Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
This sounds like the start of a conspiracy.
Stock in FLM rose 3.2%, presumably driven up by speculators.
The two of the three leading candidates for Labour leader have signed a document being circulated that brands the LGB Alliance and Women's Place UK*1 as hate groups because of their views on the trans issue. Said candidates have had support in the last few days from (Labour) Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, as well as LGBT+ Conservatives (though obviously the Tories were much more euphemistic about who they were supporting against whom).
I mean, this probably isn't on the level of Britain First or something, but that's basically the implication. So, uh, that's quite disheartening to me.
I mean people cheered when Lisa Nandy said they would stop correctly identifying people's sex at the point of committing a crime*2 (and then there's the prison's issue).
I really never though that when this enby stuff started in "queer" circles it would ever get this... big.
In other news, it is apparently LGBT+all that other stuff history month in the UK! to go with Pride Month later in the year, because by 2030 every month will be in support of some sexual or sex-based minority.
1*Despite it's clear lack of neutrality, I find it necessary to link to this interview with a Women's Place UK member just so you can understand why this is so absolutely strange (at the very least, it's going overboard). Even if you don't click on it, I should at least mention how often lesbians are getting kicked out of Pride parades (it's getting quite weird). To be fair, I think socialism is the worst (I mean except for communism, which is more the worst), and this lady is a socialist activist, so that sort of balances it out on one axis of political allegiance.
2*I tried to find a neutral source for this, but every one of them basically also agrees with my position, which I feel is poisoning the well more than I already have with that interview. You can find whatever by googling (but probably Duck Duck Go it instead, maybe the results will be less skewed).
> In other news, it is apparently LGBT+all that other stuff history month in the UK! to go with Pride Month later in the year, because by 2030 every month will be in support of some sexual or sex-based minority.
I'm pretty sure the calendar has already been filled many times over by various organizations (governmental and nongovernmental) declaring "national [topic] [time unit]".
> I think socialism is the worst (I mean except for communism, which is more the worst)
On a tangent, since when did you become a bigger socialism hater than Stormtroper? It seems recent.
I considered starting a new thread (I certainly wasn't going to revive the old thread I started as I'm embarrassed by practically every post I made in it) but decided it could go here instead.
This is complicated-ish? There was this thing about modern China and appeasement re:the Uyghur concentration camps and then I just started reading a lot of disparate issues which led to almost post- to post-Soviet Eastern Europe, which if I had nightmares about things I read about I would certainly be having nightmares about.
Yeah, plus, it'd be hard to hate socialism more than Stormtroper.
I don't approve of most of those either.
To expand on this. As a capitalist, I feel like the government should act like Unreal Engine 4 in relation to companies (I think I've already argued this). Everything is built on UE4, but the makes of UE4 don't choose how the product is built, and have no say on what that product is. Of course, anything made on UE4 must be within the limits of UE4.
Sometimes there can be a bit more input, especially where it's clear that something untoward is happening. Here, I don't mean instituting green targets that will stifle growth or a bevy of other regulations (many of which are built as barriers to entry for existing participants in a market and quickly institute unnecessary-but-lucrative administration growth). I mean consumer and direct stakeholder protections.
So... don't dump that toxic waste in the sewer, cause no-one needs IRL Ninja Turtles. In areas where the average person needs a bit more assistance (ie. financing), make things as easy to understand as possible, and advertise honestly. Either that or spend more on making citizens a bit more keen to assess claims, probably whilst they're in school (it's surprising how much time students spend being graded and they're never presented with a situation where they can grade an advertising claim instead, that'd be fun).
Anyways, I actually came in here to post about that article about adult film I talked about a while ago. Outside of the (extremely dubious, but frequently rolled out) arguments on the exploitation/trafficking of women (and men) in the adult film industry, there was something odd that clicked for me today.
Conservatism is all about personal responsibility, yet the conservative argument for banning adult film is an extremely systematized one. There are a lot of these sites, giving men constant highs from one video to the next, and a lot of them feature plotlines with dubious morals (re: faux-incest, torture, etc).
Yet somehow the conservative argument isn't:
*Be selective in your adult film viewings
*Develop a respect for the performers and don't watch objectionable material
*Watch much less adult film in the sense that you watch the same videos over and over rather than constantly shopping out for new material
I mean, of course, now I start sounding like GMH (or Richard Dawkins) as I clinically attempt to address the Conservative Position for Responsible Adult Film Viewing.
