Jump to content

whatever...

Members
  • Posts

    16,089
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by whatever...

  1. 2 hours ago, karaddin said:

    This is a very old reply to dig up sorry, but it was only on catching up on this thread and the series of posts around this one of yours that I finally put my finger on something. The reason why I roll my eyes so hard at conversations that invoke a panic around cancel culture/left wing 'censorship' etc comes down to viewing it all through a very different lens to right wing attempts at actual censorship. 

    There are indeed significant issues with dog piling, infighting and harassment from ostensibly progressive circles online, but to me they're a cultural problem which needs a (massive) culture change to address. The problems with these/the damage done tends to be targeted at individuals and are frequently directed at one another. It sucks and needs to change, but it's not actually a threat at the societal level - it's not changing laws, it's not actually banning books etc. It's a hurdle to overcome, not a problem to be opposed and prevented. So I get frustrated at people giving it more weight than it deserves when it just clears the way for concern trolling to exploit that concern to actually attack free speech etc.

    Even if these left wing groups had the inclination and opportunity to pose a threat at the societal level they wouldn't be able to stop infighting long enough to follow through.

    I agree, without qualification, that the Rightists are the more empowered threat. 100%, no disagreement. 

     

    When it comes to the Leftists, the people upon whom I am dependent for maintenance of my civil liberties, the nastiness infighting IS just as big a threat as the Rightists. It's just a different kind of threat. The threat of helplessness and unwillingness to cooperate, which IS killing young "liberals" (it's not their fault, they weren't taught what actual liberalism is). It's killing them by making them unable to work together, which is supposed to be the main TENET of liberalism. 

    Working together.

    Not carving out spheres of social influence and ancestral grievance instead of actually solving problems. 

    Just my IMHO- or whatever

  2. 11 minutes ago, Mexal said:

    Thing is, he couldn't. His contract cost was something like $20m a year and not everyone would pay that, not to mention the draft picks they'd have to give up for him. I think he actually had very limited options.

    Exactly what someone whose team didn't get Sean Payton would say. 

    I mean, you guys aren't wrong that this team is bi-polar AF. It has no idea what it's doing with itself. 

    That being said... 

    Russell Wilson + Sean Payton... Are you kidding? Don't overthink it. 

    Feel it. ;) 

  3. 23 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

    Why do hospitals make you get up at such ungodly hours? So I can be awake to be anxious and hungry longer till the surgeon’s done taking his kids to school and clocks in? Bleh. Well, moral of the story, don’t get malignant tumors in your boobs, or anywhere else for that matter. Also, you know, go to your screenings  and all and chill the f out because 99.5% of the time whatever you’re worked up about isn’t worth it. Anyway, I should be back to bore you with my shit tonight when the anesthesia fog clears up. Love. 

    Fuck cancer. See you on the wakeup :grouphug:

     

  4. 23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

    I'm not here to start a fight, but what's far more obnoxious is you Christians stealing our religion and using it as a justification to kill us and the Indigenous community as well. Just saying. Complaining about a chant is lipstick on a pig. :P

    I'm not anti-semitic... but... :leaving:

    ..but.. :ph34r:

    .but. :wideeyed:

    if  :uhoh:

    perhaps :o

    "You People" :eek:

    Are looking to hire a broke-ass dimestore-discount-rack Dr. Strangelove (without the wheelchair, or degrees, or knowledge, or presumably work-ethic) character... :ph34r:

    I know somebody like that. :read:

     

    :P 

    It's a joke. Anti-semitism is bad. But I think bad things are funny sometimes. I'm bad that way :( 

     

     

    ETA:

    The whole point of that setup was to do a Tarantino revenge-of-the-Jews joke but I completely forgot about it with all the emojiis 

    Goddamit

  5. 2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

    Game is tied, but the chiefs look done.

    I already ate too much lowfat pecan vanilla ice cream. I can already feel a stomach ache testing the waters...

