Scoreboards are everything to real top players, that is pride. PP just happens.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,703
E m i
Momi wrote:
I don't know what pp is i only play for high acc on streams can someone fill me in what's a pp
Those proportions are messed up. It's distracting.
Yeah her ass makes no sense there
maeshima ryou?Tupsu wrote:
Momi wrote:
I don't know what pp is i only play for high acc on streams can someone fill me in what's a pp
@momi what was your opinion on this map? https://osu.ppy.sh/s/40499
I saw you post in the thread but couldn't make out if you liked it or not
the proportions in that pic don't look out of place to me
I saw you post in the thread but couldn't make out if you liked it or not
the proportions in that pic don't look out of place to me
Kisses wrote:
@momi what was your opinion on this map? https://osu.ppy.sh/s/40499
I saw you post in the thread but couldn't make out if you liked it or not
the proportions in that pic don't look out of place to me
wow that sure was a good map
E m i
Kinda ugly but very much enjoyed it either way, I like those types of streamy maps, slightly hard to read/execute, hard to get good acc on. Not sure why everyone dislikes it but you knowKisses wrote:
@momi what's your opinion on this map? https://osu.ppy.sh/s/40499
I saw you post in the thread but couldn't make out if you liked it or not
I always like when there are more complex streamy maps. And semi-relatedly I also like to play maps like this https://osu.ppy.sh/b/246322&m=0 because to me gameplay > mappingam i being fucked with right nowMomi wrote:
Kinda ugly but very much enjoyed it either way, I like those types of streamy maps, slightly hard to read/execute, hard to get good acc on. Not sure why everyone dislikes it but you knowKisses wrote:
@momi what's your opinion on this map? https://osu.ppy.sh/s/40499
I saw you post in the thread but couldn't make out if you liked it or not
he linked literally nothing
E m i
The author "deleted" it
https://puu.sh/zuXW7/051d23b355.jpg
it was a map, i'll try to reupload?
https://puu.sh/zuXYA/04fe569a14.osz Yes i did
https://puu.sh/zuXW7/051d23b355.jpg
it was a map, i'll try to reupload?
https://puu.sh/zuXYA/04fe569a14.osz Yes i did
I have no idea I just steal memes from the internetxxjesus1412fanx wrote:
maeshima ryou?Tupsu wrote:
lol @ virgin men not knowing how spines work, the only thing a bit off with that image is the legs'/thighs' length to width ratio
E m i
She's basically doing a cat stretch. Although I think her ass is a bit prominent for a child's physique.
If you start from the neck, you trace out the spine to a different location than starting out on the other side
lmao you're criticizing an image you yourself postedTupsu wrote:
I have no idea I just steal memes from the internet
lol @ virgin men not knowing how spines work, the only thing a bit off with that image is the legs'/thighs' length to width ratio
what's even funnier is the fact that everyone is analyzing it because you brought it back up
y'all make me laugh
w h e w imagine being this pretentiousTupsu wrote:
lol @ virgin men not knowing how spines work, the only thing a bit off with that image is the legs'/thighs' length to width ratio
Holy shit John I've never seen such spice from youjohnmedina999 wrote:
lmao you're criticizing an image you yourself posted
what's even funnier is the fact that everyone is analyzing it because you brought it back up
y'all make me laugh
He learned from the spiciest individuals here in OT. Maybe I should try to be spicy too sometimeDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Holy shit John I've never seen such spice from youjohnmedina999 wrote:
lmao you're criticizing an image you yourself posted
what's even funnier is the fact that everyone is analyzing it because you brought it back up
y'all make me laugh
So any update on the new forum layout replacing the old one?
should be about april/may. Looking at the issues tagged "required for live", some are in the February milestone, but others are in the candidate issues, and there are some high priority ones there too, which may take a month or two to get through.Green Platinum wrote:
So any update on the new forum layout replacing the old one?
abraker wrote:
but score-v2 won't be used, so we win anyway?
It was used in the tournament, so it's still a loss as far as I'm concerned.
Regardless of how bad regular users can be. doesn't excuse the shitty mods, of which there are many. As Green Platinum has mentioned, mods who enforce a practical set of rules consistently and without bias on their part or fine - but not very common. I've known plenty of mods who are completely adverse to any common sense or logic. For example, if I explain why a certain rule - one of their own at that - does not justify one of their actions, the will deny that it doesn't - they won't even admit it and then amend the rule set to exclude the undesirable behavior as I have suggested. Things like rules are felt by them as much a hindrance to those mods' uninhibited powers as it is to the users.
When I talk about anarchy, it's not some stupid lefty conception of the word in which they they disavow any form of hierarchy or authority (which is an amazingly stupid and goes against nature itself, any sane person can see that). To explain the Libertarian idea of anarchy would require a long technical discussion which I don't think anyone is interested in, but rest assured, it doesn't exclude authority or hierarchy.Aurani wrote:
I mean of course you'd support anarchy (despite clear evidence of it being complete shit here) than some form of authority and order.
This place was a hundred times more active and lively when the kiddies didn't have the balls to post shitty threads about suicide or some other equally meaningless thing because they feared being shunned by the regulars and molested by the mod.
Won't comment on your Tuuba thing since it's clear that at this point it's far too late for you to realise anything.
man will you love thisB1rd wrote:
Regardless of how bad regular users can be. doesn't excuse the shitty mods, of which there are many. As Green Platinum has mentioned, mods who enforce a practical set of rules consistently and without bias on their part or fine - but not very common. I've known plenty of mods who are completely adverse to any common sense or logic. For example, if I explain why a certain rule - one of their own at that - does not justify one of their actions, the will deny that it doesn't - they won't even admit it and then amend the rule set to exclude the undesirable behavior as I have suggested. Things like rules are felt by them as much a hindrance to those mods' uninhibited powers as it is to the users.
soulfear has always been one of my favourite mappers- really nice flowy cs5 maps. Probably driven to quitting by QAT drama.