It seems your analogy is "everyone should be able to do what they want, within the framework given by the government, but the government shouldn't choose what people do", which is sort of a self contradictory statement in some ways (and of course those ways are exactly what get people to argue), but I don't really see how this is related to UE4 as opposed to basically any other open-use game engine ever (e.g. Game Maker, Ren'py, RPG Maker, Unity, OHRRPGCE, etc.).
For what it's worth, conservatives may hold personal responsibility as an important principle/oft-referenced meme nowadays, but it's certainly not always been this way, and conservative lawmakers are pretty much just readily willing legislate their own sense of morality by force onto others...showing that their actual priority is to be proponents of what they feel are traditional values, and personal responsibility is only important so much as it fits into that value scheme.
Also I didn't know UE has an open source version; if so that's pretty cool.
(is it being open-source an analogy to democracy?)
This only applies if you assume all three things apply at once with equal measure, rather than in sequential order.
So:
Most Important: Government framework, which is mainly to ensure peace, law and order, maybe some incentives (small incentives!)
Next Most Important: People set up businesses
Next Most Important After That: Government should intervene when necessary
Well, I find that a good way to approach this is by changing social norms. "Personal responsibility" tends to run counter to "Do what you want".
That is, in order to attract more people to the family values or traditional values view, you show them it's various benefits (something that linking conservatism to an unquestioning view of religion basically decimated as an option for a long time).
Legislating it leads to lots of stupidity (take my business view and apply to like, anything else), as the/any government really shouldn't be involved in most things. However, you should do things that are good for you, and society shouldn't coddle you for your bad ideas and or actions.
I'm guessing that the left so easily mobilizes because it calls upon all the rebels who wish to change something (from the basic empathetic case to the unwilling-to-budge protester) and brings them together. People who want things to stay as they are tend to also be the sort who won't stir the pot even as things start going sideways.
I've also heard elsewhere that the right just isn't any good as sloganeering because they've somehow become more concerned about the end implications of blanket statements.
I'm surprised you say this because it's rather well-known that Dem-leaning voters are more inconsistent than Repub-leaning voters, and trying to get liberals/progressives/Democrats/etc. to agree on stuff has been characterized by politics geeks as "herding cats".
> I've also heard elsewhere that the right just isn't any good as sloganeering because they've somehow become more concerned about the end implications of blanket statements.
Similarly, I've heard the exact opposite, to the extent that "left" can be equated with liberals/progressives/Democrats in the United States -- it's Republicans who come up with catchy ideas that sound good on paper and it's Democrats who are stuck with holding the bag trying to explain why they don't work in actual policy or why reality is actually more complicated and nuanced.
Maybe the feeling is mutual? lol
> Government should intervene when necessary
You can probably guess that the disagreements are in the words "when necessary".
sidenotes:
> Yeah I mean, nobody's making Kingdom Hearts II using RPG Maker.
Well Unity is one of the more common and versatile ones so I would probably have picked that one if I had to pick a generic game engine.
> society shouldn't coddle you for your bad ideas and or actions.
This is really tangenty, but...
This statement is an example (among others) of a broad ideological principle that conservatives/Republican cite in a very broad, flavor-based, and unsubstantive way to support/oppose policy proposals, ignoring the specifics of the proposal. This behavior isn't limited to conservatives/Republicans, of course; progressives/liberals/Democrats (i.e. folks on my side of the aisle) cite this sort of thing too, and it's particularly annoying when they shoot down good policy ideas or promising candidates over these sorts of ideological complaints.
I call this "flavor-based" because it's based on how a general policy idea (or candidate or whatever) "feels". Alternatively, one can say it's like reacting to cooties. In other words:
1. policy idea/candidate X feels like (or is otherwise associated with) thing/person/institution/ideological label Y
2. thing/person/institution/ideological label Y is considered bad
3. therefore policy idea/candidate X is bad
This not only is a logical fallacy, but it also (1) pushes policy ideas and candidate positions toward extremes and pushes policy presentations toward the needlessly dramatic, as more nuanced proposals get criticized for being insufficiently strong or otherwise have unsexy (often wordy) presentations (despite actual bills and laws containing all the details in full legal force, devils-in-the-details and all), and (2) makes it nigh-impossible to actually discuss anything with a person who acts like this, apart from prompts for them to expound further on their worldview and opinions.
