Lurker > scar the 1

Balrog0 posted...

averagejoel posted...

Lebronwon posted...
they had harassed her, they weren't her constituents, and that @AOC is technically a personal, rather than official, account.

none of those things matter, legally

Would you care to elaborate?
In the Trump case the court opinion was quite specific, right? Specific in terms of how it defined Twitter accounts as a public forum under certain conditions, IIRC specifically if it's used by a govt official in an official capacity. There's certainly a case to be made that AOC isn't using the account in an official capacity. Furthermore, the plaintiff in the Trump case argued specifically that they were blocked because of their views. If AOC is blocking someone for e.g., harassing them, I think again that there would be a case to make.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

It's generally not but there's also a worry that the guy is just looking to "hit it and quit it" as they say
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Lmao, that's pretty funny

...but let's be real, it's not just about the quality of animations, it's about the amount as well. From what I can tell the Pokmon Stadium mons had like two animations, one for entrances that is also used for every move, and another for death?

I haven't played Sword and Shield, but I can certainly see how walking animations and animations for several different moves for some 900 Pokmon (many of which won't ever be seen) is on another scale of amount of work
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

I didn't mind the Vong honestly. The NJO was pretty cool but that's mostly because I'm really into that format - several writers collaborating on a big as fuck series. The execution was pretty pulpy though and I wouldn't recommend the series to anyone.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Milkman5 posted...

I doubt many women actually say or believe this. You can get men so easily, so many of them are desperate

desperate for what
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

ClockworkHare posted...

because women are not a hive mind.

WHAT NO
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Here's a rundown of what's going on as well:

https://twitter.com/kevinmcashman/status/1193703918624108544
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Ok Boomer
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

OpenlyGator posted...

What you said wasn't any more accurate. It was blatantly stereotypical and sexist (intentionally or not)...there it is.

And for the record it's pretty standard for men romantically invested in a relationship to IDEALLY want to eventually experience sex with their favored partner. It's called physical intimacy. It might blow your mind, but it's one of the most intense ways they feel they can express their love. Not every guy who fantasizes about eventually fucking his high school sweetheart is doing it because he's just another horny dog objectifying a catch. Sexual intimacy is a common age old step between committed lovers. Most women also IDEALLY want their preferred male partner to find them sexually attractive. It's a real turn-off if he doesn't.

Yes, the creepy pick up artists want to fuck women.
The men interested in commitment with women they really care about also want to fuck women.

These two groups generally want to perform sex for different reasons. Context matters...and it's not fair to demonize all men who want sex with partners they're in love with just because some creeps use women like disposable sex objects with no intent on love. Men wanting sex with someone their in a relationship with is not innately bad. It's a commonly preferred expectation among men AND women.

I'm not demonizing all men. I'm explaining what girls who say "no guy wants me" actually mean. They're not necessarily saying they can't get laid. They're saying that they can't find guys who want them for anything else than sex.
I'm not at all saying that wanting sex is a bad thing. If that's your takeaway from my posts then you're deliberately trying to take issue with what I'm saying.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

https://twitter.com/MattHammington/status/1193783388169064448

Interesting thread
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Yeah the whole business model here is that players would need to either trade very actively with friends or buy several games and wait a long ass time to fully complete the game.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Perascamin posted...

But how does a dictatorship benefit the US economically?

They wouldn't need a dictatorship, they only need a government that gives them cheap and full/exclusive access to the valuable minerals they need to have the upper hand in a trade war with for example China
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

K181 posted...

TheMikh posted...

K181 posted...

*mass popular protests against wildly unpopular and corrupt regimes with horrible fiscal records in Venezuela and Bolivia*

Damn you, America!!!!!!1!!1!1ONE

eh, i used to think protests were 100% usda organic, but nowadays it's fair to suspect the cia has a hand in things, particularly when the object of discontent is in conflict with the strategic interests of the us or its cronies

You have a far higher opinion of the American intelligence community than me if you think any role we played in millions protesting was more than a drop in the bucket.

The protests in Chile are far larger, and the military isn't stepping in and saying the president should resign.
In Bolivia, a country with huge deposits of minerals with incredibly high value today (e.g., lithium), somehow the military is compelled to step in.

