No, that's false. For example, I was for gay marriage back when you were using dishonest arguments against it on MiseTings
POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
that's the new jon stewart, right? also stop being a dick, doug
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
only i can be irritating
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
In case that wasn't surrealism, you're thinking of Trevor Noah. But if that was surrealism then my rofl stands
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
oh i was actually thinking of tucker. i'm not great with namesDoug wrote:In case that wasn't surrealism, you're thinking of Trevor Noah. But if that was surrealism then my rofl stands
edit - which one is sean hannity
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Hannity is the one nobody knows who he is, certainly not Dantes
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
sean hannity is apparently in a lowly fourth place for most watched cable news show by democrats aged 18 to 54, just [barely] behind maddow and the five, whatever that is
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Hannity is this boring and dry pundit who has been on Fox News for a long time. He's like, the dad humor of these news opinion hosts
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
And Tucker Carlson isn't the new Jon Stewart. Tucker Carlson is the new Tucker Carlson. Now, I know that sounds specious, but it actually means much more than it first appears. See, Tucker Carlson used to be on Crossfire a long time ago. That was this show that had a left guy and a right guy argue about everything. Eventually, Crossfire died out (this has to do with Jon Stewart, in a small way, actually!). But Tucker Carlson found a home on Fox News. Now he's still the right half of Crossfire, but without a left half to argue with, and also he's like 10 times ruder and snider now. So I say he really is the new himself
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
THAT IS AN ELDEN RING QUOTE
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Here's an interesting timeline of Twitter re: free speech that this person has put together
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/04/tw ... -politics/In the wake of Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, many commentators bemoaned Musk’s promises to end censorship on the platform. In so doing, these writers have spun a revisionist narrative. It alleges that, after 2016, Twitter nobly attempted to engage in responsible, politically neutral “content moderation” aimed narrowly at preventing threats and harassment. But now, supposedly, Musk’s purchase threatens to undo the platform’s “progress” in enhancing “user safety” and promoting civility.
This narrative, however, is baseless. In reality, Twitter’s practices and public statements on free speech changed dramatically around 2016, from a position of stringently defending the free speech rights of its users to bemoaning the entire concept. Indeed, Twitter’s post-2016 efforts at “content moderation” have been shot through with political bias, both at the policy and enforcement level.
Until about five years ago, Twitter took a nearly absolutist position in defending the free expression of its users and disavowing censorship of any sort — one similar to the position taken by Musk today. At the policy level, Twitter promised its users that “we do not actively monitor user’s content and will not censor user content, except in limited circumstances” such as impersonation, violation of trademark or copyright, or “direct, specific threats of violence against others.”
Twitter’s public statements were likewise unequivocal. In 2012, Twitter’s then-vice president declared, “We are the free speech wing of the free speech party.” Twitter’s chief legal officer stated that same year, “We should not and cannot be in the business of proactively monitoring and flagging content, no matter who the user is.”
Twitter fought compliance with even criminal subpoenas seeking user posts, and The New York Times said the company “has deftly built something of a reputation for protecting free speech, even unpopular speech.” The Times praised Twitter for sticking to its “principles,” noting that “other companies” like Yahoo and Google had “repeatedly stumbled on issues of free speech and privacy,” such as by compromising user anonymity, which “can endanger dissidents and others with unpopular opinions.”
The Shift Began in Late 2015
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
This is easy.
The books that most closely impacted my thinking were John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government (which I struggled through in high school debate), Lord of the Flies, Anthem, The End of Eternity, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, 1984, Foundation, and the Bible. I have a fundamentally negative view of human nature. I think we're selfish, daring, greedy, noble, wrathful, inspiring, and fallen creatures who are capable of great evil and great sacrifice.
I think in our natural state we are little better than animals blessed by nature with the curse of intelligence.
I think over the millennia we have managed to accumulate, discover, or otherwise cobble together some very useful tools that have managed to greatly distance us from the rest of the animals. Among those tools are Free Inquiry, Free Speech, Free Association, Language, Free Religion, Equality Under Law, Science, Math, the Written word, and etc. The basic building blocks of our world.
I have a real problem with Progressives today, because all I see are progressives trying to throw all that out in favor of new fad ideas that they keep chasing.
I have a real problem with Republicans today because they are not conserving these terribly important things. They're too busy sacrificing these things in a desperate attempt to cling to power, to own the libs, or to suck up to Trump.
I am a small "l" liberal who believes deeply in the need to conserve the tools of the Enlightenment. They are desperately important to the continued flourishing of the human race. I am terrified for the future because neither 'side' of our politics is interested in protecting these vitally important things.
