Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Reply To Thread

Things we might discuss if the forum didn't dieFollow

#302 Jun 13 2017 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
gbaji stuff


I hafta say. I hate using words like "conservative" and "liberal." I hate grouping people into broad categories this way. I avoid using words like that whenever I can if it can be helped. So this isn't easy for me.

Whenever I see someone use the word "liberal" as a means of othering someone, I immediately stop taking them seriously-- because the meaning behind words like these have become completely subjective. Too often I see someone speak their opinion about something like, say, abortion-- and depending on their stance on the issue, they are immediately given one of those two labels, regardless of what they think about anything else.


A friend and coworker of mine has a saying that I find to be very interesting and appropriate: "Stereotypes save time".

I don't use words like "liberal" and "conservative" to promote otherness or sameness, but as a broad and time saving description of the ideological and/or political positions at hand. I suppose I could have used a more narrow term like "Democrats", except then I'd get people protesting because they aren't members of that particular political party. Or, I suppose, I could have used some long and meandering statement like "People who slavishly supported Obama no matter what", but then that would have been circular in the context of the point I was making.

If you don't like the label, that's fine, but we have labels for a reason. They're generally useful ways of describing things.


Quote:
It is hard. It is messy. I know. --but there exists a demographic of certain people who happen to typically identify as "conservative" who I feel a profound level of disgust for.


That's great. My issue is with your stated reasons though. If you had listed off a set of positions on various issues, ideological principles, etc, and said "I disagree with these things", that would be one thing. But what you did was talk about how a set of people (let's call them "conservatives") support Trump and/or the GOP "no matter what". I responded by pointing out that this is a characteristic of "liberals" as well. So your complaint is meaningless IMO. It's equivalent of complaining about how bad Fords are because they have four wheels. Um... So do Chevy's. And Toyotas. And every other brand of car.


Quote:
and. AND-- I realize there are people who identify as "liberal" who are just as bad, if not worse. They are the ones I was talking about a few weeks ago on the other thread which I'm not sure if you saw or not.


I don't recall it. As I mentioned in my own post, I'm well aware that I can exhibit bias as much as the next person, and am certainly more likely to see broad characterizations tossed at a group that I associate with and respond negatively than when it's leveled at a different group. I figure it's up to people who identify as liberal to defend their group.

I'll also point out, I personally believe that the behavior you are speaking of is *more* prevalent on the "left" side of our political spectrum than on the right. And I, unlike you, provided several examples of this.

Quote:
I think some better words we could use to better describe the "conservatives" I am referring to (IF we must use labels) might be either/or: Puritans, Social Darwinists

--and on the other hand, a better word for certain "liberals" who have drawn my ire is "Social Justice Warrior."


Ok. Those are great labels and stereotypes. See! Now you're getting the hang of things. Of course, you have to do more than just identify a group by a label and declare your disgust for them. Tell me *why* you dislike that group. What behavior do you dislike? Why? For example:

Quote:
Today, I saw this article and the comments section served a sort of list of people who seriously deserve to die in a fire. I can't say for certain what all of their political ideologies are. I don't know any of them. Granted, I'd be willing to bet they identify as conservative, but being conservative alone is not enough to make me want to strangle a person to death the way I do for so many of these. My oldest brother is "conservative" and would probably agree with said people, but I know him. He is complex. I could probably talk to him about it and explain to him why he's an idiot for thinking that getting everyone a gun would do anything to stop terrorism.


You see how you didn't actually say what about their comments you disliked? You said that they "deserve to die in a fire", and that they are probably conservative, but that's not "enough to make me want to strangle a person to death the way I do for so many of these.". Your older brother is "conservative" and "would probably agree with said people".

Only at the very end did you even hint at a reason: "he's an idiot for thinking that getting everyone a gun would do anything to stop terrorism."

