Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[birdy51]

I'm just saying it's their yard and it's their right to keep it how they like it. Whatever claims they make after that are just that. Claims.

[TempAcc]

Isn't the 2nd ammendment the one about the right to bear arms tho? What does it have to do with twitter arguments :u? I confuzzled.

[Frumple]

Sure, but they can't very well claim impartiality at the same time.

Sure they can. They're impartially seeking more profit, yeah. The most capitalistic of impartiality.

Or they're just not 100% perfect at it or whatev'. However long the guy was operating beforehand they seemed to be doing a pretty good job in his particular case. Though I guess you could make the goat fornication argument *shrugs*

... and yeah, TA, it is. Typo, for all I'm leaving it.

[mainiac]

Isn't the 2nd ammendment the one about the right to bear arms tho? What does it have to do with twitter arguments :u? I confuzzled.

I dunno but when El Presidente institutes thunderdome we will find out.

[Loud Whispers]

A well regulated militia can keep and maintain high capacity shitposts

[birdy51]

Sometimes, you just need to go full America and fire a Desert Eagle into your computer screen. By winning the argument with superior firepower, you let the whole world know just how right you are and just how wrong they are!

[Loud Whispers]

Sometimes, you just need to go full America and fire a Desert Eagle into your computer screen. By winning the argument with superior firepower, you let the whole world know just how right you are and just how wrong they are!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Orange Wizard]

Sometimes, you just need to go full America and fire a Desert Eagle into your computer screen. By winning the argument with superior firepower, you let the whole world know just how right you are and just how wrong they are!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Shit tier waifu tho

[mainiac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUhIY4GcL2w

[Ghills]

In other news, I hear Clinton picked a super bland but safe VP, probably to court more middle-ground votes, is that a sound explanation?

I am boring. But boring is the fastest-growing demographic in this country

I read that Clinton's highest qualification for her VP, beyond safety, the base, or personal chemistry, was "fit to be President": so, in essence, the opposite of McCain's thinking in '08.

To be fair to McCain, he thought Palin was qualified when he picked her.

All reports I've seen are that he hated her from the start and that she was a pure demographic play, actually. 

Kaine being the VP pick makes me surprisingly happy.  He's well-respected and well-liked, has worked hard for all of his constituents (Virginia ranges from poor Appalachia backwoods to majority-minority inner city to extreme mansions, great experience for the national level), and tries hard to be a genuinely good guy.   He's an excellent pick on multiple levels and that Clinton picked him at least says great things about her political strategy. 

I also think it says good things about how she'll govern. She wouldn't pick a consensus-building representative of the people who balances strong religious beliefs with respecting others if she was going to be a selfish dictator in office or run roughshod over constituent concerns. 

In other topics, the RNC is making me really sad.   Republicans are literally the party of my fathers, they used to be my party, but ever since the Tea Party distorted from fiscal responsibility to extremism and pushing conservative religious positions it's just melted down.  It's such a morally bankrupt dysfunctional mess right now, and I'm so disappointed.  Everything the Republicans are doing this election cycle is so anti-American-values. Freedom of speech? Not at Republican rallies. All people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Apparently not. Surprise, 'vote with your conscience' is super bad now, we should all vote on straight party lines and not question party leaders. Candidates and party leaders openly walking back on promises, claiming things that just aren't true, and not even pretending to be doing anything but naked political maneuvers.  I'm so disappointed. 

[mainiac]

All reports I've seen are that he hated her from the start and that she was a pure demographic play, actually. 

This is completely new to me.  I thought he got a really good vibe from her and so he rushed his judgment.  When you say demographics, do you mean woman?

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

The Twitterbans are not limited to conservatives.

[Starver]

Specifically, calling someone fat and ugly because they were associated with a terrible movie that somehow became controversial.

He's a worthless, desperate dick.  Shouldn't have been banned though.
Wasn't inciting attacks, just desperately chasing the bandwagon.

Edit:  As WKNC proudly proclaims:  "The publication of this material is the price we pay for FREEDOM in this country!"

It was (IMO) a desperately racist bandwagon.  Likening actress Leslie Jones to a gorilla or "some black dude" is clearly racist, mysogynist and/or intentionally provocative, that should not go unchallenged¹.

That's not to say that the anti-Milos in this argument have acted any better. I've seen some shocking behaviour (courtesy of a friend, described in the footnote below and Twitter follower (while he could) of Milo) of militant backlash that I found as unacceptable.  And if Twitter isn't seen as even-handed then there's problems.

I generally support the rights of anyone to say anything (not being in the US, like most of the world is not, I don't have any Amendments to fall back on... but it's a good general principle) but an echo-chamber of extremist views of any kind, left unchallenged and allowed to indoctrinate others, is comparable to the "shouting 'Fire!' in the crowded theatre" pseudo-example and should not be allowed free reign without some attempt at moderation.

Each 'side' naturally finds no problems with their own opinions (that may have been visibly supressed) whilst noticing copious examples of opposing ones (the unsuppressed ones) that they object to. Observer bias. I like to think I'm neutral, or at least able to be objective, but I know that such a view is mostly a mirage and try to work round it. Wishy-washy liberal (UK sense), as I am. 


¹ But I'm a hipocrite. I have a very good friend who is currently using the term "monkey" for black people² and subscribes to highly disputed studies of IQ variance around the world. I've stopped challenging him, hoping that a stoney silence will do better to show my displeasure better about this particular aspect of his attitude. That's not working any better, yet, than the prior attempts to challenge him more directly.

² "People of color" just sounds... meh.

[Reelya]

All reports I've seen are that he hated her from the start and that she was a pure demographic play, actually. 

This is completely new to me.  I thought he got a really good vibe from her and so he rushed his judgment.  When you say demographics, do you mean woman?

Appeal to the Tea Party types, not gender. McCain was accused of being a "RINO" so he needed a "down to Earth" conservative from some rural Red state.

[Orange Wizard]

The Twitterbans are not limited to conservatives.

A lot of liberals oppose soc-jus progressivism as well, so yeah.

² "People of colour" just sounds... meh.

FTFY

But yeah, it sounds really dumb. It's bullshit us-vs-them, lumping all non-whites into one category. African-American is okay, but it's only relevant to the 'States, and people get it into their head that apparently it's less racist to call people African-American (which is long and can't be abbreviated (except to AA but that's anti anonymous air alcoholics already) so another point against) instead of just black or brown or African or Middle-Eastern or whatever.