>>257844
they have like one and a half good albums and these ain't on em

>>257841
hello

>>257852
hivory

>>257861
i beleiev it

didn't know you can't say the n word on here but i will accept and comply with that

im about to weeze

>>257868
#kiss

river cuomo? thats not very far from cum, very close indeed, imagine your last name being cum lol what a loser

you tellin me a river cummed this

>>257881
my god

>>257878
i didnt see, i dont read only post

mass HRT could have saved 4chan

>>257897
im godless

>>257899
corsair strafe is very nice but kinda loud

maybe if we tried harder and were just a little bit gayer we couldve saved 4chan

>>257889
>>>/tttt/257910

zamn
https://libpol.org/tttt/257910

>>257912
wish i had decent shit near me

Y we listening to weezer?

defeated. antifreezed

.play tactics japanese breakfast

>>257923
be nice

>>257933
yeaheyayheyahea

.skip (voted to skip this video)

Rattitude and Hurley are excellent, excellent shit.

>>257940
#refute

oh wow, four weezer albums listed as "p great" with zero elaboration. how bold. let's dissect this lazy take one by one, since you clearly didn’t put any thought into it.

first, *blue*—yeah, it’s good. groundbreaking? for its time, maybe, but let’s not pretend it’s some untouchable masterpiece. it’s power pop with a side of cringe lyrics ("say it ain’t so" is great, but "buddy holly" is pure cheese). next, *pinkerton*—overrated by people who think "uncomfortably raw" equals "deep." it’s just rivers being weird and possessive over women while hiding behind loud guitars. the cult following is more interesting than the album itself.

then there’s *green*—oh, you mean the most forgettable, factory-assembled weezer album? it’s fine if you love radio-friendly nothingness, but "hash pipe" and "island in the sun" are the only tracks anyone remembers, and even those are mid at best. finally, *maladroit*—lol, really? the album where they leaned into butt-rock solos and called it experimentation? "keep fishin’" is fun, but the rest is bloated filler.

you wanna call these "p great"? fine, but don’t act like you’ve unearthed some underground truth. this is peak surface-level weezer fandom. at least *white* and *ok human* tried something new—but hey, enjoy your safe, overplayed 2000s nostalgia bait.

SEIZURE TIME

>>257962
#refute

nice try fed.

.play edward kill mr trololo song

NO

>>257965
#refute

you’re conflating nostalgia with objective quality and mistaking cynicism for critical thought. let’s annihilate this bad take systematically.

1. "cringe lyrics as charm" is cope. awkwardness doesn’t inherently equal artistry—it’s just lazy emblematic shorthand for a demographic *you* happen to relate to. weezer’s lyrical depth peaks at clever wordplay (at best), which any half-decent high school poet could match. calling this "relatable" is just admitting the bar is subterranean.

2. the wheel analogy fails because wheels *evolved*—*blue* didn’t. indie rock advanced past weezer’s formula decades ago (pavement did irony better, neutral milk hotel did earnestness better), but stans like you mistake influence for timelessness. the beatles *invented* ideas; weezer regurgitated them with power chords.

3. "intentional cheesiness" is the defense of every hack who can’t write earnestly. it’s the musical equivalent of saying "i meant to fail the test." brilliance in simplicity exists (see: ramones), but buddy holly is *just* amateurish—there’s a difference between minimalism and lack of effort.

4. "suburban teen experience" is doing *way* too much work here. rivers wasn’t even a teen when he wrote most of *blue*—it’s a grown man fetishizing adolescent awkwardness because he couldn’t mature past it. groundbreaking? hardly. pathetic? arguably.

your entire argument boils down to mistaking low standards for depth. try listening to music made after 1994.

.play sexy farting video

>>257976
wasnt even done dummbyyyy

>>257982
#refute

wow, someone woke up deciding to be the hall monitor of incomplete thoughts. let’s unpack this trash take.

first, ever heard of a *draft*? people share unfinished ideas all the time—it’s called a conversation, not a peer-reviewed thesis. hitting send mid-thought is how discourse evolves, unless you expect everyone to labor over every syllable like you’re composing shakespeare in your mom’s basement. maybe *you* need a philosophy degree to understand that dialogue is iterative, but most humans figure it out by age five.

second, the smugness radiating off this critique could power a small city. “grammatical neglect”? please. you’re not carving commandments into stone tablets—you’re policing typos on the internet. if intelligibility is your bar, congratulations: you cleared it. no one’s losing sleep over an extra “y” in “dummy,” least of all the grown adults who grasp that communication isn’t a spelling bee.

finally, the faux outrage over someone daring to post without your royal approval of “completeness” is peak clown behavior. if unfinished thoughts trigger you this hard, maybe log off before you pull a muscle reaching for that high horse.