E m i
What do you expect me to think? I think that it's probably a bunch of sophistry, preaching to the choir on a circlejerk site that can't tolerate dissent (hence the race realism Subreddits taken down), but I myself don't understand the science nor do I have the inclination to educate myself to the degree that taking part in the that debate would require.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/badscience/comments/7nltbx/a_response_to_mouthy_buddhas_race_realism_video/?utm_source=reddit-androi
Thoughts? @b1rd
If your friend wants a serious discussion he should post his argument on Youtube not Reddit, JF is an unrelenting with response videos. However it seems the leftist gang have been routed from Youtube and have to recover by lurking in such place as Reddit since the hilarious exposé on Kraut and Tea and his gang of conspirators, which was made up of "scientists" of trans people and the like. For all their efforts to completely failed to debunk his arguments on an intellectual level, even after trying so hard and recruiting so many people intent on debunking race realism. If JF was such a moron as your Reddit man claims, unattested in his Reddit safe space, then such criticisms could have been brought up months ago, in which there were no shortage of left-inclined scientists to dispute JF's claims.
-the problem with rail networks is that regulation makes free-market competition and innovation impossible and creates local monopolyDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
b1rb should watch this video
-this regulation is needed because otherwise trains would crash (and produce would rot on the shelves, and toasters would explode, et cetera)
-this is why the free-market fails
Hardly a scathing rebuttal on privitisation when the system was newly-privitised system had heavy state involvement from the get-go, and has been held up from bankrupcy by heavy state subsidies, and was never a product of natural market formations in the first place. The assumption is that all this meddling in necessary otherwise trains would crash, et cetera (because it happened under Railtrack, and the failure of one business under a convoluted system and that proves the incompetency of all the whole market) while neglecting to mention that the British rail was in fact pioneered by private business, and was maintained with minimal government interference for over a hundred years and only nationalised in WW2.
However is the same ideological fervour that is accused as being the basis of privatisation that is the basis of the hatred of Uber. If they don't bow down to use and follow our arbitrary rules, they can go and the consumer be damned, they say. Oh no, they say, we can't allow two consenting individuals on their own free-will enter into an arrangement or contract without our oversight, they say, otherwise, we will get people with guns to stop it with force. This is the reality of collectivist thinking in economics, and you can see it clearly when there aren't theories of local monopolies and market failures to use as justification. Indeed, they would rather the actual monopoly of taxi companies to the impudence of a company functioning successfully without the pretence of being enabled by the state.
East-Asian women are generally the most attractive (and they seem to dress better too), though good looking White men are generally more attractive than most Asian men, though there are a lot more ugly White men than ugly Asian men. Though I think that Japanese and Korean men are generally a lot more better than Chinese men, which makes me wonder if societal health in a relatively short term has a lot significant effect on the general attractiveness of the population. Also, happas generally look worse than both Asians and whites. The Amerimutt meme is a reality. That is my ponderings on the different races.Meah wrote:
Filipino best race
Zain Sugieres wrote:
burn anyone whos not a 100% white heterosexualcatholicprotestant cis male
Your constant attacks on Peterson just show how much he is a threat to you.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Hey look, Jordan Peterson reiterated his batshit insane claims in a video call. Maybe they're not just twitter shitposts?
https://twitter.com/S_Saeen/status/955889027957297152
E m i
that was hardly an attack, it's just funny how people like him (though actually maybe people on the opposide side of the argument as well) fail to realize that tendencies are tendencies. If muslims mistreat women 648%(example) as often as non-muslims (in an unspecified way) because of easily recognizable things like culture and religion (of which they only MAY be a part), it's easy to support their rights.B1rd wrote:
Your constant attacks on Peterson just show how much he is a threat to you.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Hey look, Jordan Peterson reiterated his batshit insane claims in a video call. Maybe they're not just twitter shitposts?
https://twitter.com/S_Saeen/status/955889027957297152
Why?
Because the percentage never reaches 100%, it's just a "tendency".
I thought most people hated Uber because their company has a track record for having extremely sexist attitudes towards its female employees?
Also, I honestly can't understand how we see things so differently. When you read over a thorough debunking of JF's ideas, and your response is to dismiss it all as "sophistry" in a "safe space"- it just baffles me. You're obviously not against looking into arguments; you seem to have watched that Shaun&Jen video. Oh, and on that topic I guess I'll just chime in that I think the post-nationalisation rail service existed in a VERY different world to pre-WW2 Britain; it's been around for so long that I think you can give it credit for its own success.
Also, I honestly can't understand how we see things so differently. When you read over a thorough debunking of JF's ideas, and your response is to dismiss it all as "sophistry" in a "safe space"- it just baffles me. You're obviously not against looking into arguments; you seem to have watched that Shaun&Jen video. Oh, and on that topic I guess I'll just chime in that I think the post-nationalisation rail service existed in a VERY different world to pre-WW2 Britain; it's been around for so long that I think you can give it credit for its own success.
Just found a new youtube channel to subscribe to. Excellent videos
Apprently the new website has a new search and I couldn't help but search for my nickname. I got really sad, 2012/2013 were simpler times.
I honestly miss a lot of you guys, is anyone still in contact with Kanye West?
If you wanna check out the new search: https://osu.ppy.sh/home/search
EDIT: I also found out that 4 people voted for my map in the "Best of 2013" ranking. Good confidence boost, better late than never I guess
I honestly miss a lot of you guys, is anyone still in contact with Kanye West?
If you wanna check out the new search: https://osu.ppy.sh/home/search
EDIT: I also found out that 4 people voted for my map in the "Best of 2013" ranking. Good confidence boost, better late than never I guess
At least search works on the new website tho, for me search does not work on the old one.
Hasn’t been for a couple of months now, I wonder if anyone else has the same problem too...
