"oh no, they wanted to move my posts to a different thread, CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!"
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,694
Yes it was, very much so.
Mate, you need to get that shit out of the way if you intend to discuss it with me. I'm not like them and won't fall for your distractions of whether it's some kind of safe space or if IppE is protecting Granger or tupsu. All I care about are facts.
Is that post intended to be taken seriously? You just answered with yes.
Is ITT the place to post serious stuff about politics or cooking or your feet? No.
Is the reason your post got deleted TRULY due to you not having posted it in the right thread or if people were butthurt about it? That's what we're here to discuss.
So far, you said you intentionally posted something to see if you can "trigger" Granger/IppE/whoever was there, correct? That goes completely on you. You chose to have your post deleted for pushing it too far, even if it was justified.
However, I also do not like what I heard just now. Did IppE SERIOUSLY tell you to post it in the politics thread NOT because it belongs there, but because it TRIGGERS some people who don't like Trump?
Is that post intended to be taken seriously? You just answered with yes.
Is ITT the place to post serious stuff about politics or cooking or your feet? No.
Is the reason your post got deleted TRULY due to you not having posted it in the right thread or if people were butthurt about it? That's what we're here to discuss.
So far, you said you intentionally posted something to see if you can "trigger" Granger/IppE/whoever was there, correct? That goes completely on you. You chose to have your post deleted for pushing it too far, even if it was justified.
However, I also do not like what I heard just now. Did IppE SERIOUSLY tell you to post it in the politics thread NOT because it belongs there, but because it TRIGGERS some people who don't like Trump?
how come? because 3 people could decide whether to see your posts about trump or not??
I'm pretty sure,though I don't have proof since I'm not going back there to check up on facts. You can look it up yourself if you want.Aurani wrote:
Mate, you need to get that shit out of the way if you intend to discuss it with me. I'm not like them and won't fall for your distractions of whether it's some kind of safe space or if IppE is protecting Granger or tupsu. All I care about are facts.
Is that post intended to be taken seriously? You just answered with yes.
Is ITT the place to post serious stuff about politics or cooking or your feet? No.
Is the reason your post got deleted TRULY due to you not having posted it in the right thread or if people were butthurt about it? That's what we're here to discuss.
So far, you said you intentionally posted something to see if you can "trigger" Granger/IppE/whoever was there, correct? That goes completely on you. You chose to have your post deleted for pushing it too far, even if it was justified.
However, I also do not like what I heard just now. Did IppE SERIOUSLY tell you to post it in the politics thread NOT because it belongs there, but because it TRIGGERS some people who don't like Trump?
I disagree that ITT is not for serious discussions. We're having one right now, and we've had them in the past. And it seems very stupid to split up a forum that might get 12 posts a day into a dozen different threads. Anyway like I said, if it actually was about it "being in the wrong place", then it would have applied to a lot of things and not just politics. And if it were about me posting in the wrong place, then we could have had some sort of civilised discussion and vote about what exactly what was appropriate in the ITT thread. But that didn't happen.
The post was obviously a joke, it was intended as a joke, and it was basically the final straw to see whether IppE was going to follow though on his threats or whether he was just offering his opinion. The latter one I could have accepted.
Yes, that's what censorship is. And you must realise you're being intellectually dishonest when you're trying to simplify the discussion to single statement like that.Milkshake wrote:
how come? because 3 people could decide whether to see your posts about trump or not??
From what I see here, it's just different beliefs that are making this so unnecessarily hard to judge.
Bird believes his post got removed because IppE protected triggered people, while Maho and Milkman here believe it was removed because he posted something out of place.
So, the crux of the problem lies in whether:
Ippe removed it because he was protecting triggered idiots or
Ippe removed it because it was not a joke and was something worth discussing in the politics thread
Bird believes his post got removed because IppE protected triggered people, while Maho and Milkman here believe it was removed because he posted something out of place.
