"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
-complicated as all get-out post-
The dankest timeline is the gift that keeps on giving.
Did not understand all that, though didn't really try to. Thanks for the time you took on it, really. Just ... with Charan on it, in sentiment.
The dankest timeline is the gift that keeps on giving, I like that.
It's funny, to contrast this thread with one of the things was doing the day I posted the Sonic Fox bit: running a new worker through how to do the role. She's a young transwoman. We had a lot of fun cracking each other up. Going to enjoy having her around to subvert stuff and advocate as needed, and teach us some things, and yeah, all that complicated angry word salad, will leave to the experts.
"
Boem wrote:
Guy looks like he is having a blast with his gaming career.
I think he can seriously miss this drama, my assumption is he is timid when he is not in his public persona so no clue what the entire backstory is and if he brought this on himself?
Oh, no, Sonic Fox is in another league.
old profile.
Last edited by erdelyii#5604 on May 4, 2019, 2:08:16 PM
|
Posted byerdelyii#5604on May 4, 2019, 11:00:29 AM
|
"
erdelyii wrote:
Did not understand all that, though didn't really try to. Thanks for the time you took on it, really. Just ... with Charan on it, in sentiment.
Well of course you are; I knew that in advance. But I hoped you'd at least Sun Tzu enough to have an interest in your enemy's positions.
More than anything else, that's what I don't get about the current hyperpartisanship. It seems like with both the right-bias and left-bias media are willing to map the world on their side to a point, but any past that and the world stops, and a sign on the map says "here there be monsters." And these "monsters" are vilified. But don't they understand that this doesn't make that enemy weaker, but stronger? That dehumanizing your enemy grants them a power over you, the power of inscrutability, and with you at that disadvantage you can't even think two moves ahead?
I don't know, maybe I'm weird, but when I really hate a person or a group, I become fascinated. I want to understand how they think, obsessively. I vomited once while reading the Christchurch shooter's manifesto, then got right back into it. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying about finding certain ideas repugnant.
It's that I don't give a shit if they are.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 4, 2019, 12:20:32 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on May 4, 2019, 12:17:01 PM
|
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
Well of course you are; I knew that in advance. But I hoped you'd at least Sun Tzu enough to have an interest in your enemy's positions.
“You've got to pick your battles, Pen, but then fight to the death for the ones that matter.”
― Tiffany Schmidt, Hold Me Like a Breath
Might be the worst book ever, never heard of it, but looks like not that one of Sun Tzu's.
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
More than anything else, that's what I don't get about the current hyperpartisanship. It seems like with both the right-bias and left-bias media are willing to map the world on their side to a point, but any past that and the world stops, and a sign on the map says "here there be monsters." And these "monsters" are vilified. But don't they understand that this doesn't make that enemy weaker, but stronger? That dehumanizing your enemy grants them a power over you, the power of inscrutability, and with you at that disadvantage you can't even think two moves ahead?
I don't know, maybe I'm weird, but when I really hate a person or a group, I become fascinated. I want to understand how they think, obsessively. I vomited once while reading the Christchurch shooter's manifesto, then got right back into it. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying about finding certain ideas repugnant.
It's that I don't give a shit if they are.
Not sure where you got the idea I don't look into the abyss of what people can do every now and again. Perfectly fine with doing so, even find it fascinating, and think it's important to be aware, though I won't watch footage.
Think calling incels, for example, my enemy is forest/ trees stuff. The real enemy is whatever is making everyone so goddamn hyper attached to being right(eous).
Not just one simple entity there, it's a symptom of complicated times and a hell of a lot of disempowerment / fake entitlement wrapped in layers of flashy gadgetry and bullshit.
Even focusing on Notch is symptomatic, he's a fairly benign billionaire in the scheme of things.
Last edited by erdelyii#5604 on May 4, 2019, 1:44:03 PM
|
Posted byerdelyii#5604on May 4, 2019, 1:35:12 PM
|
|
Are you against state inforced equality of outcome erd?
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoem#2861on May 4, 2019, 1:58:58 PMOn Probation
|
"
erdelyii wrote:
Think calling incels, for example, my enemy is forest/ trees stuff.
First, MGTOW are not mere incels; they are otherwise straight men whose misogyny is so strong and uncontainable they decide to be voluntarily celibate. Or maybe you don't take them at their word and just call them incels with sour grapes post hoc reasoning (I do), but the point is that they've completely given up hope and saving up money to buy sex dolls.
Second, a little bit of not seeing the forest for the trees is one thing, but a campaign to encourage it is another. Seeing a few people on the weird side of the internet grossly misattributing relevance is no major cause for alarm, but when you see it spread by major corporatist media outlets, they're trying to distract from something.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 4, 2019, 3:28:41 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on May 4, 2019, 3:27:47 PM
|
|
I hate that Orwellian terminology (wrongthink) is misguidedly used to label progressive liberal ideas such as human rights and equality.
|
Posted byrojimboo#7480on May 4, 2019, 3:52:35 PM
|
"
rojimboo wrote:
I hate that Orwellian terminology (wrongthink) is misguidedly used to label progressive liberal ideas such as human rights and equality.
We talking equality of opportunity or outcome?
You gotta make it clear man, else people might assume your leaving the definition open and using the forefront of human rights with which all western based nations agree to push something.
