Lurker > Grischnak

Fony posted...

He got locked up for murdering a black guy though. And he never got the ink covered up even though most shops do that for free.

Hmm.

*looks up story*

That's a wee bit misleading bro. He killed a guy that that he caught hanging out in his driveway. Presumably because he wanted to rob the place. I mean, he certainly used excessive force(I guess he followed the guy down the street and words/threats were exchanged which lead to the shooting) but it's not quite like he did a driveby on someone just because they were black. Really don't know if race was a factor at all. Though I don't know the guy. Maybe he is super racist. But his story could easily be true.

I mean, I kind of get his logic if he's telling the truth. He's basically saying "I got locked up when I was young and I rolled with the skinheads because I didn't want to get raped. I'm not proud of it and I don't have those views but I did what I had to. ". As far as explanations go, it seems reasonable enough to me. Could be a lie though generally dudes that run around with nazi tats because that's what they believe are proud of being racists.

Kind of a side topic but I've always found the double standard when it comes to male sex toys a bit weird. Few people think twice about a women having a sex toy but men having them has a lot of stigma around it. Some people seem to find it really pathetic when men have them. I don't really see the difference. Weird how that works.

I have zero memory of the show he was on(Still Standing) but I guess it was on CBS for 4 years. Huh.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Grischnak posted...

I remember once at a gas station in a bad neighborhood I saw a really scummy looking guy ride by on a little girls bike that he had clearly just stolen. I thought "I hope a car runs over that piece of shit". I've also had 2 bikes stolen from my work when i was 17. So, yeah, fuck bike thieves. The more they get injured, the better.

Okay. Who is desperate enough to steal a little kid's bike?

Tweaker scumbags that sell the bike for money to buy drugs.

I remember once at a gas station in a bad neighborhood I saw a really scummy looking guy ride by on a little girls bike that he had clearly just stolen. I thought "I hope a car runs over that piece of shit". I've also had 2 bikes stolen from my work when i was 17. So, yeah, fuck bike thieves. The more they get injured, the better.

I'm a big supporter of gay rights and have zero bigotry when it comes to anyone's sexuality. That said, this study seems...questionable. It sort of implies that bigotry is innate and kind of ignores environmental/social factors. For example, the black community is in general really homophobic. Does that mean black people are naturally stupid? ...Not buying that.

itachi15243 posted...

It kinda sounds like an accident tbh

If it was on purpose he does deserve this, but it kinda sounds like he knew her and fell as he was trying to get her attention or something

There's a video of it in the other topic. Didn't look like a accident to me...

Aeriis posted...

I_Stay_Noided posted...

too bad it wont surpass this classic

I love this

For some reason the wannabe Shadow makes me cringe like ten times harder then the wannabe Sonic.

Rika_Furude posted...

Computers are just scripts/programs. They only ever do exactly what they are told. They are no smarter than a lightbulb. You can make a script do impressive things, but thats not equal to true sentience.

Closest we can get is a VI/SI type situation. A simulation of inteligence. Resembling inteligence, but not sentient.

The distinction is largely pointless. Just look at chess AI. Truly sentient or not, it has still surpassed what humans can do and that's really all that matters. It will be the same when AI surpasses human intelligence in other areas.

Funkydog posted...

Well, that seems to be the kind of android in this game. Or ones with some incredible AI anyway.

Whatever dude. I really don't want to get too deep into this. I wasn't really serious.

Funkydog posted...

Even if that "sex bot" is capable of independent thought and feeling?

If humanity actually makes robots capable of independent thought and feeling then we will just be begging to get Skynet'd. Pretty sure sex bots would be the last thing on the minds of the world at that point.

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Darmik posted...

Like I get the comparison with the bus.

But they're androids. They have robot legs and bodies. Why do they need to sit down. Why is that controversial or bad.

Does this make me a robophobe

The android parking makes the same point but with actual impact because it's just this little detail that leaves you to think about it, instead of "DO YOU GET IT? ITS LIKE THAT THING THAT HAPPENED. BUT ITS HAPPENING NOW. DID WE MENTION THIS IS OUR FUTURE?"