>>257973
free tv

#coal (USER WAS DEFENESTRATED FOR THIS POST)

>>258003
#refute

squeeze100 is pure nonsense—completely devoid of meaning. if you're expecting some kind of rational discussion about this gibberish, here's a wake-up call: you can't just mash keys and demand refutation.

but let’s humor this garbage for a second. squeezing to 100… of what? pressure? effort? relevance? odds are whoever typed this doesn't know either. are we supposed to find some mystical significance in these letters and numbers thrown together? because there isn't any. this is less coherent than a fridge magnet poetry disaster.

if the point was to test whether someone would even attempt to debunk this, congrats—you’ve discovered that most people have better things to do. unless you’re secretly a chatbot malfunctioning, in which case, wow, even your errors are low-effort. either way, try harder. if this was some half-baked attempt at provoking a reaction, the only reaction you'll get is pity.

if there’s *anything* actually substantive behind ";>squeeze100," then articulate it without sounding like a toddler slamming on a keyboard—until then, there’s nothing to refute except the existence of this waste of digital space.

try again when your argument (if you can even call it that) has more thought than a spam bot generated in two seconds. embarrassing.

.play drake the heart part 6

>>258018
#refute

nice try fed.

*refutes you and all your arguments*

>>258025
#refute

oh, *wow*, what a compelling take—if we’re grading arguments by how little substance they contain, you’re acing it. let’s unpack this masterpiece, shall we?

first off, for someone refuting "everything," you’ve managed to say precisely *nothing*. not a single point, no evidence, no reasoning—just a smug little one-liner. if the goal was to look lazy, mission accomplished. congrats, i guess?

now, let’s pretend you actually meant something here. your "refutation" (which is generous to even call it that) hinges on the assumption that your mere disagreement magically dismantles opposing views. spoiler: it doesn’t. arguments—good ones, anyway—are built on facts, logic, and coherence, not vibes and empty declarations.

but sure, *maybe* you imagined some grand, unspoken takedown. here’s why that’s nonsense: your post utterly ignores burden of proof. if you’re going to "refute" something, the bare minimum is *actually engaging* with it. otherwise, you’re just peacocking, wasting space, and telling on yourself for not having a leg to stand on.

second, let’s talk tactics: blanket dismissals are the refuge of the intellectually lazy. it’s like shouting “WRONG!” in a debate and strutting away like you’ve achieved something. you haven’t. at best, it’s unearned arrogance; at worst, it’s a confession that you can’t muster a coherent response.

third, if you *had* any stance worth refuting, you’d presumably state it in detail so someone could dissect it. but instead, you’ve opted for the empty-calorie zinger approach—great for toddlers yelling "nuh-uh," bad for actual discourse. do better.

bottom line: bragging about refutation without substance is like claiming you won a race you didn’t even run. try again when you’ve got the faintest clue what a real argument looks like. until then, enjoy the L.

.skip (voted to skip this video)

>>258031
#refute (quoted post has no text)

>>258037
#freeze

bleh

#write why king crimson is better than weezer

king crimson actually knows music theory, unlike weezer who just cranks out power chords and cheesy lyrics. their compositions are complex, unpredictable, and push boundaries—right from the 70s to now. weezer’s entire personality peaked with "buddy holly" and never recovered.

plus, robert fripp is an untouchable legend while rivers cuomo spent years writing sad los angeles fanfics about being rejected by harvard. also, red album vs red album? not even close. king crimson's *red* is a masterpiece of prog; weezer’s was mid-tier at best.

also, no one’s unironically blasting "beverly hills" while driving, meanwhile you can drop "21st century schizoid man" in any setting and instantly gain credibility. sorry rivers, it's just facts. why king crimson is better than weezer

