Lurker > Kenri

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Another man is way more likely to talk shit, but a woman is more likely to silently observe cowardly behavior and then refuse ever getting romantically involved with you because of it - and that's a much bigger deal.

I'd consider the former a much bigger deal personally because I don't claim entitlement to women's bodies but would like if people were generally not shitheads.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Jakyl25 posted...

You want to talk men's issues, there are tons of them, and most of them are due to bullshit ideas of other men.

Vouch 100000%
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Metal_DK posted...

I think most would disagree with you there. Bettering yourself in the eyes of men means going from 65k/year to 95k, getting a bachelors to getting your MBA, etc. All of those are small increases in power in the larger scale of things, but still is saying "men to be better you have to compete and succeed in a patriarchy"

I meant bettering yourself as a human being not whatever things you're talking about here, which might be included but aren't necessarily.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

pjbasis posted...

Man you're not being serious if you think people call each other to say happy birthday and then hang up.

Right, and therefore:

The thought put into the message is what makes it personal IMO.

Obviously posting "hbd" on someone's FB wall isn't a personal communication. Neither is doing the same over the phone. A phone call maybe has a greater chance of carrying a personal communication, but the phone call itself doesn't make the message more personal.

Edit: wait sorry maybe you were saying that to yazzy? idk either way this helps explain my thoughts a bit more clearly
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Metal_DK posted...

Please read the whole post and not pull some small out of context snippet. Also men bettering themselves would mean they have more wealth/power/influence would it not?

I'm just shitposting so I'll pass on responding to the whole post (plus we've talked about this before). But no, bettering yourself does not necessarily lead to more wealth/power/influence (and I would argue frequently leads away from it).
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

yazzy14 posted...

Someone calling you and saying "Happy Birthday" is more personal than getting a message on your facebook page saying "Happy Birthday"

The thought put into the message is what makes it personal IMO. All else being equal I'd rather get a two word message on FB than a two word phone call.

yazzy14 posted...

Speaking immediately does not make it more personal. But it can make planning much quicker. If you are planning on going out with a friend but need to set a date and place a phone call can get it done in 10 minutes as opposed to an hour of texting back and forth.

In my experience the fastest is usually starting with texts and then ending with a phone call. <_<
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

VintageGin posted...

It's faster than typing, more personal (I know you disagree with this), and allows you to discuss specifics a lot more easily rather than sending a ton of messages/emails back and forth.

My job would be impossible if our only way of contacting with clients/coworkers was via text/email.

I mean you're not wrong (except I disagree with the personal thing but yeah). I'm not saying "abolish all phones! phones are the devil! rawr phones blargle". I just think they have a time and a place and are pretty inconvenient, so using them a primary communication source strikes me as bizarre. Some jobs are maybe different, but I've never had one personally, either as boss or employee.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Lol

So you make a response defending your position and then go "Well we just need to agree to disagree because you'll never convince me."

And I try to discuss with you your points.

And you go "Well we just need to agree to disagree because you'll never convince me."

Meanwhile everyone else is telling you that you're wrong about this. I mean, you're free to disagree, but you're just disagreeing to not be wrong, and you know that.

But in the future I'll just know to never humor you.

If you really want to engage on this we can I guess. I didn't see a reason to since your response didn't actually offer any new arguments but rather just restated your initial claim.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

They are more personal. You are speaking immediately to people with your voice and having real time discussions and it's far better to relay a lot of information and actually talk to a person on the phone.

You can have a conversation in texts or email, but then you're limited and it isn't actually a personal conversation with actual interaction. You are arguing that being able to exchange information instantaneously and actually having meaningful dialogue is inconvenient because two people may not be available at the same time to do so. That's absurd.

1) The physical act of speaking does not make something personal, and it certainly doesn't make it MORE personal than other, equally legitimate methods of communication.
1.a) There are people who can't speak for whatever medical or language-knowledge reason; this does not affect their ability to communicate in a way that is personal.
2) Speaking "immediately" does not make something more personal. Handwritten letters are highly romanticized as a very personal method of communication and nevertheless are about as not-immediate as you can get without using smoke signals or carrier pigeons.
3) Texts and emails have actual interaction just as phone calls do, because you are... actually interacting? Not sure what to say here that won't just be "no it's not" "yes it is" "no it's not" even more so than the rest of this dumb conversation.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Metal_DK posted...

Men need to have some sort of "game" or "strategy" to get date/romance/sex.

or they could treat women like human beings and maybe better than themselves until they're actually fuckable, but that's just so much work
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

yazzy14 posted...

I'd argue that checking your phone and sending off messages in any of those situations is more rude than just having your phone off and letting someone leave you a message.

I mean, you can have your phone off no matter what if that's what you want. Nothing changes there.