Now, we have a region in which we know for a fact the US tend to help overthrow democratically elected left-wing governments and install military dictatorships that serve their economic interests. And we have a country with a democratically elected left-wing government, in this region, rich in minerals that the US want, suddenly subjected to a military coup.

Would it be really inconceivable that the US were involved here?
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

DarkProto05 posted...

Then cue the "there's no good men out there" crap when it's completely her fault we broke up and not mine.

Hey, sometimes it's Obama's fault
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

The movie is actually based on the lyrics of the song so it'll be interesting to see
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

cjsdowg posted...

scar the 1 posted...

cjsdowg posted...

You know in most cases if a girl is willing to give a relationship there is some guys who are willing to be with them.

1. That's bs
2. Them thinking that they're willing to put up with a relationship to get the sex they want is distinctly different from them wanting to be with the person because they like the whole person.

Nothing is BS about what I stated, and dating sites data prove it. A woman can be ugly ,fat, rude, or nice on her profile and still would get tons of hits.

That doesn't prove what you said at all. What's to say those guys aren't just looking for sex?
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Number090684 posted...

On the last one, I'm 100% sure it's natural, considering all sorts of other animals do the same as well.

There are monogamous animals, and their behavior doesn't have any bearing on human behavior. Not that we have any idea what they're thinking anyway.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Number090684 posted...

AwesomeToTheMAX posted...

It's really weird when people pretend their own traits and personality are universal. Just like "everyone is racist"

You might want nothing more than sex but I don't feel the same way. I'm more interested in companionship. Sex just comes with it

I not doing that at all though. Seemingly most guys I've ever known want to have sex with women. That's a bona fide stereotype for a reason. Also, I'm about 40/60 on your companionship / sex scale. I love it, and it's important, but it's not everything to me. As I get older it's importance will probably decline though.

Well there are several things you're not considering here. First of all "most guys you've ever known" isn't a random sample, so there's likely a sampling bias considering what kind of person you are.
Secondly, you can't be very sure that you're assessing them correctly, they might very well be more interested in a meaningful relationship than you think or than they let on.
Thirdly, you have no basis for the notion that it's natural or that this is done sort of "purpose" that men were "made" for.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Number090684 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Number090684 posted...

They probably mean no guys want to put up with their shit. Guys want women, especially good looking ones, but if there is a problem that makes men not want to pursue and stay in a relationship with them, and it's not the guy's fault, then it's probably the woman's.

The problem is that men just want to stick their dicks in women and nothing more

While that's not entirely true, that's also what men biologically were made to do. As long a guy doesn't treat women like disposable garbage and gives a reasonable amount of respect, so what if he loves having sex with them? That's what he's supposed to do. I don't see any problem with it and neither should you because it's as natural as breathing. Same vice versa. As long as no one wrecking homes, destroying relationships and ruining lives it's all good.

That's complete bs
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Number090684 posted...

They probably mean no guys want to put up with their shit. Guys want women, especially good looking ones, but if there is a problem that makes men not want to pursue and stay in a relationship with them, and it's not the guy's fault, then it's probably the woman's.

The problem is that men just want to stick their dicks in women and nothing more
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

cjsdowg posted...

You know in most cases if a girl is willing to give a relationship there is some guys who are willing to be with them.

1. That's bs
2. Them thinking that they're willing to put up with a relationship to get the sex they want is distinctly different from them wanting to be with the person because they like the whole person.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

cjsdowg posted...

Have you seen a crack whore. The normal crack whore looks horrible. And people are still willing to PAY them. So when a woman complains about not being able to find a man . We all know that she just have too high of standards.

When a guy says he can't find anyone, he ain't lying .

I don't think "he should want me for me and not just my holes" is "too high of standards" really.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Akagami_Shanks posted...

Lets not pretend those are two different things at the end of the day. You will be hard pressed to find a guy that doesnt want to fuck in a relationship unless theyre asexual

They are different things. A guy wanting to stick his dick in someone doesn't automatically mean he wants them for who they are as a person. Or would you say that guys paying for sex really want the person they're fucking?
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Balrog0 posted...