So, the crux of the problem lies in whether:
Ippe removed it because he was protecting triggered idiots or
Ippe removed it because it was not a joke and was something worth discussing in the politics thread
Rather, I think the counter-argument is that by sole virtue of the fact that some people were triggered, I should have posted in the other thread.
Basically, by the same reasoning that people mob Milo speeches at Universities; because it would be easy for him to do it at a private location instead and that way it wouldn't trigger anyone.
Basically, by the same reasoning that people mob Milo speeches at Universities; because it would be easy for him to do it at a private location instead and that way it wouldn't trigger anyone.
Well IppE seems to have stated what I feared - that he removed it because it was triggering others. In that regard I can't stand by his side at all.
Same way, you shouldn't have pushed it as far as you did. It was unnecessary and you knew it would have repercussions, so you can't complain about it. You dug your own grave in that one.
Now, if we want to find out the TRUE root of the issue here, we have to go deeper. We need to find out what you ORIGINALLY posted that started this entire thing.
Same way, you shouldn't have pushed it as far as you did. It was unnecessary and you knew it would have repercussions, so you can't complain about it. You dug your own grave in that one.
Now, if we want to find out the TRUE root of the issue here, we have to go deeper. We need to find out what you ORIGINALLY posted that started this entire thing.
I didn't post anything I shouldn't have had the right to.
Sure you have the right to post it, but you don't have the right to not have it removed
I agree there - you definitely went overboard with that last post, and you said so yourself. You posted it specifically to test other people's patience, so there is no reason for you to complain about it.
So in this regard I think you're both cocknuggets. I simply don't even want to consider being on IppE's side because the reasoning behind his removal of your post was completely and utterly due to personal beliefs and not because he thought the post was in the wrong place.
You just acted like a cocknugget for attention, and I know you like being edgy for others, but you have to see that you will only ever attract children with that sort of show.
So in this regard I think you're both cocknuggets. I simply don't even want to consider being on IppE's side because the reasoning behind his removal of your post was completely and utterly due to personal beliefs and not because he thought the post was in the wrong place.
You just acted like a cocknugget for attention, and I know you like being edgy for others, but you have to see that you will only ever attract children with that sort of show.
I think you misread my post. I don't apologise for anything I posted; if other people are triggered, that's their problem.
Well that's just rude then. If I go and take a shit on you and then say "I don't apologise for anything" you probably wouldn't like me, now, would you? Why go and push it that far when you know that the only thing you're gonna achieve is to cause negative attention, unless you specifically want that attention.
I left because I couldn't handle that same safe-space bullshit that tupsu was doing, but I didn't cause a drama over it. Be a man and just leave them be if they want to be retards. They're gonna learn one day that when someone punches them in the face, they won't have a safe space or anyone to come crying to. Life uh..... finds a way.
As for IppE, I'm just sad, nothing to say really.
I left because I couldn't handle that same safe-space bullshit that tupsu was doing, but I didn't cause a drama over it. Be a man and just leave them be if they want to be retards. They're gonna learn one day that when someone punches them in the face, they won't have a safe space or anyone to come crying to. Life uh..... finds a way.
As for IppE, I'm just sad, nothing to say really.
Well it's not like it's my intention to offend anyone; I'm not trying to personally insult anyone. It's just provocative humour. You have to realise that offense isn't given, it's taken. I don't think I over dramaticised anything, I'd prefer to try and change things before I leave. But once my posts get deleted, that's the point I step out. I gave IppE and ultimatum that I wouldn't tolerate my posts being deleted, and he chose to do it.
Anyway, I agree with your sentiments.
Anyway, I agree with your sentiments.
Everyone has that vivid memory of seeing tupsu go on a massive rage fit and throw profanities at everyone within close proximity for the first time. It's like a ritual. Not like it's rare though, happens almost everyday, I think?
I don't.