    But if this goes to overtime I can't not have more right? Like, that's just how like the gravitronics of ice cream physics works I think

  6. Well I think that Andy Reid went from sadly underrated to a little over-the-fuck rated because of Patrick Mahomes. 

    So... That's why I wouldn't jump on the Beinemy train. I mean unless you believe in him. I've never met the dude. 

    I'd want Flores, because as I said. 

    Or Harbaugh because I know he's good. And, with enough LSD and time in an unmarked van, I'm about 12-13 percent sure that I can induce a 5 percent chance of Andrew Luck coming back to the game

    I have no evidence for this claim

    I have no lab and no equipment

    But I think we should risk it

     

  7. 2 hours ago, Rhom said:

    Mahomes and the constant knob slobbing still pisses me off though.  I know I'm in the minority here, but hear me out...

    In Super Bowl against the Niners, the Chiefs are getting beaten like a drum.  They start to show some life.  Jimmy G has a wide open George Kittle streaking down the field.  He overthrows him as a Jimmy does.  The Chiefs go on to win.  BUT!!!!! If Jimmy G hits that one pass, the Chiefs lose.

    Chiefs lose that game and here's Mahomes history:

    2019:  Loses at home in the AFC Championship to the Pats
    2020:  Loses the Super Bowl to the Niners
    2021:  Loses the Super Bowl to the Bucs
    2022:  Loses at home in the AFC Championship to the Bengals
    2023:  Loses at home in the AFC Championship to the Bengals (its gonna happen)

    So if an opposing QB doesn't overthrow a wide open target, the entire narrative on Mahomes is "Yeah he's great in the regular season... but he can't win the big games."  

    JACE!!!!!  HE CAN'T WIN THE BIG ONE!!!!!!!!

    But he did win the big one.

     

    I call him the greatest I've ever seen because he could run any offense I've ever seen. All of 'em. Lamar's to Brady's in '02

    And he'd run them all as best they could be run. 

    I don't like that the rules of the game have been watered down to the point that he is speed-running through the regular season, but that's not his fault. 

    Josh Allen wouldn't make it in the NFL of ten years ago. Mahomes would. 

  8. And, like, just for the whatever or whatever

     

    I am wary of Bienemy. It's not his fault. 

    1) His name sounds like Be Enemy... It's not normally something I'd consider but bear with me for a second. 

    2) Yo, this dude came onto the scene playing Cortana for the Master Chief. I don't know if you've seen Patrick Mahomes play a football, but it's a lot like watching a really REALLY good 13 year old on Mt Dew Gamer Fuel turn the difficulty down to EASY and just frivolisize in the violence. Like, I swear to god I've seen Swaggy P (That's what I call Mahomes, Swaggy P (the second) or "Swags") just refuse to use the trigger sometimes. Like he just sees he's up against a corridor of Grunts and just starts mashing the B button because he doesn't have to do anything else. 

     

    Right, so, like that's not a reason to NOT hire the dude. That his name sounds like a sea creature and he kinda had like the best player I've ever seen from minute one of his career. 

    It's just that I was always much much more impressed by what Flores accomplished on the Peninsula of Misfit Toys.

    I like defensive coaches anyway. 

    That's just my opinion

  9. 2 hours ago, briantw said:

    The QB situation in Indy makes it tough to really evaluate Reich as a head coach.  Was he the problem?  Or was the problem that his QBs the past few years have been backups and cast-offs?  The team certainly didn't look any better after he was fired.  The Colts were 3-5-1 this year with Reich and 1-7 with Saturday, including a seven game losing streak to close out the season.

    Fine, whatever

     

    Fuck Reich and his never-ending bag of excuses

    His QBs were backups and cast-offs THAT HE CHOSE 

    Reich wanted Rivers

    Wanted Wentz

    I don't know if it was Ballard or Reich who wanted Ryan, and to PAY Jacoby all that guaranteed money for NOTHING. Ballard should be fired the second the new coach signs his contract. That coach can bring one of his lickspittle buddies in to GM. 

    59 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

     

    Saturday on the other hand, never should have gotten the interim job to start with, did poorly with the job when he had it, and should not even be under consideration for the full time gig.  The Colts were pretty clearly getting worse as the season went on. 

