HOME | DD

Fairportfan In reply to ??? [2022-11-20 05:08:08 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SuperSpaceCoyote In reply to Fairportfan [2022-11-20 05:11:44 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fairportfan In reply to SuperSpaceCoyote [2022-11-20 05:14:16 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SuperSpaceCoyote In reply to Fairportfan [2022-11-20 05:18:04 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fairportfan In reply to SuperSpaceCoyote [2022-12-12 11:33:43 +0000 UTC]

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

jollyjack In reply to Pyroanime2k16 [2018-02-03 07:44:57 +0000 UTC]

And by leaving the comments on: we know who they are

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

ollwoll3 In reply to jollyjack [2019-01-12 21:01:39 +0000 UTC]

And who are they?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Danieltiger13 In reply to jollyjack [2018-02-28 07:14:17 +0000 UTC]

That is a most excellent response.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

italianblackcat In reply to BlackAeronaut [2017-06-30 21:36:39 +0000 UTC]

What those "champions" did was NOTHING compared to what monsters did. Racism and oppression still exist despite their efforts, not to mention that Gandhi was actually an asshole who treat his family like crap and praised Mussolini and Mandela was a dumbass who from a terrorist (because he WAS a terrorist) became a spineless hippy who allowed horrible people to get away scot free with their cruelty, and lookie lookie, South Africa is still in a horrible situation on every level. Besides, when the movie came out people didn't even know how far Nazism could really go, I beat Chaplin wouldn't have written the same speech if he had known!

And if the best quotes you could find were those of that jackass G.K. Chesterton (speaking about FAIRY TALES at that, there are good reasons why that's often a synonim of illusion) and a children's book, that says a lot. Besides you already lost me when you used the painfully childish word "negativity", to me there is no such thing as "negative" or "positive", those are artificial concept that people use to feed delusions, there is only reality!

Even you admit "it will happen again", the human race is like a person with a very painful disease who's been on life support for years even though he just desperately wishes to die and put an end to all the pain! So he just wants all the machines to shut down but they just won't! And your beloved "hope" is nothing but a trap, something that only makes all the evil and the suffering go even longer!

I don't say we should remain silent or anything like that, I say it's time to end the cycle, stop reproducing, let this tragic misstep of evolution we call humanity go extinct! So yeah, there's your answer, nothing keeps me going, I just let all things go and cherish my mortality, I've never asked to be born after all!

Go ahead, patronize me, call me crazy, stupid or anything like that, I'm used to hear that from deluded, naive, Pollyanna syndrome affected people such as you, and frankly I can only take those words as compliments from that sort of people! I'm not the only one to think all this, we are many more than you can imagine and there is nothing you can do about it! You're not gonna change my mind no matter how hard you try, and I sure don't expect to do that with you, it's your loss if you wanna keep living in Plato's cave, I won't be the one crying when more deaths and atrocities happen smashing your idealism into tiny little pieces!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlackAeronaut In reply to italianblackcat [2017-10-04 11:51:41 +0000 UTC]

This.

This right here.

This is the true face of evil.

The voice that cries out that we are a failure.

We're only a failure if we give up.

I'll go on to have children.  I will go on to teach them the importance to fight the good fight.  To struggle for everything in the world that is good, just, and beautiful.

You are welcome to sit by the wayside and wither.  I only ask that you cease your message of nihilism.

And before I go, let me let you in on something important.  I was raised as a Latter Day Saint.  And we believe that before we were born, we were all children of our Heavenly Father, helping with his Great Creation.  And you know what?  All of us in this premortal existence had clamored for our place in line to be born in this world - to have a mortal body, experience life for ourselves, and to better ourselves with the goal of being more like our Elder Brother.  To remember how merciful and kind he was.  And to remember that he also cleared our Father's temple of the merchants with a strong arm and strong words.  Even Jesus could be moved to raise his hand for the right reasons.

I'm not as close to my church as I used to be.  I feel that the organization itself has let me down.  But the message, I feel, is still valid.  We're not here without a purpose.  
You did ask to be born.  You just don't remember it.  And to believe and say otherwise is to play into our Fallen Brother's hands.  And he loves nothing more than for us to be as miserable as he is.

Right now, you are speaking his message.

Louder than any tyrant that has drawn breath.

Clearer than any despot who has taken lives by the thousands.

You may call me delusional if you like.  A religious nut-job, even.  A lunatic.  We simply have a difference of opinion.  One for which many Mormons were pushed from Palmyra, New York all the way to the Great Salt Lake.  And yet we're still here.  Still fighting.  Growing stronger each year.

