Lurker > Zeus

The Wave Master posted...

"Whether you are a hero or a viallain what would be your fatal flaw? What would stop you from defeating the bad guy, or losing to the good guy every single time?"

Wow, starting the new topic with a typo.

And I'll answer the same way I do in interviews: My flaw is being too perfect >_>

The Wave Master posted...

Bonus Question: How would you overcome this fatal flaw, and more importantly, could you?

Dunno.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

Doctor Foxx posted...

New gyms appeared today. They replaced existing stops. I've seen two.

Grats. New gym/stop days are awesome. Really hoping my area gets hit by an update one of these days.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

That shiny count is fucking absurd. Meanwhile I still haven't found a single shiny this event >_<
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

LinkPizza posted...

Zeus posted...

It's a shit reward considering that he's both a raid boss and not that hard to find in the wild atm.

Really? I dont think Ive seen them as raid bosses yet. And while I have seen a couple Hitmonlees, Ive never seen Hitmonchan in the wild. I just get Tyrogues from eggs...

For the entire month he's going to be a raid boss. He's also been a raid boss in the past. And tonight alone I've caught 3-4 wild ones.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

keyblader1985 posted...

It was cool to see that the reward for doing two Excellent throws in a row is one of my favorite Pokemon (Hitmonchan). I saw it, went challenge accepted, and got a badass reward.

And still no ******* Smeargle.

It's a shit reward considering that he's both a raid boss and not that hard to find in the wild atm.

CarefreeDude posted...

So far in the fighting event I've gotten

2 shiny Mankey
Shiny meditite
Shiny shellder
Shiny drifloon

Arrrggggh, hate you.

CarefreeDude posted...

Shinies overall seem a lot more common than they did starting out. I've probably gotten all of mine mostly in the last 6 months

I think most of mine were prior to the last 6 months. Even recent CDs haven't been as lucky.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

Which is the real topic now? >_>

Zeus posted...

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

I'll google around for it later. So far I found a tweet responding to his remark, though.... and apparently I can't link it because Gamefaqs auto-censors the person's name because it has 3 letters in a row in it.

https://twitter.com/kmanja
(break) pra/status/698129857654292480
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

HelIWithoutSin posted...

Another week.

Tempus fugit.

argonautweakend posted...

Zeus posted...

So you're basically pleading ignorance regarding the presidential primaries? That would explain a LOT, considering your apparent lack of political knowledge. You might also be surprised to learn that he insisted whites can't be poor.

Could you provide a source about the street corner thing? I was aware(and found links supporting) sanders said whites dont know what its like to live in ghettos and be poor, but nothing on the street corner.

I don't think you can call somebody ignorant when you make a claim that they research and turn up nothing. They at least tried to educate themselves.

Do you mean am I going to rewatch all of the presidential primaries to show something I know because you guys were too lazy to watch them the first time around? No, and you know that's an unreasonable request. It *should* be included in one of the primary topics I made which you could find if you go to one of those archive sites that Helly is always claiming exist.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

darkknight109 posted...

Twenty years ago when social mores were different? Isn't that the point of this entire topic - that social norms change?

Except even 20 years ago that was nowhere near acceptable.

darkknight109 posted...

None of which addresses anything in the point you're responding to. What I pointed out is - regardless of the nature of the slur you're talking about - someone loses their "I didn't know any better" defence the instant the slur is pointed out and explained to them.

Oh? And you know for a fact that somebody explained that to them so they actually understood it? I could explain to you that it's offensive to use the word "dark" because it carries the connotation that darker colors are associated with evil and thereby indirectly promotes racism but, unless you internalize that lesson and actually believe it, nothing is going to change. However, if you grew up with that understanding, you'd already believe it so you'd either avoid it or, conversely, do it deliberately in a racist manner.

darkknight109 posted...

No, your response was always "I think Donald Trump is an old man." You never actually addressed whether you thought what he said was racist or not and it was only after several posts worth of prodding that you arrived at a tenuous "no" answer.

Racism requires a certain level of understanding understanding or intent, which again ties back into what I've repeatedly said -- Trump is an old man who doesn't understand those connotations in a way that somebody who grew up in the system would.

darkknight109 posted...

