Cotton wool parenting.

This whole PewDiePie witchhunt going on right now. Everything about it.

The apparent changes made to the takedown section, where you can't look at the individual posts being listed for deletion.

GameManiac said:
The apparent changes made to the takedown section, where you can't look at the individual posts being listed for deletion.

^^^

GameManiac said:
The apparent changes made to the takedown section, where you can't look at the individual posts being listed for deletion.

Weird. Is that at least an option that the submitter can check off? I imagine some of them still want people to be able to find their personal gallery, and just don't want their art here.

YouWereNeverMyFriend said:
This whole PewDiePie witchhunt going on right now. Everything about it.

I can agree to that. I don't even like his stuff, but he doesn't deserve this. Bad content =/= bad person.

kamimatsu said:
I can agree to that. I don't even like his stuff, but he doesn't deserve this. Bad content =/= bad person.

I really didn't give a flying fuck about Felix Kjellberg before this whole thing kicked off. I regarded his work as PewDiePie to be puerile garbage fit only for consumption by idiot teenyboppers. But the mainstream media has gone too fucking far.

Congratulations, WSJ. You've managed to make PewDiePie into a free speech hero. You fucking nimrods.

When someone takes a throwaway comment, joke, troll post, shitpost etc. and begins running with it, trying to make a serious argument and obligate whoever made it into a formal defense.

Kavellrist said:
I really didn't give a flying fuck about Felix Kjellberg before this whole thing kicked off. I regarded his work as PewDiePie to be puerile garbage fit only for consumption by idiot teenyboppers.

Which it was. Felix himself says so.

That is the reason he doesn't frequently do gameplays anymore - there aren't very many games he's interested in playing, let alone in recording and trying to make entertaining for an audience, and there never were. He was forcing himself to be peppy and lulzy even when he wasn't having fun with the game and he's ashamed of it.

The modern Pewdiepie generally acts nothing like the old one. I've seen maybe one or two of his old videos and I now actively avoid them in favor of his newer, more honest content.

A lot of the Girl Scout cookie varieties got renamed, some got outright changed. For what reason, I do not know. But it's damned annoying. The coworker who was selling the cookies had no idea what I meant by "Samoas" or "Tagalongs". This resulted in confusion until she finally just showed me the catalog.

Pretty much the only name I recognize anymore on it is Thin Mints. What the hell happened?

Kavellrist said:
A lot of the Girl Scout cookie varieties got renamed, some got outright changed. For what reason, I do not know. But it's damned annoying. The coworker who was selling the cookies had no idea what I meant by "Samoas" or "Tagalongs". This resulted in confusion until she finally just showed me the catalog.

Pretty much the only name I recognize anymore on it is Thin Mints. What the hell happened?

The Girl Scouts have two bakers.

Only one is allowed to use the "Samoas" and "Tagalongs" trademarks.

The other respectively calls their similar products "Caramel deLites" and "Peanut Butter Patties".

FibS said:
The Girl Scouts have two bakers.

Only one is allowed to use the "Samoas" and "Tagalongs" trademarks.

The other respectively calls their similar products "Caramel deLites" and "Peanut Butter Patties".

Huh. TIL.

Furrin_Gok said:
Weird. Is that at least an option that the submitter can check off? I imagine some of them still want people to be able to find their personal gallery, and just don't want their art here.

I don't think it is. I think it was a feature that the administrative staff here decided to implement...as imbecilic as I like to believe.

Makes it difficult to know what's being kept and deleted, and even harder for someone who wants to keep a personal archive of e621.

Kavellrist said:
This whole PewDiePie witchhunt going on right now. Everything about it.

PewDiePie dindu nuffin. Mofo's be trippin.

GameManiac said:
I don't think it is. I think it was a feature that the administrative staff here decided to implement...as imbecilic as I like to believe.

Makes it difficult to know what's being kept and deleted, and even harder for someone who wants to keep a personal archive of e621.

Take a wild guess why it was implemented.

ThoughtCrime said:
PewDiePie dindu nuffin. Mofo's be trippin.

What pisses me off about it is NOTHING is going to happen to the WSJ...there's no agency that's going to crack down on them, Pewd isn't suing them, NOTHING!

If anything they got exactly what they wanted...massive pageviews, probably a massive spike in subscriptions to their online service (the articles were behind a PAYWALL FFS) just from curious people wanting to read their garbage.

I mean...I can imagine that in the long run this is going to hurt them, but that's not good enough for me. I want HARD FACTS. I want STATISTICS. I want to KNOW that they are suffering for their crimes, but right now it just doesn't seem like it.