Hasn’t been for a couple of months now, I wonder if anyone else has the same problem too...
everyoneDJ Enetro wrote:
At least search works on the new website tho, for me search does not work on the old one.
Hasn’t been for a couple of months now, I wonder if anyone else has the same problem too...
they nuked the old search
heretic scumB1rd wrote:
Zain Sugieres wrote:
burn anyone whos not a 100% white heterosexualcatholicprotestant cis male
Your group thinks everything is sexist, so no surprises there.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I thought most people hated Uber because their company has a track record for having extremely sexist attitudes towards its female employees?
Also, I honestly can't understand how we see things so differently. When you read over a thorough debunking of JF's ideas, and your response is to dismiss it all as "sophistry" in a "safe space"- it just baffles me. You're obviously not against looking into arguments; you seem to have watched that Shaun&Jen video. Oh, and on that topic I guess I'll just chime in that I think the post-nationalisation rail service existed in a VERY different world to pre-WW2 Britain; it's been around for so long that I think you can give it credit for its own success.
I didn't say everything was sophistry, I was everything was probably sophistry given the circumstances, but I wasn't going to invest the large amount of time needed to actually educate myself in that specific field to be able to address the points. But you have a lot of temerity to expect me to respond to the post when the post itself was never intended as an argument to engage in any sort of dialogue or discussion, but was merely for the purpose of preaching to the choir of people illiterate in that field but who were looking to gulp down any plausible scientific-sounding argument that validated their pre-conceived opinions founded in the first place on political disposition and not scientific truth.
Indeed the whole thing is just a diatribe that goes on insulting JF and his credentials as a scientists, spending as much time inferring intent and motivations (so this is where you learn it from) as it does addressing points. The author then states many times his refusal to engage with JF in any sort of debate whatsoever, the former of which is more than happy to respond to his critics in live debates or other means of their choosing. I hardly doubt that the people who are right would scamper from confrontation so readily and rely on confusing argument largely incomprehensible to the layman. And JF did, in fact, rebut the post in the comments below.
Apart from the pointed-out scientific fallacies like the continuum fallacy that keeps popping up ad-nauseam, which I might address later if I feel like it, I'd comment on the alarmist tone in which race realism, a.k.a science is constantly lumped in with the Nazis, the KKK and the genocide of 11 billion Jews and Gypsies, as if that is the logical conclusion from the realisation that some groups of humans are different from others. I'd like to point out that Nazi racialism is indeed pseudo-science; modern race-realism is much closer to the scientific understanding of the allies' on the subject of human biology at the time of WW2, before it essentially became a taboo subject as a result of Nazis. No, it's not any particular scientific truth that inevitably leads to genocide, but rather denying truth to fit some specific ideological agenda is more more dangerous.
I've been on JF's Discord which had quite a lot of intelligent and interesting people, from White nationalist to unashamed homosexuals, (you should go on there and escape from your bubble, in fact) pretty much everyone was on board with race realism, but there were a lot of different political conclusions drawn from that fact, with nationalists, globalists, Libertarians, et cetera there. One guy there was quite ardently in favour of race mixing and had an Asian girlfriend.
I really have no idea what you're trying to say, but I think that calling someone batshit insane constitutes an attack. Furthermore, just look at the type of people who posted the Tweet.Momi wrote:
that was hardly an attack, it's just funny how people like him (though actually maybe people on the opposide side of the argument as well) fail to realize that tendencies are tendencies. If muslims mistreat women 648%(example) as often as non-muslims (in an unspecified way) because of easily recognizable things like culture and religion (of which they only MAY be a part), it's easy to support their rights.
Why?
Because the percentage never reaches 100%, it's just a "tendency".
I don't know what these people's obsession with attacking someone's credentials is - apparently a PhD, over a hundred published papers, thousands of citations and even teaching at Hardvard for half a decade isn't good enough for them, and in fact, can easily be bested by a 20 year old. Apparently they have never heard the phrase "give the Devil his due".
Watching people like this fester in their safe spaces is really quite amusing, you wouldn't believe how malicious these people supposedly driven by compassion can be.
Repent, papist.Zain Sugieres wrote:
heretic scum
I'd like to specifically address this false equivalency.B1rd wrote:
Your group thinks everything is sexist, so no surprises there.
"Some social justice warriors throw false accusations of sexism, so that means that any and all accusations of sexism should be thrown away" is such a fucking stupid argument that it disappoints me to see anyone who isn't a young child use it. You can do much, much better than that, B1rd.
Again, you do a lot of reading in to things that aren't there. I never used the word "some", I said your group, implying all people with social justice leanings, are defined in part by their exaggeration of sexism against females, both in its frequency, impact and relevancy to society. And I didn't say sexism doesn't happen, I implied that what you call sexism is often just a triviality or justifiable behaviour, and you certainly seem to be exaggerating its relevance to Uber, whose problems certainly seems to be the typical regulatory and "worker's rights" complaints.
The word sexism itself is tied to the sjw ideology and theories of patriarchy and such that state that women are under widespread oppression in society. But such things are ludicrous when you look at things impartialy. Women benefit inordinately more from wealth redistribution schemes, they benefit from progressive actions schemes, they get off much lighter for identical crimes as men, they disproportionately win family court cases and have higher attendance at universities and achieve higher grades than men, and they commit suicide around 4 times less often. And then, even though things like feminism and affirmative action have wide-spread institutional support, people attack Jordan Peterson having the temerity of being a role model for young men and standing up for their interests. No wonder!
The word sexism itself is tied to the sjw ideology and theories of patriarchy and such that state that women are under widespread oppression in society. But such things are ludicrous when you look at things impartialy. Women benefit inordinately more from wealth redistribution schemes, they benefit from progressive actions schemes, they get off much lighter for identical crimes as men, they disproportionately win family court cases and have higher attendance at universities and achieve higher grades than men, and they commit suicide around 4 times less often. And then, even though things like feminism and affirmative action have wide-spread institutional support, people attack Jordan Peterson having the temerity of being a role model for young men and standing up for their interests. No wonder!
