don't f with moon pies!

 

18 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

don't f with moon pies!

 

It's actually her pinned tweet: 

 

 

 

that's why you gotta buy the butter mixed with olive or canola oil, spreads way better right out of the fridge

 

They are remaking the Lost Boys.

I'm going to guess, it will suck hard. Like the proposed remake of Big Trouble in Little China.

Idk why but this made me laugh really hard 

4 hours ago, Toastrel said:

They are remaking the Lost Boys.

I'm going to guess, it will suck hard. Like the proposed remake of Big Trouble in Little China.

The original kind of sucked hard

Are they bringing back Saxophone Guy?

So I posted, On Facebook, "It's time to kill the filibuster" in response to a news article. I received a 3 day ban for violating Facebook community standards. 

Can someone explain to me how that is a violation?

It's not a threat of violence towards a person, its a policy not a person. It's also a common expression. Facebook is run by an Authoritarian regime. 

2 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

So I posted, On Facebook, "It's time to kill the filibuster" in response to a news article. I received a 3 day ban for violating Facebook community standards. 

Can someone explain to me how that is a violation?

It's not a threat of violence towards a person, its a policy not a person. It's also a common expression. Facebook is run by an Authoritarian regime. 

Didn’t like "kill” ?

3 minutes ago, Talkingbirds said:

Didn’t like "kill” ?

Yeah, so If I post the Eagles Killed the Cowboys on Monday night. I guess that's a violation as well. Really pathetic policy to a particular word.

In some cases, we see aspirational or conditional threats directed at terrorists and other violent actors (e.g. "Terrorists deserve to be killed"), and we deem those non-credible, absent specific evidence to the contrary.

But yet, Kill the filibuster is a credible threat.

5 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yeah, so If I post the Eagles Killed the Cowboys on Monday night. I guess that's a violation as well. Really pathetic policy to a particular word.

In some cases, we see aspirational or conditional threats directed at terrorists and other violent actors (e.g. "Terrorists deserve to be killed"), and we deem those non-credible, absent specific evidence to the contrary.

But yet, Kill the filibuster is a credible threat.

I agree it’s weak that you were banned for that.  Perhaps someone took it that you want to kill people who filibuster.

I think we should kill Phil A. Buster

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I think we should kill Phil A. Buster

What about Philip Uster?

1 minute ago, BFit said:

What about Philip Uster?

Him too. They both had it coming.