And no I'm not some massive Pewdiepie fan or anything, I actually kind of hated him before this because I don't really like his content, and thus I don't really understand how or why he got a bajillion subscribers, but now? I'm the dude's biggest fan because of the way he handled this crap.

Dyrone said:
What pisses me off about it is NOTHING is going to happen to the WSJ...there's no agency that's going to crack down on them, Pewd isn't suing them, NOTHING!

If anything they got exactly what they wanted...massive pageviews, probably a massive spike in subscriptions to their online service (the articles were behind a PAYWALL FFS) just from curious people wanting to read their garbage.

I mean...I can imagine that in the long run this is going to hurt them, but that's not good enough for me. I want HARD FACTS. I want STATISTICS. I want to KNOW that they are suffering for their crimes, but right now it just doesn't seem like it.

And no I'm not some massive Pewdiepie fan or anything, I actually kind of hated him before this because I don't really like his content, and thus I don't really understand how or why he got a bajillion subscribers, but now? I'm the dude's biggest fan because of the way he handled this crap.

Take solace in the fact that the WSJ (and pretty much most of mainstream media, actually) is pretty much circling the drain at this point. Their death will open the door to an effective democratization of the journalistic profession, instead of the obviously incestuous, oligarchic aristocracy of news media we currently have now.

NotMeNotYou said:
Take a wild guess why it was implemented.

Don't care. Just need to BID faster now.

People who take offense on behalf of others, especially when the others they're taking offense on behalf of don't give a shit and the "offending" statement is not said to them directly or about them specifically, or isn't even offensive for that matter. I'd say they're making mountains out of molehills but often there aren't any molehills to start with.

BlueDingo said:
People who take offense on behalf of others, especially when the others they're taking offense on behalf of don't give a shit and the "offending" statement is not said to them directly or about them specifically, or isn't even offensive for that matter. I'd say they're making mountains out of molehills but often there aren't any molehills to start with.

Oh god, did you hear about that Karlie Kloss kimono thing? Perfect example of this sort of shit.

Kavellrist said:
Oh god, did you hear about that Karlie Kloss kimono thing? Perfect example of this sort of shit.

I don't think so. I know there were videos over a year ago about SJWs complaining about americans wearing kimonos when japanese people actually like it when foreigners wear their clothes.

People who engage in terrorism and rioting and then say "I was only exercising my First Amendment right to peaceful protest" when they get taken down for it.

Blocking traffic and keeping people from going about their business is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Beating people up on street corners for having opinions that aren't the same as yours is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Smashing windows and burning people's property in order to "protest" is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Rioting is a form of terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

And by the way, the "protesters" who are against that pipeline in North Dakota, who are barricading roads and lynching drivers on those roads are TERRORISTS, and their behavior is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

And for gawd's sake, please stop calling these fascist terrorist assholes "liberals."

InannaEloah said:
People who engage in terrorism and rioting and then say "I was only exercising my First Amendment right to peaceful protest" when they get taken down for it.

Blocking traffic and keeping people from going about their business is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Beating people up on street corners for having opinions that aren't the same as yours is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Smashing windows and burning people's property in order to "protest" is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Rioting is a form of terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

And by the way, the "protesters" who are against that pipeline in North Dakota, who are barricading roads and lynching drivers on those roads are TERRORISTS, and their behavior is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

And for gawd's sake, please stop calling these fascist terrorist assholes "liberals."

What makes all this even better (read: worse) is that now various celebrity talking heads are egging this shit on.

Seriously, it blows my MIND that all it pretty much took for the Modern Left in America to drop any and all pretenses of civility and decorum was one orange fucktard getting into the Oval Office. This is a fucking temper tantrum that could blow up into a fucking CIVIL WAR.

YouWereNeverMyFriend said:
What makes all this even better (read: worse) is that now various celebrity talking heads are egging this shit on.

Seriously, it blows my MIND that all it pretty much took for the Modern Left in America to drop any and all pretenses of civility and decorum was one orange fucktard getting into the Oval Office. This is a fucking temper tantrum that could blow up into a fucking CIVIL WAR.

guys, there is no indication that this will happen with the current situation. There have been far grater tensions that did not erupt

InannaEloah said:
People who engage in terrorism and rioting and then say "I was only exercising my First Amendment right to peaceful protest" when they get taken down for it.

Blocking traffic and keeping people from going about their business is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Beating people up on street corners for having opinions that aren't the same as yours is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Smashing windows and burning people's property in order to "protest" is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Rioting is a form of terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

And by the way, the "protesters" who are against that pipeline in North Dakota, who are barricading roads and lynching drivers on those roads are TERRORISTS, and their behavior is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

And for gawd's sake, please stop calling these fascist terrorist assholes "liberals."

