitimately so) are worshiped, given free stuff, and interacted with more reverence than males are online. I'm not going to get particularly upset about either, especially since there is only so much that can be done. I'm a fan of free market concepts and of all the places a free market has established itself, nowhere else has it been established more successfully than in the realm of dating/relationships/sex. There are hardly any government or authoritarian forces restricting the market, and thank goodness. I doubt anyone would be particularly happy if the government forced people, by law, to enter relationships with certain individuals, identified by some factor such as physical attractiveness, age, or social standing, predicated on some lawmaker's arbitrary notion of "fairness." Love is rough, but codifying restrictions on how you're allowed to feel is just distopian. Anyway, after two fat paragraphs about that, it's clear that there is not much left to say about this topic, at least on my side. We've both at least come to an agreement on the facts of the matter, which is a miracle in and of itself. At this point, we're both just arguing how to interpret the facts and debating each other over how problematic or how dismissible this whole fiasco is. I can't even think of anything more to say that would add to the conversation about the Trump tapes themselves that has not already been said, which is why I'm finding myself discussing the broader philosophical aspect of the issue far more than any of the political parts. And as a postscript, I'll admit that it wasn't the best idea to link to /r/The_Donald as a source, though I still stand by the validity of the research done in that thread. Regardless, to address your point about the rhetoric, I'm still not convinced. For one, all that is selective information. The most glaring is that survey by the HRC as evidence of a post-election bullying and harassment spike among young people. If you check the full report, you'll find that the the 50,000+ respondents were solicited through their social media sites and the social media of their "partner organizations" (among which is the National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance totally not biased at all). It should be pretty obvious that the only people who would bother to follow the social media accounts of HRC are liberals (and pretty hardcore ones at all). But to prove it, according to the demographics section of the report, 64% identified as female, 27% identified as male, and 8% identified as another gender. Not only that, but only 45% of respondents identified as heterosexual, while the rest were either bisexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual, queer, asexual, or something else. I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a peer reviewed source to realize that this sample size is nowhere near representative of the average American youth, not even in the slightest. This alone should have been enough to disqualify this report as biased, but to make matters worse the report doesn't even list, verbatim, every single question asked and pads many of its pages with self-reported stories of individuals. This survey serves no purpose outside of pushing an agenda. If you had surveyed individuals from /r/The_Donald, you would have gotten equally skewed demographics and likely an equally alarming number of harassment reports, except the victims would have been conservatives and the perpetrators would have been liberals. The entire ABC article is just selectively listing one-off examples of incidents at schools, and quoting people denouncing those incidents. Has there been an uptick since before the election? I don't know, and no one knows because no legitimate surveys have been taken allowing for a comparison. Though I have a hard time taking the ADL seriously ever since their Pepe the Frog fiasco, I don't find anything glaringly wrong with their reporting on the rise of anti-Semitism at least. However, I'm a bit skeptical of how much of a "rise" they claim to report, and of course reports of hate crimes are not the same as actual cases of verified hate crimes (since "reported" hate crimes can and have been found to be hoaxes). And I'm not quite sure I agree with you about politicians and leaders having more pull than celebrities. The absolutely insane amount of loyalty that people have for their favorite authors, movies stars, singers, bands, television personalities, etc. shouldn't be overlooked. I'm fairly certain the average kid cares far less about politics than pop culture and dank memes. But I'll admit that some politicians have somehow entered celebrity status (Obama, Trudeau, JFK, Reagan, and of course, Trump) which is also something to consider. And this past election was as much as a cultural revolution/upheaval as it was a political one, so there's that too. Okay but yeah I really should cut this short now. Feel free to respond if you'd like, but don't force yourself to do anything too rash (like rewrite the whole thing after somehow losing all of it how did that even happen??) -- EDIT: OOPS I forgot to post a dank maymay, forgive me.

I was thoroughly convinced you had left after spring semester started. In our absence, DCW has become a wasteland, FeelsBadMan. -- OMM: Y'all need to check out the Mister Rogers' Neighborhood 24/7 marathon happening over at Twitch. I loved watching the reruns of the show as a kid, and Fred Rogers is my favorite person ever. They're airing all 880+ episodes, including ones that have only ever been aired on television once and that are not publicly available anywhere else. It's super nostalgic and very interesting to see how rough the early episodes used to be, but also how much of the show's structure remained constant through the decades. Lady Aberlin is best girl, and her real life actress (who's currently 74 years old) occasionally posts in the chat and interacts with the viewers, providing her first hand insight on the production of the show. I'm proud to say I've only spontaneously cried twice while watching thus far, though as Fred Rogers starts to more visibly age I'll likely shed many more tears. Regardless, come on over to the beautywood right here to enjoy the remainder of the stream, where the chat is dank and the memes are wholesome. Enjoy what you can before the marathon ends!