I dunno about you but I welcome such a future. Robo-discrimination is bad and all but it's a price I'm willing to pay for cheap, affordable lifelike sex bots...

That back of the bus scene really was hilarious.

scar the 1 posted...

lmao, what an appalling analogy

Why am I not surprised that you'd be "appalled" by something as harmless as an analogy?

scar the 1 posted...

Is it still tribalistic when the stance is "but I literally have no idea, so I'm very open to the possibility that I'm completely wrong", or are you just conveniently ignoring that part to get to bash an SJW libcuck?

Well, if someone said "I don't think I'd get along with this guy because he's black and I don't tend to get along with those people. I could be wrong but I'm not actually gonna bother to try because those people aren't worth the effort." would you handwave that comment because he admitted "he could be wrong"?

DarkProto05 posted...

It should be a misdemeanor or harassment at worst (not assault) and there should be a small jail sentence and maybe a fine. Something like this shouldn't qualify as assault with lengthy jail time. This is so disrespectful to women who have actually been sexually assaulted. A slap on the ass doesn't compare to some of the things others have been through and doesn't deserve nearly the same punishment.

Did you read the story? It is a misdemeanor. Also, this indeed is not "nearly the same punishment" as more extreme versions of sexual assault. Criminals don't get just a year for rape or child molestation or whatever.

scar the 1 posted...

Grischnak posted...

I made my issues with your posts clear. I can change my wording from dislike to disagree if you think that's more accurate but that changes little when it comes to my overall point.

Well then, I'm sorry you're so distraught by my preconceived notion that I happily admit could be wrong.

I'm hardly distraught, I just think a stance of "I think I probably wouldn't agree with this person about most things because I think he might think something I disagree when it comes to one issue but I'm not actually gonna bother to learn the truth" to be an absurdly tribalistic view of the world.

scar the 1 posted...

Grischnak posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Grischnak posted...

TBs main arguing point when it came Gamergate was basically:

1) Video game journalists should actually behave like journalists and knock off the shady s***

I don't really see how anyone could have a problem with that. He didn't really argue about the gender stuff much at all. He seemed to consider that mostly a distraction from the real issue(corruption in games media).

OK. I'm sorry but I don't really care. Whatever his stance on GamerGate, I'm not gonna try and defame him or quote him or anything. You don't have to defend him or make him look better in my eyes. I have no opinion of him, just a hum of roughly where I might have categorized him, had I followed him at all.

So you don't care about what he actually thought, you just think you'd probably dislike him because he's one of *those people* and that's that? Well, I can't say you're not honest. Props for that. Though I can't applaud such a tribalistic view of the world.

hm

scar the 1 posted...

Maybe it's a bit much to say I would dislike him. In the end, he made a lot of content that I'm just not interested in, so I'm not going to make an effort. And I'll happily just assume that he was a decent human being who deserves enough respect in his passing to not warrant the kind of vitriol described in the OP.

I dunno, my whole point to begin with with that comment was that even though I would probably be a staunch opposer to him (supposing that all the accusations have even some merit), I really really disagree with these kinds of comments. I'm sorry that you're getting hung up on my guess that I wouldn't like TB. Maybe I would, I really have no strong grasp of who he was.

At this point it really feels like you're actively looking for something to take issue with.

I made my issues with your posts clear. I can change my wording from dislike to disagree if you think that's more accurate but that changes little when it comes to my overall point.

scar the 1 posted...

Grischnak posted...

TBs main arguing point when it came Gamergate was basically:

1) Video game journalists should actually behave like journalists and knock off the shady s***

I don't really see how anyone could have a problem with that. He didn't really argue about the gender stuff much at all. He seemed to consider that mostly a distraction from the real issue(corruption in games media).

OK. I'm sorry but I don't really care. Whatever his stance on GamerGate, I'm not gonna try and defame him or quote him or anything. You don't have to defend him or make him look better in my eyes. I have no opinion of him, just a hum of roughly where I might have categorized him, had I followed him at all.

So you don't care about what he actually thought, you just think you'd probably dislike him because he's one of *those people* and that's that? Well, I can't say you're not honest. Props for that. Though I can't applaud such a tribalistic view of the world.

scar the 1 posted...