I agree with the human rights charter so i must also agree with equal....wait a minute.
"
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
R.I.P. #metoo
"
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
R.I.P. affirmative action
"
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
R.I.P concept of oppressive patriarchy
I actually had a dispute about article 25 with my father, i was contemplating why women and children get a specific section dedicated to them and men don't have a section granting them special status. Not that i fundamentally disagree with the notion that mothers and children are the cornerstone of society and should be protected above all else, i just found it odd for a "human rights charter" to make this distinction and not aknowledge men in a similar fashion somewhere else.
I always see a statue of maria with baby jesus in my mind when i read this article though, it's hard ingrained in our society and like i said, for good reason.
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoem#2861on May 4, 2019, 4:29:25 PMOn Probation
|
"
Boem wrote:
"
rojimboo wrote:
I hate that Orwellian terminology (wrongthink) is misguidedly used to label progressive liberal ideas such as human rights and equality.
We talking equality of opportunity or outcome?
You gotta make it clear man, else people might assume your leaving the definition open and using the forefront of human rights with which all western based nations agree to push something.
I agree with the human rights charter so i must also agree with equal....wait a minute.
"
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
R.I.P. #metoo
"
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
R.I.P. affirmative action
"
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
R.I.P concept of oppressive patriarchy
I actually had a dispute about article 25 with my father, i was contemplating why women and children get a specific section dedicated to them and men don't have a section granting them special status. Not that i fundamentally disagree with the notion that mothers and children are the cornerstone of society and should be protected above all else, i just found it odd for a "human rights charter" to make this distinction and not aknowledge men in a similar fashion somewhere else.
I always see a statue of maria with baby jesus in my mind when i read this article though, it's hard ingrained in our society and like i said, for good reason.
Peace,
-Boem-
Not sure I would argue against any of that, though I fail to see how #metoo is RIPPED because of that article in the human rights act. It's up to the courts to decide, not the mob.
What I was trying to say (shortly, and badly I now see) is that the "We should have a straight Pride day" crowd for instance, which elevates a group of people already in the majority and all the benefits that it bestows, to something respectable and somehow 'equal' because of the absolute definition of equality.
If things were truly equal, minorities wouldn't be persecuted for who they are. The majority doesn't need defending. It never has.
But something tells me I will be lectured on how 'wrongthink' this all is, to actually aspire to equality and human rights. And they will use Orwellian terms to lecture me!! ARggggghh!
|
Posted byrojimboo#7480on May 4, 2019, 4:53:40 PM
|
"
rojimboo wrote:
Not sure I would argue against any of that, though I fail to see how #metoo is RIPPED because of that article in the human rights act. It's up to the courts to decide, not the mob.
What I was trying to say (shortly, and badly I now see) is that the "We should have a straight Pride day" crowd for instance, which elevates a group of people already in the majority and all the benefits that it bestows, to something respectable and somehow 'equal' because of the absolute definition of equality.
If things were truly equal, minorities wouldn't be persecuted for who they are. The majority doesn't need defending. It never has.
But something tells me I will be lectured on how 'wrongthink' this all is, to actually aspire to equality and human rights. And they will use Orwellian terms to lecture me!! ARggggghh!
You know people's live have been socially destroyed by metoo right?
I linked article 11 and 12 for a reason.
And please, define majority for me. What majority we talking about here that is so homogeneous that they experience no obstacles in their life to overcome?
Also i asked a question, equality of opportunity or outcome?
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoem#2861on May 4, 2019, 5:17:43 PMOn Probation
|
"
Boem wrote:
"
rojimboo wrote:
Not sure I would argue against any of that, though I fail to see how #metoo is RIPPED because of that article in the human rights act. It's up to the courts to decide, not the mob.
What I was trying to say (shortly, and badly I now see) is that the "We should have a straight Pride day" crowd for instance, which elevates a group of people already in the majority and all the benefits that it bestows, to something respectable and somehow 'equal' because of the absolute definition of equality.
If things were truly equal, minorities wouldn't be persecuted for who they are. The majority doesn't need defending. It never has.
But something tells me I will be lectured on how 'wrongthink' this all is, to actually aspire to equality and human rights. And they will use Orwellian terms to lecture me!! ARggggghh!
You know people's live have been socially destroyed by metoo right?
THat's why there are laws against slander.
"
And please, define majority for me.
Straight vs gay people.
"
What majority we talking about here that is so homogeneous that they experience no obstacles in their life to overcome?
Strawman, never said that.
Just that people in the majority, don't encounter many of the obstacles minorities.
It's just the way of the world, always has been. The majority bullies the minority to no end. Which is why the strong need to defend the less strong minority.
"
Also i asked a question, equality of opportunity or outcome?
I don't know what you're saying. With regard to what?
Ok I read the wikipedia article about equality of opportunity, and I would be a proponent of the substantive variation model of equality of opportunity, i.e. if a candidate for a job had been unfairly disadvantaged in the past, I would likely support a quota system.
Depends who and what though, but in general it would make sense for me.
As to equality of outcomes, what do you mean? In terms of...? Political theory?
As a Finnish person, I would probably also champion equality of outcomes in terms of politics, due to supporting things like progressive taxation and a welfare state and free higher education for all.
Heh, you learn something new everyday.
|
Posted byrojimboo#7480on May 4, 2019, 5:41:40 PM
|