I interchangeably have these three songs stuck in my head... SASAGEYO, SASAGEYO! SHINZOU WO SASAGEYO! OHH OH OHHH OHHHH OHH OH OHHH OHHHH OH OHHHHHH OHHHHHHHH! I didn't order any whistles...

I watched Kimi no Na wa in theaters back in April, and just saw Koe no Katachi earlier today. They're both really really really good, and I'd recommend them both. 2016 was one helluva year for anime movies.

I'm in the middle of playing Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia (somewhere early on in the Third Act), and I quite like it. There are some things about it I like better than Awakening and Fates, and other things I'm not so happy with, but of the three I can't choose a favorite or least favorite. They're all fantastic games and very different in their own rights, and their pros and cons relatively balance each other out. Also, Breath of the Wild is dope as heck and I play it occasionally whenever I feel like shrine hunting (I'm not using a guide and have only 18 left to locate).

at least post best Kahili picture if you're going to post at all smh and I'm sorry to burst your hipster bubble, but Lillie takes the cake after Lana It's interesting you decided to have a team mainly of old Pokemon instead of a full team of gen 7 'mons. And my experience was more in-line with your friend's; I'm fairly certain I was also high-ish 50s because I remember being pretty evenly matched in the Champion battle. (reasons for why the game was more difficult than gen 6 in spoilers, both because there are some story spoilers in there and because I ended up writing a lot...) Oh, and when I said "Hau'oli City NPC" in my previous post, I actually meant Hau'oli Cemetery NPC, oops..... And yeah, KO the Tapus all you want, they respawn I may or may not have accidentally KO'd Tapu Koko the very first time with a crit And I just like Aggron's design better than Mega Aggron's, ahah. That's the main reason, but I guess I'm also a sucker for cool Pokemon that aren't really competitively good. Aggron has a lot of shortcomings that prevent it from being in a higher tier, which its Mega kinda fixed, but I like the underdog types, so I prefer it in its regular form. -- OMM:

[PROTECT INTENSIFIES]

I'm surprised you found it so easy, especially considering you seemed to have just finished 6th gen. Most people considered XY and ORAS to be the easiest game in the series, and that SM did a lot to ramp up the difficulty. No one thought it was Dark Souls level of hard, naturally, but a lot was done to make it significantly more difficult to find yourself sweeping through the whole thing. I'm assuming you kept Exp. Share on and used Pokemon Refresh, but I'm curious what your team was, and what level they were by the time you versed the Elite Four. Also, that's a weird way of spelling "Lana" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) And yes, you fill out the rest of the pages by completing the Pokedex, reaching certain milestones in the Battle Tree, and upgrading your Pokefinder. You can find the details here. Aside from that, there's the Ultra Beast sidequest, the Eevee sidequest, collecting all 100 Zygarde pieces, obtaining all 100 TMs, locating the rest of the Z-Crystals, catching the Tapus, and backtracking to previously inaccessible places using some of the later-game Poke Rides like Machamp and Sharpedo. Oh, and sometimes going back to places you've already been to results in special NPCs, dialogue, and cutscenes, some of which you may have accidentally discovered during the main story (the restaurant "dates", the Hau'oli City NPC, the trail captain battles, etc). Ohh, interesting, Aggron is actually one of my favorite Pokemon (his regular form specifically, not his Mega). I'm assuming you just prefer Aron to its evolutions because it's smol? -- OMM: MERRY SWITCHMAS!! The Switch event was really hype, and for the most part I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. The only thing that really worries me is the paid online subscription, which may get in the way of me really being able to enjoy Splatoon 2. ARMS looks surprisingly good, Super Mario Odyssey looks decent as well, as does Xenoblade Chronicles 2. I wish Fire Emblem Warriors was an actual main series FE game, but perhaps there will be more news during that Fire Emblem Direct on Wednesday, especially about the mobile game. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe looks alright, but I've already invested so much money in the Wii U version and its DLC that I won't be double dipping. And as for indie games, Snipperclips is where it's at. I somehow managed to get the Special Edition of Breath of the Wild pre-ordered (don't fail me now Best Buy), but by the time I was able to convince my parents to get me the Switch on release date, they've already completely sold out online, and my winter break isn't over yet so I can't pre-order in store . . . Nintendo, please don't mess with me like this; I'm getting PTSD from amiibo hunting.