Which, as previously mentions, shoots a few holes in your earlier assertions in this topic, because it means that you can apparently make statements that are racist without those statements being racist just by dint of being old.

Which, as previously mentioned, ties back to context. Again, for instance, if you grew up in an age when you taught to say colored because that was the politically correct thing to say, odds are you're going to innocently say it from time to time. And colored is a far more readily understood slur than animal.

darkknight109 posted...

Personal anecdotes are not citations. If you think they are, then here's my counterpoint: every senior citizen I've ever met (with one exception - a very bad alcoholic who has numerous life problems) understands evolving social mores and keeps on top of them.

Because, again, you don't seem to talk to many people. You have a skewed worldview based on an overly apparent lack of offline communication, which is you insist on having statistics nobody has collected to prove something you should already know.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

darkknight109 posted...

I completely realize that, because the idea that old people get a pass on racism because "they're too old to understand it" or something, is inherently ludicrous. That's exactly what I'm trying to highlight for you, so I'm glad you at least partially understand it.

Again, depends on the context. If somebody has been taught to say oriental instead of a previously offensive word all their life, it's harder than somebody who grew up knowing that oriental was arguably offensive (mind you, often more so to whites who take offense on behalf of Asians) and never used that term at all. Once you get a little older, maybe you'll understand.

And, of course, some words are harder stops than others.

darkknight109 posted...

You don't know how old I am

I know how old you aren't.

darkknight109 posted...

When I was growing up, "rape" was a perfectly acceptable synonym for hardship or lopsided defeat, ("Man, I got raped by that test!" or "Boy, that local sports team just got raped yesterday").

...and people are STILL using that then correcting themselves afterward, if it at all. All you're doing is showing what a moving target these things are.

darkknight109 posted...

I am curious, though - what age do you get your "Get out of Racism Free" card? How old and/or Republican do you have to be to be excused from racist statements?

Scaling slider depending on age. If you were over 100, a person could even get away with dropping n-bombs.

darkknight109 posted...

You're projecting, Zeus. And yes, I'm well aware of the connotations of "thug" - as others have observed, that's a word that seems to get pitched at a very specific and narrow band of melanin-content and chromosomes.

No, I'm not projecting. There's a CONSTANT push on new words all the time. There's no fucking possible way that you could keep up with everything unless you quit your job (and I'm assuming you're working -- I know you'll point out that I don't know whether you're working, which is true) and devote your entire life to it.... although even then you're likely to miss things.

darkknight109 posted...

No, it's definitely not irrelevant. The president is and should be held to a higher standard than a random hobo on a side street. He occupies an elevated position in society and so expectations of him are similarly elevated. People actually have good reason to pay attention to what he says, so he is expected to be up on his ability to make speeches that aren't in breach of social etiquette.

It baffles me that you think it doesn't matter whether or not a society's leader is actually up to speed on the social norms of the society he's supposed to be leading.

It's absolutely irrelevant given that the term is currently both less controversial and really known more to young people. And it baffles me that you think a society's leader should solely focus on studying lesser mores than actually governing.

darkknight109 posted...

Never heard of this, so I went looking for it and came up with nothing. Source or it didn't happen.

So you're basically pleading ignorance regarding the presidential primaries? That would explain a LOT, considering your apparent lack of political knowledge. You might also be surprised to learn that he insisted whites can't be poor.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

darkknight109 posted...

Fair point. Only one problem with it: Donald Trump isn't a non-native and despite his at-times torturous prose, English is his first language.

Yeah, if someone who can barely string a sentence together uses a racial slur because they're repeating something they heard in a song somewhere or something like that, that's understandable and eminently forgivable. But that's not what Trump was doing - he knew exactly what the connotations of that word, and that particular use of that word, were. We know that he knew it, because *people fucking pointed it out to him*. And then he used it again directly in response to them.

To tie it back to your analogy, if that barely-speaks-English foreigner says a racial slur that he didn't realize was offensive, you can chalk that up to simple ignorance. But if you explain to them that it's offensive, and explain *why* people don't use that word in polite company, and they continue to use it anyways they've lost that "I just didn't know any better" defence.

...because both sides of the analogy were deliberately extreme, since the n-word is a recognized universal taboo going back at least 70 years whereas the term "animal", which has a less strong connotation, only started to really develop its mainstream negative connection about 30 years ago (which, not for nothing, was right around the time that political figures were brazenly describing black youths as super predators, which is some shit that violates mores going back to around the turn of the century)

darkknight109 posted...