But you may rest assured - one day you will stand before our Heavenly Father - he that sparked us all to life and granted us the privilege of this life on Earth.  And he will ask you only one question.  Not that he needs to, but because you will need to answer for yourself.  And that question will be "Why?"

I hope that my words reach you.  But if they don't....  Good luck on that day.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

italianblackcat In reply to BlackAeronaut [2017-10-04 15:46:43 +0000 UTC]

I'm not ceasing a damn thing because of your delirious bullshit, in fact by doing the huge mistake of giving me your psychotic sermon and revealing to me that you're part of that cult of morons you shot yourself in the foot, you just made me believe the things that you fear so much even more and completely prevented me from taking you seriously.
And shut up about differing opinions, you are clearly trying to shove yours up my throat, well I spit it right back at your face.
On "that day" the Lord will tell you "I'm not taking you with me, Heaven is no place for retards."
And thanks for showing me your fear and impotence, may Satan keep giving me the power of making you shit your pants

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Will-of-the-spurr In reply to Crashcor [2017-06-20 10:24:38 +0000 UTC]

Aye, it could be relevant in almost bloody any time in history :/

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ekwood In reply to The-Psychonaut [2017-05-21 02:10:07 +0000 UTC]

*whistle* Now THERE is a comment with barbs in it, if ever there was one.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

The-Psychonaut In reply to ekwood [2017-05-21 02:32:54 +0000 UTC]

I calls 'em like I see 'em.

This is the same guy who treats Trump like he's Biff from 'Back to the Future 2', but when it comes to 'If you like your plan you can keep your plan!", blew-up-more-people-in-his-first-year-than-Bush-did-in-his-entire-8-years-of-office Obama, he's conspicuously indifferent. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ekwood In reply to The-Psychonaut [2017-05-23 03:47:21 +0000 UTC]

Yea, promising people they could keep their health plan, no matter what, was an unwise promise to make. So was "you can keep your doctor, period." The other thing you said is not supported by any verifiable facts or statistics I am aware of and I must express my doubt as to its accuracy.

So does failing to reference Obama's failures in all contexts of criticizing his Republican counterparts make him hypocritical? Is that your point? Is some sort of double standard implied? Are you impeaching the veracity of his claims based on his failure to sufficiently criticize someone else? I guess that's reasonable in some circumstances, by all means fact check everything; I would. He is a self-admitted, goofball deviant. I don't see how that makes the criticisms any less real, though--provided they are based on facts that do check out.

But what if he didn't like Obama either? He wasn't indifferent to him, he was silent. You can conclude what you want from that I suppose, but you would be speculating.

Anyway, why can't criticism of one president at a time be valid?

Assuming he did turn a blind eye to Obama's faults, and I will even stipulate that they were many and heinous for the purpose of this question, is the fact that these criticisms of a current politician come from a person biased towards someone else in the past sufficient to invalidate said criticisms presently? I could totally see it if they were based on false pretenses, just not because he might have had doe-eyes for Obama.

Full disclosure: I am just tired of people being unable to see the bad in their own guys. It's all up to the other side to point out the bad stuff, and they are crap at it because they don't care if it's true or not and have a massive confirmation bias and ulterior motives. That said, I get where you are coming from, really I do. Ulterior motives and confirmation bias, gotta watch out for those, just don't use that as an excuse to ignore legitimate criticism when it comes up. Even someone whose world view you despise can be right on certain things.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

The-Psychonaut In reply to ekwood [2017-05-23 06:00:25 +0000 UTC]

This is a lot, so I'll just address this part, if that's okay:
Assuming he did turn a blind eye to Obama's faults, and I will even stipulate that they were many and heinous for the purpose of this question, is the fact that these criticisms of a current politician come from a person biased towards someone else in the past sufficient to invalidate said criticisms presently? I could totally see it if they were based on false pretenses, just not because he might have had doe-eyes for Obama.

 No, it doesn't invalidate his criticisms, it does call in to question two things, though: 1)if he didn't know about any of Obama's despotism and fraud, than it demonstrates ignorance, which implies intellectual laziness or ineptitude. Either he only listened to limited sources and didn't try to listen to any others, or, he wasn't capable of realizing and gathering additional sources of information; because there were people criticizing Obama even then, if he could be bothered to hear them. 2)It makes him inconsistent as a source of political insight and thus untrustworthy without due skepticism. He could be journalistically lazy or inept and still be correct, of course, but I'm going to demand more proof from him, because his insights are more likely to be unreliable. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ekwood In reply to The-Psychonaut [2017-05-24 01:42:08 +0000 UTC]

Hey, skepticism is healthy, I'd be among the first to admit that. I guess maybe what I would add is that it is possible to be skeptical without sounding adversarial.