One could also say that this is associated with a "normative" approach to politics -- i.e., seeing politics and political expression as a way to further one's desired "norms" or value-ideas (and in this case, not being particularly strategic about it either) -- rather than a problem-solving approach to policy-making, which (pardon me expressing my own norm here) is in my opinion far more prudent and practical.
I don't understand why you would talk about my human society based argument in the context of lots and lots of political issues, because (surprisingly enough) this isn't political at all.
I mean to address it anyways; there are many truths, but there is certainly not a truth about the entire body of government. Therefore, all we can do is take approaches and further the ones that work (which, I guess, is a truth, but also probably not the only truth that would lead to said outcomes*) at the time they're required.
*Which brings me to, I guess, nobody ever praises what works for why it works and how other things could work too. As soon as it works, it's like, hey, why even bother ever discussing it again (aside from when we need it for political brownie points). Then later, somebody decides it doesn't work because nobody really defended it, and it's replaced with something daft.
I'm not sure how explicit I have to be about "all the rebels" and defining the wide spectrum majority of issues "(from the basic empathetic case to the unwilling-to-budge protester)" and approaches before it's obvious that I was clearly incorporating this into my statement.
Left-leaning people are "mobilized" not as a single force at all times, but by their various impulses. If you are empathetic and wish to help others, you mobilize. If you are a rebel looking to break the system open by force, you mobilize.
Literally every single popular political hashtag is based in the left sphere of things.
However, I am not going to debate "The Right is Full of Nonsense and the Left Fixes Things" or "The Left is Full of Nonsense and the Right Fixes Things" based on the term "sloganeering". Sloganeering is getting your message into a cute little bow that can easily be picked up and spread through the cultural consciousness, it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of policy.
Nobody is making Kingdom Hearts III or Batman: Arkham Asylum or Tekken 7 or Call of Duty 90: Duty of the Called to Duty in Unity.
That is to say, there are probably systems of government that would make democracy look daft, but we're not using any of them, nor do we really know of them since they're extremely obscure.
That's why I mentioned that my thought was tangential. My point was to address the use of of broad statements of normative principles about society/morals/etc. as a way to stake out political positions which in turn drive policy proposals, as opposed to a "let's get into the nitty gritty details and figure out what policy is needed" approach.
> nobody ever praises what works for why it works and how other things could work too. As soon as it works, it's like, hey, why even bother ever discussing it again (aside from when we need it for political brownie points).
I definitely agree that this is a phenomenon and not one that I like. First time I heard about this with regards to policy, I remember the example was about water managers -- if anyone has comments on their work, then something has gone horribly wrong. Of course this doesn't just happen in the field of policy; it sorta applies to a whole bunch of things in life that we take for granted. A similar joke exists for engineers: do something right and one gets a plaque on the wall; do something wrong and there's hell to pay.
Not really sure what examples you're thinking of where something gets replaced by "something daft", but that's probably because I'm thinking of technical nitty-gritty at the moment right now, where stuff just can't be replaced by daftness at all.
> I'm not sure how explicit I have to be about "all the rebels" and defining the wide spectrum majority of issues "(from the basic empathetic case to the unwilling-to-budge protester)" and approaches before it's obvious that I was clearly incorporating this into my statement.
I've read this paragraph several times and I'm not sure what it means, nor how it contradicts what I wrote. If you're trying to describe characteristics distinctive to left-leaners, I don't see how those are particularly distinctive (see below).
> Left-leaning people are "mobilized" not as a single force at all times, but by their various impulses. If you are empathetic and wish to help others, you mobilize. If you are a rebel looking to break the system open by force, you mobilize.
The first sentence here describes basically all ideological groups. It certainly characterizes both "left-leaners" and "right-leaners" (at least to the extent these two categories can be equated to liberals and conservatives in the United States), and is very much not unique to either side.
As for the rest of the paragraph, perhaps it could be argued that liberals are more empathetic or that conservatives are more likely to prefer the social order (and thus not be "rebels"), but the general description "mobilized by various impulses" definitely characterizes issue activists on both sides of the aisle.
And as of late, identifying as "rebels" has been increasingly popular on the right-leaning side here, for two separate reasons, one being the meme that there's some sort of vast conspiratorial order hating on right-wing views, and the other being invoking the Confederacy. (Though the latter is not really "as of late" as much as "has been a thing for decades now".)
> Literally every single popular political hashtag is based in the left sphere of things.
