I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't people constantly getting hit in the head with coconuts on that show?
Was "Gilligan's Island" trying to warn the USA about the danger of coconuts? -
- Thread starter Dom Cruise
- Start date
You're wrong. Complete fabrication.
Nonsense. Coconuts are your friends and bounty of (((Kona))), master of good fortune.
It was to warn them that One Piece will outlive them
Marissa Moira
kiwifarms.net
Anyone who pushes coconuts is untrustworthy.
- Highlight
- #6
shhhhh, I need mine
I also need my emotional support coconut.
I LOVE TO FUCK COCONUTS
Ok, we get it, you're jealous that others have big hairy coconuts, fuzzy conkers even. Eat some ginseng or get plugs or something, sheesh.
What danger though? I'm sick of people spreading this myth about falling coconuts "killing more people than shark attacks". It's bullshit.
Loading…
www.snopes.com
Sure, is a coconut falling and crashing into your head dangerous? Yes. But if a coconut hits you, you'll probably live. If a shark attacks you, you're only good for parts.
MOSHI MOSHI, GILLIGAN SAN DESU NE.
I actually was under the impression a coconut hitting your head would always kill you, glad to see that's not the case.
You all trust Snopes? I'm ALMOST tempted to believe the opposite about deadly coconuts given that it's Snopes, lol.
It's the difference in subject matter. Sure, when it comes to stuff like whether Hunter Biden is a pedophile (he is) or whether George Floyd was mid-OD when he got Chauvin'd (he was) or whether transgender people are just brainwashed autists (they are), Snopes has to echo their party line and typically arrives at the demonstrably wrong conclusion. But there's nothing political about coconuts vs sharks, so they actually get to do a proper deep dive for a change.
I tend to take the same attitude about Snopes, if it's politics it's bullshit, if it's not, it's probably more reliable.
The thing with Political Snopes is, the body text is usually correct, but the headline is bullshit. They'll either construct the question in such a way that it produces misleading headlines ("why no! It's FALSE that this Democrat did a bad thing! In reality, it was the corporation that the Democrat owns that did or the bad thing!" ), use their editorial discretion to pick subject matter that will make Democrats look good and everyone else look evil, or they'll just flat-out lie (e..g they'll rate something as MOSTLY FALSE, but then you read the body text and you find that it's actually MIXED or MOSTLY TRUE ).
I miss the early days, when Snopes was a reliable way to prove to people that you couldn't see the Great Wall of China from the Moon, and the two Snopes editors had the integrity to lie in a couple articles, in order to make the point that you should always be skeptical and you shouldn't rely on Snopes to do your thinking for you. I was trying to find that article, but I'm having a hard time locating it now - as webseaches regarding the reliability of Snopes are just turning up Snopes pieces about how everyone else is Fakenews, and don't you believe them, Snopes is doubleplus Factcheck.
If you find that "great wall article", archive it. Snopes has not been good for many years and, even worse than sucking for over a decade, has been a consistent mouthpiece for NPCs. Just like with the BBC, I just ignore 100% of everything from Snopes these days, Forget nostalgia, Snopes is the bad guy now.
You just don't understand how dangerous coconuts are. It may already be too late for us.
Similar threads
