@Fruck's banner p

Fruck

Lacks all conviction

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:19:04 UTC

Fruck is just this guy, you know?

Verified Email

				

User ID: 889

Fruck

Lacks all conviction

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:19:04 UTC

					

Fruck is just this guy, you know?


					

User ID: 889

Verified Email

It was the Friday fun thread. I don't want anyone to feel bad in the Friday fun thread. This is not a speak plainly issue because the joke was only, in my eyes, a clear cut example of the issue of surface level engagement. It was in itself not a big deal, but it both made me think of a problem I had seen more and more and appeared to be a perfect example of it.

I made a mistake in this Wellness post. I forgot how highly smart people value their intelligence, and so my claim that I no longer felt stupid here is all anyone can focus on and has caused great injury. I am sorry. You should probably mod me. Threatening to shut down analogies and metaphors on the speak plainly rule is absurd.

From your comment, and other comments you made, I determined that you did not believe the economy was doing poorly, so I asked about your personal circumstances. I couldn't post in the thread about perceptions of the economy when I asked you about your personal circumstances, because it didn't exist.

https://www.vice.com/en/topic/polyamory

https://www.vice.com/en/topic/swinging

https://www.vice.com/en/topic/cuckold

Ok now you link one article about celebrating the sanctity of marriage. Just one article that says marriage is a sacred union between two people that should not be interfered with. Note there are none in the marriage tag, those are mostly about being Indian for some reason.

I mean, I'm sure if you asked them now they'd say cheating on your wife is bad, but it's only until a new article about being pegged by your girlfriend's wife is required. Taking marriage advice from Vice is like reading The Watchtower for blowjob tips.

You are defending the actions taken, the question was about the reasoning. Choosing to not court controversy is very different to choosing what to believe. No matter how his beliefs were discovered they would have ellicited the same reaction. But he didn't choose them.

Yes, trans activists are correct, I'd say strategically more than tactically; cancellations and boycotts work. They haven't succeeded with Rowling yet, but she's a uniquely hard target. In what sense are they directionally wrong? I do not care to lecture my enemies on morals and goals, it's a given that we disagree. In any case, the premise of voting with your wallet and denying the other party your capital is of course sound – and morally legitimate.

That's the thing though, it's not a given you disagree any more man, that sentence is couched in an entire paragraph of agreeing. Do we have to become them to beat them? Is there really no path to the future which leverages the flourishing of human thought instead of its suppression? If that's the only choice we get - whose jackboot is crushing whose throat? - then fuck the whole enterprise.

You can call it immature, I am definitely immature, but if this is the world we live in, if left vs right is highest order and there is no path to compromise, no path of embracing our better nature instead of our worst, then I don't care what you think. I don't care what anyone thinks, I AM, and I hate.

I don't really have a choice if this is the way of the world. I point blank refuse to be a part of any enterprise which judges my loyalty based on my entertainment preferences. I will be deemed a traitor eventually, because I won't stop to appease anyone. Instead I will reaasume my old labourer nickname - passionfingers - and I will fuck everything I touch until it all falls apart.

I just don't think it's possible to draw a line and go no further. Take this place for example. How is it ok to chat with the enemy - sometimes very jovially even - if it's not ok to consume their media? You say the point is not purity spiralling, but have you ever actually seen anyone perform a purity quarter turn? They're called purity spirals because the spiralling is inevitable once you start. The start is the same as the end, it is someone losing their patience and crossing the line - by starting it you endorse the race to the bottom or revel in hypocrisy.

That said, one last caveat - nobody should be paying for media ever unless it is specifically to thank the creator for a job well done after the fact, or if it's something you have watched being independently built from the ground up. If it was made by a studio or network in the last ten years, it has been designed maliciously to extract value from you with product placement, advertising, propaganda and so on, and paying for that is for simps. Even if you want to see it on the big screen there are a dozen ways to do it without paying for it.

Sometimes you can't tell the truth nicely. Sometimes people won't hear the truth if you are nice about it, and I also think that there are times only an asshole can see the truth. A lie can circle the globe before the truth gets its pants on sometimes, and a forceful personality is required to shock people out of complacency.