Pretty much this but with less preconceived notions. I've seen people talk about how he was involved with GamerGate, and I'm making the guess that I'd disagree with him.

TBs main arguing point when it came Gamergate was basically:

1) Video game journalists should actually behave like journalists and knock off the shady shit

I don't really see how anyone could have a problem with that. He didn't really argue about the gender stuff much at all. He seemed to consider that mostly a distraction from the real issue(corruption in games media).

Darmik posted...

IIRC he said that the death threats made towards Anita weren't a big deal because she isn't dead and was pretty aggressive towards her in general but I think that's about as far as it went.

The issue when popular people on social media is that when they attack someone online their followers naturally dogpile on them and make the situation worse. The Bioware guy alluded to that happening to him. This happened a lot during Gamergate especially.

I'm not saying TotalBiscuit is solely to blame for that but a lot of users on social media often overlook the consequences for replying and retweeting people they disagree with and dislike when they have a huge following.

Aggressive towards her? LOL. You've got it backwards The GG crowd went after TB like lunatics despite him doing very little. He's the one that got most of vitriol spewed at him. Even years later. For example, know what Brianna Wu's reaction was to TBs death? "HAHAHAHA". ...Yeah. What a morally upstanding group... <_<

That's a silly amount of money. Though apparently the security company knew he was dangerous and ignored the issue so fuck them I guess.

Serious Cat posted...

Odd that he was convicted of statutory rape rather than rape unless they really didn't think they could demonstrate that it was forcible. (And yes, the normal use of the term "statutory rape" means the victim was willing but not legally able to consent. In Georgia, willingness is irrelevant but it's still a lesser charge.)

I checked a well written article and it said he was charged with "rape, statutory rape and child molestation" so that makes more sense.

Esrac posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Conflict posted...

I don't know man, a grown ass man would be able to recognize perspective and how some things said in the heat of the moment probably aren't things they absolutely meant. Anger and shock cause people to say some f***ed things sometimes. That's natural. Even if you didn't use those exact words, if you've ever had a moment where you've said something really heated and harsh when you were angry, then it doesn't make sense to criticize this guy over doing the same thing. It's really silly how you're holding this over the guy when it was so long ago and he made amends with the person he sent it to.

A grown ass man should. Would he? I'm not sure. Even so, a big part of PewDiePie consists of kids. He's a role model, whether he likes it or not. IMO there's a legitimate argument to be made that people in the public sphere like him have a bigger responsibility to act like proper grown ass people.

I mean, I'm pretty sure PewDiePie's audience tunes in because he doesn't act like a proper grown ass person. He's an entertainer and just because he has a large audience doesn't mean he has any obligation, outside of youtube's policies, to behave a certain way for the sake of the children.

Also, you never did say what part of TB's political opinions make you think you wouldn't like him.

Let me take a shot at this: He heard someone on Twitter mention some vague shit about TB being anti-SJW during Gamergate and he's too lazy to look up TBs actual role in Gamergate so he just assumes TB was a racist, misogynist piece of shit. Of course that's bullshit but there seems to be plenty of people that think that way.

xBloodBrotherx posted...

PewDiePie probably isn't racist but that doesn't mean a grown ass man can get killed in a video game and then call them an n word just because he was trying to hurl a random offensive edgy insult at someone.

Same thing goes for telling people to kill themselves or wish them a slow painful death of cancer, etc. Words have meaning, words have consequences, think before you speak. You're a grown ass man. And on the internet over text it's even easier to take a moment to think because you have to type it up, look at it, and be like yep seems good to me, send. At least if it was off the tongue you could argue you just said the most offensive thing you could without thinking. Still wouldn't be okay that way either.

How many of you grown adults go around telling people you hope they die painfully of cancer, doesn't matter if you mean it when you say it or not, just how frequently do you do it? How frequently do you wish anything of the sort on people in your day to day lives as an adult?

It really doesn't matter how often I insult people or not. The reality remains, insulting people on Twitter is a laughable moral offense. It's dumb and you probably shouldn't do it but to hold it up like it's some great sin is a joke. This was a spat between two adult peers and the guy he insulted came out and said it wasn't a big deal. I'll say again, the one person that actually has a reason to care about that insult doesn't even care.

xBloodBrotherx posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

You expect us to believe that in your entire life youve never made an insultig comment towards someone? Not even when you were 12. Good luck getting anyone to believe you...