So explain it. Elaborate and actually back up your argument. That's what I've been prompting you to do from my first post in this topic.

I literally already did.

darkknight109 posted...

*citation needed*

Try leaving your home at some point and talking to them. Anybody who has seen PC change numerous times in their life isn't going to be square on everything. Even baby boomers (which includes a subsect younger than Trump, Hillary, etc) are still using terms like "orientals" which has since become an emerging taboo going back to... probably at least the 90s, if not before that. And before you argue that "oriental" is an overblown non-issue that nobody actually cares about, keep in mind that Obama signed a law banning the use of the word in government documents because he viewed it as offensive.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

But are you aware that you suggested -- rather wrongly -- that I thought the such? When in fact the closest I came to remarking on it was when I joking implied that the only reason it wasn't higher is that people are stupid?

Yes, I thought that's what we were talking about. That even if using the definition of 'you' meaning "anyone in general" I said you specifically thought it was because people are stupid. The joking implication part you did came after that first post so naturally it wouldn't apply. It would be stupid to suggest otherwise.

My first post in the topic was my joking response, hence why all along I -- and others -- have assumed that you looked at the wrong person's post and confused it for me.

darkknight109 posted...

Nope!

Yep!

darkknight109 posted...

So why not say that in your original post? All you said is "Calling people animals is racist", not "Calling people animals is racist, as long as you were born after 1970. " I mean, shouldn't you be checking the ages of the posters you were trying to call out if that's your view? Or does that only apply to Donald Trump?

Even you must realize that you're suggesting something ludicrous.

darkknight109 posted...

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, I haven't had any issues adopting to new social mores and neither have any of the seniors I know. The language that was commonplace when I was in high school would be considered extraordinarily offensive now, yet somehow I've managed to keep up with the times and change my idioms as necessary to avoid being an asshole.

You're hardly a senior citizen. Most significant mores were the same from when you were growing up. More importantly, you almost certainly haven't kept up with emerging mores -- especially since some of which are hotly contested, like the assertion that "thug" is the new n-word.

darkknight109 posted...

I'm also talking about the fucking President of the United States. Donald Trump isn't just "some random old guy", he occupies the highest office in the USA. I feel like a politician - nevermind the supposed-"leader of the free world" - should at least have enough capacity for understanding human social trends to avoid making such an easily avoidable gaffe.

Irrelevant.

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, I can't remember Obama screwing that up. Or Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, if you prefer someone in Trump's age demographic, yet Trump gets repeatedly stung by this sort of language and behaviour. That's not something that can - or should - be excused.

O rly? You mean Bernie Sanders who talked about rounding up black men from street corners? Or Hillary Clinton who -- TWENTY years ago when she was a much younger woman -- described black youths as "super predators"? And, of course, Obama frequently bungled race relations but otherwise Obama is still young enough to have *grown up* with most of these mores so he's less affected anyway.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

You're aware that going by that second dictionary definition, you're *still* wrong, right?

Yes, I am aware that if someone thinks a 45% approval rating is due to most people being stupid, they are probably fine with a 45% approval rating and think that's exactly what it should be, neither higher nor lower, as you clearly articulated yourself in your first post of the topic. I already bowed out and conceded that you won, even going so far as to edit a video of all your friends congratulating you, just take the W dude.

But are you aware that you suggested -- rather wrongly -- that I thought the such? When in fact the closest I came to remarking on it was when I joking implied that the only reason it wasn't higher is that people are stupid?
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

darkknight109 posted...

Then you're basically acknowledging that calling someone an animal isn't actually racist, depending on who's making the statement, which kind of shoots your original arguments in this topic in the foot.

You're also acknowledging that whether a specific slur is racist or not depends on who is saying it and that Trump gets a pass on this, for some bizarre reason, but that's a separate discussion.