I remembering seeing that back when it was first announced and got some NTR vibes from the summary, which is why I've avoided it. I'm surprised its rating on MAL is as high as it is, but then again I've found myself disagreeing a lot of the time with MAL scores. Since you're watching it, let me know if it's worth checking out. -- Also, ACCA's opening is fantastic. It's not even particularly well animated (lots of stills), but the style and music are addictive.

Because Pokemon fans are edgy nerds who stay up way past their bedtime ^das me at least And I chose Rowlet. If I ever get a second copy of the game, I'd choose Popplio. I'm curious though @machine, why do you like Magearna so much? There are a lot of Pokemon I've taken a liking to over the years, but I've never had the urge to create a full party of any single Pokemon to run through a game with.

OMM: MERRY CHRISTMAS INDEED

Autumn 2016 Final Thoughts (Okay I lied, summer wasn't the last season I was doing. Thank the gods for winter break.) This season was absolutely fantastic! A lot of really good shows all around, and a great way to end the amazing year that's been 2016. -- I'm not watching much for winter of 2017: ACCA: 13-ku Kansatsu-ka Ao no Exorcist: Kyoto Fujouou-hen Little Witch Academia (TV) Rewrite: Moon and Terra Seiren Shouwa Genroku Rakugo Shinjuu: Sukeroku Futatabi-hen Tales of Zestiria the X 2nd Season (plus the second halves of 3-gatsu no Lion and ClassicaLoid from autumn) Since there are only two shows I'm watching next season that aren't sequels or continuations of things I've already seen (technically only one, since Seiren takes place in the same setting as Amagami SS, a few years into the future), I don't think I'm going to bother writing up any first impressions (since they won't really be first impressions). Any shows that you guys think look good that I'm missing

Oh boy, I got Pokemon Moon on release date, and I loved it!! I blasted through the game in a week, and I still play it relatively religiously to this day. If you’re on the fence and have enough money to get it, please do! It’s absolutely fantastic, and this is coming from a lifelong fan of the series who’s played virtually every Pokemon game, or at least one from each generation. For the first time in my life, I can proudly say I have a favorite Pokemon game, and that would, hands down, be Moon. The game looks gorgeous, the music is brilliant, the characters are actually endearing and lovable, the game is genuinely funny, and it’s a treat for both new fans, veterans, young children, and adults alike. The new Pokemon are great, and it strikes a perfect balance between easy and difficult. I haven’t had this much fun playing a Pokemon game in years, I seriously felt like I was a kid again, it was magical. To be honest, the only complaint I have is that the game was too good for the 3DS to handle. No matter which system you use, even the New 3DS XL, there will be framerate issues during Totem Battles and any battle with more than three Pokemon on the field at once. But don’t let that deter you! Everything else about the game I loved. This was the best game of 2016 for me, and one of the best games I’ve played in my life. I liked it so much, I've even started watching the Sun and Moon anime, and in all my years of being a Pokemon fan I have never watched the anime. That's how much I've fallen in love with the music and the characters and the region and the Pokemon. The game is a solid 9.5/10 (I only took off 0.5 for the framerate issues, and because I don’t believe in 10/10s anyway, but given the option I would have given this a 10/10). Please consider getting this game as a last-second Christmas gift for yourself if you haven’t already, you won’t regret it! I see you found $135 lying around, please consider spending some of that to get yourself a copy of Sun or Moon, whichever you’d prefer. EDIT: And if you're the type of person to be swayed by hype trailers, here's a good one for ya! -- OMM: The memes being made out of the Russian ambassador's assassination are so good but I feel terrible laughing at them. . . . . . But they're so good though.

IT'S THE DAY AFTER THANKSGIVING AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS!