But I don't think it's rude to silently send text messages in e.g. a library, while taking a call absolutely would be. A meeting, yeah, it is rude. People also do it all the time and it's less disruptive than taking a call so *shrug*


yazzy14 posted...

So you are calling the middle man the voicemail? Isn't that the same as a text message just in voice form?

The middle man is the phone call which leads to leaving a message, when you could just leave a message to begin with if leaving a message is sufficient for your purposes.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

They are more personal.

Kenri posted...

we're probably not gonna agree if you already think phone calls are inherently more personal

just saying, you're not gonna convince me of this, so if your argument relies on it we can just agree to disagree right now.


HashtagSEP posted...

Being in a place where it's rude to answer a call is why leaving a message exists

if only there was a form of communication that cuts out the middle man!
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

yazzy14 posted...

Oh no! Not two people free to talk at the exact same time! How remarkably inconvenient! And I don't even have a recording of the discussion other than what I wrote down as a note! If it isn't stored somewhere electronically it never even happened!

Can you imagine how meetings work in a workplace? We ALL have to be available to talk at the EXACT same time! NEVER!

Yeah, I can't say it's the most inconvenient and terrible way of communicating anything important.

okay you're very witty and all but in a workplace you're all in the same place to begin with and on company time, which is slightly different than being called while you're doing your own thing. also lots of businesses keep official minutes for meetings which is different from notes you scribbled yourself, but i'll grant that not all do and that it can cause the same issues as a phone call in that regard.


HashtagSEP posted...

Like, in what world would them checking Facebook at that moment be more likely than them being able to take a call?

If they're in a meeting, or a doctor's office, or a library, or a restaurant, or any one of a million places where taking a call is rude but they can still send messages silently after their phone alerts them that someone sent them a message? I'm not defending it in this specific instance because you need to go through the channels that your boss actually uses, but I'll absolutely defend it in a broader sense as way more convenient 99% of the time.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

I mean, it's telling - re: the convenience of phone calls - that they already called and left a message because he wasn't available.

But we're probably not gonna agree if you already think phone calls are inherently more personal and that conversations through other means don't count as conversations.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

VintageGin posted...

Err, what?

Why do you say that?

It requires both people to be free to talk at the exact same time and leaves no written record of anything important that was decided. The only advantage is that it's faster than typing, but even then only if you can actually get ahold of each other. It's even more inconvenient if the conversation involves three or more people.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

I wish more people realized that phone calls are like the most inconvenient and terrible way of communicating anything important.

Like your friend's gotta get over it but I can sorta understand where he's coming from.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Jakyl25 posted...

How's this for a shocker

The culture of sexual harassment at Fox News was so bad that even SARAH PALIN is speaking out against it now.

It's good to know she only supports sexual assault and not sexual harassment too, I guess.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Every unit they add with Distant/Close Counter makes me want to play the game less and less.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Historically, feminists and socialist women (by which I mean, socialists in the socialist party sense, i.e. leftists whose focus is on labor issues) actually didn't see eye to eye. Because they disagree on what the axis of oppression actually is -- is it based on gender or class? But modern feminism is more intersectional; I'm not an expert on French politics, but I would imagine that if feminists don't support Le Pen, it's probably because her policies are bad for women (which they are).
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

foolm0r0n posted...

Kenri posted...

Being a Clinton is one of the only things in existence that isn't one.

You really shouldn't believe this

Do you really think being named Hillary Smith would have changed the election substantially, all else being the same?
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

SmartMuffin posted...

(though I do think the backlash against "dynasties" is overestimated and basically won't ever make or break a candidate)

this is why you lost

There are like a million reasons why Clinton lost. Being a Clinton is one of the only things in existence that isn't one.


foolm0r0n posted...

Kenri posted...

that's an entirely separate issue

It's literally the issue though

The issue I'm commenting on is entirely whether it's ridiculous that someone sent a letter to the President at 5. They can be a candidate for president or a janitor, it's irrelevant to anything I'm saying.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

foolm0r0n posted...

No what's surprising is they still think "rich white Clinton" is a winning formula for a Democrat candidate

look i'm not defending her as a candidate or anything that's an entirely separate issue

(though I do think the backlash against "dynasties" is overestimated and basically won't ever make or break a candidate)
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

foolm0r0n posted...

That's how Trump won. It's called "telling it like it is" and being "politically incorrect"

Indeed. It's just weird to see people supporting it so openly while claiming to be the allies of middle America.


foolm0r0n posted...

Also a kid writing a letter to the president like that is the most white and rich thing possible. Normal kids and parents have way more important things to worry about. For example, I doubt Chelsea was able to prepare a meal or walk somewhere and buy stuff at age 5.

I'll grant this for sure. But then she IS rich and white -- all the more reason it's weird for people to be surprised by it.


SantaRPidgey posted...

