this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
273 points (96.6% liked)

shitposting

1534 readers
577 users here now

Rules •1. No Doxxing •2. No TikTok reposts •3. No Harassing •4. Post Gore at your own discretion, Depends if its funny or just gore to be an edgelord.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 26 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The opposite of skeletons in your closet is no skeletons in your closet, not skeletons in the front yard. LOL

[–] Mozingo@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

He said "Idiom continuity". That doesn't mean they all have to be opposites, he's just extending the metaphors in whatever direction he fancies.

[–] keepcarrot@hexbear.net 4 points 11 months ago

Skeletons in your pantry: Your dark cooking experiments when you were drunk, high, or broke

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I just realized that going up in flames and going down in flames are both very bad.

[–] jargoggles@kbin.social 15 points 11 months ago

Clearly it's a function of |y|.

[–] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

One way's flammable

The other's inflammable

[–] fidodo@lemm.ee 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

"going sideways" is also bad. I guess the moral of that idiom is that directions are bad?

I guess "going forwards intact" would be the good version.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 13 points 11 months ago

Remaining motionless at room temperature.

[–] muddi@hexbear.net 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's "go up in flames" right? So the opposite would be "not catch on fire?"

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

Go down in water.

[–] keepcarrot@hexbear.net 2 points 11 months ago

Extinguished forward, but stopped

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

"going sideways" is also bad.

“Going forward in flames” is what it should be. You’re in flames, but you’re not going up, down, or sideways (all bad), but just going forward knowing the flames will probably subside.

[–] walter_wiggles@lemmy.nz 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I can't figure out the bag of cats one

[–] ma11en@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

If someone 'lets the cat out of the bag' they have shared secrets.

[–] hallettj@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months ago

If you've got a whole bag it means you haven't let any out

[–] Iraglassceiling@hexbear.net 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I haven’t enjoyed any of Nathan Pyles content since I found out he is pro forced birth/anti choice.

Fuck that guy.

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 8 points 11 months ago

Boo, let’s just steal it and cut his name out!

[–] Facelikeapotato@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago

Oh, that's disappointing.

[–] sag@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

What it mean?

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 8 points 11 months ago

“Up shit creek with a paddle” - you’re in trouble, but you’ve got the means to get through it (tho it will stink)

[–] Kandorr@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

The jig remains down.

[–] rothaine@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Me trying to figure out how "towel" is the opposite of "phone", smh

[–] Stretch2m@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Opposite of throw in the towel.

[–] elegantgoat1@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Consistency?

Edit: Funny though!

[–] fidodo@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Continuity is consistency across a spectrum.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Continuity is the presence of a complete path for current flow.

[–] elegantgoat1@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I can buy that. My thought was that there is no spectrum here though. Just two points.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think it's continuity, like a spectrum. At one end is thin ice, the other is thick ice. etc

[–] elegantgoat1@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I think that's wrong. Since they are discrete and not a continuum. Since there are only two extremes.

If his new relationships were true it would make the opposite idioms consistent with their non-opposite counterparts. Kind of the same concept as a contrapositive proposition, i.e. 'if A then B' implies 'if not A then not B'.