Or, for another example, it's easy to imagine a manifest destiny era american saying that one reason to steal native land and put white people on it is that crop production would increase

was that socialism?

I guess I'm just kind of curious where the bounds of socialism are for you

Oh

Well it's certainly a valid question, I just didn't understand what you meant. And I'm the wrong person to ask about this because I don't really know the details of any socialist isms. But Sankara claimed to be a marxist and it looks like he seized land from rich land owners essentially to have the workers (or state, I'm not sure) own the means of production.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Questionmarktarius posted...

Dictators tend to be efficient.

But Soviet was famously inefficient, which is often brought up to rag on socialism!
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Balrog0 posted...

what made this socialism?

I'm not sure I understand your question, nor am I an expert on Burkina Faso.

But another common objection is that socialism is inefficient and this particular example at least seems to indicate that it's indeed quite efficient.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

AlephZero posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Was he perfect? Of course not. In the same Wikipedia article we can read about extrajudicial executions

socialism is pretty great if you can get past the extrajudicial executions

I mean yeah, that's obviously not great. But let's not pretend that those things are exclusive to socialism.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

hockeybub89 posted...

America is not going to be true socialist so I don't know why people get upset about a few progressive ideas pushed by a few politicians.

I think you know exactly why, it's because fear-mongering works.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Machete posted...

Most CEpeople have probably never heard of Burkina Faso. I admitedly would struggle to find it on a map :(. I am way ahead of the average CEperson at finding countries on maps.

Yeah I bet, which is another reason why I think it's interesting to bring it up.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

ROBANN_88 posted...

Do people say that about Socialism?

I've heard it about Communism, in a sort of "nah, Stalin and Mao doesn't count, that wasn't real Communism"

I don't think i've heard that phrase for Socialism, but i might be wrong

I think often in such discussions the two are conflated. Some people say "it's been tried and failed", pointing to things like Venezuela. When it's pointed out that attempts at socialism have been systematically undermined by the US (which is a very fair point), there's not really a lot of discourse left.

So I guess I think it's quite interesting to actually examine different realizations of socialism and see what happened. In the case of Sankara, he was murdered in a coup d'tat. So much for "not working". Also I just think this is a pretty cool piece of history that's not very often told in the west.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Wewillrocku posted...

not to derail this topic

I'll respect this sentiment and stop responding to your obvious attempts to derail the topic.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

LittleBonTron2 posted...

It somewhat works in highly homogeneous societies...

From the Wikipedia article on Burkina Faso:

Ethnic groups (1995)

47.9% Mossi
10.3% Fula
6.9% Lobi
6.9% Bobo
6.7% Mand
5.3% Senufo
5.0% Gurunsi
4.8% Gurma
3.1% Tuareg

Northeastern Syria is quite diverse as well, with mainly Kurds and Arabs forming majorities and pluralities in the region. Arabs, themselves, however, are a diverse group of people generally defined by having Arabic as their first language. Then there are also Assyrians, Turkmen, Armenians and Chechens. Among others.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Wewillrocku posted...

by the way i don't see how this follows at all, making it look like a weird digression in your post. democrats have never sought to ban genital mutilation of any kind.

Ah well I was referring more to the "while appointing women to high governmental positions and encouraging them to work outside the home and stay in school even if pregnant" part, sorry if that was unclear
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Rojava is also a good example of socialism kinda working, before being stamped out by Turkey

That's quite interesting! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava for context)
I've heard essentially that they're a lot more liberal (in the classical sense, not in the US parliamentary sense) than a lot of the Middle-East, but I didn't know that it was a socialist model.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Ah yes, the famously socialist European Union
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Let's see what went on in Burkina Faso in the '80s...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

Thomas Isidore Nol Sankara (French pronunciation: [tma skaa]; 21 December 1949 15 October 1987) was a Burkinab revolutionary and President of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987. A Marxist and pan-Africanist, he was viewed by supporters as a charismatic and iconic figure of revolution, and is sometimes referred to as "Africa's Che Guevara".