Perhaps this is asking way too much, but a little introspection "I have no way of relating to those people I probably shouldn't represent them in any way" would be nice

Okay sure but I'm not sure how you get a candidate that relates to both the "politically conscious at 5" and "not politically conscious at 5" groups unless you find someone who was 5 twice.


SmartMuffin posted...

But writing a letter to the President implies that your perspective is somehow valuable. There's a certain amount of arrogance in that. Like "even as a five year old I knew better than Reagan what the President should and shouldn't be doing!"

And yet tons of people want more common sense positions from non-experts. Frankly I'd rather trust a 5-year-old on this topic than a climate change denier on climate change, but in before "this is why you lost" I guess.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

SmartMuffin posted...

The thing is, it's not JUST that though, it's like, a super specific and nuanced issue. Of all the things she could claim to have been politically aware of at age five, the one she picks is that Reagan visited the wrong cemetery? This is not just "politically aware" this is more like "I was already engaging in SJW shaming tactics at age five!"

It's not nuanced at all. It's a moral issue that requires no understanding of anything beyond the ideas that "Presidential visits are important" and "Nazis are bad". The former is obvious from a young age especially if your parents are politicians, and the latter is basically the explanation you'd get if you're five and ask your parents what Nazis are ("They're uh... very very bad people, sweetie"). Literally all you'd need is to overhear a story about it on NPR while your parents are listening or something, ask a few questions, and have your morality kick in -- all of which are super possible for a child, even one younger than 5. Did you really not hear political stories as a kid? Or not care about them?

I never wrote letters but I still overheard the news and had opinions about it; we had very different childhoods if you didn't, I guess.


SmartMuffin posted...

I'm sure that will play well with the steelworkers in rural pennsylvania on the campaign trail tho

I mean, I guess this is just a return to the question of "should you just straight up lie to someone in order to appeal to them? even if that lie is hella patronizing?"
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I don't know how one would read it that way unless they are looking at the worst in people.

Focusing on someone's reaction is, at best, distributing blame evenly. It's like how "I'm sorry what I said upset you" isn't an apology because the only regret expressed is about the other person's reaction. Maybe this was a legit mistake on your part (probably not because you've been nothing but a mediocre troll for years), so if it was let this be a learning experience instead of trying to insist that you're a good communicator while everyone you're communicating with says otherwise.

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Also I am clearly in a similar situation here in terms of facing intolerance, so it's important that I let him know he isn't alone and we can get through this hatred

lmao never mind keep on with your mediocre trolling
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Dark Young Link posted...

Reinhardt may be -speed, but Dire Thunder(Essentially a Brave Tome) helps him immensely.

Wouldn't you want -Spd for Reinhardt? He's slow as dicks anyway, might as well give him stats where he can use them.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

I was vaguely politically conscious by 6 or 7, so I don't take 5 as a huge stretch. I think you might be overestimating how old you have to be to have "Mr. President, why are you doing [bad thing]? It's bad, you shouldn't" enter your head, and that's probably all this letter was.

I know I've seen "heartwarming" stories in the news about letters Obama's received from children too. It's not a particularly strange thing.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

LordoftheMorons posted...

A lot of the questions were bad imo

Very much so.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=87.8&d=85.3&g=82.3&s=97.7

Economic axis: Socialist, 87.8% Equality
Diplomatic axis: Pacifist, 85.3% Peace
Civil axis: Libertarian, 82.3% Liberty
Societal axis: Revolutionary, 97.7% Progress

Closest match: Socialist Libertarian

what the fuck is a socialist libertarian, that sounds like something smartmuffin would make up as an insult
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/bkerogers/status/855831174161342464

The bottom right pic is the best one. How can someone say things like that and think that will make them relatable to the average person?

I don't see what's wrong with it, other than that it's more effort than most people (even adults) put in? Were you not politically conscious as a child or something?
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

VintageGin posted...

LTM, you have abuse thing the wrong way around.

i'm pretty sure it was both ways but ulti's such a fucking constant liar that who knows

he's probably actually never had a wife at all
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

LordoftheMorons posted...

(To be clear, I'm not accusing Jakyl of that, but I've seen some alt right people/Russia apologists claiming that he's not so bad)

You can just say you're talking about Vlado.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

JDPizza posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

It’s how we got to three months into the administration with no major legislation at all getting passed.

I'd hate to side with Trump, but this is a feature, not a bug. >_>

I mean maybe for you personally, but Trump definitely wasn't running on a platform of small government.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

My least favorite thing about that snippet is the phrase "less than within 24 hours", implying that the decision happened somehow outside of chronology itself.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

SmartMuffin posted...

Most relevant paragraph.

For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.

Pretty sure "unpatriotic speech" could get you into big trouble during the Red Scare, but I don't think it was legally defined there either.