I love how you start this post by countering my deliberately-charitable interpretation of your words with an even more batshit insane claim, lol. "Not some people with social justice leanings, but ALL of them"- you're hilarious!B1rd wrote:
Again, you do a lot of reading in to things that aren't there. I never used the word "some", I said your group, implying all people with social justice leanings, are defined in part by their exaggeration of sexism against females, both in its frequency, impact and relevancy to society. And I didn't say sexism doesn't happen, I implied that what you call sexism is often just a triviality or justifiable behaviour, and you certainly seem to be exaggerating its relevance to Uber, whose problems certainly seems to be the typical regulatory and "worker's rights" complaints.
The word sexism itself is tied to the sjw ideology and theories of patriarchy and such that state that women are under widespread oppression in society. But such things are ludicrous when you look at things impartialy. Women benefit inordinately more from wealth redistribution schemes, they benefit from progressive actions schemes, they get off much lighter for identical crimes as men, they disproportionately win family court cases and have higher attendance at universities and achieve higher grades than men, and they commit suicide around 4 times less often. And then, even though things like feminism and affirmative action have wide-spread institutional support, people attack Jordan Peterson having the temerity of being a role model for young men and standing up for their interests. No wonder!
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/1579 ... huffington
Having read personal accounts of women who have quit Uber I think it's a fair judgement to call their workplace culture sexist.
The word sexism itself is tied to the sjw ideology and theories of patriarchy and such that state that women are under widespread oppression in societyJust because critique of patriarchy exists that doesn't mean "sexism" automatically means that in all contexts. Aren't you someone who complains about sexism against men?
Also, you're very transparently taking this opportunity to rattle off a bunch of MRA propaganda/talking points when the conversation wasn't even about that. I said Uber had a sexist workplace and now you're veering off-topic to talk about overall suicide rates, like, what are you smoking..?
As for Jordan Peterson I think you're deliberately oversimplifying people's criticism. I know lots of people make fun of his "clean your room" advice, but it's undeniably good advice. Critique is more often given towards the fact that he uses these techniques to build an audience of lonely/despondent young men and then provides them a gateway into alt-right ideology with his grandiose anti-postmodernism ranting and such.
E m i
his implication seems to be that the "wish for brutal male domination" comes from some assumed characteristic of "abusing women", assumed to be possessed by "muslims" and assumed to have a prevalence of 100%. the assumption makes no sense sadly, it's statistically wrong. if that is not the assumption and his assumption is closer to reality, then the "wish for brutal male domination" would be incompatibile with it.B1rd wrote:
I really have no idea what you're trying to say, but I think that calling someone batshit insane constitutes an attack. Furthermore, just look at the type of people who posted the Tweet.
example - i support the rights of black people not because of my wish for brutal crime, but because my brain is big enough to filter statistics, percentages, and understand words with more than 8 letters. sorry for an idiotic example.
Even groups where negative tendencies are directly implied and very significant, like "people who have a desire to kill someone" (isn't that very simple?) are simplifiable as a "higher percentage number on a chart" and have not done anything yet. Do you think thought crimes are a good idea? I'm not sure if you do but a tendency of a group is even weaker than a thought crime because not even a thought is guaranteed.
this can apply to any group, who knows - maybe gingers have a higher tendency of school shootings... i bet there are some interesting statistics and tendencies out there.
as someone with social justice leanings, my observations lead me to think that sexism is experienced in more or less equal intensity by both genders. but it also presents itself in different ways for each, so if one only looks into certain types/sources of sexism, they might weirdly misinterpret it as [insert gender] experiencing ALL sexism more than the other.B1rd wrote:
I said your group, implying all people with social justice leanings, are defined in part by their exaggeration of sexism against females, both in its frequency, impact and relevancy to society.
imagine if MRAs and feminists united into one group, it would be pretty cool i promise
Why use languages like English when you start to warp the meaning of arguments by via vagueness of interpretation.
Just state everything in a mathematical context. I trust math. It is never wrong and only has one possible interpretation.
Just state everything in a mathematical context. I trust math. It is never wrong and only has one possible interpretation.
abraker wrote:
Why use languages like English when you start to warp the meaning of arguments by via vagueness of interpretation.
Just state everything in a mathematical context. I trust math. It is never wrong and only has one possible interpretation.
You have no idea how much I want this.
Seriously, there should be a reformed version of German where everything is 100% precise and literal.
Was it intentional that your post was is hard to interpret. Don't blame English because of your failure to use it properly. Also, maths sucks.abraker wrote:
Why use languages like English when you start to warp the meaning of arguments by via vagueness of interpretation.
Just state everything in a mathematical context. I trust math. It is never wrong and only has one possible interpretation.
How about we all just stop posting? That way, our arguments would have no chance of being misinterpreted.
Let's discuss in Esperanto.
b1rd you're going to hell
What self-respecting SJW could call xerself a SJW if xer didn't constantly rant about sexism and the patriarchy? It's a part of the definition of the label.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I love how you start this post by countering my deliberately-charitable interpretation of your words with an even more batshit insane claim, lol. "Not some people with social justice leanings, but ALL of them"- you're hilarious!B1rd wrote:
Again, you do a lot of reading in to things that aren't there. I never used the word "some", I said your group, implying all people with social justice leanings, are defined in part by their exaggeration of sexism against females, both in its frequency, impact and relevancy to society. And I didn't say sexism doesn't happen, I implied that what you call sexism is often just a triviality or justifiable behaviour, and you certainly seem to be exaggerating its relevance to Uber, whose problems certainly seems to be the typical regulatory and "worker's rights" complaints.
