I’m totally being pedantic but Django is a bounty hunter, not a cowboy. As a matter of fact, most Hollywood “cowboys” (including Clint Eastwood and Franco Nero, the original Django) aren’t actually cowboys. Actual historical cowboys, as the name suggests, were just cattle herders, who might have occasionally gotten into gunfights over land disputes or cattle thieves. Yellowstone and it’s spin offs are some of the few “cowboy” series that’s actually about cowboys.

There’s definitely a trend where Redditors vehemently disagree with or find the smallest ways to discredit studies that support conclusions they already disagreed with, while they agree without a second thought with conclusions that they already do agree with. There’s a lot of selective attention here. In fact, I’d argue that’s one of the main reoccurring issues I see whenever I find myself on a post on this sub.

I meant to say a portable camera, not just digital or smartphone but my brain wasn’t working. Obviously you couldn’t do that with the type of early camera that guy was using all the way back in the mid-19th century.

Ehhh. That’s really pushing the definition of a selfie I think. I think a selfie is something that can only be done with a portable camera digital camera or smartphone that the subject is holding. Otherwise, it’s just a well timed self portrait. When someone says “selfie”, what usually comes to mind is a picture of yourself in which the camera is obviously at the end of an extended arm or pair of arms.

This is definitely the most modern looking one I’ve seen thats from before the 21st century (if you told me this was taken yesterday, I’d 100% believe you), and it’s actually a selfie as opposed to just a self portrait.

I mean no offense, but if you told me there were no biological women in this photo, I would believe you.

Not “his own people”, but the Nation of Islam, which he had left and turned against by this point.

I don’t think you can know what Tenacious D is and not know that’s Jack Black.

She won what now?

This has to be the dumbest “well ackshually” I constantly see and have heard all my life. It’s a perspective thing. OP saw Jason Priestley before they saw young Christopher Walken. In that context, “Jason Priestley vibes” is correct, because they’re talking about the vibes they’re getting from young Walken, not the vibes they get from Jason Priestley, who, in their mind, just looks like like how Jason Priestley has always looked.

What a weird interpretation of his comment. Yes, people absolutely have the potential to look a lot like each other even with no direct familial relation. And yes, this is more likely to be the case between two or more people of the same or similar ethnic background. And they absolutely do look like they could be brother and sister. Look at their lips, eyes, and nose. I disagree about Aniston though. She doesn’t look anything like either of them.

Your uncle’s boyfriend looks like John Bernthal.