    Irsay's team. 

    Irsay was getting ripped off for years by this SadSanta fuck who parlayed a few hot streaks into eternal mediocrity. Fuck him

    Saturday wasn't some yahoo from down the street. The man knew football. Does he have any business being a Head Coach? Absolutely not. 

    But, as has already been suggested, he was just babysitting. And besides, you hypocritical fucks talk out both sides of your mouths about tanking until somebody actually FOR REAL THIS TIME does it. Fuck y'all 

    (with love!) 

    24 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

     

    EDIT:  On Saturday, he was not qualified to be an interim coach.  Usually interim coaches are pulled from within because they know the team and the players and can provide stability.  Saturday was not.  Saturday had no NFL coaching experience of any kind.  His coaching resume was 3 middling years at a small prep school.  That's it.  That's not good enough to take the chair, even for just half a season.  If you want your team to be competitive and your rookies to develop, you need someone at the top who actually knows WTF they're doing. 

    Reich kept trotting out this gimmick-bag offense of bell-whistle bullshit that operated exclusively within fifteen yards of the line of scrimmage. And five of those fifteen include the area BEHIND the line of scrimmage! 

    I 'predicted' (ugh) all of this LAST YEAR. The pieces that were assembled for the roster, especially on offense, did not match with the goober dork who was trying to call plays like he's scratching them into the dirt at Pop Warner. To say nothing of how those pieces matched with each other. 

    Matt Ryan and Michael Pittman and Jonathan Taylor are a great three-piece... If Matt Ryan was five years younger! If he could still go under center Basically Every Play, but not like ALWAYS or nothin... If he could still pop those balls in a sweet arc about 20-25 yards down field under the safety and behind the corner for Mr Tough Guy (for real!) Michael Pittman to come down with like a taller, longer, version of Anquan Bolden. And especially if he could make that pass FROM UNDER CENTER! 

    But he can't

    And Reich has no rhythm for offense. It's why Pederson didn't let him call plays. 

    He had to go. 

    The only thing I think Irsay did wrong is not firing Ballard. Maybe he has his reasons. 

    Idk

  10. 11 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

    Sure, but it can't do things like provide cover for infantry, engage and suppress multiple other armor vehicles and take on other tanks easily. It also doesn't get disabled by nets.

    Yes it can. It's called hovering 

    Maybe they call it "hoovering" in the future-provinces of Briton and Gaul, I don't know

    In America we call it 'hovering' 

    10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    Putin is too much of a coward to kill the world and himself over Ukraine.

    I’m getting the impression that you think that would mean messaging closer to your political views.

    Too smart. Fearing covid when you have something to lose to it is perfectly rational. 

    I think he's played his hand pretty fucking well. It's just that his hand is garbage. Waddaya gonna do? Give the motherfucker a break!

    Fake his death, disappear him to some awesome island with a few of his besties, and be done with it whenever he's ready to call it quits. I mean jesus, have you people never heard of diplomacy before?

    8 hours ago, mcbigski said:

    I won't mourn for Putin, but if he's backed into a corner, are you expecting him to act compassionately?  That seems unlikely.

     

    The easiest way to get someone out of a corner is patience. And appropriate force when necessary. 

    We could have cut the head off his invasion completely conventionally and saved a lot of lives. Military and civilian. 

    The fact that Russia got Crimea, then was in position to get Kyiv, while literally the entire rest of the world dithered is a victory. 

    His cards sucked though. He got as far as he could by bluffing, got a little too aggressive. So now you gotta pound him like a drum until he's willing to accept some kind of EAST-WEST BERLIN but in Crimea situation where Russians get complete, FAIR, military and commercial access to whatever and whatever. And we'll even cut off sanctions and deploy economic aid packages for Ukraine and Russia both. 

    But not till he stops. 

    Fucking Ripp and your fucking appeasement 

    (no offense!) 

    8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    No I’m expecting to not kill himself over his imperial ambitions.

    The man has been terrified of catching covid and has never done anything more than tut his tongue and pass homophobic legislation whenever Ukraine embarrasses or the west gives Ukraine tools to embarrass him.