Could've sworn it happens a lot. Not that I dislike her though. Just think, "Eh, it happens."
article doesn't even link to the studyB1rd wrote:
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1357-pew-research-republicans-more-knowledgeable-than-democrats
Interesting.
study is 7 years old (lol) http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/11/18/p ... specifics/
As the study correctly points out, there are other driving factors such as age and education. Did they ever mention whether or not they accounted for that when they chose their samples? Can a questionnaire consisting of only 13 questions (lol again) really be considered to be an accurate way to measure what they are trying to measure? Are the questions biased?
this piece of research raises some questions about its validity..
not willing to look further into it, though. A major blunder of them to not describe their sample in the very first chart, makes me think they don't know anything about statistics. They don't deserve a second look. Crappy article. Why even bother doing a questionnaire if you're gonna publish it like that? Sloppy journalism of this magnitude is usually reserved for the typical second hand source, like the one that b1rd linked.
Railey, you give everything B1rd says far too much credit. That said, good on you for it.
Also, still love that Renard track <3
Also, still love that Renard track <3
i mean.. i could very well imagine that the claim of the study holds true. The average republican might know more about these things than the average democrat. But fuck is that one bad article like come on.
Just what we needed: more entanglements in the Middle East.
Milkshake wrote:
good meem
The low quality jpeg effect makes it gold. Or maybe it actually is a low quality jpeg.
Uh oh, everytime Aurani is here, i'm always out jacking it.
Excellent series.
I secretly wank to your sister every time you're away from home.Hika wrote:
Uh oh, everytime Aurani is here, i'm always out jacking it.
Top 10 Anime betrayals.Aurani wrote:
I secretly wank to your sister every time you're away from home.Hika wrote:
Uh oh, everytime Aurani is here, i'm always out jacking it.
Send me a picture of Hika's sister asap
Yo yo, you can't have both. You can have Hika, but her sister is mine.
I don't have a sister. Stop cheating on me.
At least let me dream!Hika wrote:
I don't have a sister. Stop cheating on me.
why? you can go and molest the real aurani. he's good at playing the little-sister-role.
i thought you were a guy
i already posted in me irl some time ago, i can go look for that picture
i already posted in me irl some time ago, i can go look for that picture
I can't believe you look 100% like I imagined you. I'm getting good at guessing.
Also, you sure you have no German blood in you? I sense something German about you. Must be the adorable kitty.:V
Also, you sure you have no German blood in you? I sense something German about you. Must be the adorable kitty.:V
i'm just happy that neither of us used an instagram filter. All is good.
i'd rather die than having my face be vandalized like this
I'm not going to take insults from a barely legal kebab.
don't worry, I know your heart is already shattered ;*
alive and rested
ste fan fan kikoeru sama is here
Ona je posebna, vjeruj miAurani wrote:
Well well, if you want mine, you gotta whip out yours. :VRailey2 wrote:
aurani post pix plz
Sex manijak, ženski Ron Jeremi
Nisam jedini što ide u intimu
Gufe nisu solo, uvijek su u timu
Ima strašne fore koje radit voli
Ne znam gdje je učila al’ znam da ne u školi
Šta je mislio tvoj tata kad te radio
Onaj ko je stavio, taj nikad ne bi vadio
I'm a really big mexican man with muscles all over the place. That's how I won over the heart of Hika's sister.Madvillain wrote:
I feel betrayed. I always thought you were a black man living in Serbia. While at the back of my mind I knew it was for the lulz, I still clung on to that hope.
Da tek vidis kako je Slippers seksi. =DAomi wrote:
Ona je posebna, vjeruj mi
Sex manijak, ženski Ron Jeremi
Nisam jedini što ide u intimu
Gufe nisu solo, uvijek su u timu
Ima strašne fore koje radit voli
Ne znam gdje je učila al’ znam da ne u školi
Šta je mislio tvoj tata kad te radio
Onaj ko je stavio, taj nikad ne bi vadio
I always imagined aurani to be Marcus Aurelius incarnate. Actually, I'm still 99% sure that'll end up happening in some form as aurani becomes the leader of a neo roman empire.
This fucking hit me so hardJordan wrote:
Please stop
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
I'm finna fight you if u don't shut up nigga
this joke went way over my head
Is posting second-rate memes the only thing you come here to do.