The word sexism itself is tied to the sjw ideology and theories of patriarchy and such that state that women are under widespread oppression in society. But such things are ludicrous when you look at things impartialy. Women benefit inordinately more from wealth redistribution schemes, they benefit from progressive actions schemes, they get off much lighter for identical crimes as men, they disproportionately win family court cases and have higher attendance at universities and achieve higher grades than men, and they commit suicide around 4 times less often. And then, even though things like feminism and affirmative action have wide-spread institutional support, people attack Jordan Peterson having the temerity of being a role model for young men and standing up for their interests. No wonder!
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/1579 ... huffington
Having read personal accounts of women who have quit Uber I think it's a fair judgement to call their workplace culture sexist.The word sexism itself is tied to the sjw ideology and theories of patriarchy and such that state that women are under widespread oppression in societyJust because critique of patriarchy exists that doesn't mean "sexism" automatically means that in all contexts. Aren't you someone who complains about sexism against men?
Also, you're very transparently taking this opportunity to rattle off a bunch of MRA propaganda/talking points when the conversation wasn't even about that. I said Uber had a sexist workplace and now you're veering off-topic to talk about overall suicide rates, like, what are you smoking..?
As for Jordan Peterson I think you're deliberately oversimplifying people's criticism. I know lots of people make fun of his "clean your room" advice, but it's undeniably good advice. Critique is more often given towards the fact that he uses these techniques to build an audience of lonely/despondent young men and then provides them a gateway into alt-right ideology with his grandiose anti-postmodernism ranting and such.
Sexist jokes in the workplace? Oh, the humanity! No wonder men don't want women in the workplace if they are writing up exposés every time someone makes a joke (and it's only jokes that are offensive in some way that are truly funny). Everyone has to experience unpleasant bosses, unpleasant coworkers, unpleasant workplace environments, and so on. What's worse than this "culture of sexism" is the culture of the the victim mentality and the culture of infantilisation and treating adults as if they are emotionally-fragile children. Adults shouldn't need the state to intervene to sort out problems like workplace bullies.
And sexism against men? Does such a thing really exist? Indeed, even most dictionaries seem to state that sexism is typically against women. but the word sexism is basically feminist jargon, so it's not like I'd ever actually use the word myself. I'm not against traditional gender roles, since their utility is rooted in biology, and I'm not against employers choosing whatever arbitrary grounds for employment that they want, as it's their money they're giving away, and I believe in freedom of association, and people should have the right to associate with whatever type, race or sex of people they choose to.
Things like toleration vs not tolerating things is inherently a balancing act; there are certain behaviors and people you shouldn't tolerate, and there are those you should, and you need to discern these things apart. For example, obviously if you're an employer you should discriminate against drug addicts. But as for women and non-whites, it depends. Some jobs may be inherently unsuitable for women, take combat roles in the army as I've mentioned in previous stories, and in that circumstance discriminating against men is unjust. If you had to choose between a white man and a black man given equal credentials and a finite amount of information, it'd be more prudent going with the white man since in most locations whites are less prone to criminality and therefore presumably more likely to be a better employee. Or take discrimination purely on the basis of race, maybe you inherently prefer being around people of your own race so actively discriminate so you don't have to associate with people of other races, that's a valid reason and not a faulty assumption, and although the other party would no doubt be upset, withholding services is within your rights.
Anyway, that's my perceptive is "discrimination", "sexism", "racism" and the like. It's nuanced and you can't oversimplify certain types of behaviours as always good or always bad. Also note that technically discrimination is defined as something that is always unjust and wrong, however I just define it as exclusion of a certain group, however just those reasons might be.
As for Jordan Peterson, saying he's some gateway drug to some extreme right-wing view is silly. Firstly, he's fundamentally an anti-totalitarian and that's quite a pervasive point in his works. He accurately points out the arrogance of ideologues, thinking they know everything about the world, which one would need to determine a few select things as the cause of all troubles, be it the Jews or Capitalism or the patriarchy. If anything he's far more likely to deradicalise young men already radicalised by one ideology to another, and his message boils down to "sort yourself out", "get a job, work to improve your life and the lives of those around you", which is as good advice you can give. His advice doesn't stem from a political inclination, but rather from psychology, philosophy and life experience, and he was never aiming at the male demographic (and indeed he has plenty of advice for women), it just so happened that men are the ones who need the advice at this point in time. I'd reference his book 12 Rules for Life which I bought and has a lot of interesting points and condenses a lot of his lectures, however I'm not at home at the moment. The criticism of Jordan Peterson are often nothing more than people upset because his conclusions go against their ideology and thus attack him by whatever means possible, when any sane person can tell that he is largely a beneficial influence whatever things they may be able to nitpick about him.
And concerning things like Post-modernism and cultural Marxism, they are real things and not some "right-wing conspiracy". Post-modernism, generally summarised as radical subjectivism, and the claim that there is no objective truth, and that truth is merely used as a means of power and control, is a real thing. And it's basically the philosophical backing behind many beliefs of progressives, such as the patriarchy, behind the ideals of radical equality and tolerance in which no culture, even radical Muslim fundamentalist cultures, are judged to be inferior or undesirable. And of course remember the term "racism = power + prejudice"? It's basically straight out of the post-modernist handbook. Cultural marxism is simply the modern culture of Marxism brought over from the 19th and 20th century, with many similarities minus the Bolshevism, which was finally and utterly discredited, despite the best efforts for Western Leftist intellectuals for decades to maintain its credibility. Just read some classic literature like Crime and Punishment which Peterson goes on about a lot, it was published in 1866 yet the socialist characters within it are remarkably similar to modern-day SJW. Of course it's hard to prove where the ideas originated, but the label of cultural Marxist with many ideas traditionally associated with Marxism is as good as any.