I tend to vote Republican over Democrat because they're more likely to incidentally protect the actual important things (mostly through the Federalist Society), but I have almost nothing in common with either party.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Well I read Lord of the Flies, but I wouldn't call it a blueprint for political thoughtDantes wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 9:34 pm The books that most closely impacted my thinking were John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government (which I struggled through in high school debate), Lord of the Flies, Anthem, The End of Eternity, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, 1984, Foundation, and the Bible. I have a fundamentally negative view of human nature. I think we're selfish, daring, greedy, noble, wrathful, inspiring, and fallen creatures who are capable of great evil and great sacrifice.
lol that was just a joke obviously you wouldn't either
I have a natural view of human nature. That is, human nature to the extent that it is nature, is neither good nor bad. Your instincts developed out of necessity. They are neither good nor evil. They just are. They are anthropological realities. Humanity is not fallen. It just is.
A person can be good or evil, but this has nothing to do with nature. Good and evil specifically are what is non-natural, or post-natural
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
It's fun to tell stories. :)Dantes wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 9:34 pmThis is easy.
The books that most closely impacted my thinking were John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government (which I struggled through in high school debate), Lord of the Flies, Anthem, The End of Eternity, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, 1984, Foundation, and the Bible. I have a fundamentally negative view of human nature. I think we're selfish, daring, greedy, noble, wrathful, inspiring, and fallen creatures who are capable of great evil and great sacrifice.
I think in our natural state we are little better than animals blessed by nature with the curse of intelligence.
I think over the millennia we have managed to accumulate, discover, or otherwise cobble together some very useful tools that have managed to greatly distance us from the rest of the animals. Among those tools are Free Inquiry, Free Speech, Free Association, Language, Free Religion, Equality Under Law, Science, Math, the Written word, and etc. The basic building blocks of our world.
I have a real problem with Progressives today, because all I see are progressives trying to throw all that out in favor of new fad ideas that they keep chasing.
I have a real problem with Republicans today because they are not conserving these terribly important things. They're too busy sacrificing these things in a desperate attempt to cling to power, to own the libs, or to suck up to Trump.
I am a small "l" liberal who believes deeply in the need to conserve the tools of the Enlightenment. They are desperately important to the continued flourishing of the human race. I am terrified for the future because neither 'side' of our politics is interested in protecting these vitally important things.
I tend to vote Republican over Democrat because they're more likely to incidentally protect the actual important things (mostly through the Federalist Society), but I have almost nothing in common with either party.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Dantes is someone who had a really fragile, uncertain concept of himself ~25 years ago and he formed a personality around a belief system based on this particular aesthetic of media that was ~just~ counterculture and edgy enough, with the proper dash of intellectualism that was contrarian to "elite" academia. Except, this is just a suit he likes to put on, and you can tell that's all it is, because he consistently baits people into "asking" for him to define it, even though they absolutely didn't. I can't even count how many times he's gone to that "if you don't know what I believe, you must not be paying attention" and then this is just a stepping stone to him explaining it again for the umpteenth time, regardless of whether the person actually asks or not.
There's also this thing where most of what he lists as defining his core beliefs is fiction. This is because humans like stories and they especially like stories they tell themselves that make them feel secure and safe. See, Dantes thinks of himself as a fallen, selfish creature, but he is redeemed by his intelligence. This is why he and Doug clash, even though they probably agree on a lot of political things. Doug gives zero fucks about intellectualism, even outright rejects it as amoral or anti-moral depending on the source, and he won't validate Dantes Pseudo-Intellectual, Libertarian, Above-the-Fray persona that he so desperately wants to embody. And it's such a lazy moral framework, because it reduces things he dislikes into easily digestible narratives of good and evil, avoiding nuance that would expose this rickety structure. When challenged in any way, after the first few stabs at asserting his childish worldview fail, he retreats into accusing the other person of bad faith and grandstands outrage until the subject has changed and the danger of being exposed passes.
It's apparent through this repetition of the same stock phrases, the go-to comparisons. The second he can't engage with an idea through these prepared, overused lenses of comic books, novels, or limited philosophy, he's unable to say anything original. Repeating yourself for 20+ years doesn't make you consistent, it makes you empty. Some people are very good at finding stories that make them feel happy and safe, so they cling to them to keep self-soothing, "It's okay, the narrative. Shh, the narrative, it's okay."
I think he's still a really fragile, uncertain person.
There's also this thing where most of what he lists as defining his core beliefs is fiction. This is because humans like stories and they especially like stories they tell themselves that make them feel secure and safe. See, Dantes thinks of himself as a fallen, selfish creature, but he is redeemed by his intelligence. This is why he and Doug clash, even though they probably agree on a lot of political things. Doug gives zero fucks about intellectualism, even outright rejects it as amoral or anti-moral depending on the source, and he won't validate Dantes Pseudo-Intellectual, Libertarian, Above-the-Fray persona that he so desperately wants to embody. And it's such a lazy moral framework, because it reduces things he dislikes into easily digestible narratives of good and evil, avoiding nuance that would expose this rickety structure. When challenged in any way, after the first few stabs at asserting his childish worldview fail, he retreats into accusing the other person of bad faith and grandstands outrage until the subject has changed and the danger of being exposed passes.