Teaser Trailer "The first 2017 issue of Shogakukan's Weekly Shonen Sunday announced on Wednesday that the 21st Detective Conan anime film is titled Meitantei Conan Kara Kurenai no Love Letter (Detective Conan: Crimson Love Letter) and is slated to open in Japanese theaters on April 15, 2017. The magazine also unveiled the staff, cast, and a teaser poster illustrated by original creator Gosho Aoyama. "Kobun Shizuno, the director of the last six Detective Conan films, will return to direct the film at TMS and V1 Studio. Takeharu Sakurai is also returning from earlier films to write the script based on Aoyama's story, and franchise composer Katsuo Ono is again providing the music. "The film will be a love story set in Osaka, and it will feature Heiji Hattori and Kazuha Toyama. The visual shows Momiji Ōoka, a new character who refers to Heiji as her future husband and is a rival for Kazuha. She appears in the manga for the first time in the 91st compiled volume, which will ship on December 16 in Japan." Sources: Anime News Network, DCTP

I say this with all due respect and don't mean this as any offense to you, but what makes you think Trump might overturn marriage equality? The Supreme Court already made a ruling on that in 2015, and no newly appointed justices, not matter how socially conservative, would dare try and overturn the decision on zero basis and risk causing a nationwide revolt as, for the past few years, the majority of Americans support gay marriage with the gap ever widening, a steady trend when compared to the volatile public opinion on other issues, such as abortion. Trump may personally believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he also believes gays should receive equal protection under the law as married people, even going so far as to show interest in an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, to also include sexual orientation. If anything, Hillary is the one who has merely pandered to the LGBTQ+ community this entire election by claiming to support them, even though one of the Podesta e-mails reveals an exchange from October of 2015 of members of her campaign staff trying to figure out ways to "position her as a champion of LGBT issues," with all of them pitching ideas for statements that "Hillary" could publicly make, with none of the words or ideas actually originating from the woman herself. One of them even admits that "she's [Hillary's] not going to want to say she was wrong about that [the Defense of Marriage Act, which originally defined marriage, by law, to be between a man and a woman before being ruled unconstitutional], given she and her husband believe it [DOMA] and have repeated it many times (emphasis added)." Note the staffer member said "believe" and not "believed." As such, any worries you may have of this "manchild" overturning marriage equality is something I assume you would also have had if Clinton was the one who had won, since they both think marriage should be between a man and a woman, only difference being one of them openly admits it while the other covers it up with a fabricated public stance. Isn't it great that the candidate who falsely accused Russia for trying to influence the election by releasing e-mails proving the DNC and Clinton campaign were the ones influencing the election, who also supported enacting a no-fly zone over Aleppo which would have had a high chance of escalating into armed conflicted with Syria and Russia, was the one who lost the election? Clinton tried to drum up a third Red Scare against a now democratic Russia with intentions of actually starting a war with them once she took office. Trump on the other hand seeks to strengthen America domestically by rebuilding infrastructure and combating government corruption, and not attempt any fruitless nation-building invasions or bait other countries into launching cyber or military attacks against the United States. So as with the issue of marriage equality, if you are going to freak out over the possibility of a war under the Trump administration some time in the next four years, I'd assume you would have been equally as, if not more so, concerned about the future if Clinton had won, correct?

The only song suitable for a day like this.

OMM: I'm tired, I have class in a few hours, I need to sleep, I need to shower, I'm a mess, and I don't think the gravity of what happened has quite hit me just yet, but I know that in the morning I'll finally get the chance to proudly don my deplorables shirt. America Status: Great Again.