Are you okay, or are you just not good at formulating arguments? It's weird to use the words "assume" and "assumption" six times in one sentence. But as for the claim, it was never implied that 100% of Muslims were violent, but the fact that Muslims are in general much more violent and oppressive towards women than people in Western countries should be self-evident and is backed by statistics. The claim that women unconsciously wish for brutal male domination is harder to back up, but there have been studies for example that women often have rape fantasies and a lot of women orgasm during rape, so it's plausible enough. Certainly I've heard accounts of the former point by supposed women.Momi wrote:
his implication seems to be that the "wish for brutal male domination" comes from some assumed characteristic of "abusing women", assumed to be possessed by "muslims" and assumed to have a prevalence of 100%. the assumption makes no sense sadly, it's statistically wrong. if that is not the assumption and his assumption is closer to reality, then the "wish for brutal male domination" would be incompatibile with it.B1rd wrote:
I really have no idea what you're trying to say, but I think that calling someone batshit insane constitutes an attack. Furthermore, just look at the type of people who posted the Tweet.
example - i support the rights of black people not because of my wish for brutal crime, but because my brain is big enough to filter statistics, percentages, and understand words with more than 8 letters. sorry for an idiotic example.
Even groups where negative tendencies are directly implied and very significant, like "people who have a desire to kill someone" (isn't that very simple?) are simplifiable as a "higher percentage number on a chart" and have not done anything yet. Do you think thought crimes are a good idea? I'm not sure if you do but a tendency of a group is even weaker than a thought crime because not even a thought is guaranteed.
this can apply to any group, who knows - maybe gingers have a higher tendency of school shootings... i bet there are some interesting statistics and tendencies out there.as someone with social justice leanings, my observations lead me to think that sexism is experienced in more or less equal intensity by both genders. but it also presents itself in different ways for each, so if one only looks into certain types/sources of sexism, they might weirdly misinterpret it as [insert gender] experiencing ALL sexism more than the other.B1rd wrote:
I said your group, implying all people with social justice leanings, are defined in part by their exaggeration of sexism against females, both in its frequency, impact and relevancy to society.
imagine if MRAs and feminists united into one group, it would be pretty cool i promise
Making judgement about demographics based on statistics though is definitely not the same as prosecuting someone for a thought crime. Of course statistics don't give you the right to prosecute someone who hasn't committed a crime, but you can of course choose whom to associate with based on that information. And people do it all the time. For example, you would be more likely to pick up a hitchhiker dressed in a suit and tie rather than a scraggly homeless man, or walk through a well-manicured upper-class suburb that a slum, and such decisions can basically be summed up as making judgement about statistics of which group of people are more likely to be a threat to you or commit some undesirable behaviour.
And it's a good observation to note that pretty much all demographics have their own problems, thus it's not good to focus on the problems of one group to the exclusion of all others, such as feminists making out women to always be the victims and men to be the aggressors. Such antagonism can only lead to mutual hostility and not any actual problem-solving. I remember hearing on a radio once going one about how some issue or another was still a "gendered issue" when the percentage of victims was something like 55% women.
Anyway, that's all for tonight.
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.B1rd wrote:
Was it intentional that your post was is hard to interpret. Don't blame English because of your failure to use it properly. Also, maths sucks.abraker wrote:
Why use languages like English when you start to warp the meaning of arguments by via vagueness of interpretation.
Just state everything in a mathematical context. I trust math. It is never wrong and only has one possible interpretation.
E m i
such a thing was never implied, but it's the only way in which the claim can make sense, as the only way in which a less ulterior motive can't exist... if it was implied and was true, then the claim would totally make sense i guess. That's what I meant. I'm actually giving him the benefit of the doubt with that temporary assumption.B1rd wrote:
Are you okay, or are you just not good at formulating arguments? It's weird to use the words "assume" and "assumption" six times in one sentence. But as for the claim, it was never implied that 100% of Muslims were violent, but the fact that Muslims are in general much more violent and oppressive towards women than people in Western countries should be self-evident and is backed by statistics. The claim that women unconsciously wish for brutal male domination is harder to back up, but there have been studies for example that women often have rape fantasies and a lot of women orgasm during rape, so it's plausible enough. Certainly I've heard accounts of the former point by supposed women.
Also sorry but I'm not into arguments in any sort of meaningful way, I treat related stuff only as entertainment. It's all about what information people have, people mostly have valid thinking. As an example, I don't really think Peterson is unable to comprehend percentages and tendencies. I just think he never even STARTED thinking about it in that way. Which makes his assumptions mostly make sense within his own thinking.
Example:
"Are there 2 genders or infinite genders ???"
Me: There are 2 biological sexes(ha got you) and probably an infinite amount of possible gender-related feelings/thoughts. So now you can stop arguing over a word, because regardless of what properties the word has, reality will stay the same.
I am mostly arguing with:
1. Everyone
2. Nobody
3. Both
So why wouldn't I be bad at formulating arguments?
But all of that stuff is unharmful and indirect. I actually hope everyone does that stuff to protect themselves from tendencies while not also harming anyone...B1rd wrote:
Making judgement about demographics based on statistics though is definitely not the same as prosecuting someone for a thought crime. Of course statistics don't give you the right to prosecute someone who hasn't committed a crime, but you can of course choose whom to associate with based on that information. And people do it all the time. For example, you would be more likely to pick up a hitchhiker dressed in a suit and tie rather than a scraggly homeless man, or walk through a well-manicured upper-class suburb that a slum, and such decisions can basically be summed up as making judgement about statistics of which group of people are more likely to be a threat to you or commit some undesirable behaviour.
It's different from stuff like disallowing certain groups from entering a country, and bla bla bla. That does affect them negatively and directly
What would I knowB1rd wrote:
And it's a good observation to note that pretty much all demographics have their own problems, thus it's not good to focus on the problems of one group to the exclusion of all others, such as feminists making out women to always be the victims and men to be the aggressors. Such antagonism can only lead to mutual hostility and not any actual problem-solving. I remember hearing on a radio once going one about how some issue or another was still a "gendered issue" when the percentage of victims was something like 55% women.
resume ples(?) @-@
I have no idea what you're on about. If you fail to understand what the person said, it can ONLY be one of two things: either you can't read properly and are severely lacking in the knowledge of that specific language, or the person who wrote it lacks a deeper understanding of said language/doesn't know how to express themselves properly and concisely.abraker wrote:
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.