Honestly I doubt rioters had any political agenda to begin with, they just hijacked one, so it's not really fair to criticize a movement based on their actions if they lead to indiscriminate attacks

Fenrick said:
guys, there is no indication that this will happen with the current situation. There have been far grater tensions that did not erupt

Even if it somehow did, how much military support would they have? The US army would be on the president's side and if the Australian army gets involved, so would they.

Fenrick said:
Honestly I doubt rioters had any political agenda to begin with, they just hijacked one, so it's not really fair to criticize a movement based on their actions if they lead to indiscriminate attacks

What the blueberry fuckmuffin did I just read?

BlueDingo said:
Even if it somehow did, how much military support would they have? The US army would be on the president's side and if the Australian army gets involved, so would they.

The US army's BRASS would probably be on the president's side. Your average boots-on-the-ground grunt might not actually be a huge fan of Trump or he might be a MAGA-hat wearer all the way, but the real problem would come if Pvt. Average gets put into a situation where he is being ordered to turn his guns on his own countrymen/women. If, for whatever reason, it gets to the point where the military gets involved, things are going to get really weird. And if the military gets involved, it could snowball further depending on whether international media decides to cast the insurrectionists as noble freedom fighters out to overthrow Literally Hitler, or illegitimate terrorists. Given that most of the media seems to absolutely loathe DJT, the former would actually not surprise me in the least.

Honestly? I'm not OVERLY worried because a lot of these Antifa goons are pretty fucking chickenshit. But some are probably legit fucking crazy enough to make an unholy mess before a cop puts them down. And if the media decides to handle this really irresponsibly, fuck only knows what will happen.

There are a lot of people in very high places in society right now who are playing with fire. Mass media, celebs, etc.

Having to create sets to get around tagging problems. set:yellow_hair and set:bleeding only exist because I can't tag them normally and I'm gonna need to create "set:huge_breasts" at some point to get around the sizing problem.

Kavellrist said:
There are a lot of people in very high places in society right now who are playing with fire. Mass media, celebs, etc.

And they have more kerosene than we do extinguishers.

Looking back, I realize that renting that copy of Star Fox Assault all those years ago is the reason I'm so depressed and cynical.

So I'm angry at myself for putting myself in the hell I'm going through.

Dyrone said:
What pisses me off about it is NOTHING is going to happen to the WSJ...

what's a WSJ? do you mean SJW?

edit: oh, wait, i get it now. wall street journal, right?

Kavellrist said:
I regarded his work as PewDiePie to be puerile garbage fit only for consumption by idiot teenyboppers.

Congratulations, WSJ. You've managed to make PewDiePie into a free speech hero. You fucking nimrods.

I ain't like his content either, but I have to point out I've never felt so much fedora from a single post. "puerile garbage fit only for consumption by idiot teenyboppers" tophat monocle tophat monocle

As for Pewds, I'd usually say "the press embellishes for attention, so what? you born yesterday?", but given they severed him from sponsors and got his show canceled, I'd say he's responding appropriately. I just hate all this internet drama bullshit. If you give a fuck do something about it, don't wave your flags left and right about shit and not picket or something. You just annoy everyone around you for nothing.

What they did was fucked up, and it defines the majority of the journalistic trade; and has since near its founding. All this nonsense uproar and politicizing of it is making my head spin. I may be jaded and easily annoyed, but you have to admit this whole "free speech, anti-journalistic embellishment!" chaos over a Youtuber being shit on by a newspaper is just noise. Not like that shit happens to all celebrities every saturday. We gonna throw out our inside voices about cigarettes after a Youtuber gets lung cancer too? All talk talk talk, no action, just nuisance.

Whole situation makes this come to mind https://youtu.be/tG1gh5l1YLM?t=17m55s

InannaEloah said:
People who engage in terrorism and rioting and then say "I was only exercising my First Amendment right to peaceful protest" when they get taken down for it.

Blocking traffic and keeping people from going about their business is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Beating people up on street corners for having opinions that aren't the same as yours is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Smashing windows and burning people's property in order to "protest" is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Rioting is a form of terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

And by the way, the "protesters" who are against that pipeline in North Dakota, who are barricading roads and lynching drivers on those roads are TERRORISTS, and their behavior is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

And for gawd's sake, please stop calling these fascist terrorist assholes "liberals."

o_O "protestors" is now a media buzzword. the more correct term is "rioters". well, when it's not an actual peaceful protest.