Great! Why? Make an argument. Don't just declare the other guys position to be idiotic. You're actually kinda doing what you said you hate. Just lumping people into groups and then judging them based on the group. I mean, I get what your position probably is. But it would be nice if you'd actually express that position. Gun ownership is a hot topic, and certainly debatable. But to hate an entire group of people just because you disagree with them? And then not being willing to state *why* you think they're wrong?

What's funny is that I've personally had the mental thought each time a terrorist attack occurs where the attackers are armed with knives that "Gee. One civilian with a gun could have stopped that pretty darn fast". I don't happen to think that's an unreasonable thought at all. There may be a number of other reasons you might be opposed to civilian ownership and carrying of firearms in public places, and to be honest, some of them are quite reasonable. But "bad at stopping a terrorist attack" isn't one of them. If anything, it would be one of the best deterrents to terrorist attacks of this type, which largely depend on a helpless public. The argument against it is the other problems of having an more armed population (fights escalating to shootings, more criminal access to firearms, potential of well meaning folks shooting each other accidentally, etc).

Again though, we can only have that discussion if you actually express your reasons for your position rather than just stating disgust towards those who you disagree with. I find the latter approach to be less than useful. But that's just me.

Edited, Jun 13th 2017 5:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#304 Jun 13 2017 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,896 posts
I've never hated gbaji more.
#305 Jun 13 2017 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
***
1,054 posts
****, sniped by a ******* fifty ton essay. gbaji's mental illness has never impressed me more.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#306 Jun 13 2017 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's the same thing that folks tried to do by heading to Tea Party rallies, and waving around signs with hateful and bigoted messages.
No. Those were your conservative friends. Oops, sorry..."conservative" friends.

Y'know...the ones you claimed were a poisonous part of the right - over and over - and claimed the right couldn't exclude them despite their totally racist, hate message...over and over? Because despite their evil rhetoric, they were in the right (heh) because they were "fiscally conservative" and therefore justified?


I'm sorry? Could you please find a quote of me saying it's ok for folks at a Tea Party rally (or any conservative event) to wave signs saying "Ni*ger's not wanted", or "God hates Fa*gs", or "Mexican's are lazy", or whatever? I have *never* excused that kind of behavior. What I have done, "over and over" is argue that if you were to actually attend a conservative event, you'd find that no one's actually waving stuff like that, or saying stuff like that, or in fact making any statements remotely like that.

Well... Unless some liberal shows up and does it so they can perpetuate the narrative. And in that case, they're asked to leave extremely quickly.


Quote:
Over and over and over again?


Then it should be easy to find a quote. Right?

And no. A contrived "well, if you support this political position, it means you don't like this group, and that's equivalent to hate speech!" doesn't count. That's your interpretation of the motivation behind a position, and it's that interpretation that I disagree with. You'd need to find examples of actual conservatives actually saying "we're doing this because we hate X group". And then find me excusing that language. Trust me. You can't find this. But good luck trying.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#307 Jun 13 2017 at 6:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Allegory wrote:
I've never hated gbaji more.


Muahahahaha! That's like the most awesome timing ever. ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#308 Jun 13 2017 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Oh. One other thing I missed earlier, but noticed later:

Quote:
he's an idiot for thinking that getting everyone a gun would do anything to stop terrorism


I have no problem with people holding different positions than I do. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with someone else's position. What I do have a problem with is expressing your disagreement, and then completely mischaracterizing the position you're disagreeing with. It makes one wonder if you're intentionally doing so in order to make for an easier counter argument, or if you honestly don't understand the other guy's position.

This is an example of that. The sheriff did not say that "everyone" should "get a gun". And he certainly didn't say that we should (who is "we" here anyway) be "getting everyone a gun". The way you phrased that makes it seem like some external group (the government maybe?) should be in charge of providing everyone with a gun in order to help fight terrorists.

But what he actually said was for those people who do have permits to carry weapons, to carry them more often, so as to be better able to oppose a terrorist attack if it should occur. Which, if you stop and think about it, is perfectly reasonable.

Again. You're free to disagree with his suggestion. But to say that an entire group of people "disgust" you, maybe you should have a better reason than what you provided. Just a suggestion. Otherwise, it just smacks of the very tribalism you started out saying you hate.