     

    P-sizzle ain't cray-dizzle, y'know'what'I'mean? 

    I mean US and friends have played this like, okay or whatever, but for god's sake stop playing not-to-lose and play to win! Proactive measures could have kicked Putin's face in a year ago instead of wasting everybody's time with whining about stupid nuclear apocalypses they don't even understand when the economic and CLIMATE pressures that produced things like Putin's -kinda not-insane - reasons to want to gobble up Prime:) territory are not only going unaddressed, they're getting worse! 

    Anyway. Fuck America. Fuck Putin. Go Ukraine. 

    Also, Ukraine, take very goddamn dollar Uncle Sam offers you. Every one of them. 

    Dawg. The bank can wave all the motherfucking papers it wants at you. You usin them papers to buy guns, eh? 

     

    (This is all of course an expressive statement, on the conditions pertaining to and surrounding, the war in Ukraine and the relational powers involved. Is that a good enough disclaimer? Do I have to use a different made-up legalese gibberdygook to wrap up my statements before I'm allowed to venture them into the public domain? 

    Asking for a friend    :leaving:  )

  11. 35 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

    The thing about tanks is that when you use them, you want them to have support.  Such as M1s and Bradleys, or M1s and Apaches, or M1s and A10s.  Never go anywhere alone.

    Aka the Battle of 73 Easting: 

     

    I saw this a few years ago and my main takeaway was that a drone can go anywhere a tank can go

  12. 57 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

    No one (reputable) would sign the return unless the organization was a charity and the donation was substantiated in accordance with section 170 and the associated regulations. I don’t know the details but a PAC isn’t a 501(c)(3) charity and so there wouldn’t be a charitable deduction. Doesn’t mean they weren’t being nefarious in all sorts of ways but not sure I would make that assumption (at least as a charitable donation). Incidentally if the organization was a political advocacy group on the other side of things similar result. 

    Right on

    Yeah, I may well have the particulars wrong. I just know scumbags scumbag 

  13. 43 minutes ago, whatever... said:

     

    Like, I get scared that if I google books about how ICBMswork and whether you could disable the fuse/trigger/whatever of one of them mid-flight as part of a scheme to catch it and either relay it up to space with a series of dedicated systems in low orbits or, IDK, drop it in the bottom of the ocean or something - anyway, I get scared that if I google <^ that stuff then scary things will happen to me. Because I don't think you people believe in morals or whatever 

     

    By the way, I bring this up not just to whine. But because, tying into my broader messaging of late, this is a manifestation of anti-privilege 

    If FuckFuck Abrams wanted that information up there? About -how- exactly the device works or what he might or might not be !allowed! to know about it? He can tell somebody to tell somebody that he wants to know and eventually somebody will get back to him

    I'm afraid if I type the wrong thing into the computer machine somebody will be getting back to me too 

    Yeah? 

    How's that for a type of privilege that isn't class/wealth based but also totally is because of course it is

  14. 5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

    Donations to most of those entities should not be giving rise to a charitable deduction (there may be a business expense deduction but that is different).   The thing that is more problematic in my view is whether schools (whether primary or secondary) and arts institutions should be able to receive tax deductible contributions (I can argue either side compellingly).  I also think the process to approve new charities and to oversee charities by the IRS is fundamentally broken.

    I cannot source it, but I remember seeing that the majority of NFL owners who donated money to supposed 'Social Justice' campaigns in the wake of George Floyd's murder actually ended up sending that money to a bunch of Republican political PACs and shit. 

    It was the least surprising thing I ever heard

    I assumed when I read the thing and still do that they wrote off these 'donations' on their taxes as well

  15. Zorral, if conflict is the only dialogue that an opponent understands you can't just take it off the table and declare them pariah 

     

    I mean you can. Hi, North Korea

    But then you just kinda helped create, then washed your hands of, a humanitarian nightmare as a state of an entire peoples' permanent existence 

    I mean you can do that. And you can even do that and believe you believe in morals or whatever 

    But not if they have nukes, eh? 

    And the reliable means to deliver them eh?