InannaEloah said:
People who engage in terrorism and rioting and then say "I was only exercising my First Amendment right to peaceful protest" when they get taken down for it.

Blocking traffic and keeping people from going about their business is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Beating people up on street corners for having opinions that aren't the same as yours is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Smashing windows and burning people's property in order to "protest" is terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

Rioting is a form of terrorism, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

And by the way, the "protesters" who are against that pipeline in North Dakota, who are barricading roads and lynching drivers on those roads are TERRORISTS, and their behavior is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

And for gawd's sake, please stop calling these fascist terrorist assholes "liberals."

/endrant

"Holy tits, breaking shit and beating people up is wrong..."

It'd do you some good to get off Breitbart. Don't worry, the first world still thinks vandalism and assault is wrong, despite those few internet posts from edgy teenage girls that said otherwise (and amassed a whopping thousand likes. WOW). However will our culture survive without asserting that those asshats burning buildings are wrong, somehow despite what that heavyset girl with red hair said on the internet?? WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!

It's like that Milo loser and other "anti-sjw" nonsense. "These people are going on the internet and complaining about nothing?! Holy shit, we need to create an army to complain about them complaining about nothing! MURICA!"

Dyrone said:
What pisses me off about it is NOTHING is going is going to happen to the WSJ...there's no agency that's going to crack down on them, Pewd isn't suing them, NOTHING!

Unfortunately there's not much he can do against the WSJ(as far as my dumbass can tell). Pewd did made a few off colored jokes in his videos that can viewed as being racists. Are they taking those jokes out of context? Fuck yeah they are, but those asshats are entitled to their opinion and thats what it basically boils down too. They didn't make up any thing, they just took what he said out of context and portrayed it in an dishonest fashion. So legally, I don't think there's much he can do and its not really worth his time. But what he can do, is call them out on their bs and get people to talk it about on social media so there's a counter narrative and hopefully people realise that it's all just a bunch of fake news.

NotMeNotYou said:
Take a wild guess why it was implemented.

I don't want to make wild assumptions, but why though? Possible chance for abuse?

I can understand hiding everything else but (for those that aren't private) the post list was useful for finding out whether specific posts are getting taken down.

notawerewolf said:
I ain't like his content either, but I have to point out I've never felt so much fedora from a single post. "puerile garbage fit only for consumption by idiot teenyboppers" tophat monocle tophat monocle

Oh, I'm sorry, I'll make sure to use small words that don't make your head hurt next time. /eyeroll/

notawerewolf said:
As for Pewds, I'd usually say "the press embellishes for attention, so what? you born yesterday?", but given they severed him from sponsors and got his show canceled, I'd say he's responding appropriately. I just hate all this internet drama bullshit. If you give a fuck do something about it, don't wave your flags left and right about shit and not picket or something. You just annoy everyone around you for nothing.

What they did was fucked up, and it defines the majority of the journalistic trade; and has since near its founding. All this nonsense uproar and politicizing of it is making my head spin. I may be jaded and easily annoyed, but you have to admit this whole "free speech, anti-journalistic embellishment!" chaos over a Youtuber being shit on by a newspaper is just noise. Not like that shit happens to all celebrities every saturday. We gonna throw out our inside voices about cigarettes after a Youtuber gets lung cancer too? All talk talk talk, no action, just nuisance.

It is necessarily political because the WSJ/MSM have taken it into the realm of the political. It's a free speech issue because this was a definite attempt by the MSM to outright silence a YouTuber. It gets further into the realm of the political and further into the free speech issue once you realize WHY they did it - they needed to prove to pretty much all of YouTube that traditional media was still capable of being the swaggering bullyboy it once was, and they did this by committing blatant character assassination against the biggest YouTuber they could find. They want their monopoly on controlling discourse back, because they're withering and dying as sociopolitical entities without that monopoly. This is also one of the reasons they hate Trump so much - because Trump has repeatedly done end-runs around the media and opted to speak to his constituents without the presence of a "media filter" as often as possible. The mainstream media, as we know it and knew it, is run by people who very much desire to be seen as the "only valid source for information" for the hoi polloi. This isn't just a matter of money for the MSM, it's about power. Mika Brzezinski actually had a bit of a Freudian slip not too long ago that absolutely exemplified the MSM's intent as an institution - they want to control what people think and in their minds NO ONE ELSE IS ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

notawerewolf said:
/endrant

"Holy tits, breaking shit and beating people up is wrong..."

It'd do you some good to get off Breitbart. Don't worry, the first world still thinks vandalism and assault is wrong, despite those few internet posts from edgy teenage girls that said otherwise (and amassed a whopping thousand likes. WOW). However will our culture survive without asserting that those asshats burning buildings are wrong, somehow despite what that heavyset girl with red hair said on the internet?? WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!