Edited, Jun 13th 2017 5:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#309 Jun 13 2017 at 6:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This thread was literally 1000x better when it was Kuwoobie whining that feminists were stopping him from fucking his Pokemon buddy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#310 Jun 13 2017 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,392 posts
If it makes you feel any better, I'm in a new class now and everything that seemed great before has passed. Now I can go back to feeling like being in the same room as a woman is sexually harassing them.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#311 Jun 13 2017 at 10:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,392 posts
Oh yeah. One other thing I missed earlier but just now noticed.

I realize the article wasn't saying everyone should be provided with a gun. I also don't really care, just like I didn't care to explain the article fully. --especially given what the article actually says is more or less just as bad. I won't pretend to go back and read it, but basically some guy in a position of authority is telling people to "arm themselves" because "this is war."

I could write a huge wall of text about why this is irresponsible, but I shouldn't have to. It is obvious. Aside from that, I said it was idiotic because it's like telling people they should buy suits made of rubber in case they get hit by lightning. But people love to be afraid of terrorism, and gun enthusiasts love to fantasize about being a cowboy action heroes who save the day in the unlikely event there is a terror incident where having a gun might actually help anything. Instead of killing terrorists, they end up shooting their 9 year old daughter in the face and killing them. But yeah. Let's encourage a population of blithering imbeciles to "arm themselves" some more and see where it goes.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#312 Jun 14 2017 at 5:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
While handguns in this country are a problem; gun rights advocacy does serve a useful purpose of limiting laws designed to hamper the construction of siege weapons. For that I am grateful.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#313 Jun 14 2017 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
******
49,477 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
You don't have the guts.
I would like to clarify some comments I made recently regarding Kavekkk. For openers, it would be great if we could bring terrorism to its knees. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of jingoism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to appeal for comity between us and Kavekkk. There is more at play here than his purely political game of deflecting attention from his unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen. There are ideologies at work, hidden agendas to convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime, disappointment, and destruction. I don't know what Kavekkk's problem is, but I sometimes see well-meaning people swallow his lie that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes. To my mind, shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. That's why I wish that all decent people realized that Kavekkk's goal is to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that Trotskyism is a beautiful entelechy that makes us whole. How rebarbative is that? How muddleheaded? How despicable?

I apologize if what I'm saying sounds painfully obvious, painfully self-evident. However, it is so extremely important that I must surely say it. Pusillanimous draffsacks of one sort or another rarely question, resist, or protest those events that do not appear to affect them directly. For example, they ignore how Kavekkk has been retaining an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity. Did you hear what he recently said about communism? Never before has an uppish, two-faced rattlebrain so cleverly hidden in plain sight his intention to break down our communities.

Kavekkk's brand of incendiarism focuses on granting more power to soulless, salacious chowderheads regardless of the implication for others. Kavekkk-inspired incendiarism further advocates that these folks use their newly attained power for good or evil as they individually decide. I reject this and every other form of incendiarism because I never intend to offend anyone, Kavekkk included. Alas, the following statement may upset a few people: It is not possible fully to understand the present except as a projection of the past. Some people squirm a bit when they they read things like that, but such statements are the key to explaining why for many people, Kavekkk's bellicose jokes have caused substantial pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, post-traumatic stress, sleeplessness, indignities and embarrassment, degradation, injury to reputation, and restrictions on personal freedom. Whew! The only thing they haven't yet caused, surprisingly, is a greater realization that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Kavekkk. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that there is no doubt that Kavekkk will use our weaknesses to his advantage eventually. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that Kavekkk's ****-and-bull stories constitute an instigation to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. This is not a matter of perception but of concrete, material reality.

Let me relate to you the most incontrovertibly true statement I've ever heard: “These issues are actually political issues.” Whoever said that clearly understood that Kavekkk dreams of a time when he'll be free to discredit legitimate voices in the imperialism debate. That's the way he's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen—not may happen but will happen—if we don't interfere, if we don't criticize his missives publicly for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power. With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, he frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are blinkered. Only mutinous exponents of expansionism can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an “inner experience” from this dung heap of morally corrupt fainéantism.