Definitely not the case, but I'm gonna leave it at that since I'm not inclined to dig up commentary on the relative frequency of various hashtags.
Anyways, v2:
Ah, I see.
Why would you respond to the first sentence of a paragraph, especially since you responded to the rest anyways? #_#
Plus, I already said:
Anyways:
I mean in tactical terms, a rebel is somebody who kicks up the establishment. However, it doesn't really work for sociocultural norms since these are people mostly working to return to the previous set of norms which were very, very recently upended. I mean, being a family-focused mom or a strict-attitude-first, feelings-not-very-often dad might not be typical anymore, but they aren't going to become rebellious positions to hold any time soon.
The stereotypical 1950s nuclear family may be an ideal held by some conservatives here (as well as some liberals, for that matter), but their political activities these days don't seem to emphasize it as a priority.
> norms which were very, very recently upended
The "upending" (in the sense of social change) was not a one-off recent event but a gradual process that occurs inevitably with time anyway.
(Just last night my mom was complaining about someone not picking up their cell phone, and ironically it was I who remarked "how did people survive before cell phones were ubiquious?".)
edit: i will probably get a mouthful in response to my "gradual process" comment
I don't see how my statement implies otherwise. I feel like I'd have needed to say something really specific like "upended all at once" for this to work. By "very recently", I mean possibly my entire life (or I guess even just 2010-2019), when compared to the arc of what constitutes modern society.
I mean, stuff's ramped up recently, but that's after most of the norms were already upended.
Ben Shapiro, who I assume is at the very least a conservative commentator of note, will not shut up about it.
By the way:
The highlighted bit is a really inflammatory way to phrase:
Anyways, I have no doubt that we've all visited BuzzFeedNews, Vox, HuffPo, Slate, Salon, etc once or twice without hesitation, but when was the last time you saw a link to The Daily Wire, or (if this even ever happens) National Review and didn't think twice before clicking on it, or thought less of the person who had posted it?
Even Wikipedia's articles on Vox vs HuffPo vs The Daily Wire are... a bit odd:
*????
Also, I did not actually know that DW's Alexa ranking was only slightly lower than HuffPo's, or that Vox's was in the four-digits. So, well, thanks Wikipedia!
Meanwhile, I'm talking about conservatives here shacking up with nutcase "opinions" like insisting that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. And then when people ignore such nutcase ideas, claiming that there's a conspiracy to silence such ideas.
> National Review
I've actually seen that come up more often as search results.
> Even Wikipedia's articles on Vox vs HuffPo vs The Daily Wire are... a bit odd:
...are you seriously trying to argue that Wikipedia is less nice in how it phrases an indication of a political lean for liberal-leaning sites?
Full Frontal is a The Daily Show type... show, where opinion is mixed with snark, and I think it's clear here what's what.
Unless you need me to also post the video.
I've seen some of the videos that are clipertised here and they're basically nothing like that (though I mean, the Boy Scouts is over now).
So, if you happen to agree with somebody who in turn believes some outrageous things, you deserve to be blocked from public discussions? Isn't this what the whole "Retweet=/=Endorsement" thing is even for?
I mean, Elizabeth Warren associates with Saira Rao, and Bernie Sanders certainly isn't distancing himself from Linda Sarsour. And nobody is distancing themselves from Rashida Tlaib, who loves that whole 'Blood Libel' thing. Or, for that matter, Ayanna Presley and her all out insanity (here she is, articulating "Stay in your lane!" type tribalism as loudly and as... proudly(?), as possible).
Also update your references! The Obama thing passed long ago, the thing now is how Ilhan Omar married her brother (for immigration purposes, not incesty reasons).
I mean, everybody has good, super-intelligent friends who have terrible ideas.
It's news to me that apparently people (human beings!) ignore nutcase ideas.
I'd assume there would be a rule for writing out political leanings in a clear concise way that would mean I wouldn't ever have to assume these things at all.
I've never seen Wikipedia bend itself backward to avoid saying anything like it apparently does for the term "left wing". I'm not saying there's a vast conspiracy here, but I am saying some editors don't like the term, and they have more influence than anybody who cares about the Daily Wire because culture has moved in that direction.
And the only part of this statement that I can't verify is "growing". The rest of it is...not exactly in doubt? It's pretty clear what its intent is -- to present ideas that they consider correct, in an educational format.