There is a lot more than "edgy teenage girls" fanning the flames of violence. I don't know whether you are deliberately understating the problem or you simply don't know, but various political figures, celebrities and thought-leaders for the modern Left have refused to actually condemn the political violence being carried out by the Antifa and other useful idiots, and have instead opted to either egg it on or engage in sloppy "No True Scotsman" arguments with anyone who asks them to condemn/disavow. This isn't just a few fringey nutcases agitating for riots anymore. Also, your sloppy attempt at argumentum ad hominem (get off Breitbart lol) has been noted.

ThoughtCrime said:
Unfortunately there's not much he can do against the WSJ(as far as my dumbass can tell). Pewd did made a few off colored jokes in his videos that can viewed as being racists. Are they taking those jokes out of context? Fuck yeah they are, but those asshats are entitled to their opinion and thats what it basically boils down too. They didn't make up any thing, they just took what he said out of context and portrayed it in an dishonest fashion. So legally, I don't think there's much he can do and its not really worth his time. But what he can do, is call them out on their bs and get people to talk it about on social media so there's a counter narrative and hopefully people realise that it's all just a bunch of fake news.

Actually, Pewds might have a case for defamation or injurious falsehood, depending on the court. It's really a matter of whether he wants to deal with a legal slog that the WSJ and friends will inevitably drag out as long as humanly possible.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
I don't want to make wild assumptions, but why though? Possible chance for abuse?

I can understand hiding everything else but (for those that aren't private) the post list was useful for finding out whether specific posts are getting taken down.

To prevent abuse, people had bots running that grabbed images up for deletion, so we put a stop to that.

Most features like that are inspired because people will abuse the nice things we have.

So, here's a question: You guys keep throwing out the directions of "Left" and "Right" as though they mean something other than "This is my left hand, this is my right."
What exactly are you guys talking about? Using directions for Politics seems like a dumb idea, just use the actual word that describes whatever the hell your direction is intended to imply.

Furrin_Gok said:
So, here's a question: You guys keep throwing out the directions of "Left" and "Right" as though they mean something other than "This is my left hand, this is my right."
What exactly are you guys talking about? Using directions for Politics seems like a dumb idea, just use the actual word that describes whatever the hell your direction is intended to imply.

It was always a fairly arbitrary thing, but at least in America the terms "left" and "right" in a political context are used to signify fairly definite things, so whatever really. I mean, they probably could have used any number of terms to label the opposing sociopolitical stances, and if you really want to split hairs about it there SHOULD be more than simply "X and Y" - the reason for it being reduced to "X and Y" in the context of American politics is arguably due to ridiculous things like First Past the Post in our voting system and so on effectively reducing meaningful choices to "one or the other". Contrast with the UK's system - while the UK's politics tend to ultimately devolve into "left versus right" crap, usually in the form of Labour versus Tories, there actually is more political nuance present in their system than in the US' system.

As for defining them effectively, I would say to just look at the differences in their political platforms and the language they use, to differentiate them.

American politics has been, for a while now, a matter of choosing between "the lesser of two evils" and I believe that for the longest time the "Right" and the "Left" had basically maintained a kind of "agreement" to very purposefully limit the actual meaningful choices the voterbase actually had. Candidates who pose a genuine threat to this system (such as Bernie Sanders, arguably, and Donald Trump, definitely) are regarded as Persona Non Grata by the political establishment because they threaten to upset this very-carefully designed system. The philosophy of the American political establishment has been that the best way to control people is to narrow the field of acceptable political discourse to a fucking sliver, but allow very lively debate within that sliver.

notawerewolf said:
I ain't like his content either, but I have to point out I've never felt so much fedora from a single post. "puerile garbage fit only for consumption by idiot teenyboppers" tophat monocle tophat monocle

Kavellrist said:
Oh, I'm sorry, I'll make sure to use small words that don't make your head hurt next time. /eyeroll/

Don't start fights, both of you.

YouWereNeverMyFriend said:
I mean, they probably could have used any number of terms to label the opposing sociopolitical stances

It was named after where people sat in meetings held during the French Revolution. On the right were people obsessed with killing anyone who was considered a threat the First and Second Estate (clergy and nobility, respectively) and those who realized how much much death there would be without so much as a trial, and on the left were people obsessed with executing as many people even remotely associated with the First and Second Estates (including servants and people trying to stay out of it) and those who realized they were being treated as animals and would likely not survive if nothing was done, and in the middle you had people who just wanted this whole thing to be over, either because they couldn't be bothered to care or realized just how dangerous both extremes were even to those who posed no threat.