Perhaps it's a stretch, but what Kavekkk has been doing in terms of borrowing money and spending it on programs that convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter reminds me of the way that the worst classes of closed-minded, diabolism-oriented ragabashes I've ever seen put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse. That said, I like to say that the most rapacious mantra that Kavekkk's apple-polishers utter is that views not informed by radical critique implicitly promote hegemonic values. He never directly acknowledges such truisms but instead tries to turn them around to make it sound like I'm saying that Tartuffism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. I guess that version better fits his style—or should I say, “agenda”?

I have in fact told Kavekkk that it is worth remembering that his patsies will have to stop shouting “Me, me!” and learn to harmonize on “Us, us!”. Unfortunately, there really wasn't anything to his response. I suppose Kavekkk just doesn't want to admit that he identifies with snooty, foolish tartarean-types (also known as Kavekkk's eulogists). To understand identity in the context of the present social order, however, one must first understand that thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that Kavekkk's hatred knows no bounds. I was right when I said that all Kavekkk does is complain, complain, complain. And I was right when I said that when you tell Kavekkk's expositors that there is still a great deal about Kavekkk's personal history that has been concealed from the public, they begin to get fidgety and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that we truly can't afford to let him taunt, deride, and generally vilipend his castigators. What I'm suggesting is that we get people to stop believing lies that were forged in the fiery pits of ****. That's the key to refuting Kavekkk's arguments line-by-line and claim-by-claim, and it's the only way that most people will ever learn that if I said that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being entirely honest if I said that Kavekkk gives new meaning to the word “predatory”. That's just a fancy way of saying that many people respond to Kavekkk's slovenly ramblings in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Kavekkk's antics.

While sullen dunderheads claim to defend traditional values, they actually violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains. Kavekkk's cop-outs leave me with several unanswered questions: Will peeling back the onion of his fastuous execrations cause him to shed tears or will it merely enhance his desire to misdirect, discredit, disrupt, and otherwise neutralize his adversaries? And what exactly is the principle that rationalizes his effete roorbacks? These are difficult questions to answer because his viewpoints are undoubtedly feckless. However, for many theorists in the humanities today, the key issue with Kavekkk's viewpoints boils down to one question: Which of the seven deadly sins—pride, envy, anger, sadness, avarice, gluttony, and lust—does Kavekkk not commit on a daily basis? To answer that rhetorical question let me just say that Kavekkk used to maintain that his debauches are the result of a high-minded urge to do sociological research. When he realized that no one was falling for that claptrap, he quickly changed his tune to say that he possesses infinite wisdom. Kavekkk is honestly a lubricious liar, and shame on anyone who believes him.

If you delve deeply into Kavekkk's flights of fancy and thus, in tranquil clarity, submit to contemplation the crotchets of disorganized marplots, you will certainly discover why we see Kavekkk's drones reach untold zeniths of ridiculousness each passing day. My current favorite comment of theirs is that the eradication of Kavekkk's opponents would restore mankind's golden age and save humanity from ruination. It's that sort of flapdoodle that reminds me that Kavekkk's conduct can be described as less than gentlemanly. Every time I strike that note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me importunate or effrontive. Here's my answer: Kavekkk wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet he is also a big proponent of a particularly politically incorrect form of solecism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that Kavekkk claims that the Scriptures are responsible for his temulent thoughts and fancies. This eisegetical fantasy is not only pudibund, but it fails to consider that an armed revolt against Kavekkk is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified.