Uhh, where did I say I've never insulted anyone? Of course I've insulted people. But I've never wished death, cancer, or something like that on someone.
There is a very big distinction to be made there.

Saying "You're a fucking dumbass" =/= "I hope you get cancer and die"

And even if I had that's a major false equivalency because if he'd said it when he was 12 I wouldn't give a shit, just some edgy kid. But he was a grown ass man when he said that shit.

Maybe it's normal for you to go around telling people you hope they die painfully of cancer because they hurt your feelings but most people don't.

The distinction is that you assume that he literally wished for the guy to die of cancer. Which is, frankly, gigantic assumption. In all likelihood, he did in fact not want the guy to actually die. It almost certainly just a random insult that he probably forgot about entirely a few hours later.

xBloodBrotherx posted...

No, like wishing cancer on people, death on people, and multiple people having negative experiences that he only made amends on after he knew he had severe cancer...

It's a curious thing. The cancer comment. You people bring that up like he was in a basement creating cancer causing potions to trick that other guy to drink to give that guy cancer. Hint: He wasn't. He didn't actually want that guy to get cancer. He talked some shit online in a moment of anger. As I said, as far as "shitty things" go that's real low on the scale. Most 10 year old gamers do similar things every day. Do you delight in the deaths of such children too?

xBloodBrotherx posted...

Shouldn't have done it like that and this soon, but there's a lot of valid things to criticize him for. Because he tried to change after he knew he was dying doesn't undo all the shitty things he said and did.

Like what? Angry tweets? Talking shit about games he didn't like? He wasn't the President of NAMBLA or something. His "shitty things" seem very mundane by pretty much any standard.

UnfairRepresent posted...

"It made me feel embarrassed, it was degrading, it made me feel...it made me feel like I did something wrong and I know I didn't do anything wrong," Adair further mused, adding that nothing like this has happened in the five years she's worked at Denny's of Rome.

Lolwut? What kind of backward ass mindset is that? She's not a 10 year old. She's a grown adult. It's not complicated. Dude was a perv. End of story. As for his punishment...whatever. Shouldn't harass innocent people. Not gonna cry for him. Besides, unless he has priors there's little chance he'll actually go to jail for a year.

I honestly don't get how people aren't used to edgelords coming out of the woodwork to talk shit about people when they die. Pretty common on GameFAQs. I think the last time I let it get to me was when James Gandolfini died. I was in some RIP topic and a few delightful young men came in and were like "well if the fat fuck went for a jog every day instead of eating a hamburger every day he'd still be alive. got what he deserved" and things like that. It annoyed me then. But at this point I'm just kind of numb to it. I really don't expect any level of respect or human decency from GameFAQs(or the internet in general really).

Do we know the context of the insult? Maybe the person he was insulting threatened to rape his wife or something. Things like that are said in Twitter all time. Don't know that he had any criticism coming. Or maybe he did. I don't know.

Of course I don't support reparations. It would do virtually nothing and put us into even deeper debt. And by do nothing I mean that people that are already successful people would benefit very little from a random handout and people that are unsuccessful aren't going to magically become successful because of a little money. Look what happens when people win the lottery. Most people, of all races, blow it on nonsense and go broke. I have zero reason to think things would go differently here.

I always found Nirvana's lyrics to be mostly nonsense with very little actual deeper meaning and I was pretty big fan of theirs when I was young.

I actually dropped the show this season. The big bad was lame. The other big bads, while repetitive, were at least cool on a superficial level. Devoe is just cringe.

Balrog0 posted...

that's exactly how I always feel when someone tells me to watch one or many of his videos in order to figure out what he really means. it is never worth it, nor is the supposedly deeper meaning ever apparent

I guess thats why people have a tough time communicating with each other when they dsiagree

I'm not a Peterson fanboy. I don't care about the "deeper" meaning in what he says. What I care about, and truly annoys me to be blunt, is people trying to manipulate me into believing bullshit that isn't true. Let me tell you how this topic went for me.