I think you get a healthier society with smart and honest assholes than with smart and polite manipulators. This kind of Manipulative behaviour is almost always nicer than turning the be a dick dial up, but it is always worse for your community.

To put it another way, when you set the truth aside for propriety you give control to whoever defines propriety. That's how you get purity spirals and sociopaths. Maybe there was a way for Dawkins to make his point without being a dick. I would like to think that's true, even though it feels naive to me these days. But that isn't what happened, atheists had a choice between honest assholes and polite manipulation - they chose manipulation and reaped the rewards. I hope EA don't make the same mistake.

Edit: added the words "This kind of" in front of manipulative behaviour until I can think of the term I should have used in the first place to describe the behaviour I mean.

The discussions are increasingly becoming about how the information is being handled over what, if anything, is being shown to us.

So you don't like how it is being handled or that everyone is talking about how it is being handled?

It's actually a pretty common political strategy. They don't want to talk about the actual topic, because it makes them look bad, so they claim everyone already knew that and change the subject to discuss the discussion. Then not only can they pretend to be above it or bored, but they can even lament the state of things and complain about the loss of focus - giving them outs that don't require any status loss.

Yeah, it's a tactic I can't really describe charitably, but it has been becoming more and more common since 2016. One way to think of it is like a reverse application of hanlon's razor - it is better to appear ignorant than malicious.

You are going into a country which steadfastly refuses to tolerate homosexuality - which considers tolerance of homosexuality a deliberate attempt to diffuse their culture into western homogeneity - and displaying your contempt and disrespect for their culture on every arm.

For posterity though, that song is mocking the singer as well as the culture he was singing about.

And it's really easy to avoid this mistake, too. Just create a new email account.

The amount of security you get out of creating a new email address is phenomenal and it's one of the easiest things you can do. It's basically the only thing propping up this story and all it would have required was 5 minutes on gmail (two minutes to create an account, two minutes to create the second account that you are actually going to use setting the first address as its recovery option, a minute to shake your head in disappointment at Richard Hanania.)

Sorry, I mean Fred. Actually that frame is convoluted and stupid so forget all that, I'll start again - if you have a machine to directly analyze each applicant's brain and determine whether they are experiencing unhappiness then you don't define an "unhappy person" as anyone who feels he is unhappy, you define them based on your machine's measurements. You are just treating people who ask for treatment and not treating people who don't.

Also you are tacitly admitting that that definition is endlessly recursive and provides no information.

So this post brought drama down upon us? From /r/baseball?

What's happening in this thread? I see two messages that are filtered [with an instruction to kick mod asses to fix it @naraburns (I don't know if this is your bag but yours was the first mod's name I found and I can't remember how zorba capitalises his name)] but this post that I'm replying to seems to be a pretty searing indictment of the motte and... yourself? It says ImpassionaTwo is replying to ImpassionaTwo. But I have no idea what you (or whoever you were actually talking to) said because it's filtered.

You are typical minding then. Every interaction on the internet is a status game, and the vast, vast majority of people are insecure enough to let statements like 'you sweet summer child' or 'ok boomer' or a picture of captain Picard holding his face modify their behaviour. Not from a celebrity, from a nobody - maybe a friend of a friend on Facebook or Twitter, but usually just a complete stranger - and all they have to do is drop a meme that makes them feel stupid for saying whatever they said. If you couldn't change a stranger's behaviour with shame, cyber bullying wouldn't be a concept. Kiwifarms would never have existed. Gamergate wouldn't have happened. Tyler the creator wouldn't need to tell people to look elsewhere.

I mean they technically don't change someone's "entire worldview" because that's not really possible

...

And yeah, I know, everything changes slowly and maybe the piece of media was just a "straw that broke the camel's back"

Come on man.

  • -11

I think that your relatively safe opinions have stopped you from fully thinking this through. It certainly does seem unlikely at this moment that someone would use a voice recording from here against a user. But it also seemed completely ridiculous that people would lose their jobs for opinions they held 20 years ago, or go after members of your family, until it happened and now it happens all the time. The concern isn't simply this moment, it is the rest of time.