I once had a nightmare in which Kavekkk was free to give rise to peevish, verbally incontinent social outcasts of one sort or another. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that Kavekkk is capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of foul blackguardism to a proclaimed attachment to absenteeism and back—and back again. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that when people come to me for advice on how to respond to Kavekkk's piteous perorations, I tend to proffer them an aphorism from my uncle, who schooled me on how to deal with such nonsense. My uncle would typically say something like, “Kavekkk likes to put on a honest face to dissimulate his plans to make our lives miserable”. Great stuff. There's no doubt that my uncle recognizes that a good friend of mine once made an honest and accurate effort to connect Kavekkk's current campaign of national destruction with his previous attempts to turn over our country to exploitative crypto-fascists. My friend's effort was completely and totally based on fact. Nevertheless, when Kavekkk heard about it, he went after my friend, which is not too surprising given that we must mobilize the public. We must get people to objurgate Kavekkk for exhibiting cruelty to animals.

Kavekkk has been trying for some time to convince people that a book's value to the reader is somehow influenced by the color of the author's skin. Don't believe his hype! Kavekkk has just been offering that line as a means to convert once-great academic institutions into worthless diploma mills. If I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less truculent than Kavekkk. One wonders if he has the cheek to manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to dismantle the guard rails that protect society from the dodgy elements in its midst. I clearly hope not because I want to make plans and carry them out. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Why have so many sick-minded, abominable nitpicky-types gone into paroxysms of glee over his statement that his boisterous, scary plunderbund is a benign and charitable agency? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, I want to give people more information about Kavekkk, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I undeniably hope people draw: I recently heard a famous celebrity—I forgot which one—say, “Kavekkk is a big fan of interrogation and torture.” That's such a great quote, I wish I had been the one who thought of it. Sadly, the cleverest thing I ever said was that if Kavekkk's tricks were intended as a joke, Kavekkk forgot to include the punchline. Now that I've said all that I planned to say, you can agree with me or disagree with me. We can have honest differences. But please remember this parting thought: Only by striving to make pretentiousness unfashionable can I take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on Kavekkk's inhumane editorials.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#314 Jun 14 2017 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,348 posts
Thanks for that lolgbaji
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#315 Jun 14 2017 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
******
49,477 posts
Anytime, dear.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#316 Jun 14 2017 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,054 posts
I wanted to stop reading, but I kept seeing my name and my Trump syndrome kicked in something fierce.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#317 Jun 15 2017 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
I realize the article wasn't saying everyone should be provided with a gun. I also don't really care, just like I didn't care to explain the article fully.


And yet you felt the need to grossly mischaracterize the basic message in the article itself, and the message of the Sheriff as well. I guess I'm not sure what your objective is here then. You don't want to bother to read what the other guy actually says, but will point to an article about it and pretend he said something "bad" so you can point out how bad it is? Um... what? Surely you can see how that might motivate someone to actually read the article and actually watch the video and point out how you got it entirely wrong.

Quote:
--especially given what the article actually says is more or less just as bad.


Except it isn't. It isn't anywhere near "as bad" as what you claimed. If it really was, you wouldn't need to claim he said things he didn't actually say. You'd just directly quote him. The very fact that you felt the need to change what was said tells us not only that what he actually said wasn't "just as bad", but that you knew this when writing your post. Again, why else change the words?

Quote:
I won't pretend to go back and read it, but basically some guy in a position of authority is telling people to "arm themselves" because "this is war."


You either didn't actually read it or watch the video (I'm actually leaning in that direction), or you did decided to lie about the content. Because while he does use that language very briefly in the video, he actually first presents an argument that citizens can't just sit there and hope to not be victims, and then presents a list of things citizens can do to prepare ahead of time for the possibility of an attack. And "get yourself a gun" isn't actually even in the list. He says that those who have guns and carry permits should carry then wherever and whenever possible, and that having that gun sitting at home or in the car isn't going to help you if you find yourself in the midst of an attack. He addresses those who don't own guns or don't wish to as well, and gives advice about the kinds of things they could do as well. He also talked about how even unarmed citizens can make a difference if they choose to stand up as a group and oppose attackers (super relevant in the context of knife wielding attackers), since a number of people can overwhelm a small number regardless of weapons involved. He mentions the flight 91 passengers and how they fought against the terrorists, despite having no weapons, and suggests that that sort of attitude could save many lives (as it almost certainly did on 9/11).