Within four years, Burkina Faso reached food sufficiency due in large part to feudal land redistribution and series of irrigation and fertilization programs instituted by the government. During this time, production of cotton and wheat increased dramatically. While the average wheat production for the Sahel region was 1,700 kilograms per hectare (1,500 lb/acre) in 1986, Burkina Faso was producing 3,900 kilograms per hectare (3,500 lb/acre) of wheat the same year.[20] This success meant Sankara had not only shifted his country into food self-sufficiency, but had in turn created a food surplus.

We can also learn that he vaccinated 2.5 million Burkinab in a week, he organized massive efforts of reforestation, he began huge infrastructure projects with roads and railroads to connect the country. Furthermore he was a bigger champion for women's rights than arguably modern US Republicans:

Improving women's status in Burkinab society was one of Sankara's explicit goals, and his government included a large number of women, an unprecedented policy priority in West Africa. His government banned female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy, while appointing women to high governmental positions and encouraging them to work outside the home and stay in school even if pregnant.

Was he perfect? Of course not. In the same Wikipedia article we can read about extrajudicial executions and quite a problematic stance towards teachers, for instance. But I think this example is fascinating in many ways:

- It shows that socialism isn't necessarily inefficient
- It's an example of a somewhat successful, albeit short, implementation of socialism
- It's relatively unknown because who knows about Africa, right? And provides some context on the effects of colonialism
- It puts women's rights squarely on the left side of the spectrum
- His assassination is further evidence that colonialists/imperialists won't yield peacefully
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Well are they silenced because they're conservatives? I doubt that
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Oh I get it. Yeah there's a logic to it but I would expect the ISIS fighters to be monitored mega closely. I get the impression that essentially police know more or less who does the shootings and bombings, it's just that it's difficult to prove anything
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

What's the deal with all the blabber about ISIS ITT? Most of the bombings here are gang-related, we had like one ISIS bomb and the guy just blew himself up.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Foppe posted...

Twin3Turbo posted...

Genuinely curious because I personally don't know much about Sweden, do we have a reason as to why an increase in criminal gang activity has happened recently? That doesn't normally just happen for no reason

If I would guess then they have seen that the Swedish police can be pretty toothless.
The Rosegrd population in Malm is over 86% immigrants, and the police, ambulance and firemen have been stopped from entering Rosengrd multiple times by gangs of stonethrowing immigrants for at least 12 years now.
"If the police cant do anything about some stonethrowing peope, what can they do against criminal gangs?"

Yeah quite famously shootings and explosions very rarely lead to convictions. The guy in this article that the OP article is quoting: https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/kriminolog-sprangdaden-i-sverige-unika-for-europa/
is saying that "when violence doesn't have a price you can spend a lot on it", but that with the current information the best they can do is make advanced guesswork.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Twin3Turbo posted...

ROBANN_88 posted...

Well on one hand we have a massive increase in criminal gang activity.
And on the other hand we have several hundreds of "ex" ISIS fighters who now returned and are left unchallenged able to put their experience to use.
With high probability that those two mix together.

But that's just a guess,.
As the expert said: " we can only speculate", right.

Genuinely curious because I personally don't know much about Sweden, do we have a reason as to why an increase in criminal gang activity has happened recently? That doesn't normally just happen for no reason

There was some criminologist on the radio talking about this, essentially saying that this is no surprise, it's an expected development that they see in a lot of areas where gang-related crime increases. I couldn't tell you the details but it's probably a hodgepodge of different factors. Social and economic segregation do play a part in terms of recruitment for gangs, I bet EU open borders play a part in availability of weapons and explosives, and so on. There's a lot of reading to be done here and there are several factors at play.

EDIT: It seems I misquoted the criminologist I heard on the radio. But I can't find the quote so I'll wait a bit
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Are those Norwegian? I had them a lot as a kid
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

I think it's funny in some memes still but I get what you're saying
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Well I guess the GameFAQs way of responding to hyperbole is to take it at face value and then tack on your own ridiculous hyperbole
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

kewldude475 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

kewldude475 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

kewldude475 posted...

Bruh... stop. That aside, 100% you wouldn't feel the same way if it was you or a loved one involved though. So you can take several seats. Even if you try to deny that, no one ITT will believe it tbh.