It's apparent through this repetition of the same stock phrases, the go-to comparisons. The second he can't engage with an idea through these prepared, overused lenses of comic books, novels, or limited philosophy, he's unable to say anything original. Repeating yourself for 20+ years doesn't make you consistent, it makes you empty. Some people are very good at finding stories that make them feel happy and safe, so they cling to them to keep self-soothing, "It's okay, the narrative. Shh, the narrative, it's okay."
I think he's still a really fragile, uncertain person.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
maybe you should find a story that makes you happy instead of one that makes you miserable
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
can you do one for meYoss wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 11:26 pm Dantes is someone who had a really fragile, uncertain concept of himself ~25 years ago and he formed a personality around a belief system based on this particular aesthetic of media that was ~just~ counterculture and edgy enough, with the proper dash of intellectualism that was contrarian to "elite" academia. Except, this is just a suit he likes to put on, and you can tell that's all it is, because he consistently baits people into "asking" for him to define it, even though they absolutely didn't. I can't even count how many times he's gone to that "if you don't know what I believe, you must not be paying attention" and then this is just a stepping stone to him explaining it again for the umpteenth time, regardless of whether the person actually asks or not.
There's also this thing where most of what he lists as defining his core beliefs is fiction. This is because humans like stories and they especially like stories they tell themselves that make them feel secure and safe. See, Dantes thinks of himself as a fallen, selfish creature, but he is redeemed by his intelligence. This is why he and Doug clash, even though they probably agree on a lot of political things. Doug gives zero fucks about intellectualism, even outright rejects it as amoral or anti-moral depending on the source, and he won't validate Dantes Pseudo-Intellectual, Libertarian, Above-the-Fray persona that he so desperately wants to embody. And it's such a lazy moral framework, because it reduces things he dislikes into easily digestible narratives of good and evil, avoiding nuance that would expose this rickety structure. When challenged in any way, after the first few stabs at asserting his childish worldview fail, he retreats into accusing the other person of bad faith and grandstands outrage until the subject has changed and the danger of being exposed passes.
It's apparent through this repetition of the same stock phrases, the go-to comparisons. The second he can't engage with an idea through these prepared, overused lenses of comic books, novels, or limited philosophy, he's unable to say anything original. Repeating yourself for 20+ years doesn't make you consistent, it makes you empty. Some people are very good at finding stories that make them feel happy and safe, so they cling to them to keep self-soothing, "It's okay, the narrative. Shh, the narrative, it's okay."
I think he's still a really fragile, uncertain person.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
ooo, me tooRylinks wrote:
can you do one for me
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
There's a principle in psychology called "Everyone else can tell"
I guess it's true wow
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
The thing about acting like you never care about anything is that it makes you super boring. Maybe you think you're boring and do this on purpose so nobody can call you boring if you only post safe jokes? I dunno, it's not that worthwhile to think about.Rylinks wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 11:33 pmcan you do one for meYoss wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 11:26 pm Dantes is someone who had a really fragile, uncertain concept of himself ~25 years ago and he formed a personality around a belief system based on this particular aesthetic of media that was ~just~ counterculture and edgy enough, with the proper dash of intellectualism that was contrarian to "elite" academia. Except, this is just a suit he likes to put on, and you can tell that's all it is, because he consistently baits people into "asking" for him to define it, even though they absolutely didn't. I can't even count how many times he's gone to that "if you don't know what I believe, you must not be paying attention" and then this is just a stepping stone to him explaining it again for the umpteenth time, regardless of whether the person actually asks or not.
There's also this thing where most of what he lists as defining his core beliefs is fiction. This is because humans like stories and they especially like stories they tell themselves that make them feel secure and safe. See, Dantes thinks of himself as a fallen, selfish creature, but he is redeemed by his intelligence. This is why he and Doug clash, even though they probably agree on a lot of political things. Doug gives zero fucks about intellectualism, even outright rejects it as amoral or anti-moral depending on the source, and he won't validate Dantes Pseudo-Intellectual, Libertarian, Above-the-Fray persona that he so desperately wants to embody. And it's such a lazy moral framework, because it reduces things he dislikes into easily digestible narratives of good and evil, avoiding nuance that would expose this rickety structure. When challenged in any way, after the first few stabs at asserting his childish worldview fail, he retreats into accusing the other person of bad faith and grandstands outrage until the subject has changed and the danger of being exposed passes.
It's apparent through this repetition of the same stock phrases, the go-to comparisons. The second he can't engage with an idea through these prepared, overused lenses of comic books, novels, or limited philosophy, he's unable to say anything original. Repeating yourself for 20+ years doesn't make you consistent, it makes you empty. Some people are very good at finding stories that make them feel happy and safe, so they cling to them to keep self-soothing, "It's okay, the narrative. Shh, the narrative, it's okay."
I think he's still a really fragile, uncertain person.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
rylinks cares about arcueid
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
the new pokemon game?Luna wrote:rylinks cares about arcueid