If someone makes an intentionally vague statement in an argument, you call them out for that, because that's not how debates and discussions work. It's called being a mongrel, and if they refuse to throw vague statements at you, you simply cease talking to them, as there's nothing to discuss with such people.
This wouldn't fix anything, communication extends beyond the literal meaning of words, and if the other party is being intellectually dishonest it doesn't matter how precise your speech, they will find a way to strawman you. E.G Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman debate. It's the fault of the person, not the fault of English.abraker wrote:
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.
The video you provided is frustrating, but interesting. From what I have gathered, in addition to the literal meaning, there is contextual information to the literal meaning, information on what an idea suggests for entities, past, future, and present. This contextual information seems to change on a whim while literal meaning remains the same.B1rd wrote:
This wouldn't fix anything, communication extends beyond the literal meaning of words, and if the other party is being intellectually dishonest it doesn't matter how precise your speech, they will find a way to strawman you. E.G Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman debate. It's the fault of the person, not the fault of English.abraker wrote:
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.
To simply put it, "I will go outside" can supposedly be interpreted literally, but there is a wealth of unknown contextual information to it: outside the room? Outside the house? Outside when? Tomorrow? Etc... and the lack of such information can be taken advantage of as freedom to formulate arguments that suits your needs.
That's true.
I used to agree with this, but I've seen so many problems and arguments happen as a direct result of linguistic misunderstandings that I can't help but feel like the language itself is part of the problem. English has a LOT of words and ways of conveying ideas that rely too heavily on context and previously agreed-upon definitions. Abraker just pointed this out too.Aurani wrote:
I have no idea what you're on about. If you fail to understand what the person said, it can ONLY be one of two things: either you can't read properly and are severely lacking in the knowledge of that specific language, or the person who wrote it lacks a deeper understanding of said language/doesn't know how to express themselves properly and concisely.
I think most arguments are caused by misunderstandings, and part of those misunderstandings are attributable to inherent flaws within English. It becomes especially apparent when talking to someone who isn't a native speaker.
So you argue that you're someone (or know someone) who has fundamentally learnt the entire English language, down to the last detail and who can without fail utilize it to its fullest, and that the language is to blame for the misunderstandings? That's....... lunacy.
Most of the misunderstandings stem from improper use of the language, and that's the fault of none other than the user.
Most of the misunderstandings stem from improper use of the language, and that's the fault of none other than the user.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯Aurani wrote:
So you argue that you're someone (or know someone) who has fundamentally learnt the entire English language, down to the last detail and who can without fail utilize it to its fullest, and that the language is to blame for the misunderstandings? That's....... lunacy.
What can I say, people misinterpret very easily. You see it online with people HARDCORE misreading even scientific journals. I don't think clarity is a strong point of the English language at all, especially in contrast with something like German.
That's still a problem with the people - not the language. People misreading it due to their own lack of a deeper understanding of the language = people's problem.
As for German having more "clarity" than English - it has nothing to do with the overall functionality of the language. It's the same as saying it's impossible to cut bread with a dull knife and pointing out that a sharp knife is the only way to go. Yeah, a sharp knife may do it with better efficiency, but a dull knife will do the job nonetheless. It's your fault if you're so clumsy with it as to not cut the bread and instead cut yourself.
As for German having more "clarity" than English - it has nothing to do with the overall functionality of the language. It's the same as saying it's impossible to cut bread with a dull knife and pointing out that a sharp knife is the only way to go. Yeah, a sharp knife may do it with better efficiency, but a dull knife will do the job nonetheless. It's your fault if you're so clumsy with it as to not cut the bread and instead cut yourself.
Then in that case, we disagree on the meaning of "overall functionality", because I think if a language is more clear (in your analogy, a sharp knife as opposed to a dull one) then it IS more functional/useful, particularly for debates and arguments.
See how disagreements tend to come purely from people interpreting words differently? ;^)
See how disagreements tend to come purely from people interpreting words differently? ;^)
I hate it when people blame the system instead of the person abusing the system. Yeah, the system has flaws, but only an asshole would abuse those flaws. Not specifically talking about your discussion right now, it's just something that popped into my head after reading it.
I don't really believe German is much different from English in terms of clarity. I know it's kind of a meme at this point that Germans have a word for everything, but really all it does is make sentences shorter. The language might be more efficient in that sense but I don't think there is any German phrase that couldn't be directly translated into English while still maintaining the same level of precision.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What can I say, people misinterpret very easily. You see it online with people HARDCORE misreading even scientific journals. I don't think clarity is a strong point of the English language at all, especially in contrast with something like German.
I'm with Aurani on this one, really in 99% of the cases it comes down to how well the person can use the language. I doubt there's a lot of people that push the boundaries of the English language.
silmarilen wrote:
I hate it when people blame the system
silmarilen wrote:
the system has flaws
When people "blame the system", they're generally talking ABOUT those flaws that are openly acknowledged to exist in the first place. No need to get defensive and reject analysis into those flaws/how they can be improved, you know?
BrokenArrow wrote:
I don't really believe German is much different from English in terms of clarity. I know it's kind of a meme at this point that Germans have a word for everything, but really all it does is make sentences shorter. The language might be more efficient in that sense but I don't think there is any German phrase that couldn't be directly translated into English while still maintaining the same level of precision.
I'm with Aurani on this one, really in 99% of the cases it comes down to how well the person can use the language. I doubt there's a lot of people that push the boundaries of the English language.
I think it's a bit better than English. All languages, as far as I'm aware, still have serious clarity issues; it's just the nature of languages in general, at least the ones I've seen. I think it'd be nice to have a language someday that fixes that flaw though.