     

    Meanwhile, I've been sometimes stymied in my book research efforts by the limitations of google. 

    Some of these are obvious, right, like sometimes a question is just too complicated or specific for google to know what you're after. It's only a Robot

    Then there's other limitations of Google

    Like, I get scared that if I google books about how ICBMswork and whether you could disable the fuse/trigger/whatever of one of them mid-flight as part of a scheme to catch it and either relay it up to space with a series of dedicated systems in low orbits or, IDK, drop it in the bottom of the ocean or something - anyway, I get scared that if I google <^ that stuff then scary things will happen to me. Because I don't think you people believe in morals or whatever 

    But that's just me

  16. 2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

    I dunno, "escalating conflict against a ruthless dictator with tons of nuclear weapons" was always the standard scenario for doomsday, even during the Cold War... 

    Yeah but you're placing too much importance into an artificial, and INHERENTLY constrained, system that -END GAMEs- in mutual annihilation. 

    Do you see what you're doing? You're so afraid of one of the two options that you're confining yourself into a system of delay rather than resolution. By taking the inevitability of mutual destruction to such a literal conceit that you make a countdown clock for it is not alleviating the situation. It's telling the opponent to go faster. 

    That's, like, the point of Dr. Strangelove

    2 hours ago, kiko said:

    How often did that happen?

    Huzzah! 

    Telephone! 

    21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

     

    I'm afraid the disagreement runs deep. But as I said before, it doesn't actually matter because you and I have no influence on events whatsoever and both our positions have flaws. From my perspective, many of you guys talk like Dr Strangelove's General Ripper, but I'm also keenly aware that I'm playing the role of Mars Attack's president Maurice.

    Mr. President there are one or two points I'd like to make if I may...

    1) The Ruskies started this war

    2) They started it eight years before they started it, and we started it ourselfs about... say... was it twelve or eleven years before that - oh who remembers? They started it

    3) If we were to immediately launch an all-out and coordinated airwave of unmanned, precision-guided, tactical air-space craft that struck the ROADs, the BRIDGES, and the Long-Range Weapons Systems - and HELL, let's make giant bomb-created trenches across any topography that looks too easy on wheeled vehicles while we're at it. We can MAKE A TRENCH IN THE ground FROM THE AIR FROM AMERICA in Ukraine!-      Well, if we did all that we might just stand a damn good chance of stopping this slow-rolling criminal wave right in its tracks. Literally, maybe! 

    4) Not one American will die because of this action

    5) Hopefully no Ukrainians will die because of our strikes. It's war. Somebody might have been hanging out under the bridge, a local, and we didn't know. We can't help that. 

    6) Get Ukraine's permission, and the permission of the American peoples' representatives first

    7) Russians will die. They are dying anyway. Less Ukrainians would die. Maybe less Russians would die. We don't have to target their hospitals and mess halls and barracks' anymore. We can break their shit. And, unfortunately, the people they put inside that shit. 

    8) It's war

  17. I am sorry

     

    I am not an historian. Or a scientist. 

    I like stories. I like history. I like the story of history. So I don't want to phrase anything in a way that suggests I'm making some kind of declarative statement. I'm much less interested in the particulars, facts for or against Irene, and more interested in ^those^ broader treatments of powerful women as political actors. I thought I said that. 

    I am sorry 

     

    eta

    declarative statement as an authority on the subject, I might have said 

     

    eta2

    I mean I declare shit all the time. I just assume y'all are at least smart enough to know that's just me being me tho

  18. 2 hours ago, Zorral said:

    What I don't understand is why you put this up, here and now.  Did somebody on the forum say something about Irene of Athens that was wrong?  It's not like we were having a discussion anywhere about Irene or the 8th C here on Miscellaneous.  Again, not to say the the thread shouldn't be here, I just want to know what set you off to begin it. :dunno:

    I did not mean to "set ... off" 

    I thought it a less volatile musing, potentially more liable to attract conversation about the motives of state actors, than wondering if the Arkies were eating their own hair 

     

    Sorry

    "set ... off" 

×
×
  • Create New...