Any message that sounds adversarial is instantly going to become contentious and unlikely to be compelling for those who need to hear it most--including third parties who happen upon it.

And, again, there is only a lack of input on Obama. His refraining from comment does not necessarily imply his ignorance on the subject. I have yet to see him make any suspect or naive assertions about Obama, did I miss something? Even if that is really how he thinks, which would be a not unreasonable guess, I can't just assume the worst if he didn't even open his mouth on the issue.

On the contrary, raising his unspoken implied views on Obama or similar, completely unbidden, resembles a deflection tactic and is going to make many people instantaneously skeptical, maybe even hostile, towards you.

Let me apologize in advance if he did open the door to criticizing his prior views with something he said elsewhere and I just missed it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

The-Psychonaut In reply to ekwood [2017-05-24 02:09:39 +0000 UTC]

all cogent points and I stipulate them all heartily. 

He just seems like another Leftie bashing on Trump because it's fashionable more than he actually has an informed opinion. I mean, I watch the Shapiro Show all the time, and he has a whole segment called Good Trump/Bad Trump where he constantly mocks and commends Trump when he does something good and when he does something bad. because he's consistently said there's pro's and con's to Trump's policies in the past and in the present, he's a fairly reliable journalistic to observe. Everywhere else, especially in the lame stream media, all I hear is just self-satisfied smarm and snark, with a hipster snobbery that makes me want to flip every table at my local Ikea. 

 It's not like I don't groan, too, when Trump makes a vapid tweet, I just know the difference what someone says and what they do; and that being tacky is not the same as making a bad policy. He's done some stuff I like. Talking with Taiwan? Good. Reestablishing ties with Israel, the most liberal country in the Middle East? Good. The Wall? Good. ICE? Good. Cutting foreign aid for abortions? Good. Gathering crime data on sanctuary cities? Good. Increased military spending? Good. A temporary halt on Middle Eastern immigration to refine the vetting process? Good. Sensible. Obama did the same thing, using the same list---my biggest beef was, 'Hey, where's Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Qatar? One's funding ISIS, one's the largest heroin producer in the world and one, from what I've heard, is using migrant workers as slave labor.' Trumpcare? BAD! He said he was going to tear down the state lines between insurance companies, to enable the free market, and repeal Obamacare. He's not doing either! Giving money to "get girls into the STEM fields", when boys are the majority of drop outs in high school and have plummeting graduation rates in college in general? BAD! Dropping bombs on Syrian air force bases because Ivanka was sad? BAD! See? I can see the mixed grab bag of policies and say, 'That's good!', and look at a shitty healthcare system that's going to bankrupt the country and say, 'That's bad! So bad it almost negates all the good!'. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ekwood In reply to The-Psychonaut [2017-05-24 12:36:22 +0000 UTC]

Well, modern media has done a considerable amount of no good for the cause of meaningful discourse on important issues; conflict sells, after all. To their credit, I think they are finally starting to catch on and, very slowly, trying to clean up their act. I have nothing to support this, just an inkling--and the knowledge that the alternative for them is to fail to adapt and someday just stop being relevant at all.

Unfortunately, they have to fill a 24 hour news cycle and get people to consume it. That doesn't always translate into good journalism; in fact, it usually does the opposite. The divide in this country has been synthetically widened to an astonishing degree, and the media as a whole does bear some of the responsibility for that.

As for snark, I can sympathize. And I firmly believe that, in general, adopting a patronizing or self-righteous tone is not going to do you any favors if you want to be constructive. That kind of thing is more likely to be received as rhetoric, regardless of its validity.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

The-Psychonaut In reply to ekwood [2017-05-24 13:21:01 +0000 UTC]

It's not just the snark, it's also the pretension: they honestly think they're the fountainhead of journalistic integrity. That they alone are the eyes and ears and mouth of the country. Of course, that conceit's short-lived when they actually look at their viewership and realize guys like Pewdiepie have ten times the subscribers they do; and, as company owners, management and the staff for their youtube channels, they don't have any shareholder dicks to suck and no middle men to dilute the profits: which is why Pewdiepie makes about 14 million dollars every damn year compared to the 50,000 the muckrakers at WSJ make. The same assholes who tried to sabotage him. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0