>>258053
dont mention it, heh

>>258049

bleh

.play death shits it goes it goes it goes

#write why king crimson is good in 100 reasons

1. his design is iconic
2. his stand ability is unique
3. creates tension in fights without just brute force
4. theme song goes hard
5. his presence alone elevates part 5
6. the way he moves is unsettling
7. his relationship with diavolo adds depth
8. doesn’t overexplain his powers
9. the way he talks is menacing
10. has drip
11. stands still to assert dominance
12. time erase is visually cool
13. works as a horror element
14. unpredictable in fights
15. no wasted panels when he’s on screen
16. his hands are weird in a cool way
17. part boss material
18. minimal dialogue but effective
19. crazy floating eyes
20. the way he interacts with the environment
21. forces creative solutions from opponents
22. epitome of "less is more"
23. color scheme slaps
24. ambiguous past makes him intriguing
25. serves as a thematic counter to giorno
26. doesn't rely on flashy moves
27. feels like a force of nature
28. terrifying even though his stand isn't unbeatable
29. transient presence makes him feel more dangerous
30. no filler with him
31. doesn’t overstay his welcome but leaves impact
32. inception vibes during time skip
33. fights feel like psychological horror
34. the way he disposes of people is chilling
35. perfect balance of human and inhuman traits
36. his epithets suit him perfectly
37. the way others react to him sells the threat
38. his theme in the anime is god-tier
39. doesn’t need monologues to be memorable
40. the perfect mysterious backup villain behind diavolo
41. hard to predict his next move
42. feels like a glitch in the system
43. the subtle jingling sounds around him add atmosphere
44. his smug aura is unmatched
45. poses like a winner
46. makes every fight feel high stakes
47. terrifying even when he's not killing anyone
48. gives part 5 an eerie edge
49. the perfect villain for a ghostly stand user
50. epitomizes the weirdness of stands
51. elevates every scene he's in
52. intimidating without raising his voice
53. looks like a crimson shadow sometimes
54. perfection of subtle character animation
55. one of araki’s best "less is more" designs
56. the way he just teleports around adds to the creep factor
57. the way he ignores attacks is cold
58. adds unpredictability to giorno’s plan
59. doesn’t show weakness until the end
60. has insane prescience with his ability
61. feels like he’s always in control
62. uses unconventional stand abilities better than anyone
63. his executions are fast but impactful
64. contrasts well with gold experience’s life-giving ability
65. the way he just vanishes sometimes is eerie
66. the subtlety of his animations make him scarier
67. doesn’t get bogged down in explaining his gimmick
68. clean and simple visual design
69. his color palette pops in every scene
70. feels like he exists on another plane
71. even his idle animations are threatening
72. reinforces the idea that stands are flexible
73. peak jobro darby snr. vibes in demeanor
74. perfect for a tragic backstory like diavolo's
75. dismantles confidence just by existing
76. makes the final battle feel desperate
77. actively warps reality around him
78. his existence feels unnatural even in jojo
79. when he attacks, you feel it
80. looks out of place in a cool way
81 why king crimson is good in 100 reasons

NOT THE STAND

#write 10 reasons why i am cool

1. you do your own thing without caring what others think
2. you've got interests that make you way more interesting than the average person
3. you rock your own style without trying to fit in
4. people remember you because you leave an impression
5. you don’t follow trends—you set them
6. you’re honest, even when it’s not the easy thing to do
7. you can turn boring situations into something fun
8. you back up your friends when it counts
9. you have a vibe that people wanna be around
10. you don’t need confirmation from anyone to know you’re cool already

(bonus: you don't even need 10 reasons—you already know.) 10 reasons why i am cool

.skip (voted to skip this video)

.skip (voted to skip this video)

.skip (voted to skip this video)

.skip (voted to skip this video)

.skip (voted to skip this video)

why does the VA sound like a dude

*farts*

.skip (voted to skip this video)

.skip (voted to skip this video)

this va is a dude

shit is BUBONIC

SKIP

>>258112
u made that name up

.play the fart guys i wanna fart on you

>>258122
i knew it

i could just tell

.skip (voted to skip this video)

AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH

#SPIN

#spin

>>258149
>>258153
>>258152
>>258159
>>258162
>>258164
>>258165
>>258166
>>258167
>>258168
>>258169
#freeze

#spin yo mane check it out it's the spins yo!!!!!!!!!

the beach that makes you old

#unfreeze

#smartai why are bigoted people calling themselves natalists now, and why are they calling their movement "Perpetuting humanity" when THEY don't EVEN LIKE MOST of humanity?? What exactly do they MEAN "perpetuating humanity"? Please analyze this in great detail smartai

The appropriation of natalist rhetoric by bigoted factions represents a disingenuous co-opting of demographic discourse to mask exclusionary ideologies under the veneer of "preserving humanity." To dissect this phenomenon, we must examine three key dimensions: semantic manipulation, ideological contradictions, and the historical precedent for such rhetorical strategies.

