Valentine's Day
Valentine's Day

Valentine's Day

pics
pics

pics

2018
2018

2018

cat
cat

cat

said
 said

said

Tall Enough
Tall Enough

Tall Enough

Quotes
Quotes

Quotes

Animal
Animal

Animal

humor
humor

humor

Pictures
Pictures

Pictures

🔥 | Latest

Memes, Pixar, and Help: SNEP PIXAR Things are looking up. You need your required daily intake of memes! Follow @nochillmemes for help now!
Memes, Pixar, and Help: SNEP PIXAR
Things are looking up.

You need your required daily intake of memes! Follow @nochillmemes for help now!

Things are looking up. You need your required daily intake of memes! Follow @nochillmemes for help now!

Memes, Shower, and Help: shower mmm hot water washing It’s really not that complicated. You need your required daily intake of memes! Follow @nochillmemes for help now!
Memes, Shower, and Help: shower
 mmm hot water
 washing
It’s really not that complicated.

You need your required daily intake of memes! Follow @nochillmemes for help now!

It’s really not that complicated. You need your required daily intake of memes! Follow @nochillmemes for help now!

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

80s, Apparently, and Books: ladylisa: gemfyre: lauralandons: thereadersmuse: jehovahhthickness: lightning-st0rm: pearlmito: smootymormonhelldream: stripedsilverfeline: anti-clerical: ramirezbundydahmer: When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated by the Allies, it was a time of great jubilation for the tens of thousands of people incarcerated in them. But an often forgotten fact of this time is that prisoners who happened to be wearing the pink triangle (the Nazis’ way of marking and identifying homosexuals) were forced to serve out the rest of their sentence. This was due to a part of German law simply known as “Paragraph 175” which criminalized homosexuality. The law wasn’t repealed until 1969. This should be required learning, internationally.  You need to know this. You need to remember this. This is not something to swept under the carpet nor be forgotten.  Never. Too many have died for the way they have loved. That needs stop now.  Make it stop?  I did a report on this in my World History class my sophomore year of high school. It was incredibly unsettling. My teacher shown the class this. Mostly everyone in the class felt uncomfortable.  I have reblogged this in the past, but it is so ironic that it comes across my dash right now. I a currently working as a docent at my city’s Holocaust Education Center (( I say currently because I’ve also done research and translation for them )) and out current exhibit is one on loan from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ((USHMM)). This is a little known historical fact that Paragraph 175 was not repealed after the war and those convicted under Nazi laws as a danger to society because they were gay were not released because they had be convicted in a court of law. There was no liberation or justice for them as they weren’t considered criminals, or even victims for that matter. They were criminals who remained persecuted and ostracized and kept on the fringes of society for decades after the war had been won. Paragraph175 wasn’t actually repealed until 1994. And it was only in May 2002, that the German parliament completed legislation to pardon all homosexuals convicted under Paragraph175 during the Nazi era. History has forgotten about these men and women — please educate yourselves so this does not happen again. Remember this history. Remember them. @mindlesshumor ok how the fuck did I miss this when I’ve studied The Holocaust like nobody’s business??? wtf Because the history we have left regarding it is literally the contents of this first hand account. It is a thin little book. When I first opened it, I wondered why it was so thin. Why there wasn’t other books like it. Other first hand accounts. By the time I finished it, I didn’t wonder anymore. Further reading: I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror by Pierre Seel An Underground Life: Memoirs of a Gay Jew in Nazi Berlin by Gad Beck The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals by Richard Plant Branded By The Pink Triangle by Ken Setterington Bent by Martin Sherman (fiction; however, it’s often credited with bringing attention to gay Holocaust victims for the first time since the war ended) This is one of the memorial sculptures in Dachau.  It was erected in the early 60s and is missing the pink triangles.  Because in the early 60s, homosexuality was still a crime in most of the world.Our tour guide explained why the pink triangles have not been added later - if they were, then folks would assume that they had always been there.  This way people ask “why aren’t there pink triangles?” and somebody can explain why - because in some ways, the rest of the world was as bass-ackwards as Nazi Germany. Apparently, this wasnt taught in schools in the 70s-80s, cuz when I mentioned it to my mom, she had no idea that gays were held in concentration camps. She thought it was just jewish people.
80s, Apparently, and Books: ladylisa:
gemfyre:

lauralandons:

thereadersmuse:

jehovahhthickness:

lightning-st0rm:

pearlmito:

smootymormonhelldream:

stripedsilverfeline:

anti-clerical:

ramirezbundydahmer:

When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated by the Allies, it was a time of great jubilation for the tens of thousands of people incarcerated in them. But an often forgotten fact of this time is that prisoners who happened to be wearing the pink triangle (the Nazis’ way of marking and identifying homosexuals) were forced to serve out the rest of their sentence. This was due to a part of German law simply known as “Paragraph 175” which criminalized homosexuality. The law wasn’t repealed until 1969.