1) I enter topic and lurk for a bit
2) I see the enforced monogamy stuff
3) I think "Whoa. He actually thinks that? I gotta go check it out..."
4) I go to the New York Times article and what do I find? Do I find a fair story about how Peterson is far more radical then I thought he was? ...No. I find a article so absurdly one sided that it doesn't even pretend to be objective on a superficial level. Might as well have called the article "I've met pure evil and his name is Jordan Peterson".

It's fucking tiresome man. I didn't enter this topic wanting to waste my time defending Peterson but it's all just so fucking hard when people are trying to manipulated me into being their little ideological pawn. Whatever. I give up. I'm gonna go do something more productive.

Balrog0 posted...

Grischnak posted...

Just say "I don't like the guy and don't agree with most of what he says". There's no reason to go to such effort to make a false narrative that he's the devil.

I did.

Also, though, doesn't that tweet show that he is considering things to a degree you said you knew he wouldnt be?

That tweet doesn't show anything. Why? Because it's the boy who cried wolf syndrome. Every time I see a supposed evil thing Peterson has said and I've looked into it, it ends up being a manipulation on the part of people that hate him. Every. Time. It's constant and never ending. Given that, why should I take anything like that seriously? To put it another way, if that quote was in context and literal...why haven't I seen it before? His detractors do everything they can to hunt down info they can use to destroy him and that post is old as hell. If it was truly something that could be used against him, I would have seen someone use it against him before. Yet I haven't. Which says to me that it's another manipulation in one way or another.

It's truly fascinating to me that almost all anti-Peterson arguments remind me of arguing on GameFAQs. Which is to say, if you disagree with someone most people will generally try and counter your whole post but every now and then you'll come across one guy that will randomly take 5 words that you say and argue that while completely ignoring everything else in your post. Context does matter. As the "enforced monogamy" thing clearly shows. This is changing the goalpost. It's like "Oh look! Here's a random out of context thing that Peterson said, isn't he evil?" and when that gets challenged it gets changed to "Oh look! Here's another random out of context thing that Peterson said, isn't he evil?". I mean...come on. Just say "I don't like the guy and don't agree with most of what he says". There's no reason to go to such effort to make a false narrative that he's the devil.

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Grischnak posted...

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

An equally hot take because an increased societal focus on marriage would not lead to the unpopular getting dates sooner.

I really don't consider that "equally hot" to the government forcing women to marry incels. Like...not even a little.

As a proposed solution to halting school shootings, let alone more general violence, I do.

The likeliness of it to work isn't the issue. I don't think it would work either. But, basically, turning women into the sex slaves of men via government mandate is obviously more evil then wanting society to encourage marriage. Which is why the article is so manipulative. It's not saying "Peterson thinks society promoting marriage would lead to less violence, isn't that dumb?" it's saying "Peterson thinks the government forcing women to become sex slaves of losers would lead to less violence, isn't he a misogynist monster?".

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

An equally hot take because an increased societal focus on marriage would not lead to the unpopular getting dates sooner.

I really don't consider that "equally hot" to the government forcing women to marry incels. Like...not even a little. Again, I don't agree with his point myself but I'm going to pretend like it's the craziest thing I've ever heard. From what I've seen from him, he's always been a big proponent of marriage. This is pretty normal for him I think and there are plenty of people that think like that. Not really that extreme of a stance to take.

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Thankfully what I quoted is not the result of a spin (though I'm sure someone is about to try for a positive one any minute now).

It is absolutely the result of spin. When he mentioned "enforced monogamy", he was almost certainly referring to socially enforced monogamy and not government enforced monogamy(which is how the article paints it). Which is to say, he thinks society should promote marriage and teach young people that they should get married because it's a good thing. I don't agree with that personally. I think marriage is dumb but just because I don't agree with his stance doesn't mean I'm going to pretend like he's some sort of lunatic. I have zero doubt that he was not saying that the government should come in and force women to marry men.

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Antifar posted...