> So, if you happen to agree with somebody who in turn believes some outrageous things, you deserve to be blocked from public discussions?
No; rather, the nutcase ideas simply ought to be described, correctly, as nutcase ideas, rather than parroted and used to raise seemingly-legitimate hay about things.
> Rashida Tlaib, who loves that whole 'Blood Libel' thing
It took me a whole hour to wade through the litany of
right-wingconservative-leaning"edited from a right-wing political perspective" sources to find the actual source of this, rather than getting it nth-hand.https://www.adl.org/blog/61-of-americans-agree-with-an-anti-semitic-stereotype-rep-tlaib-called-on-to-apologize-for
This post links a Fox News story as well as a tweet from Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League.
The linked tweet from Mr. Greenblatt is this:
https://twitter.com/JGreenblattADL/status/1221425798395191296
This in turn leads to the following article from the Jerusalem Post: https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Tlaib-retweets-unverified-claim-Israelis-killed-Palestinian-boy-615319
And that in turn displays the following tweet:
https://twitter.com/EylonALevy/status/1221092381845598210
Assuming the picture is correct (which I will do for now since it was cited by Mr. Greenblatt)...
1. Note how it's an expression of sadness in reaction to a tragedy, not an endorsement of revenge nor anything of that sort.
2. Note how it's actually a retweet of a retweet.
3. The person being retweeted, DrHananAshrawi, subsequently noted the inaccuracy of the claim: https://twitter.com/DrHananAshrawi/status/1221067911491739651 . (I haven't yet found the link to the original retweet from DrHananAshrawi, so I haven't yet personally verified that it's gone, but I've found people saying that it's been deleted.)
4. And if all that wasn't enough to show just how off-the-mark this was...
Here is the (intentionally unlinked) URL of the original tweet: twitter .com/bitarreal/status/1221015153510113280
Here is ADL's own page describing, in detail, with examples, what this "blood libel" idea actually is: https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/blood-libel
Even the original tweet has literally nothing to do with this idea, other than the fact that a child died. (Note how even the inaccurately-claimed cause of death does not match the "blood libel" motive either.)
Anyhow, how retweeting a reaction retweet indicating sadness gets turned into "loves the whole 'Blood Libel' thing"...well, it looks like a scary game of telephone.
> I'd assume there would be a rule for writing out political leanings in a clear concise way that would mean I wouldn't ever have to assume these things at all.
I don't see anything worth assuming. The pages you gave as examples rather clearly indicate the political leanings of each of the three publications.
Furthermore, in the actual pages (as opposed to your quotes) there's rather clear links to the articles "American liberalism", "Left-wing", "Conservatism in the United States", and "Right-wing". If a reader wants the meat of the content, that's where it is anyway.
when you used to be the resident non-leftie
and now you're at best third in line
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/political-hobbyists-are-ruining-politics/605212/
TL;DR: Some people are actually getting involved in politics and helping with stuff their local communities and such; people who argue about politics are not these people, but instead are "political hobbyists" (at least when they are arguing), who "learn about and talk about big important things", and engage in a "arlor game in which they debate the issues on their abstract merits". And, by my paraphrasing: they suck.
The article is mainly aimed at criticizing people here in the U.S. whose political opinions lean Democratic and who engage in this sort of armchair involvement (my term, not that author's) -- and I certainly agree with this criticism regarding people whose -- or perhaps more accurately, online personas whose -- main focus seems to be opining about their pet issue/viewpoint/candidate/gripe, many of whom I do see in places like Twitter or the Dem-leaning political circles I visit.
Though, despite the article's focus on people who lean Dem, the same could be said of anyone who displays a similar pattern of behavior, regardless of ideology.
I can't easily verify whether these people are arguing in addition to or instead of being active in political organizations, though the way they seem (according to my observations) to have lots of opinions about national-level issues but not much to say about local issues suggests to me this author's claim might be merited. And these are probably a self-selected group anyway -- those people who would define themselves by their involvement in local policy/political efforts are not likely to be the same people as those whose twitter profile is a series of hashtags indicating positions on national/international issues of the day.
(Meanwhile, I'm probably a weirdo, being an elections geek with an interest in the small-scale, but pretty much summarily ignoring the day-to-day drama at the national level -- to the point where my mom is more on top of said drama than I am, whereas I'm content to wait for the dust to settle and to diffuse in my general direction.)
I mean, obviously as you'll see this is the only thing I haven't personally researched in my post, so it was misguided of me to just add it in there because I was on a roll.