So at one point it was something to be taken literally. Thomas Jefferson (3rd US President and Author of the Declaration of Independence) was involved in the French Revolution enough to base the Declaration of Independence on the French equivalent (Declaration of the Rights of Man), to the point of paraphrasing "Life, Liberty, and Property", so he may have adopted the slang used in France to the point of it just becoming a part of American slang.

kamimatsu said:

So at one point it was something to be taken literally. Thomas Jefferson (3rd US President and Author of the Declaration of Independence) was involved in the French Revolution enough to base the Declaration of Independence on the French equivalent (Declaration of the Rights of Man), to the point of paraphrasing "Life, Liberty, and Property", so he may have adopted the slang used in France to the point of it just becoming a part of American slang.

Actually, Jefferson didn't get the phrase "Life, Liberty, and Property" from the French Revolution. He got it from John Locke, who died in 1704. The American Revolution started in 1776, but the French Revolution began in 1789, thirteen years after the Declaration of Independence was written. It was in fact the French Revolution that was inspired by the American one, not the other way around.

InannaEloah said:
Actually, Jefferson didn't get the phrase "Life, Liberty, and Property" from the French Revolution. He got it from John Locke, who died in 1704. The American Revolution started in 1776, but the French Revolution began in 1789, thirteen years after the Declaration of Independence was written. It was in fact the French Revolution that was inspired by the American one, not the other way around.

Huh. I didn't know that. That's interesting.

Furrin_Gok said:
So, here's a question: You guys keep throwing out the directions of "Left" and "Right" as though they mean something other than "This is my left hand, this is my right."
What exactly are you guys talking about? Using directions for Politics seems like a dumb idea, just use the actual word that describes whatever the hell your direction is intended to imply.

Labels in politics exist for the sole purpose of exploiting equivocation & stereotyping to recruit listeners into an us vs. them mentality.

FibS said:
Labels in politics exist for the sole purpose of exploiting equivocation & stereotyping to recruit listeners into an us vs. them mentality.

Yeah, I don't really pay attention to the direct reports of what they say, and instead of relying on one or two indirect reports, I read several articles to decide upon either a common point or something between them all.
-
Regardless of the source, people who believe themselves to be so intelligent that they don't look into what things really are make me angry. Take the Na'vi avatars from James Cameron's Avatar, the native Na'vi even call them out on this: They're so sure of what they know they refuse to learn, and it takes the "Soldier" who isn't so sure of the world around him that he actually is able to learn.

YouWereNeverMyFriend said:
What the blueberry fuckmuffin did I just read?

Classy, coming from the guy who said "I'll make sure to use small words next time..."
Point is pretty clear. The people using a large group of others and general unrest as an opportunity to break into stores are probably not the same people who brought signs with them.

That aside, and more importantly, what irks me is folks who think that me trying to get ahead of them is a fucking challenge. Like it's an affront to their family name if I pass them. No, man, I just want to get to my destination quickly.

These people, of course, have absolutely no interest in driving fast when I'm behind them. Only when their honor is at stake do they bother to step on the gas.

Fenrick said:
That aside, and more importantly, what irks me is folks who think that me trying to get ahead of them is a fucking challenge. Like it's an affront to their family name if I pass them. No, man, I just want to get to my destination quickly.

These people, of course, have absolutely no interest in driving fast when I'm behind them. Only when their honor is at stake do they bother to step on the gas.

This is one of the reasons I stopped driving years ago. Too many people racing you when you try pass them, tailgaiting you when you're doing the speed limit and there's plenty of room to pass you, and throwing temper tantrums in McDonald's parking lots when your pulling out of a space makes them have to slam on their brakes because they're treating the parking lot like a goddamn freeway.

Where I'm originally from, violent road rage is unfortunately quite common.

Fenrick said:
Classy, coming from the guy who said "I'll make sure to use small words next time..."
Point is pretty clear. The people using a large group of others and general unrest as an opportunity to break into stores are probably not the same people who brought signs with them.

THANK YOU.

Fenrick said:
Classy, coming from the guy who said "I'll make sure to use small words next time..."
Point is pretty clear. The people using a large group of others and general unrest as an opportunity to break into stores are probably not the same people who brought signs with them.

Exactly. It's fear-mongering and truth-altering to claim the rioters represent the general left; or amount to even a percent of a percent of the people protesting peacefully.

I ain't liberal and I sure as hell ain't conservative, but saying the batshit liberals and opportunist rioters are a representation of the concerned American citizens holding signs is like saying Milo weshouldfuckchildrenopolis and all the nutjobs that riot gay funerals are representative of the Americans contented with Trump's victory.

