jkf
1mo ago
Cool it with the personal attacks.
WTF are you even talking about here? I don't like (post Y2K) rap very much either, but I read the above post several times searching for a personal attack and didn't see one -- other than accusing coffee of not knowing anything about rap, which is, like -- probably true and not much of an insult?
To the extent that politeness norms encourage good discussion I can understand you guys modhatting/warning/banning some stuff that I would rather you didn't -- but politely expressing that c.e. isn't making great points (for instance: "Your essay is way too long for how little point you are deriving" -- which is kind of an ironic one given the norms being enforced a.t.m. -- but also objectively not a great contribution) is just not a personal attack?
WTH man.
jkf
1mo ago
That is not a personal attack, it's an attack on c.e.'s writing. (in response to an attack by c.e. on OPs writing)
jkf
1yr ago
You using an assumption that we are dumb and lack self control.
Would that this were a convincing counter-argument...
jkf
1mo ago
Hey @ZorbaTHut @cjet79, I've got an idea -- instead of banning Hylnka, why don't you make him a mod again? (see parent)
jkf
2mo ago
you're also welcome to challenge my premise for why I even included a disclaimer.
Thanks -- that's what I'm doing. AFAIK nobody needs your permission to talk about whatever they want on here -- if you only want to respond to points about this particular organization I suppose you are welcome to do so? Still a semi-free country and all that.
jkf
9mo ago
Apple died on March 24, 2001 -- the current company is a skinsuit optimized for extracting money from stupid people; fite me.
jkf
1yr ago
Note also that whatever Biden's flaws, "warmonger" does not appear to be among them.
"Puppet of the MIC" certainly seems to be on the table though...
jkf
1mo ago
So if you just happen to by lying around looking attractive and an animal shows up and has his way with you?
jkf
2mo ago
I think it's a legitimate thing to do, provided one does it with the understanding that it's not rulebreaking but merely gauche for other commenters to ignore such requests.
I think the request itself is gauche, not only for reasons specific to this case (as Dean amply elucidates upthread) but also because it does not allow for organic discussion to surface unexpected points of value.
(and to be clear, with the BLM example I am talking about the specific charitable org called BLM, not the movement as a whole -- although I guess I'd still object if you made a post about BLM (the movement) and then complained when somebody started talking about gangsta culture or something)
jkf
1yr ago
How is it evidence, given that we would not know what is the baseline support for Trump 2020 in these districts in the case that fraud was occurring?
jkf
1yr ago
Are we really practicing radical skepticism here?
It doesn't seem that radical to want to know some basic facts about the mechanism of a novel vaccine which is proposed to be deployed to pretty much everyone. 'Educated guesses' would certainly not be my preferred decision making tool.
And it rather should dampen your worry (at least re:vaccine vs virus) here:
...
Since COVID is in your blood and spreads all over the place too.
You are not reading very carefully -- the mechanism and which particular cells are infected is different. Which might be fine. Or might not. I don't know, and apparently neither do you.
jkf
2mo ago
Or I can respond in this thread! I can post wherever I want, it's crazy!
You seem to think that people who disagree with you in these matters should just submit to whatever form of discussion you think works best for your arguments -- why would they want to do that?
If you think somebody is Gish galloping, you don't need to respond to them either -- what's with this need to control the conversation?
jkf
5mo ago
Someone who is aggressive and dominant or someone who is submissive and docile?
Either is fine IRL -- if I'm imagining then it varies, but extremely submissive and docile would be kind of a turn-off now that you mention it.
When bottoms are too active it is a turnoff, do you not feel the same way toward women?
No not at all, activity is definitely a plus -- unless one of the partners has some relevant kink I wouldn't normally even frame it in terms of dominance/submission though. I don't think I've ever had a long-term partner with whom the more active person doesn't vary from time to time. I have heard that this is not usually the case for gay men, but while I'm not a mega-slut I'm pretty sure I would have seen something like it at least once if it were generally similar in the hetero world -- do you have any reason to think so other than 'hetero people are probably similar to gay men(!?)'?
If straight men don't feel this way then muscular strong women would be more popular as sexual prospects but they're really not.
The framework you are seeking is just not that much of a thing hetero relationships -- possibly because even a muscular strong woman is in fact easily physically overpowered by most men. A (relatively) strong tall women who takes control of things can be super-hot -- as can a woman who would rather be 'overpowered' or 'used' in some sense.
a partner who is doing less makes it easier to perform versus a partner who is trying too hard to perform their role.
No offense but for me if anybody is 'performing a role' (outside of literal roleplaying) something has gone very wrong.
jkf
5mo ago
In the case of my immediate ancestors, they struggled on with lots of pain suffering depression and whatnot -- dying pretty near a hundred. What of it?
Life is pain.
jkf
6mo ago
I've seen plenty of photos of people who look like they were shot, so probably, yeah.
The nature of the activities beyond that I actually have very little insight -- there's no reason to trust anything released by either party other than stuff that looks like it would be beyond their (respective) capability to easily fake, and very little of what I've seen comes from anything close to a disinterested bystander.
jkf
6mo ago
You didn't address the second part -- and I'm not too sure about any babies being incinerated either, the only reason to think that that's what the Twitter pictures showed is some level of trust in the people sharing them. Which I lack.
Fudging the extent of the mistruth is no different to fudging the extent of the atrocity.
If no women, children, or toddlers (which is exactly what the guy said) have been beheaded, what am I fudging? That's a straight up lie. Plenty of people were/are talking about the beheaded babies (includinging Joe Goddamn Biden), so if you want to be charitable and suggest that they are just misinformed that's fine -- but I think that at least some of them were adding that exaggeration (of the original lie) deliberately. (because they work for IDF SIGINT)
jkf
6mo ago
It's this guy -- I can't find the tweet that I was thinking of, nor be arsed to dig through the wayback machine for initial headlines which certainly conveyed the impression that there were many decapitated babies killed in some sort of daycare, with the number forty prominently featured.
Anyways, the soldier talks about plural babies and women decapitated, and the PM's spokesperson also talked about multiple babies and toddlers beheaded at that kibbutz -- so far as I can tell there's zero. So whether the claim is forty or just 'some', it seems to be a lie being promulgated pretty high up in the Israeli government, presumably to gin up support for a brutal response.
jkf
6mo ago
I don't think he was a spokesperson per se, but the report did seem to originate from an Israeli soldier on the ground -- there were pictures of him on Twitter that I saw.
Or just toughen the fuck up -- it won't kill you. Have a beer or something.
More options
Context Copy link