What does that have to do with anything? Personally I'll gladly admit that if a loved one were involved in a brutal, violent crime, I would be very upset, and my judgement would be affected. That's fine, that's part of being human. What I don't want is legislation based on that type of poor, vindictive judgement.

I'm just saying that you wouldn't be okay with a murderer getting totally away with victimizing you or a loved one if they were somehow guaranteed to never to do it again, so implying that those who wouldn't be okay with that and that they are like Jeffrey Dahmer, when there are so many grieving families at sentencings who think the murderer deserves their sentence who are in no way like Jeffrey Dahmer, so trying to take the moral highground over them and comparing them to Jeffrey Dahmer says a ton about your mindset, and it's terrifying.

aha so that's what "that aside" means

??

I thought that with your "that aside" comment, you meant "aside from the Dahmer comparison", but apparently you asided some other that.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Hairistotle posted...

i used to be one of those guys who always said to just take better pics, write charming bios, and wear better clothes. i gotta say, it doesnt seem like that kind of thing works anymore. i barely get one match a week now so something is clearly different on tinder, especially considering ive only gotten more attractive since i first started using it. i think it's gonna skew to the top 5% of guys in terms of looks (prob money as well)

honestly a better strat at this point is prob to cold approach people at clubs/bars

Did you try paying for it, or going to a different city etc? Because any time I went to a new city I would be flooded with matches, and I'm guessing it has to do with getting high priority when you're new in the queue. So I guess Tinder Gold would also bump up your priority?
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

kewldude475 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

kewldude475 posted...

Bruh... stop. That aside, 100% you wouldn't feel the same way if it was you or a loved one involved though. So you can take several seats. Even if you try to deny that, no one ITT will believe it tbh.

What does that have to do with anything? Personally I'll gladly admit that if a loved one were involved in a brutal, violent crime, I would be very upset, and my judgement would be affected. That's fine, that's part of being human. What I don't want is legislation based on that type of poor, vindictive judgement.

I'm just saying that you wouldn't be okay with a murderer getting totally away with victimizing you or a loved one if they were somehow guaranteed to never to do it again, so implying that those who wouldn't be okay with that and that they are like Jeffrey Dahmer, when there are so many grieving families at sentencings who think the murderer deserves their sentence who are in no way like Jeffrey Dahmer, so trying to take the moral highground over them and comparing them to Jeffrey Dahmer says a ton about your mindset, and it's terrifying.

aha so that's what "that aside" means
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

kewldude475 posted...

Bruh... stop. That aside, 100% you wouldn't feel the same way if it was you or a loved one involved though. So you can take several seats. Even if you try to deny that, no one ITT will believe it tbh.

What does that have to do with anything? Personally I'll gladly admit that if a loved one were involved in a brutal, violent crime, I would be very upset, and my judgement would be affected. That's fine, that's part of being human. What I don't want is legislation based on that type of poor, vindictive judgement.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Skye Reynolds posted...

First off, I hope they don't parole or pardon this guy as a victim or a hero. He did commit murder.

Second, this is eye-opening as to the discrimination which the courtroom allowed against homosexuals in the 90s. They made the decision to give him the death penalty on the assumption that he would enjoy prison? Imagine a courtroom saying that a black man would enjoy prison because "he'd be among other black people." That's straight up discrimination and should have been grounds for a new hearing.

The timing is pretty obvious. He has a week left to live and is simply trying to buy more time. But maybe it would be worth taking a second look into that case and reevaluating why he is condemned to die. Just keep in mind that he is a convicted murderer and should be regarded as such. The failure here was in the courtroom's responsibility to be unbiased.

It's quite frightening to think of how many cases there have been with these kinds of prejudiced assumptions.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent

Wii_Shaker posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Wii_Shaker posted...

This isn't a civil rights issue, it's a matter of the jury exercising the states right to execute.

It's just an issue of them sentencing someone to death explicitly because they're gay

To be perfectly fair, his trial was 26 years ago. He has been in prison for that entire time.

He murdered an individual over two decades ago with a knife. This animal is lucky he has the right to a state execution. I don't know if this is the hill you want to die on.

To be perfectly fair, the jury literally based their death sentence on the assumption that he would enjoy prison because he was gay.
---

Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent