I don't get it either. I understand that it's referencing the dipshit that died in his own submarine, but I don't understand the intent. If it's supposed to be funny it's not hitting for me.
I mean it's a shitpost, there's no deeper humor here. Just 'wouldn't it be funny if family-friendly Disney-owned Pixar made a comedy movie about something so edgy as real people being crushed to death"
That's probably because it's dark humor.
It's the Titanic tourists that died a little while ago.
Oh the rich people that died because an asshole didn't take engineering safety guidelines seriously?
This post would have been in very bad taste had it not been about asshole billionaires dying a stupid and assuredly horrific death.
To be fair, one of those victims was a teenager who was dragged along by his rich dad. That kid didn't deserve it.
I don't think any of them deserved this. On the other hand, it doesn't keep me up at night, either.
I think it's because they died mostly due to ignorance and seeming idiocy, instead of malicious intent, cruelty or something of the like. It's hard to have empathy for someone who took such a big risk for the enjoyment of the experience (like an extreme rollercoaster). Others who are more aware will immediately recognise the sheer danger of such an activity. They all accepted that risk. The fact that they could afford such an activity implies they were probably loaded.
Example headline:
7 millionare adrenaline junkies die in extreme skydiving activity.
-- Yeah it's unfortunate, but it won't keep me up at night either.
The point I was making was that at least one of them wasn't an adrenaline junkie, i.e. the kid whose rich dad dragged him along for the ride. IIRC he hadn't wanted to go in the first place.
If it imploded at depth, they literally wouldn't have time to feel it.
If it weren't at depth, it wouldn't have imploded, so it's quite certain they became toothpaste before feeling a thing.
I do not understand the joke. Could someone please explain?
It's referencing the Oceangate sub implosion.
Also Johnny Sins is headlining with Ryan Reynolds
I don't get it either. I understand that it's referencing the dipshit that died in his own submarine, but I don't understand the intent. If it's supposed to be funny it's not hitting for me.
I mean it's a shitpost, there's no deeper humor here. Just 'wouldn't it be funny if family-friendly Disney-owned Pixar made a comedy movie about something so edgy as real people being crushed to death"
That's probably because it's dark humor.
It's the Titanic tourists that died a little while ago.
Oh the rich people that died because an asshole didn't take engineering safety guidelines seriously?
This post would have been in very bad taste had it not been about asshole billionaires dying a stupid and assuredly horrific death.
To be fair, one of those victims was a teenager who was dragged along by his rich dad. That kid didn't deserve it.
I don't think any of them deserved this. On the other hand, it doesn't keep me up at night, either.
I think it's because they died mostly due to ignorance and seeming idiocy, instead of malicious intent, cruelty or something of the like. It's hard to have empathy for someone who took such a big risk for the enjoyment of the experience (like an extreme rollercoaster). Others who are more aware will immediately recognise the sheer danger of such an activity. They all accepted that risk. The fact that they could afford such an activity implies they were probably loaded.
Example headline:
7 millionare adrenaline junkies die in extreme skydiving activity.
-- Yeah it's unfortunate, but it won't keep me up at night either.
The point I was making was that at least one of them wasn't an adrenaline junkie, i.e. the kid whose rich dad dragged him along for the ride. IIRC he hadn't wanted to go in the first place.
If it imploded at depth, they literally wouldn't have time to feel it.
If it weren't at depth, it wouldn't have imploded, so it's quite certain they became toothpaste before feeling a thing.
That's the guy ;)