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. Thats actually why monogamy emerges.

enforced monogamy

enforced monogamy

enforced monogamy

This topic made me read this article out of curiosity. I honestly don't see how anyone could take anything in that article seriously. It truly is a "hit piece". It's made obvious from the start. Something that opens with: Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy: He says theres a crisis in masculinity. Why wont women all these wives and witches just behave? is obviously going to be about as far from objective as is humanly possible. I'm hardly his biggest fan but damn that article was unfair. My favorite part was:

He tucks his legs under him as he talks, curled in a dark leather seat. He has been padding around softly in socks. He looks down while he talks and makes fleeting, suspicious eye contact.

I just burst out laughing at that. They really did everything they could to make him seem like a monster.

Hexenherz posted...

Grischnak posted...

My views on guns aside, the logic in that article is pretty dumb. All sorts of things have killed more people this year then have died in the military this year. It really doesn't mean anything.

Eh it's an interesting statistic though, especially since no other country has a problem with kids shooting their classmates...

I fail to see how it's interesting. More people are going to die from fishing accidents and logging accidents then will die in the military or school shootings this year. It's like...ok? So?

My views on guns aside, the logic in that article is pretty dumb. All sorts of things have killed more people this year then have died in the military this year. It really doesn't mean anything.

Puglia77 posted...

Grischnak posted...

I've worked in retail and I've been in situations were I had to call the police on people because they were freaking out at me because I couldn't give them a refund. That does happen in situations that have nothing to do with race. In the article it is says they couldn't do his return and there was some "discussion". It doesn't mention how heated this discussion got. Maybe the guy was completely reasonable and they called the cops because there were racist or maybe he was freaking out and they were legit concerned. Either option is possible.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

the usual suspects

What is this even implying? That I'm a "usual suspect"? Dude I barely post on CE. Sure as hell not enough to qualify as any sort of CE regular.

cjsdowg posted...

They called the police on him since they said he looked like someone else who returned fake stuff. He was not that person all they had in common were they were black males. They lied to him saying oh they would have to call it in just to keep him at the store. And yet some how it is the his fault. The guy how was lied too, set up, and had his got damn bill of sale.

Doing my own research on this story I found another article gives this quote from the cops:

"Hobby Lobby did have a picture of the person that was writing bad checks and making fraudulent returns and it looked somewhat like the person in the store but it did not appear to be him," police Lt. Phil Dillon said in the statement.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/hobby-lobby-employees-called-cops-customer-apparently-looked/story?id=55230358

So I guess that's that. He looked like someone that had ripped them off before so they called the cops. It wasn't a "he's black, lets fuck with him" sort of thing. They jumped the gun and probably shouldn't have called the police but apparently they did look more similar then both just being black guys so it wasn't completely without merit. Ultimately, the guy didn't get a beatdown or anything so I can't say I really care.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Spooking posted...

Notice how this is only his side of the story.

Please inform us of the other side... I'll wait.

I've worked in retail and I've been in situations were I had to call the police on people because they were freaking out at me because I couldn't give them a refund. That does happen in situations that have nothing to do with race. In the article it is says they couldn't do his return and there was some "discussion". It doesn't mention how heated this discussion got. Maybe the guy was completely reasonable and they called the cops because there were racist or maybe he was freaking out and they were legit concerned. Either option is possible.

I'm pretty indifferent to Jordan Peterson myself. He's ok. Says some things I agree with, some things I don't. Don't really have strong feelings about him. Though I do find the vitriol towards him to be strange and overblown. The way people talk about him it's like he's an Imperial Wizard or something. He just comes off like a typical psychology professor to me.

KILBOTz posted...

both a 20 year old and a 16 year old seem like kids to me. one we just pretend one is an adult.

/old man

This. I work with some people in their early 20s and they really don't seem very different to me then 16 year olds. I mean, is two 16 year olds having sex supposed to seem like a better option to me? ...Nah. Doesn't really seem very different to me. Same risks and all that. Honestly, I don't think a difference in maturity level really even really matters as long as the two people get along well and there's no like "grooming" done on the side of the older person. I remember when Paul Walker died he got a lot of shit because it came out that he met his girlfriend when she was 16 and he was like 30. Never bothered me though. The girl basically won the lottery on that one. You know, until he died and all that...

She seems to have developed a case of resting bitch face. That's unfortunate. Props for the Jessica Rabbit costume though. A classic.