This should be required learning, internationally. 

You need to know this. You need to remember this. This is not something to swept under the carpet nor be forgotten. 
Never. Too many have died for the way they have loved. That needs stop now. 
Make it stop? 

I did a report on this in my World History class my sophomore year of high school. It was incredibly unsettling.

My teacher shown the class this. Mostly everyone in the class felt uncomfortable. 

I have reblogged this in the past, but it is so ironic that it comes across my dash right now. I a currently working as a docent at my city’s Holocaust Education Center (( I say currently because I’ve also done research and translation for them )) and out current exhibit is one on loan from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ((USHMM)). This is a little known historical fact that Paragraph 175 was not repealed after the war and those convicted under Nazi laws as a danger to society because they were gay were not released because they had be convicted in a court of law. There was no liberation or justice for them as they weren’t considered criminals, or even victims for that matter. They were criminals who remained persecuted and ostracized and kept on the fringes of society for decades after the war had been won. Paragraph175 wasn’t actually repealed until 1994. And it was only in May 2002, that the German parliament completed legislation to pardon all homosexuals convicted under Paragraph175 during the Nazi era. History has forgotten about these men and women — please educate yourselves so this does not happen again. Remember this history. Remember them.

@mindlesshumor ok how the fuck did I miss this when I’ve studied The Holocaust like nobody’s business??? wtf

Because the history we have left regarding it is literally the contents of this first hand account.
It is a thin little book.
When I first opened it, I wondered why it was so thin.
Why there wasn’t other books like it.
Other first hand accounts.
By the time I finished it, I didn’t wonder anymore.

Further reading:
I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror by Pierre Seel
An Underground Life: Memoirs of a Gay Jew in Nazi Berlin by Gad Beck
The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals by Richard Plant
Branded By The Pink Triangle by Ken Setterington
Bent by Martin Sherman (fiction; however, it’s often credited with bringing attention to gay Holocaust victims for the first time since the war ended)

This is one of the memorial sculptures in Dachau.  It was erected in the early 60s and is missing the pink triangles.  Because in the early 60s, homosexuality was still a crime in most of the world.Our tour guide explained why the pink triangles have not been added later - if they were, then folks would assume that they had always been there.  This way people ask “why aren’t there pink triangles?” and somebody can explain why - because in some ways, the rest of the world was as bass-ackwards as Nazi Germany.


Apparently, this wasnt taught in schools in the 70s-80s, cuz when I mentioned it to my mom, she had no idea that gays were held in concentration camps. She thought it was just jewish people.

ladylisa: gemfyre: lauralandons: thereadersmuse: jehovahhthickness: lightning-st0rm: pearlmito: smootymormonhelldream: stripedsilverf...

