Lurker > hockeybub89

Arresting people helping women on nights out now as well

https://inews.co.uk/news/metropolitan-police-arrest-three-people-handing-out-rape-alarms-over-concerns-they-would-disrupt-coronation-2324264

Do Britons think the royal family are good value for money?
Yes: 54%
No: 31%

Side effects of Ropralgo may include vomiting, diarrhea, blood clots, kidney shrinkage, heart failure, circumcision, death, or demonic possession. Talk to your Doctor about Ropralgo today!

For real though it's fucking insane that we allow pharma companies to advertise medications on TV. Only your God damn doctor should be telling you what medication to take. I'm pretty sure only like 2 countries in the entire world allow those types of ads to be aired.

Alleged

Men and women are not the same. Women tend to look for certain traits of a guy, and they go for the best guy possible. A guy can have as much sex with as many women and he'll be praised. A woman under that same double standard, will be critisized. Fathers also want to make sure that their daughters aren't going out with some bum or dude who is looking for a one night stand. but someone who truly cares and can support her

As a man, you need to bring several things to the table to standout from the rest

Wawa is only in the tri-State area, in some parts of Florida, and some places in Virginia.

Well jeez, when you put it like that it makes me want to change your tag.

Okay, now consider the fact that a lot of people don't care - not in the sense that they're against you; in the sense that they don't care either way. How do you think their opinions might change if one side is suddenly (seemingly) causing major inconvenience all the time?

Before you rant about how they should think, keep in mind that in the real world what matters is how they do think; just because in an ideal world everyone would be supportive doesn't mean reality works that way.

Yeah, it's no use arguing with hockey at this point. Just one bad fallacy after another.

This is why people should pay attention in school. So you don't end up saying moronic shit like this. A 101 anthropology, sociology, philosophy and psychology class would be more than enough to avoid this.

Like the evidence points to how acting like this may just sink the movement, but hockey types are all like "who cares, if everybody doesn't think 100% logically, then fuck them, even if it sinks us in the end"

Again, you can't say "you don't care about people" while not caring about people.

I'm gonna bet he didn't even read the article. Just started spewing like usual.

And now they've arrested the peaceful protestors you all cry should be the preferred way to do it anyway.

So why be peaceful if you suffer regardless?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-leading-anti-monarchy-group-arrested-at-coronation-protest

Fuck the king
Fuck the tories
Fuck the police
Fuck facists

They were protesting, which is now illegal if the police deem it so.

https://twitter.com/bestofdyingtwit/status/1654883945287401473

The quality of food isn't the best but they're cheap, convenient, and offer a lot of variety that you won't get from other stores. Their dinner menu options they've been rolling out have some good stuff on it.

When to look at his tweets

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1654874602458185729

Fuuuuuuuuucccckkk him

I hate Whitlock so much

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/3/6/AAE9hUAAEc0s.png

simple question, joe:

what's your solution for when you calmly, emotionlessly, educate the republican party members, they calmly, emotionlessly listen to everything you have say, and then they ignore it all and pass all the bills they were planning to pass all along?

because that's reality right now. you really think no one has tried to talk this through? that you're going to come in and save us by having the conversation we never even considered having? really?

Go away hockey bub

Yeah it's annoying but it doesn't matter as much as it used to since almost everything that AAA industry puts out is shit anyway. Quality of big video games has gone down a lot. Games come out half baked with tons of glitches, lacking basic features their predecessors had. Tons of microtransactions. No new innovative gameplay to speak of. Hand holding games meant to appeal to the widest possible demographic.

Sure we get a smash hit every once in awhile like Elden Ring or REremake, but gone are the days like 2007 where we get BioShock, Team fortress 2, Halo 3, Modern Warfare, Portal and Super Mario Galaxy all in one year. Now we're lucky if we get 1-2 great games in one year.

But just to argue the point, The de-sexualization of women has been on the rise since Anita Sarkesian started making her shitty videos. Not only are sleazy women gone but now The pendulum swung the other way. Got to escape that male gaze, so now we need to make the women super plain or androgynous or just look like men.

One of the retorts is "just go look at porn". Your average Str8male/lesbian isn't asking for something to beat it to. Would it just hurt to design a character that makes peoples jaws drop? How about something that actually reflects the real world? I know that's not why we play video games but that doesn't stop people from trying to make their games as realistic as possible. Instagram, OF, Twitter and TikTok have made me realize women love expressing their sexuality, why do games go to full lengths to try to suppress that? You got more modesty in Triple-A games then in church .

(Thank you for the mostly civil response, I notice the effort and appreciate it. I know you aren't a fan of mine but I do think this kind of communication helps me understand your perspective better.)

I'm not saying people aren't allowed to be emotional, I validate basically everybody's feelings. I don't really think a person can have "wrong" feelings, just inaccurate thoughts. And even here, I'm not accusing people of being wrong in their thinking. I'm saying that from my perspective a large group of people are adopting unproductive stances/communication styles if their goal is what they suggest it is.

Let's think it through:
50% of U.S. adults identifying as political independents, which means that if you want to get people like them on your side, then it simply isn't effective to communicate in a way that's claiming something like "trans rights are human rights, anybody not 100% with us is a transphobic bigot who supports genocide."

Like really? If they are completely on your side but disagree on transwomen in competitive sports, are they still a bigot? What if all they want is strong safeguards for gender affirming care for children? Are they on the side of genocide, or is there some room for people who aren't wholly on your side but are mostly sympathetic?

Because even if there is some reasonable way that technically all the words in that above claim could be arguably be "true" I doubt the independent you are pre-emptively calling a bigot is going to see it that way or understand the specific subtext you might find implicit.