Comfy Slippers wrote:
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
YOU KNOW NOTHING COMFY SLIPPERSComfy Slippers wrote:
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
At least the chemical attacks will be replaced by codeine attacks 👀👍👌Hika wrote:
This fucking hit me so hardJordan wrote:
Please stop
this shit used to be my jamkai99 wrote:
Comfy Slippers wrote:
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
Hika's a hood nigger, what do you expect? :pComfy Slippers wrote:
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
nah
fookmep
imagine calling them second rate memes :khinting:
stefan lock again
ill pay
ill pay
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
You don't even live in Europe, pal.
Not that I'm against your point of view, but you got it easy there you isolated fuck. :V
Not that I'm against your point of view, but you got it easy there you isolated fuck. :V
Did I just read... TRUCKS?!
remember how they wanted to ban Quake it could be used as training engine for potential school shooters?
Truck simulator ban incoming.
Truck simulator ban incoming.
Mara on his way to train some Finnish kebabs in the ways of mowing down people with trucks, black and white filter, circa 2015.
I need to drive some more so I can buy another garage.
hello people; tuuba drama was an interesting read
for a second I thought ITT 2 was locked due to the presence of ITT 3 and I almost had a heart attack. Now I'm just angery
for a second I thought ITT 2 was locked due to the presence of ITT 3 and I almost had a heart attack. Now I'm just angery
Statistically speaking, things are going really well. So no, there'd need to be a ridiculous upturn in violence before you could even begin to make that point.B1rd wrote:
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
Why would you stop immigrants when you can wait for them to get enslaved in north africa or dumped into the Mediterranean Sea?
It's actually pretty sad that there is so many of them waiting on the border between Hungary and Serbia, yet we can't fill them with lead. It's like we're willingly letting the cancer that is modern Islam spread through our lands. :V
['90s accordion music intensifies]
['90s accordion music intensifies]
Hi I'm B1rd and I use people's deaths to push my political agendaB1rd wrote:
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
While I don't agree with what he's saying, it's not much different from someone who complains about starving kids in Africa and how people don't think about the problem. Would you tell them that they're using deaths to push their political agenda? Not really, they're just concerned in their own ways. The difference is that blaming immigrants in general for truck accidents is just another correlation versus causation problem.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Hi I'm B1rd and I use people's deaths to push my political agendaB1rd wrote:
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
Yeah, perhaps I should've clarified a bit more. I wasn't exactly looking to make a compelling argument in my post, though, it was just frustrating to see that kind of thing being done- especially in a non-anonymous environment (well, less anonymous than 4chan, anyway), which I believe are better suited to such, uh, non-standard "arguments" being made.Foxtrot wrote:
While I don't agree with what he's saying, it's not much different from someone who complains about starving kids in Africa and how people don't think about the problem. Would you tell them that they're using deaths to push their political agenda? Not really, they're just concerned in their own ways. The difference is that blaming immigrants in general for truck accidents is just another correlation versus causation problem.
To elaborate then- I really hate it whenever anyone takes a single event, ESPECIALLY a tragedy, and uses it for their own politics. I think it's a pathetic thing to do that speaks a lot more to the person's ridiculous confirmation bias than anything else- they see one thing, it appeals to their emotions, and they use that to further their political agenda by trying to appeal to other people's same emotions. How about we step back from shit like that and actually try to use more meaningful facts and statistics if we want to make big, generalising arguments, instead of: "LOOK AT THIS ONE AWFUL THING, PEOPLE DIED, THIS MEANS I'M RIGHT!"
You know? I just think that kind of thing is bullshit, and I'm sick of seeing anybody using it. Don't be so disrespectful.
edit: Worth mentioning is that this isn't necessarily a simple frustration at "correlation=causation", it's deeper than that.
vipper you'd probably make a similar argument if it was about something you supported.
How many more civilians have to die in airstrikes before the US realizes that it is leading a pointless war?
How many people have to die in the war on drugs before the US comes to its senses and legalizes drugs?
How many people have to die before X?
are you telling me you've never made that sort of argument before?