Being Alone, Apparently, and Bad: Sp3ctre7171 points 3 hours ago You are absolutely correct 1) Miro learned to use the mobility of Winston, as well as his primal, to invent modern dive. He learned all of the tips and tricks and extracted extra value out of the hero that few realized was there. In doing so, he created a role that used main tank as an offensive centerpiece and threat to the backline, and all of a sudden flank heroes weren't alone. A poorly protected ana in the back could be beset by multiple members of the enemy team without much warning. However, this required both new gamesense from miro, and innovations in lucio play from Tobi. Specifically, tobi was able to peel for jehong better than many players thought was possible, compensating for the lack of defensive shields. The compounding innovation led to LH being an offensive threat at every position, and it made it possible for them to do the miraculous turnarounds that defined their APEX championship runs Playing against them was exhausting, as is expected from a team where any one member can wipe you out if left unchecked. 2) Gesture's contribution was twofold. Firstly, he extracted more value out of winston's kit on the defensive side, learning how to use primal both to continue an attack, and to peel for his own back line, which leads into his second main development. That being, under Gesture the final decision was made to transfer shotcalling duties from the main support (lucio and later mercy) and onto the main tank, primarily because engagements were no longer dictated by speed boost, but by the dive from the main tank. Together with the rest of GC Busan, Gesture planned, called, and executed crisp dives that were far better timed and aimed than those of old LH. Whereas Miro's dives were a terror because you would be under attack from multiple divers, the style that Gesture led the way on involved being instantly deleted by a full dive, where a healer pair could be hit with burst from multiple heroes in the same instant. This in turn changed the Winston interplay into a mind game, where there was a choice to be made between deleting the enemy's backline and attempting to save your own. Winston players were forced to learn how to make each leap and pincer engage perfect, or they would simply lose the fight Permalink Embed Save Parent Report Give Gold Reply Sp3ctre7160 points 3 hours ago (Continued) 3) what guxue is introducing is a Winston as the focus of a dive, not just the linchpin. While that sounds like the same thing previously, the Winston would be used to coordinate dives and call the timing, but with Guxue, resources are poured into the Winston to make sure that he can have offensive value. Both because Winston can do damage to the whole team at once (and thus build ult insanely fast against teams pocketing a zen, or against GOATS comps), but also because Winston can simultaneously disrupt the escape methods for healers AND bypass most of the ways in which healers are protected, such as matrix and shields Guxue's innovations are most similar to miro's in that they are mostly focused on a single player's style and that one hero's impact in a game. Changing the offensive presence of a hero is impactful and increases the visible skill gap between good and bad teams, but the effects are mostly limited to that one hero. For that reason, I think that the innovations brought forth by Gesture (and many others) are the most important to the development of modern Winston play, in that they represented a fundamental change in the whole shotcalling and tactical philosophy of dive teams, and opened the gates to the more complex and match specific strategies that we saw in the overwatch league owldesk: some really good tank playstyle analysis on reddit (as a side note, this guy is apparently gonna have analysis articles out soon and you better BELIEVE i’m gonna link them bc if they’re anything like this write up they’ll be great)
Being Alone, Apparently, and Bad: Sp3ctre7171 points 3 hours ago
 You are absolutely correct
 1) Miro learned to use the mobility of Winston, as well as his primal, to invent modern dive. He learned all of the tips and tricks
 and extracted extra value out of the hero that few realized was there. In doing so, he created a role that used main tank as an
 offensive centerpiece and threat to the backline, and all of a sudden flank heroes weren't alone. A poorly protected ana in the
 back could be beset by multiple members of the enemy team without much warning. However, this required both new gamesense
 from miro, and innovations in lucio play from Tobi. Specifically, tobi was able to peel for jehong better than many players thought
 was possible, compensating for the lack of defensive shields. The compounding innovation led to LH being an offensive threat at
 every position, and it made it possible for them to do the miraculous turnarounds that defined their APEX championship runs
 Playing against them was exhausting, as is expected from a team where any one member can wipe you out if left unchecked.
 2) Gesture's contribution was twofold. Firstly, he extracted more value out of winston's kit on the defensive side, learning how to
 use primal both to continue an attack, and to peel for his own back line, which leads into his second main development. That
 being, under Gesture the final decision was made to transfer shotcalling duties from the main support (lucio and later mercy) and
 onto the main tank, primarily because engagements were no longer dictated by speed boost, but by the dive from the main tank.
 Together with the rest of GC Busan, Gesture planned, called, and executed crisp dives that were far better timed and aimed than
 those of old LH. Whereas Miro's dives were a terror because you would be under attack from multiple divers, the style that
 Gesture led the way on involved being instantly deleted by a full dive, where a healer pair could be hit with burst from multiple
 heroes in the same instant. This in turn changed the Winston interplay into a mind game, where there was a choice to be made
 between deleting the enemy's backline and attempting to save your own. Winston players were forced to learn how to make each
 leap and pincer engage perfect, or they would simply lose the fight
 Permalink Embed Save Parent Report Give Gold Reply
 Sp3ctre7160 points 3 hours ago
 (Continued)
 3) what guxue is introducing is a Winston as the focus of a dive, not just the linchpin. While that sounds like the same thing
 previously, the Winston would be used to coordinate dives and call the timing, but with Guxue, resources are poured into the
 Winston to make sure that he can have offensive value. Both because Winston can do damage to the whole team at once (and
 thus build ult insanely fast against teams pocketing a zen, or against GOATS comps), but also because Winston can
 simultaneously disrupt the escape methods for healers AND bypass most of the ways in which healers are protected, such as
 matrix and shields
 Guxue's innovations are most similar to miro's in that they are mostly focused on a single player's style and that one hero's impact
 in a game. Changing the offensive presence of a hero is impactful and increases the visible skill gap between good and bad
 teams, but the effects are mostly limited to that one hero. For that reason, I think that the innovations brought forth by Gesture
 (and many others) are the most important to the development of modern Winston play, in that they represented a fundamental
 change in the whole shotcalling and tactical philosophy of dive teams, and opened the gates to the more complex and match
 specific strategies that we saw in the overwatch league
owldesk:

some really good tank playstyle analysis on reddit (as a side note, this guy is apparently gonna have analysis articles out soon and you better BELIEVE i’m gonna link them bc if they’re anything like this write up they’ll be great)

owldesk: some really good tank playstyle analysis on reddit (as a side note, this guy is apparently gonna have analysis articles out soon a...