Wouldn't a better idea be to fix the US economy so it doesn't require importing countless poor people to work unpleasant jobs reliant on the fact that they aren't here legally and therefore have no right to a liveable wage?

We've tried man. He's in too deep now, he's made fliers and everything. Now he either has to do it or pretend to do it and never return to the motte after March of next year. In which case I'm making a documentary about my search for skookum... and possibly justice? (I'm trying to work in a true crime angle so I can sell it to Netflix.)

Was I wrong, do you think the economy is doing worse than the government says? Or do you, as I inferred, think the government is broadly accurate in its presentation?

My take is that the kiss itself, not really that bad, but also something that does reflect on power dynamics, both men/women but also boss/employee. It deserved a real apology which was not given, instead the apology was not only extremely insincere, but also a result of behind the scenes pressure to sweep it under the rug and downplay. Rubiales doubling down was awful and it is kind of dystopian to see so much applause. He's the one playing a victimhood narrative, not Hermoso. Which is crazy! She didn't even talk about victimhood AT ALL until AFTER Rubiales basically lied about the kiss. I might add that Rubiales' version of events is in my opinion not supported by the video of the kiss, where they don't seem to have much of a conversation at all.

Yeah, sorry chum but I don't see anything in your post that changes this from the he said she said nonsense I thought it was in the first place. She says he lied about asking for a kiss. Why is she more credible than him? Because you empathise with her more. Anyone who feels the opposite will find Rubiales more credible. But we didn't record that exchange so we'll never know. What we did record has Rubiales mouth blocked by Hermoso's head while they hugged, which would also be a good way to say a few things in a roaring stadium.

Also

Commentary: Note how he focuses on how he's almost forced to apologize, how he created a distraction, and how he minimizes everything that happened. He doesn't even say what he did, he just says "what happened, happened". No big deal, no big deal. It's all about the consequences of his actions and nothing about how it could have made her feel or if he truly made a mistake. No, it's an apology that he "has to" make. This is, IMO, extra clear in the original Spanish and with intact voice inflections, etc. and I've tried to render the overall "vibe" of his comments accurately, though Spain-Spanish isn't my forte.

This is how every public facing representative apologises. Minimise everything that happened. Nobody was hurt by it, it was just a mistake. And yet, he does own up to his mistakes. He calls them his mistakes, he says he is embarrassed for distracting from the team's victory. Should he have busted out a whip and struck his sin away? Obviously Rubiales desperately needs some pr person by his side to slap the side of his head every time he opens his mouth, but once again it feels like we are razing the countryside over a minor interpersonal conflict, which is what nearly every msm cancel culture crusade turns out to be.

Instead, Hermoso is only a reluctant participant in the whole debate who might have though it also wasn't a big deal and wanted to move on herself, until pressure and slander essentially forced her hand.

Say what. So you think she didn't think it was a big deal except he said she said yes and that made it a big deal, because she was ok with the non consensual kiss but not ok with him claiming it was consensual, so after days of silence she released a statement denouncing the nonconsensual kiss?

Also why did this need a new thread?

You know, sometimes that's actually true. If I approach a woman and say "Hi, wanna fuck?" I am not breaking any laws, but I am certainly committing an egregious faux pas and should expect consequences for that.

Except when it works, which it does more than never. Which is what I assume fuckduck is getting at with the physical move - grabbing her and pulling her into a kiss has a better chance of working than awkwardly and earnestly try to express himself, because sexual dynamics are crazy.

Free will is an illusion*. A judgement is a choice in the sense that it is the selection of one option out of many, it is not necessarily a conscious decision. If you dislike a burger because of its taste you have judged it, but you didn't have a choice between "mmm I just can't get enough of this disgusting burger" and "snakes alive what did I just put in my mouth?"

Which is beside the point that Adams choosing to not court controversy is very different to choosing what he believes.

*But you should behave as if it's real regardless.

Are the people you dislike libs? And by that do you mean left wingers?

Why are you pretending you think this is about clothing? That it is simply a multicoloured strip of fabric signifying nothing? Or that your issue is their fashion policing being rude? You aren't stripping away ephemera to get down to the essence of the debate, you are stripping away the essence of the debate so you can get down to the ephemera.