No, I'm pointing out that PC has moving goalposts and when you got into the game directly impacts roughly where those goalposts lie. Millennials and xers are generally pretty well-aware of the racial connotation. However, you're talking about a guy old enough to have grown up at a time when colored was the racially acceptable way to refer to blacks because people decided that the n-word was offensive. I'm also saying that the term "animal" has intrinsic undertones, but a person's understanding of those undertones directly impacts the significance of those terms. For instance, the n-word is currently so intrinsically offensive that it can't even be said in its true form under most circumstance. However, if a non-native, non-English speaker heard the word used and repeated it, you would hardly call him racist despite the n-word being widely viewed as one of the most racist words ever.

darkknight109 posted...

Not really. You answered the question "Is this statement by Donald Trump racist?" by answering "I think Donald Trump is an old man." The answer doesn't even vaguely match the question.

That's a very glib interpretation. It also completely misses the point.

darkknight109 posted...

Conveniently ignoring that this more was pointed out to Trump after he first breached it and he pushed back with an even harder statement.

Not to mention, most seniors manage to do just fine at not being blithering racist idiots, despite not being "born into it", as you put it.

Completely untrue, except in the most pigeonholey sense. The vast majority of seniors are un-PC in some area because PC has changed countless times in their lifetime.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

This is the lamest cover for a poster mistaking somebody for another that I've seen in my great many years on the internet.

If pointing out the literal definition of the word in question is the lamest cover you've ever heard, then I imagine everyone else has some really solid reasons. Maybe I'll say 'one' instead of 'you' next time, so you won't be confused by my plebeian prole speak, given your much greater intelligence.

But I did go reread the original post I made quoting you, and it is indeed clear how one could think I mistook you for another poster I was arguing with, despite the fact that the line I quoted was essentially a summation of my posts up to that point. Clearly, I was mistaking you for the other person. That's why I used the word 'you'. Ignore the second definition of 'you' about any person in general, and ignore the conditional 'if' directly before the 'you' which would imply this second definition in context, clearly I mistook you for the other poster. How could I miss it? I mean, just look at this:

IronicFool posted...

Well, SINCE YOU PROPOSED, GameFAQS users GRTooCool and by short extension based on the following conversation Yellow, that most people are stupid to explain why the president has a 45% approval rating, I think it's safe to say you don't think it should be 45%.

How didn't I see it before? Clearly I am entirely in the wrong, you have bested me.

You're aware that going by that second dictionary definition, you're *still* wrong, right?

darkknight109 posted...

Literally have never heard this before now, but nice assumption.

Then you literally have a hearing/vision problem or a memory issue because I've brought this to you specifically, in addition to all of the other times I've discussed this.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

darkknight109 posted...

I didn't say the answer had to be black and white - in fact, I figured you'd use this cop-out, which is why I specifically stated that "Yes, but..." and "No, but..." were completely acceptable answers. You can clarify your answer as much as you care to, and if you want to say "Yes, but it's not as racist as when a young person says it" that's your prerogative, but you still have to answer the question. All you've said is that you think Trump is a 70+ year old man - a nice factoid, but not an answer to the question.

It's not really a "yes, but..." or a "no, but..." although it's probably closer to a "no, but..." because it's a contemporary connotation.

darkknight109 posted...

It's like if someone asked me if Mike Pence hates gay people and I answered, "I think Mike Pence is a man who is married to a woman and who holds the office of Vice President. I think he has white hair and that he was elected in 2016." All true, all facts, not in any way an answer to the question asked.

Which is a ridiculous comparison, even by your usual standard.

darkknight109 posted...

Why do you say that? Do you think seniors are just too old and dumb to understand changing social mores? Too senile to comprehend offence and disrespect?

There are far too many mores to reasonably expect anybody not born into them to keep track of them. Mores are a lot like memes, most times you're not even going to be aware they exist.

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

If you aren't claiming that I proposed something, why say "you propose"?

you
/yoo,y/
pronoun
pronoun: you

1.
used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"are you listening?"
used to refer to the person being addressed together with other people regarded in the same class.
"you Australians"
used in exclamations to address one or more people.
"you fools"
2.
used to refer to any person in general.
"after a while, you get used to it"

This is the lamest cover for a poster mistaking somebody for another that I've seen in my great many years on the internet.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zeus posted...

lolwut? PC word choice is an irrelevant matter in general and you can't reasonably expect somebody who didn't grow up with nonsense verbiage to be able to properly parrot that nonsense verbiage.

Representatives represent, if they do not represent then they're not fit to be a representative. It's pretty simple stuff.