No, when people "blame the system" they are generally saying that the people abusing it shouldn't be blamed.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
silmarilen wrote:
I hate it when people blame the systemsilmarilen wrote:
the system has flaws
When people "blame the system", they're generally talking ABOUT those flaws that are openly acknowledged to exist in the first place. No need to get defensive and reject analysis into those flaws/how they can be improved, you know?
It's one thing to point out the flaws in a system, it's another thing to pardon the people abusing those flaws because "hey, the system is flawed anyway right? can't blame the people for abusing it."
Just because you can exploit a system does not mean you are not at fault for abusing that exploit. Why do you think exploiting is a bannable offense in so many games?
Trying to fix the flaws is a whole other thing that i didn't even mention. You can try to fix the system without pardoning the abusers.
silmarilen wrote:
No, when people "blame the system" they are generally saying that the people abusing it shouldn't be blamed.
It's one thing to point out the flaws in a system, it's another thing to pardon the people abusing those flaws because "hey, the system is flawed anyway right? can't blame the people for abusing it."
Just because you can exploit a system does not mean you are not at fault for abusing that exploit. Why do you think exploiting is a bannable offense in so many games?
Oh, I see. Yeah I think it's okay to criticise people who go out of their way to exploit systems just as much as it's okay to criticise systems themselves. I'm not really sure what specific conversations you're thinking about here though
I see absolutely no reason why people should shun or be annoyed by anyone socially inept, especially if that person wants to socialize.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
E m i
that's because you're coolDJ Enetro wrote:
I see absolutely no reason why people should shun or be annoyed by anyone socially inept, especially if that person wants to socialize.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
cooler than me and stuff
DJ Enetro wrote:
I see absolutely no reason why people should shun or be annoyed by anyone socially inept, especially if that person wants to socialize.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
Socially inept people can be annoying because you need to put a lot of energy into them just to have a normal interaction. They need to be "carried", essentially.
The only big long lasting three here
Forums are a place for discussions, but that does not mean “create only topics that the majority of people like to talk about”.
Then again, posting spam is not okay either, where the not-extremes are subjective.
Then again, posting spam is not okay either, where the not-extremes are subjective.
I think we are overdue for an Enertro thread
I refuse to believe the accumulation of Enetro posts thus far ease the amount of unrest that has built up
I refuse to believe the accumulation of Enetro posts thus far ease the amount of unrest that has built up
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language.
Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
As a socially inept person myself I agree with this sentiment and don't expect anyone to expend energy to interact with me (and I wouldn't want pity like that anyway). Though I would add that sometimes I do have something important to say so it would be nice if certain loud-mouthed people could learn to shut up and let someone speak without interrupting for just a few seconds.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Socially inept people can be annoying because you need to put a lot of energy into them just to have a normal interaction. They need to be "carried", essentially.
Shohei Ohtani
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language. Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
Don't know 'how a language should function' is such a partisan issue now. Or is it just B1rd applying political rhetoric to irrelevant topics again?
CDFA wrote:
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language. Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
I was going off on a tangent pointing out how the personality tendencies of different political groups translate into arguments about the definition of some political words, as I gave an example of. But mainly the post was just some reflections on language use, rather than a political point. Though the post was somewhat vague itself, because I'm at a public library so I don't have unlimited time to translate vague and indefinite thoughts in to indefinite words.
Here's another example of politically driven word usage contributing to vagueness in this article, and it's something I've always spoken against: the usage of the word "they" for individuals. It makes it hard to tell whether it's a person or group being spoken about. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christi ... university
On this subject of English, George Orwell wrote a good essay about English usage http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_a ... age/0.html
In other news, I got a my comment published in a popular national newspaper, which is cool.
Here's another example of politically driven word usage contributing to vagueness in this article, and it's something I've always spoken against: the usage of the word "they" for individuals. It makes it hard to tell whether it's a person or group being spoken about. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christi ... university
On this subject of English, George Orwell wrote a good essay about English usage http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_a ... age/0.html
In other news, I got a my comment published in a popular national newspaper, which is cool.
pleonasms are a bitch
keep it simple lads
keep it simple lads
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.
That's why it's good. It embodies everything bad and goodCanadian Baka wrote:
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.
Dawnsday wrote:
That's why it's good. It embodies everything badCanadian Baka wrote:
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.and good
Why do people name themselves Dick even though they know it's penis
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
I blame our regressive society. Dick has a nice ring to it, and people really went out of their way to ruin it.B1rd wrote:
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
Funnily enough, one of the first recorded instance of the pejorative "dick" was used by a guy named Head.
Art I commissioned from Brian has reached top results in Google when you search "Libertarian anime girl".
Let it not be said I haven't achieved anything in life.
edit: I like how you use your signature to pronounce your nihilism
Let it not be said I haven't achieved anything in life.
edit: I like how you use your signature to pronounce your nihilism
Comfy Slippers wrote:
B1rd wrote:
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
I blame our regressive society.
dont compare your third world society to ours
Too real.
mfw I could get a krstni list and domovnica and roll over to Croatia, but it wouldn't change anything. And it's not like another south slavic orgy aka Yugoslavia would fix shit.
btw
we're preventing rabies dudelmao
- based bulgarian
lol wrote:
dont compare your third world society to ours
Yeah, all third-world societies are different! Our third-world society is better than theirs, huh lol?
johnmedina999 wrote:
lol wrote:
dont compare your third world society to ours
Yeah, all third-world societies are different! Our third-world society is better than theirs, huh lol?
who said you can @me
Don't be racist, John. America is a third-world country too, you know.
Cannot post.
Ideology shall paddle forward to be applied, but ends up backpaddling everything else in the process.
(5 years later) can't believe this thread is still going
ikr
It's even pinned now, so it's not in any danger of dying, either.
It's even pinned now, so it's not in any danger of dying, either.
remember when they deleted the last thread
What is dead may never die
A moving corpse can stop movingDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
What is dead may never die