Rottcodd

Ah - I thought to explain the connection, but didn't want to belabor the point if you already got it.

First and most broadly, Fujimura is a tsukkomi completely surrounded by bokes, much like Alvin.

More curiously though, there's a side character who's just called Helmet because he's never seen without a full-face helmet, just like Alvin. And even to the point, again like Alvin, that in the rare event that he isn't wearing his helmet, his face is pointedly hidden anyway.

On the one hand, that's a sort of meaningless detail, but on the other hand, it's a meaningless detail that matches up between the two. It seems too insignificant to be deliberate but too obscure to not be.

And yeah - it's good. It's mostly the same sort of boke and tsukkomi humor as this, and with really good characters (the fmc - Eri - is still one of my all-time favorite manga characters). And it's also a surprisingly effective harem series, since the girls are all bokes of one sort or another, which is an alternative reason for them continually pestering Fujimura, and he can't help but tsukkomi, which explains the otherwise awkward harem contrivance of the MC generally not figuring out what's going on. It's not so much that he can't figure it out as that he can't take it seriously - he thinks they're just sort of deranged. And he's not entirely wrong.

I keep wondering how much, if at all, this was inspired by Fujimura-kun Meitsu. It's sort of as if Helmet got a spin-off manga and was promoted (or demoted, as the case might be) from boke to tsukkomi.

And right on cue, unintentional irony.

My objection to it is that it seems that its subject and its target audience are essentially the same people.

I was going to say this, but I figured I could just scroll until I found where someone else inevitably said it.

By the end, I was just letting the drama wash over me and not even trying to sort out which version of who was doing what in which timeline.

And honestly, I suspect that that's the best way to appreciate it anyway.

Or you could just not care so much.

If you post memes that are likely to offend someone somewhere, then there's a risk that one of those someones is going to be a mod, and they're going to delete it. And really, that's just the way it goes.

Certainly you might prefer that they have explicit, precise and closely followed rules so you can accurately predict what they'll do, but there's really no requirement that they do so - if they want vague rules arbitrarily enforced, that's their prerogative.

And really, what are you out if they do delete a post? It's not like you paid for it or you have some sort of quota you have to meet. You just toss things out into the internet, and some of them float and others sink.

I'm always curious - what is it that leads you to believe that you should be able to decide what other people may or may not do with their own bodies?

I've never been able to wrap my head around that whole idea. There's just no angle on it that makes sense to me.

If I presume that people do have the right to decide what other people can do with their own bodies, then we end up with self-defeating chaos, since different people have entirely different, conflicting and even contradictory, views on that.

But if I decide that they don't have that right, then... they don't have that right.

I don't see a chain of logic that can possibly lead to the conclusion that anyone does have that right, but it seems I can't turn around without running into yet another person, like you here, who blithely presumes that they do.

So really - how does that work? Inside your own mind, what's the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that you, rather than the actual people who actually inhabit the other bodies around you, should be empowered to decide what they may or may not do with their own bodies?

I just can't make sense of it.

So seriously - who's peddling this anti-vaping propaganda and what's their goal?

Vaping is easily the most effective way to stop smoking that's ever existed. Certainly we don't want kids to start doing it, and kids are the basis for much of the propaganda, but it's never just restricted to trying to make it so kids don't start. All of the propaganda efforts are directed toward stamping out vaping entirely, and that means that millions of people whose lives could literally be saved by switching from smoking to vaping will be denied that opportunity.

Why? Whose interests are served by denying adult smokers access to the most effective smoking cessation product ever?

For me it's "v".

IfvI'mvnotvcarefulvIvgetvthis.

Like many labels people choose to self-apply (including but by no means limited to religious ones), "atheist" has a bit of an image problem, since the people who are most eager to self-apply it, and to broadcast that self-application far and wide, tend to be insecure, over-compensating, self-absorbed, obnoxious assholes.

There are a great many generally kind, decent people who identify as "atheists." You just don't generally know that they do, since, being generally kind and decent people, they aren't crashing around like football hooligans, alternately screeching about their own team and atacking the opposing team.

And that's the case with pretty much all labels. The problem is almost never with people who self-apply a particular label, but simply with noxious assholes, regardless of the label. It's generally just our own biases that make it so that we consider the noxious assholes who wear one label to define all who do and the noxious assholes who wear another to be unfortunate exceptions to the rule.