How many more civilians have to die in airstrikes before the US realizes that it is leading a pointless war?
How many people have to die in the war on drugs before the US comes to its senses and legalizes drugs?
How many people have to die before X?
are you telling me you've never made that sort of argument before?
No, I don't make those arguments. I think they're incredibly stupid.Railey2 wrote:
vipper you'd probably make a similar argument if it was about something you supported.
How many more civilians have to die in airstrikes before the US realizes that it is leading a pointless war?
How many people have to die in the war on drugs before the US comes to its senses and legalizes drugs?
How many people have to die before X?
Thinking of going outside and buy some cola at midnight.
What I really don't like about your post, Viper, is that it's extremely shallow when you look at it from a neutral standpoint. You are immediately basing the entire point around the opinion that someone is being emotionally charged up and thus basing their point of view on that.
In a way, it's pretty ironic that you're branding him while you made your own biased and skewed commentary to counter his.
In a way, it's pretty ironic that you're branding him while you made your own biased and skewed commentary to counter his.
i can see how they could be distasteful but how are they incredibly stupid?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
No, I don't make those arguments. I think they're incredibly stupid.Railey2 wrote:
vipper you'd probably make a similar argument if it was about something you supported.
How many more civilians have to die in airstrikes before the US realizes that it is leading a pointless war?
How many people have to die in the war on drugs before the US comes to its senses and legalizes drugs?
How many people have to die before X?
Peoples lives are a VERY important variable for large scale decisions, some people would even argue that they are the most important variable.
''How many people have to die before X'' is just another way of saying: ''hey there are people dying and i feel you should prioritize preventing that, plus i'm also going to try and make you feel a bit bad about it''
it's not a complete argument on its own, but it is a very valid and common sentiment that can easily be extended to be part of a proper argument.
i certainly wouldn't call it incredibly stupid.
Simply put, I dislike emotional appeal as the -main- way of trying to push an agenda, for the most part. I do see your point that it can be used as a proper argument though, as well as the fact that there are almost definitely a few exceptions that can be made when it comes to morality- i.e. "It's messed up if we allow this dictator to kill people with no repercussions", or something, but clearly I must see a difference in this case- probably because of how loosely connected the event and the conclusion are. I was thinking of many similar things when I wrote my post; I've seen that style of argument used a lot of times over the years, first from the left (This one thing happened to a black person somewhere, therefore all police are racist!!, things like that), while the right-wing have been using these emotional appeals as justification for anti-immigrant policy for as long as I can remember. Look at Tommy Robinson/the EDL's main points for further context if you'd like to see examples from my own country that I have experience with. I suppose I should learn to state my points in a more isolated manner from things like this, though, for the reason that Aurani gives- I'm clearly involving my own emotions here.Railey2 wrote:
i can see how they could be distasteful but how are they incredibly stupid?
Peoples lives are a VERY important variable for large scale decisions, some people would even argue that they are the most important variable.
''How many people have to die before X'' is just another way of saying: ''hey there are people dying and i feel you should prioritize preventing that, plus i'm also going to try and make you feel a bit bad about it''
it's not a complete argument on its own, but it is a very valid and common sentiment that can easily be extended to be part of a proper argument.
i certainly wouldn't call it incredibly stupid.
But yeah, in general terms, I don't like it when emotion is the main reason for pushing any particular policy. This applies to every argument that I've actually seen being made in a serious manner over the past, I don't know, 10 years- I haven't been following politics for that much of my life, but from what I've seen, this argument is generally BS used to further an agenda without real facts/data supporting them in an attempt to get people to blindly follow their worldview, which is very stupid indeed.
Sorry if this is hard to understand/rambly, not really in the mood to make a well-constructed post on this subject I guess
\o/
kai99 wrote:
\o/
well now you just completely changed your point from ''i don't like people using the deaths of others for an argument'' to
''i don't like emotionally charged reasoning''
Nothing is left of the original discussion
''i don't like emotionally charged reasoning''
Nothing is left of the original discussion