I don't see how what you said could be interpreted as anything of the sort. If anything, I appreciate the chance to engage in this dialogue. And yes, I realize that you obviously didn't take the accusation of Pepe the Frog being an alt-right symbol as anything other than a political stunt. I didn't mean for what I said to be directed at you. I was just expressing my incredulity at this entire situation to anyone who might be reading and actually taking it seriously. Concerning the mainstream media, I do not see how the issue of whether or not it's biased can be left to any sort of interpretation. Clear facts show that the media leans very far left, dare I say alt-left, seeing as how openly they favor Clinton over Trump. They shamelessly censor any opinions that go against the narrative, they blatantly lie to the viewers, they post negative disclaimers at the end of articles for Trump but not for Clinton, they have given debate questions in advance to Clinton, they don't take responsibility when caught colluding with the Clinton Campaign (an illegal act, by the way), they spin positive stories about Trump from over a decade ago into negative ones for the sake of making him look bad, and they disavow gay people who support Trump. And these are just one-off examples. This doesn't even include long-term forms of undermining Trump's campaign, such as by focusing almost exclusively on negative Trump articles to drown out damaging new facts that come to light regarding Clinton. This also doesn't include all the things the media hasn't done, which is just as damning if not more so. They undermine what otherwise would be career ending footage of Clinton collapsing and having her body thrown into a van, they downplay and only write a single article covering the time a DNC buss illegally dumped sewage in the streets, they ignore times Trump clearly lays out his plan for when he takes office so as to paint him as a candidate without substance, they fail to note the fact that Trump rallies sometimes completely fill out stadiums, which is only something Clinton rallies are able to do if they invite celebrities, they never mention the fact that Tim Kaine draws such small crowds that he's forced to cancel because only enough people to fill a lobby showed interest, while Mike Pence maintains crowds of hundreds while speaking in the dead of night in the rain. And this is only a sampling of the evidence. Think of all the articles that are published every day by all the news outlets, and think of the kinds of things that happen on CNN daily, a 24/7 station. And I haven't even gotten into how Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all use algorithms to promote pro-Clinton/anti-Trump content and hide anti-Clinton/pro-Trump content. This is not an issue of difficulty to pinpoint or a matter of perspective. I'm not just saying this because the candidate I have voted for is on the receiving end of this abuse of power. This is not a feeling I have, or a hunch, or going with my guts. This is a fact and I have evidence to back up this fact. You, and anyone else, is free to argue otherwise so long as evidence to support those claims are provided. And finally, in regards to what you said, I take issue when you claim he "admit[ted] to displaying sexually predatory behavior because he believes he has enough power/influence to get away with it". He did nothing of the sort. He said "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything" (emphasis added). That clearly shows consent on the woman's part. He was also talking about women in the entertainment industry, not just random beautiful women he happens to pass by on the street. Was the things he said about "mov[ing] on her like a bitch," being "automatically attracted to beautiful" women, "just start kissing them; it's like a magnet," and "grab[bing] them by the pussy" a bit uncouth and unfortunate? Yes, they were, and he already formally apologized. But as he has maintained, what he said was "locker room talk." It's no secret people say these things behind closed doors, it's just human nature. And this goes for both men and women (think of the things women have said in regards to 50 Shades of Grey for example). Not only that, but think of the rap songs with lyrics far more vulgar than what Trump has said that are accepted into society. Where is the outrage when it comes to that? And the concern that what Trump says has potentially dangerous consequences is completely unfounded. All of those violent demonstrations at rallies, like the one at Chicago or the one that involved the 69 year old who wearing an oxygen tank, have been proven to be set-up and staged by the DNC and Clinton campaign operatives in order push an agenda. There is no evidence to show that anything Trump has said or done has, by direct consequence, led to violence. In fact, the ones that have been shown to be violent and disruptive are the Clinton supports, or at least those in the anti-Trump camp. Recently, a homeless black women was viciously attacked for supporting Trump, a man was beaten and chased until police intervened for wearing a MAGA hat, students at the University of Pittsburgh were verbally assaulted for distributing pro-Trump merchandise and pamphlets, people leaving a Trump fundraiser were harassed in Minnesota, and the examples continue (none of these were promoted by the mainstream media, because that would go against the narrative). To blame any of these incidents on Trump's rhetoric would be trying to create causation where there is none, as they are all clearly examples of people violating others' right to free speech and being unable to handle different opinions without resorting to violence and ad hominems. So again, to bring this back to the original issue, there is no evidence or precedent showing that the remarks Trump made about women all those years ago could be considered dangerous or a threat. And yes, I concede that those remarks do deserve some news coverage, as you said perhaps a day or two's worth. But instead the story was pushed for weeks, not just days, and the mainstream media then fabricated false rape and sexual assault victims at the same time in order to sustain the conversation, in an attempt to drown out the Wikileaked Podesta e-mails and newly released Project Veritas videos. -- Obligatory spicy meme (this one's a keeper)

OMM: #SpiritCooking Word of warning, don't Google "spirit cooking" while eating. You're welcome. This election has been fun to follow and all, but seriously what. the. fuck.

OMM1: tfw you hatch a 10K egg on Halloween and it's an Onix I still can't believe this actually happened to me, the memes write themselves OMM2: Happy 50th anniversary, It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown!

OMM1: OMM2: tfw you plan a bus trip to a local Charmander spawn and you even buy a battery pack to help you camp out in the park, and then the day before you leave a great migration occurs and the Charmander are replaced by Geodude My fall break plans are literally ruined and I am unspeakably salty right now. If it weren't for the Nintendo Switch reveal I swear to god.