Hill won the popular vote, so most of Americans dislike the tangerine bear getting sworn in. And if you examine the violent and/or criminal offenders, you'll find their numbers dwindle in comparison.

Fenrick said:
Classy, coming from the guy who said "I'll make sure to use small words next time..."
Point is pretty clear. The people using a large group of others and general unrest as an opportunity to break into stores are probably not the same people who brought signs with them.

I said that because I literally could not figure out whether you were saying that the rioters were or were not representative of the whole in your statement where you were basically saying that the Left has no duty to police its own ranks.

notawerewolf said:
Exactly. It's fear-mongering and truth-altering to claim the rioters represent the general left; or amount to even a percent of a percent of the people protesting peacefully.

I ain't liberal and I sure as hell ain't conservative, but saying the batshit liberals and opportunist rioters are a representation of the concerned American citizens holding signs is like saying Milo weshouldfuckchildrenopolis and all the nutjobs that riot gay funerals are representative of the Americans contented with Trump's victory.

Hill won the popular vote, so most of Americans dislike the tangerine bear getting sworn in. And if you examine the violent and/or criminal offenders, you'll find their numbers dwindle in comparison.

Here's the thing: the "concerned American citizens holding signs" are pretty damn quiet about the whole rioting business. They, if you are correct, outnumber the rioters. So why the hell are the "concerned citizens" putting up with this shit? I mean, fuck, after the Berkeley riots most of what I saw amounted to tacit support for the whole mess.

One more thing: some of those "concerned citizens holding signs"? They had the handles on their signs sharpened at Berkeley.

Kavellrist said:
Here's the thing: the "concerned American citizens holding signs" are pretty damn quiet about the whole rioting business. They, if you are correct, outnumber the rioters. So why the hell are the "concerned citizens" putting up with this shit? I mean, fuck, after the Berkeley riots most of what I saw amounted to tacit support for the whole mess.

The same reason that any other group stays quiet when they've just been irrevocably painted as subhuman psychopaths by society for the actions of a minority.

FibS said:
The same reason that any other group stays quiet when they've just been irrevocably painted as subhuman psychopaths by society for the actions of a minority.

That is an enormously stupid thing to do. That is cowardice.

Kavellrist said:
That is an enormously stupid thing to do. That is cowardice.

Hardly cowardice to not have to assert "zomg i'm not a psychopath!" simply because of the existence of psychopaths. It's just not worth explaining, hardly worth even a laugh.

A slightly larger number of gay men are pedophiles than other demographics, am I a coward for not approaching homophobes and asserting "WE DON'T FUCK CHILDREN GUYZ"? It's not some sort of civic duty to correct stupid or you've otherwise proven the stupid correct.

notawerewolf said:
Hardly cowardice to not have to assert "zomg i'm not a psychopath!" simply because of the existence of psychopaths. It's just not worth explaining, hardly worth even a laugh.

A slightly larger number of gay men are pedophiles than other demographics, am I a coward for not approaching homophobes and asserting "WE DON'T FUCK CHILDREN GUYZ"? It's not some sort of civic duty to correct stupid or you've otherwise proven the stupid correct.

It's not a matter of saying "zomg i'm not a psychopath!" It's a matter of fucking taking note when black-masked lunatics with steel pipes and makeshift gas masks start coming to your protests and getting the damned police to get them the hell out before they start a fucking riot. It's a matter of fucking condemning political violence and making sure these nutcases are made unwelcome instead of shrugging your shoulders and insisting it's not your problem (or worse, cheering and clapping) when John Q. Anarchist decides he's going to sucker-punch some dipshit on a street corner. What you idiots don't fucking realize is that the Antifa and Anarchists aren't just "everyone else's problem" - they're going to be YOUR problem. One of these AnCom Antifa chucklefucks spraypainted "Liberals get the bullet too" on the side of a building at one of the protests surrounding a Milo appearance. They're not going to fucking stop at pummeling White Nationalists, Conservatives and MAGA-hat wearers. Once they run out of those, they're going to start pummeling YOU.

Did I stutter?

There will be bans and records as applicable if the politics discussion and thinly veiled insults continue.

NotMeNotYou said:
Did I stutter?

There will be bans and records as applicable if the politics discussion and thinly veiled insults continue.

i don't read more than the latest post before replying, but i went back and still didn't see you say that. either way, apologies in aiding the topic's digression.

I'm not sure exactly how this is a "digression" from the thread topic.

Kavellrist said:
I'm not sure exactly how this is a "digression" from the thread topic.