The PC word police are a vocal minority, not a representative sample of the population.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zeus posted...

Once again we come to the issue of whenever you get anything other than the black/white response you want, you pretend that it's not an answer.

A little racist is still racist, the question is if he's white or any shade of grey up to and including black. If the answer is grey, say "yes, but...".

Except it's not a "yes, but...".

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus, is there a reason why you wait over a week in between your replies to a topic? Are you just kind of hoping no one notices so that you can get the last word in and notch it as a victory or something?

We've gone through this a million times. I have a lot of stuff tagged at any given moment so something closer to the bottom of my queue takes longer to get back to. Given that you've heard this many times before, I'm not sure why you keep trying to advance your bullshit narrative which is ridiculous even at face value.

darkknight109 posted...

Because it's not. You literally have not answered the question of whether or not you think Trump's statement qualifies as racism or not.

Except I already have.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

LinkPizza posted...

Zeus posted...

I think he's a 70 year-old man who lived through many iterations of political correctness so he's likely to misstep by accident as he is to not give a fuck. I have to ask if you feel that the elderly -- who grew up in a vastly different era -- should be held to the same political correctness standard as kids who grew up in an age when implications are readily understood? I'm as anti-PC as they come, but even I recognize that referring to people as animals has strong racist connotations and don't use it. Likewise, if somebody in their 90s says "colored" instead of "black" I'm going to react differently than if somebody in their 20s refers to somebody as "colored" instead of "black".

He may have grown up in different times, but he probably should watch what he says when hes in a position such as the one hes in. Hes not just someones old grandpa who people can ignore. Hes in a position of power. Just because he grew up in a time where stuff like that was normal and ok doesnt mean it is now. And I would definitely hold him to the same standards. Doesnt matter what your age in is his position.

lolwut? PC word choice is an irrelevant matter in general and you can't reasonably expect somebody who didn't grow up with nonsense verbiage to be able to properly parrot that nonsense verbiage.

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

Are you one of those people who thinks people proposed things that they didn't and then gets confused when you're called out on doing that?

Nope! But you assumed that I assumed you were proposing something in your post. Instead, go back and read it as someone responding to what you said, directed at the person they were already talking to, and not directed back at you.

I wasn't saying you proposed anything, I was tying what you said back into the post that did propose something. This would be like if two people were arguing, you came up and made a comment tangentially related to that argument, one person said something in response to your comment meant to disparage the other side, and you were confused about why they were saying that, in spite of hearing the whole conversation and having the benefit of context. I mean, you didn't propose anything, someone else did, I made a direct reference to that proposition, and you still think I was accusing you of proposing something and wasn't still making fun of the other poster?

@IronicFool O rly? Then why did you literally use the words "you propose"?

IronicFool posted...

Well, if you propose that most people are stupid to explain why the president has a 45% approval rating,

If you aren't claiming that I proposed something, why say "you propose"?

darkknight109 posted...

Interesting non-answer. It's a really simple question: do you think he was being racist? Yes or no? "Yes, but..." or "No, but..." are also acceptable answers, but just saying "He's 70 years old" is a mealy-mouthed dodge.

Once again we come to the issue of whenever you get anything other than the black/white response you want, you pretend that it's not an answer. The context around certain words has changed tremendously over the decades so there's a far greater implication when younger people use them *because* those younger people grew up exclusively in an age where said words had a different connotation.

darkknight109 posted...

And to answer your own question, yes, I think people should be held to the same standard, regardless of their age.

Then you have some issues.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Are you one of those people who comes into a topic, doesn't read the whole topic, and then is confused by what's going on and thinks everyone else is off the mark?

Are you one of those people who thinks people proposed things that they didn't and then gets confused when you're called out on doing that?

darkknight109 posted...

I notice you still haven't responded in that other topic by the way, so I'll re-ask my question here: did you think Trump was being racist when he called immigrant gang members "not people" and "animals"? I mean, a lot of the Democrats thought so and you did say that "animal" and calling people less than human was a racial slur, so I'm just wondering if you agree with them that Trump was really racist.