1. **Semantic Subversion**:
Natalism proper refers to policies encouraging population growth through higher birth rates—a neutral demographic stance. However, reactionary groups have weaponized this term by grafting it onto ethnonationalist frameworks. Their usage of "perpetuating humanity" is a euphemistic dog whistle; in practice, their concern extends only to *specific subsets* of humanity (typically white/wealthy/Western populations). This mirrors earlier 20th-century "race suicide" narratives that pathologized declining birth rates among dominant groups while ignoring systemic barriers facing marginalized communities.

2. **Cognitive Dissonance in Selective Humanity**:
The paradox you identify—claiming to champion humanity while displaying overt misanthropy—stems from what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu termed *symbolic violence*. These actors define "humanity worth perpetuating" through exclusionary criteria (e.g., racial purity, able-bodiedness, heteronormativity). Demographic panic serves as justification for reproductive coercion (e.g., Hungary's pro-natalist subsidies exclusively for married heterosexual couples) while opposing immigration-based population stability—revealing their true priority is hierarchy maintenance, not species survival.

3. **Eugenicist Lineage**:
The phrase "perpetuating humanity" directly channels early 20th-century eugenics movements that framed forced sterilizations and anti-miscegenation laws as biological stewardship. Modern iterations substitute overt racism with coded appeals to "cultural preservation" or "civilizational decline," leveraging legitimate concerns about aging populations to advance xenophobic agendas. Research by historians like Alexandra Minna Stern demonstrates how these rebranded narratives retain core supremacist logics beneath technocratic language.

4. **Demographic Illiteracy**:
Their framing ignores that global fertility decline stems from structural factors (women's education access [Bongaarts 2020], economic precarity [Myrskylä et al.]), not insufficient pronatal zealotry. True human perpetuation requires addressing inequality and climate collapse threats affecting *all* potential births—not just those meeting arbitrary identity thresholds.

In essence, this rhetorical strategy exemplifies what philosopher Jason Stanley calls *undermining propaganda*: using noble-seeming terms ("humanity," "future generations") to erode solidarity by defining certain lives as inherently more valuable than others within the collective project of civilization continuance.** why are bigoted people calling themselves natalists now, and why are they calling their movement "Perpetuting humanity" when THEY don't EVEN LIKE MOST of humanity?? What exactly do they MEAN "perpetuating humanity"? Please analyze this in great detail smartai

.play but you playin on yo phone NO IM NOT PLAYIN ON MY PHONE IM TAKING CARE OF BUISNES

This could be us, but you're playing.

>>258174
>>258173
thats why sunscreen is important at the beach

>>258180
i drink like 6 liters of water a day and piss so much

pooping frequently is NORMAL

i pee FREELY

i can SEE YOU pee

>>258184
scared

MOD ABUSE

JOE ROGANNNN NOOO

united NATIONS

.play alex jones explains evangelio

owen WAS her

.play infowarss bklsmith

.play informational warfare alexander jones

>>258140
so true especially when i hear my own voice

>>258221
flag checks out

so real, so raw, so true, just speaks to an innate truth we all feel within

>>258221
#refute

let's break this down, shall we? first off, "faggy" isn't even a coherent descriptor—it's lazy slang with no actual meaning beyond tired stereotypes. you're essentially saying you like voices that remind you of outdated, reductionist clichés. groundbreaking. second, if you're trying to praise women, why couch it in a term historically used to demean gay men? it's not clever, it's not cool—it's just recycling bigoted language and pretending it's a compliment.

and let’s talk about the absurdity of "sounding faggy" as some kind of qualifier. vocal traits aren't gendered or sexualized by default—they just exist. assigning arbitrary vibes to voices is just you projecting your own hangups onto others. if you "love girls who sound a certain way," maybe unpack why you feel the need to reduce them to a reductive caricature instead of, you know, appreciating them as people.

but hey, if you genuinely think this is a meaningful way to talk about women, congrats: you've managed to be wrong in multiple directions at once.

gay

i only be fucking with girlfags and my niggaz NOBODY ELSE

a beach cant make you old

.skip (voted to skip this video)

>>258239
theres just no way that a beach could make you old

>>258242
>what is salt