Well. But even besides that political discussions are against the rules.

NotMeNotYou said:
Well. But even besides that political discussions are against the rules.

Because if there's one place that needs to be kept nice and sterile and inoffensive, it's the forum for a porn website. MFW.

Right, whatever.

Idiot gamers who, after they've killed you once, start telling you how to play the game. When I've been on the server for three fucking hours and am one of the top-scoring people on the server, a low-scoring prick who's only killed me one time really has no business giving me "protips."

OT: Nothing makes me angry; except an extreme such as hearing about someone being tortured or some shit. Now if you wanna talk misanthropic, jaded and bitter, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_TEmdAiEok

Kavellrist said:

Actually, Pewds might have a case for defamation or injurious falsehood, depending on the court. It's really a matter of whether he wants to deal with a legal slog that the WSJ and friends will inevitably drag out as long as humanly possible.

I can see how he might have a case for defamation but I don't think he would be able to prove that they intentionally took the jokes out of context for malicious purposes. It's seems like they intentionally wrote a hit piece but the way they wrote it would make it hard to prove. It almost seems like they're retarted and they have no sense of humor whatsoever and that's the problem it could be interpreted either way.

Not so much anger as it is frustration, but when people don't take competitive matches in games seriously. It's kinda the point of those types of modes existing.

HsTheBraixen said:
Not so much anger as it is frustration, but when people don't take competitive matches in games seriously. It's kinda the point of those types of modes existing.

Related to this, hollow victories. It's so unfulfilling when you know your opponent wasn't trying.

HsTheBraixen said:
Not so much anger as it is frustration, but when people don't take competitive matches in games seriously. It's kinda the point of those types of modes existing.

I'm one of those people, to an extent. I've been top 100 ranked in most FPS I've played, so sometimes I'll play competitive modes with the goal of just having fun and enjoying myself. But I'm always at least trying to an extent

It's the people who purposely grief ranked matches by spinning in a corner or some shit that get my gote. Or insta-lock Hanzos. Christ on a crackerjack box I have his bow gold too, but please switch off if it's not working

HsTheBraixen said:
Not so much anger as it is frustration, but when people don't take competitive matches in games seriously. It's kinda the point of those types of modes existing.

If it's a Ladder match, sure. But if it isn't? Nah, the point is to have fun.

Spending almost a hundred dollars on a brand new UPS only to have it fail with an "overload" situation (even when nothing is plugged into it) two weeks later.

Why are so many of the expensive solutions absolute shit and yet a $12.00 generic surge protector I bought at a Walgreen's six years ago is perfectly happy and continuing to protect my computer without complaint? I'm sick to death of this.

InannaEloah said:
Spending almost a hundred dollars on a brand new UPS only to have it fail with an "overload" situation (even when nothing is plugged into it) two weeks later.

Why are so many of the expensive solutions absolute shit and yet a $12.00 generic surge protector I bought at a Walgreen's six years ago is perfectly happy and continuing to protect my computer without complaint? I'm sick to death of this.

I'm confused, you spent a hunded dollars on what? A United Postal Service delivery? That's the only thing that I know UPS stands for, and that does not make sense when talking about electricity.

Furrin_Gok said:
I'm confused, you spent a hunded dollars on what? A United Postal Service delivery? That's the only thing that I know UPS stands for, and that does not make sense when talking about electricity.

UPS = Uninterruptable Power Supply. A Battery Backup, in other words.

People who create problems over nothing then force others to waste their time, money and effort into implementing a "solution" to the "problem" to absolutely no one's benefit. Even worse when the "solution" actually causes problems and those problems are blatantly ignored because acknowledging them means admitting the "solution" is a bad one and would make the people who came up with it look bad.

The world has enough actual problems as it is. We don't need people wasting our time by creating more of them.

Asshole downstairs neighbors like the one living directly below me, who think that me sitting in my chair with Skyrim paused and the volume set to low is somehow too loud and has to be dealt with by BANGING ON THEIR CEILING...

And then when I stomp on my floor in response to show them what the word "LOUD" actually means they get all quiet. Now I fear that the cops may show up tonight, and I wouldn't be surprised if the reason has more to do with some trumped-up line about me committing a heinous felony than with anything having to do with noise. Because for some reason, that is always how it works when I stand up for myself against overbearing dipshits.

That does sound like shit. I'd get it if they knocked on the ceiling to let you know. If you were playing somewhat loud.

Dog shit on my shoe...

When people park their trolley in the middle of the escalator instead of parking it to one side. Some of us want to get past.

Closed minds and extremely lazy people.