But... You didn't actually watch the video, did you? Yet, you expressed a strong emotional response. i find that bizarre. I get being angry about something, but maybe you should actually check to see if that anger is justified first. My first response when someone tells me about something and say "OMG! this is terrible" is not to blindly accept their assessment and get angry, but to check to see if the thing really is terrible. You'd be amazed how often it's not. And even more amazed at how often the person telling me about this "terrible thing" isn't lying to me, but himself didn't actually check the source and instead blindly accepted the previous person's claim of terribleness. And that person often did as well. And the person before him, and the person before him, etc.

Read things for yourself and then assess them.

Quote:
I could write a huge wall of text about why this is irresponsible, but I shouldn't have to. It is obvious. Aside from that, I said it was idiotic because it's like telling people they should buy suits made of rubber in case they get hit by lightning.


Again. It's not irresponsible. In fact, if you actually bothered to watch the video, you'd find that he's not recommending anything close to irresponsibility. His suggestions are quite rational and reasonable.

Quote:
But people love to be afraid of terrorism, and gun enthusiasts love to fantasize about being a cowboy action heroes who save the day in the unlikely event there is a terror incident where having a gun might actually help anything. Instead of killing terrorists, they end up shooting their 9 year old daughter in the face and killing them. But yeah. Let's encourage a population of blithering imbeciles to "arm themselves" some more and see where it goes.


if you'd watched the video though, he made a specific point to gun owners to practice with their weapons and to attend gun training courses. So yeah. The exact opposite of what you're claiming.

And I'll point out again that he never actually said to anyone to buy or obtain a gun. He did not make any recommendation at all in that regard. He said that those who did own a gun and a carry permit should carry as often as they can. He said that if they do this, they should make sure to practice and take training courses so they can do so safely and effectively. He then said that for those who don't own a gun or are uncomfortable owning a gun, there are still options they could pursue, and mentioned a few of them.

He never once recommended to *anyone* who does not currently own a firearm to go out and get one. It's simply not in the video.

You're guessing what he said based on the stereotype you are carrying around inside your own head. You really should watch the video instead of speculating.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#318 Jun 15 2017 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Geez. Did nothing at all.

Edited, Jun 15th 2017 7:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#319 Jun 15 2017 at 11:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,392 posts
Quote:
if you'd watched the video though


I'd see a whole bunch of **** I don't care about.


Kuwoobie wrote:
I won't pretend to go back and read it


The article and video could be saying anything at all. My gripe is with the typical reaction in the comments section.

Edited, Jun 16th 2017 5:55am by Kuwoobie

I don't know if my adblock broke or what, but it's saying it just blocked 50+ pop-ups from this site and will no longer prevent the ads from appearing all over the margin, making it next to impossible to write anything here while it is constantly refreshing.

Edited, Jun 16th 2017 5:56am by Kuwoobie
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#320 Jun 16 2017 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,477 posts
Even the internet doesn't want to read this exchange.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#321 Jun 19 2017 at 11:58 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,392 posts
So. Now that I can't block the ads. Have they always been this invasive and obnoxious?
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#322 Jun 20 2017 at 6:02 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,348 posts
I don't know about always but certainly for quite some time
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#323 Jun 20 2017 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Get a better way to block them.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#324 Jun 20 2017 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I run strips of duct tape on my screen.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#325 Jun 20 2017 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I run strips of duct tape on my screen.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#326 Jun 20 2017 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Quote:
if you'd watched the video though


I'd see a whole bunch of **** I don't care about.


And yet, you were the one who linked the article and expressed disgust with comments about said article, and lumped an entire group of people (conservatives) into a category of people you hate and which disgust you. Specific to my comments about you mischaracterizing what the Sheriff said, was your statement about your brother presumably agreeing with the whole "conservative" mindset. A mindset which you defined as one that agreed with the complete mischaracterization of what the Sheriff said.