But if you say "There is a republican bill looking to block access to HRT for adults under 26" there are plenty of independents who are going to be like "yeah, that seems wrong. I want to vote against that bill/republican."

At the end of the day, people have to ask themselves the question of "do I want to enjoy the feeling of total moral superiority?" or "do I want to be effective in helping the people and causes I care about?"

Because it may feel good to be reductive and condemn those who disagree or even those who literally just have questions, but it's not at all effective. And while you may find me unsympathetic, I'd say my pragmatism is very sympathetic, because IMO it stands a much better chance of helping cause positive outcomes than ambiguous emotional rhetoric. (Which I'm not saying is inappropriate, just unproductive.)

I truly don't want anybody to suffer needlessly, and if that is my actual goal, IMO I'm more likely to help achieve that goal if I advocate for specificity and precision and civil discussion. Sure, I could join a political bubble and talk shit about the other side and feel self-righteous, but honestly that's selfish. That doesn't help, that just is an easy way for me to feel good doing nothing.

Lol, you didn't read anything posted and just resorted to bad fallacies again. Who are you trying to fool here?

The narcissist also thinks that anybody that disagrees must fit into convenient "you don't care about other people" and "you have no empathy" boxes when your entire argument is "who cares if people are inconvenienced without looking at any of the externalities". The article literally talks about how so many activists have zero self-awareness.

Nah that's dumb. I don't hate free speech I just want you to move out of the road. You are making people less likely to support your cause by pissing them off. I'm just saying protest on the side of the road people can still see you there they aren't blind.

There's obviously no point in arguing with you. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No, I'm saying that if disruptive and violent is the way to go, then it should be against the actual people screwing people over. It just comes off as some bully not being able to beat their bully, so they'll just bully other uninvolved people to show the real bully, um idk what. Why wouldn't disrupting the lives of executives and the board of directors be more effective?

The crux of the narcissism is thinking every roadway protest is the same in all different areas, and that they all just amount to "minor inconveniences". The narcissist will not even consider using logic to back anything up. They've decided it's all a minor inconvenience using fallacious past examples and they don't care how it affects anybody else.

Strikes are putting upward pressure on the employer. There are side effects, but the pressure is on the employers. What is the pressure on in the middle of the road against regular people, and has it been ever shown to be effective in any way? If it might have worked in the past, can it still work today? The world has becoming immensely more complicated and integrated than even 20 years ago. The level of confidence in these methods doesn't seem to be backed up by much.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/the-psychology-of-effective-protest/517749/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2911177

Also, Rosa Parks didn't stop traffic. She refused to move seats and the racists decided to not go anywhere till she was removed. That was on them. Not driving and causing delays because you're a racist is a wildly different thing from not being able to drive because traffic just can't move.

Here's my reply:
Nobody's protesting your right to protest (well some people are but not the majority).
Just go protest on the side by of the road.

Problem solved you can still be seen but not disrupt traffic.

There's plenty of empty parking lots, stretches of barren lots, parks and etc to use.

...That's not true, though. There are exceptions to everything, including free speech. The whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" situation comes to mind. Blocking traffic is also dangerous.

Most people either agree with LGBTQ rights or dont care either way.

So no. Not synonymous.

The Civil Rights Movement was protesting segregation in school, unequal opportunity, and permitted violence.

Please stop comparing lgbtq (which, tbh its really trans acceptance thats behind, not the lgb) to what the civil rights movement was about.

If I am underestimating how many folks are against lgbtq, Ill eat crow. But politicians do not represent the majority.

Fuck!

Certain people ITT:

This is fine.

Teachers won't see a dime more if the writers' strike fails. But Hollywood elites like David Zaslav will rake in the money.

It could be due to me being on the spectrum. But honestly kinda yes. I don't generally correct people IRL like this. And while the first two aren't wrong, the second two versions are much more clear. Also, I wouldn't regularly attribute manipulative motives to those who lean too hard on ambiguity. That being said, I do still strongly believe ambiguity hinders progress in important political domains, and thus specificity should be employed there.

For example, if a city council is allocating workers and resources to 3 schools, and all 3 schools say "our students don't have access to clean drinking water!" how do you think the city council should respond? Send them all the same workers and resources?

What if I told you that:
School 1 has access to water from the city, but it's dirty from bad plumbing.
School 2 has good plumbing, but isn't receiving any water flow from the city.
and
School 3 has good plumbing, and good access to the city's water, but inaccessible water fountains.

All 3 schools wouldn't be "wrong" in their statements, but the city council would be unable to effectively help them because while none of the schools were saying a wrong statement, they were not being sufficiently specific about the problem. And so 3 very different problems got treated as equivalent, and people suffer.

To address real problems in the real world you need to be specific, characterizing things with ambiguous and/or emotionally charged rhetoric IMO hurts and doesn't help.

Holy You're reaching so hard.

That was a woman who just wanted to use the transportation system like anyone else and deserved the right to.

You're seriously comparing the rights of black people to morons super gluing themselves to the pavement because they're mad about carbon emissions? Gtfo

ok, but are you about to say that traffic jams wouldn't block an ambulance if it needed to get through the traffic jam?

Im curious what lives yall live that a blocked road is just a mildly disrupted commute

Like, people have to get to work. Or pick up their kids. Or have medical appointments. So many things can be affected.

The problem with blocking roads is the same issue with defacing paintings. Youre targeting the wrong people.

Yall keep bringing up social issues that involved the everyday society from the past. There arent many things like that in todays world.

I feel like if you ask the average person if they support being more green or something, theyll say Yea.. But what the hell do you want them to do about it if the infrastructure doesnt allow them to do anything?

I agree with the folks who say you should direct your protests to the people actually able to affect things. Not your average person who probably agrees with you from get go.

What about, say, the right to protest?