However, Rashida Tlaib does have sympathies with anti-semitic arguments, and she can stray into that lane herself sometimes. Double however, it's completely understandable why she does, since she has family in Palestine and has seen first hand the tactics the Israeli government uses. But, that doesn't excuse her lack of tolerance, especially in her capacity and public image as an elected official.
I mean, I remember that she refused to go on a bipartisan trip to Israel, opting to elect for her own trip with (possibly the associates of? can't remember) an anti-Israel organization. I'm not sure about the details, but the implication was that this group was allowed into Israel before, but her trip was refused (on valid grounds), which she then complained about very loudly.
Al Jazeera interviewed her grandmother, who essentially praised her granddaughter's temerity. Personally, if that was my grandmother, I'd take what I could get in terms of visitation, even without the obvious (and in my opinion, good) olive branch she'd be offering the Israeli government.
Give me some leeway here, but this sounds like scare tactics to me. I don't know if you've observed parents, GMH, but they tend to freak out when somebody attempts to "circumvent" them. But, you know who hasn't been accused of circumventing parents with harmful ideas? Teen Vogue.
(I actually had to type the a-word for that second result to come up and now I feel like washing my mouth out with soap).
[as he's swimming against the tide of his own] I'm a classical liberalist I swear!
I think you'll find that black characters are a form of hispanic genocice (I'd look up the representation-to-population argument this is based on but I'm joking here and it's pretty loopy so nope).
One thing I've learned (at school, no less*) is that not only must you act in an unbiased way, you must act in a way that doesn't leave you open to accusations of bias.
I'm not saying:
This isn't true, I'm just saying that instituting a rule across all articles on modern political sites wouldn't hurt.
Well, yeah, I've explained before how this is basically a hobby of mine and... I like it, uh... yeah?
Though to be fair your position of "I'll just wait for everybody else to figure it out" is probably not winning any medals either.
Also, GMH, somehow, somehow, yet again, I'm in the position of "Get up, prepare for the day, settle in to long reply post to GMH". Can we approach a wrap up of some sort? Maybe just an agreement to disagree?
Also also, if you press Ctrl+Q it quotes all highlighted text.
*I feel like I should mention that this was part of a wider lesson on plausible deniability and legal defenses, so it wasn't some sort of ethical thing based on being honest for honesty's sake.
My guess based on what I've read and otherwise known about her is that the organization was probably a pro-Palestinian-statehood organization, and the current hardliners in power in Israel (is Bibi and his party still in power? if so, then, yes) have some beef with that.
Then again, basically everything going on there can be summed up with "it's complicated" and "unless I have a good reason, I don't want to touch it without a 20-foot pole, because there is hell to pay regardless of whatever opinion I express (or don't) on it". Oh, and also "everyone in this situation is human; no one should forget this", except everyone keeps forgetting this anyway.
> One thing I've learned (at school, no less*) is that not only must you act in an unbiased way, you must act in a way that doesn't leave you open to accusations of bias.
One thing I've learned from arguing on the internet
and with my parentsis that (1) I can use appearances of bias or lack thereof as rhetorical devices to make my point, or (2) I can just not give a shit (even if I know full well how to) and say what I want and eat the flak later. (And then the *ahem* funniest situations are when I genuinely don't know something or don't have a specific opinion, but someone assumes I do because I didn't state some proxy information the way they expected a person who thinks a certain way would do.)> plausible deniability and legal defenses
You can't see my face but I have an evil grin in reaction to this phrase.
> Though to be fair your position of "I'll just wait for everybody else to figure it out" is probably not winning any medals either.
Well, yeah, you're not wrong. Though I get fewer headaches by giving fewer fucks.
(...wait...that came out wrong...)
> "Get up, prepare for the day, settle in to long reply post to GMH".
i guess this means i should not go and gigantpost a reply to the rest of the stuff you posted*Florida Man continues contemplating a bad idea despite knowing full well it is a bad idea*(Honestly, I think we both agree that neither of us has been enjoying this. Though one ironic result was that, since I'm expecting a wall of infuriating text to face me when I visit the forum, I'm less likely to visit it to procrastinate. ...which just means I find something else. The well is sadly bottomless.)
> Also also, if you press Ctrl+Q it quotes all highlighted text.
Ooh, this is actually really nifty; I didn't know this worked. Thanks for the tip.