I think he's a 70 year-old man who lived through many iterations of political correctness so he's likely to misstep by accident as he is to not give a fuck. I have to ask if you feel that the elderly -- who grew up in a vastly different era -- should be held to the same political correctness standard as kids who grew up in an age when implications are readily understood? I'm as anti-PC as they come, but even I recognize that referring to people as animals has strong racist connotations and don't use it. Likewise, if somebody in their 90s says "colored" instead of "black" I'm going to react differently than if somebody in their 20s refers to somebody as "colored" instead of "black".

slacker03150 posted...

The polls last time suggested he had a good chance. Most of the media reading the polls were the ones who thought Hilary being favored within the margin of error meant she was going to win easily. I remember a few left wing commenters screaming from the roof tops that Hillary was a weak candidate and Trump had a real shot. And even then she won the popular vote by almost 3 million. Right around what the polls were predicting. It just split in a way that favoured Trump.

The polls put Trump well-behind Hillary even though the margins were slim. It wasn't a "good chance," it was merely "some chance."
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

argonautweakend posted...

As for his chances in 2020 i really dont see him getting reelected. He won the first time by a razor thin margin. I actually feel like if that election was held again(not calling for this btw) he could lose just by how close it was.

America has a trend towards incumbency, which is a big part of why GWB and Obama enjoyed second terms. Granted, it could be a moot issue if he doesn't seek reelection.

argonautweakend posted...

Despite the OP many people in his camp have become disillusioned with him. We arent even sure if the gop itself wants him back.

The GOP members who don't want him now are the same who didn't want him in the first place.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

I'm not sure if the topic is wondering why it's not higher or why it's not lower >_>

Well, if you propose that most people are stupid to explain why the president has a 45% approval rating, I think it's safe to say you don't think it should be 45%.

What the fuck are you babbling about? @IronicFool

ParanoidObsessive posted...

People who hate him screaming about how the sky is falling every single day for the last 700+ days has basically resulted in everyone who didn't already hate him beforehand to completely tune out every single negative story about him, assuming it's either "more bullshit" or "deliberate slander".

Congratulations - the people who can't stand him the most have essentially done the most to ensure his chances of getting reelected.

This, pretty much.

darkknight109 posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

People who hate him screaming about how the sky is falling every single day for the last 700+ days has basically resulted in everyone who didn't already hate him beforehand to completely tune out every single negative story about him, assuming it's either "more bullshit" or "deliberate slander".

Congratulations - the people who can't stand him the most have essentially done the most to ensure his chances of getting reelected.

I mean, the US just had the highest midterms turnout in over 100 years and it resulted in the worst House losses for the Republican party since the aftermath of Nixon's resignation, so I'm gonna say you're probably wrong about this...

Kind of like how Republicans winning big in the house during Obama's term meant that he didn't get re-elected... oh wait...

SunWuKung420 posted...

Because this world is filled with selfish people.

Hence it not being higher?
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

I'm not sure if the topic is wondering why it's not higher or why it's not lower >_>

Right now, the economy is doing pretty good, we're somewhat winding down on wars, etc, so a large segment of the population -- the non-perpetually outraged section -- should be okay with Trump; well, if not for playing a role in the government shutdown.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

Constantine being a main cast member of Legends makes me finally want to follow the show.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

keyblader1985 posted...

And apparently Nora's gay too.

Kinda feels like half the Arrowverse is at this point..

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

olesya rulin (calista from powers. cancelled)

=(
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

keyblader1985 posted...

Someone made a good point in another thread; for all the inclusiveness and stuff that CW does, why is every one of their actors beautiful?

Makes people more likely to watch their shows >_> Plus issues like diversity just get lip service anyway because it's not something they believe in, it's a token effort under the assumption that it appeases viewers. However, most of the loudest complainants on these issues don't watch the shows and never will, they're just the perpetually outraged who entertain themselves by engaging in scandals.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

keyblader1985 posted...

Lala's plot did kind of peter out.

So Lala isn't in season 2? wtf... That season was such a mess. They had waaaaaay too much stuff going on, with no rhyme or reason to a lot of the plot threads.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

Going to probably wait for the season to wrap before watching Black Lightning s2. S1 was such a hilariously disjointed mess, but it still had its moments and Tobias was a really fun villain.

That whole subplot with the reincarnated guy was so fucking stupid. Hoping that they use him more this season because otherwise the payoff on that storyline would be even worse.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.

https://imgur.com/ioE3MNX
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.