I hope you can see how it might behoove you to actually bother to watch the video and find out what the Sheriff actually said, before expressing such anger at people who agree with him.

Quote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
I won't pretend to go back and read it


The article and video could be saying anything at all. My gripe is with the typical reaction in the comments section.


Two problems with that:

1. I addressed the issue with your reaction to the comments separately from my response to your mischaracterization of what the Sheriff said. You're the one who said he was advocating "getting everyone a gun". Ok, technically, you said that your brother was the kind of person who would think that was a great idea, but presumably that "idea" is the one the Sheriff was proposing, so it's the same thing.

2. I've viewed the linked article several times now, on two different browsers, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't actually see a comments section on that page (or the second page either). Is it somewhere else? Did the move or delete said comments? Or did you read comments on some other site about the same subject? In any case, I can't comment on the comments since I haven't read them, and can't find them.


And that's before pointing out that there are a lot of people who use those comment sections to do nothing but troll. I would not take them as any sort of barometer of what anyone actually thinks about an issue, much less what a broad set of people like "conservatives" think. Again though, since I haven't been able to find these comments that so offended you, I'm left having to take your word for it that they were so vile and so offensive, that your highly emotional response we totally justified.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#327 Jun 20 2017 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Gah!

Edited, Jun 20th 2017 7:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#328 Jun 20 2017 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I run strips of duct tape on my screen.


Hah! I had a co-worker who would actually do this. Sorta. He handles most of the software upgrades for the systems we support. We also have a web page with a cool graphic that displays all of the bays where the systems are on the lab floor, and dynamically changes the content of each to indicate who's using it, what they're using it for, etc, complete with color changes depending on current status. So he'd just leave the page loaded on a spare computer and whenever he had time to do an install he'd look for systems that were the correct color (indicating they were not currently in use) and log in and do whatever install he needed to do. He'd then stick a small post-it note on the monitor over where that system was to indicate it was completed. That way he could see at a glance if any systems which were not yet upgraded were available to have an upgrade done.

It actually worked pretty well for that purpose, but looked really really funny.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#329 Jul 08 2017 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,392 posts
I was going to write something on here twice now over the past week, but both times I was interrupted as the page I was writing on decided mid-paragraph to redirect to some ad page as if I had clicked on one. (I didn't?) Also, the login button is broken and the only way I can bypass this is by pretending to create a new thread.

To answer gbaji's question really fast: The comments were on Facebook, not posted directly to the article.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#330 Jul 17 2017 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,392 posts
Step 1: Find a post on an internet forum from some random anon who is mad about the new Dr. Who
Step 2: Parade it all over news sites and social media.
Step 3: Openly and unabashfully engage in all the same petty, ugly, antisocial behavior as the random anon's you are criticizing, but reverse the gender pronouns.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Social Justice!
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#331 Jul 17 2017 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
******
49,477 posts
I'm disappointed it wasn't Hayley Atwell.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#332 Jul 17 2017 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So is Ms. Atwell. She really needed this job.

Kuwoobie is mad that someone mocked his nerd rage on the internet.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#333 Jul 17 2017 at 7:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,392 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So is Ms. Atwell. She really needed this job.

Kuwoobie is mad that someone mocked his nerd rage on the internet.


It had nothing to do with me actually. I've never seen Dr. Who and don't care to. I'm just idiot watching.

Quote:
I'm disappointed it wasn't Hayley Atwell.


It's because you hate women.



Edited, Jul 18th 2017 2:09am by Kuwoobie
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#334 Jul 18 2017 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
******
49,477 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
It's because you hate women.
Well, yeah, with how their hair gets everywhere and their fangs and claws and always leaving dead birds in front of my house.

Edited, Jul 18th 2017 12:10pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#335 Jul 19 2017 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
It's because you hate women.
Well, yeah, with how their hair gets everywhere and their fangs and claws and always leaving dead birds in front of my house.
It's a Jersey thing, right?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#336 Jul 20 2017 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,477 posts
That's a mighty fine punchline. Brava.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (1)