Anyway thanks for the information! I think I was probably just mentally filing hate speech under fighting words because a lot does fit there, even if you still won't really have a great legal case about it.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Same can't be said for religions or cultures or anything like that, but let's try to be sensitive and tolerant toward everyone's topic/page settings

if you don't have everything on max you should be stoned to death tbh
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Eddv posted...

Well wangs point should be " we need to dump Saudi Arabia as allies to bring an end to their toxic influence over islam." But he is all over the place on it.

but then we wouldn't have control over oil and that would make the money sad
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Wanglicious posted...

but you start from point zero, you don't add things to it.

Say your wife is killed because she was raped. Is it okay if no one involved is Muslim?

It seems like you're the one adding stuff here. Wonder why.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Wanglicious posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Because that's not the issue.

no, that's quite literally the issue.
like, that's the topic where this sprung out of, the left's treatment over criticism of Islam and how instead of doing so, various sects will just handwave it, simply label people to dismiss them, or go "Islam and ___" instead of just talking about just the religion, acknowledging the negative practices, and going from there.

that's the actual topic.

Yeah the thing is that most of us disagree with your premise so whining about how we're not following it isn't gonna work. Nobody's dumb enough to fall for your trick here (I hope).
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

MariaTaylor posted...

look at what Kenri and DC are doing right now

this is an intellectual POISON that you have allowed into your side

there's nothing intellectual about what i'm doing i assure you
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

DeathChicken posted...

One doesn't demonize the brown people enough

wow this post couldn't have been timed better to come right before wang's
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Play FFTA.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

MariaTaylor posted...

so why wouldn't he just say it? seems like it would have been easy. it's three words. they aren't impossible to say.

It has nothing to do with "equal enforcement on all citizens"? In fact it's like... the opposite of that.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

MariaTaylor posted...

and the part that frustrates me is that it's so easy to escape this issue.

all you have to do is say 'yes, that kind of thing seems like a problem. the law should be equally enforced on all citizens.' imagine in my above example if the left candidate had said THIS instead of 'islam has done nothing wrong, muslims are not the problem.' what would the average voter be thinking then? how would the outcome of this election been different? what about other elections in our near future and in other countries that are dealing with serious issues of islamic terrorism?

I can't promise that is something I really know but it's definitely something I think about and give serious consideration to.

But... they did say basically what you're suggesting. Then they were widely criticized by the right for not using the exact phrase "radical Islamic terrorism". This was a constant attack used against Obama, for instance.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

MariaTaylor posted...

you are 100% out of touch with reality and this is why your message will absolutely never resonate with the common people.

Sure whatever.

Anyway let's ban all men because they're a gender of terrorists.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

Almost all the recent terrorist attacks have been committed by men too (I would wager a MUCH higher percent than the percent done by Muslims). There are no calls to ban men, nobody saying men are the issue, etc. It's completely fair to say "the issue is terrorists, not Muslims" just like it's completely fair to say "the issue is terrorists, not men".

A buncha people being racist and wanting any excuse to get rid of scary brown people doesn't change that, but it does mean they'll support folks like Le Pen. And those people will do it no matter what solution the left provides, unless that solution also gets rid of scary brown people.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

SmartMuffin posted...

fighting words is legally defined and hate speech is not

you can claim that a lot of hate speech could qualify as fighting words I guess, but that's a different thing and the relevant thing to say would then be "fighting words are not protected" and then, separately "milo (or whoever you hate) is guilty of using fighting words

If hate speech does count as fighting words, phrasing it that way is pretty unnecessary though... Like, all you're doing is giving an example that's unprotected, right? "Hate speech isn't protected speech (because it counts as fighting words)."

tbh though I remembered that fighting words have to be directed at someone while hate speech doesn't, so it doesn't perfectly fit there.


SmartMuffin posted...

I think fighting words typically involve a direct, or at least implied, threat of violence, or challenge to combat, or something like that. I don't think mis-gendering someone would count under any established legal precedence.

I think that's more incitement than fighting words? Not sure though, incitement is usually telling someone to attack someone else. But fighting words are just a thing you say that provokes a reaction to violence, not an explicit call for it.

Re: misgendering, I think it could count if it was done intentionally and repeatedly. That doesn't mean any court would convict, though.
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

What's the difference between hate speech and fighting words though?
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

My understanding (admittedly only from an undergrad polisci class like 7 years ago) is that hate speech isn't protected but it's virtually impossible to prove something is hate speech in court. Guessing I'm wrong?
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.

charmander6000 posted...

The left calls them racists/bigots while the right just doesn't have a word to call them (other than "the tolerant left")

the right has a bunch of words, you just can't say most of them here because they're racist/bigoted
---

The gurus prayed, but the prayer was absorbed by DpObliVion.