By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Moren on 02 June 2019
CaptainExplosion said:
RolStoppable said:

The Onion lives off satire. If you check the recommended stories on their website, the same writeup gets copy-pasted and republished every now and then; the only differences are the name of the location, the name of the local resident and the day of the week.

EDIT: Number of victims differ too.

The underlying problem that the USA have is that they don't separate the Church from the state. God gave Americans the right to bear arms and you cannot question God. That's how the pro-guns argument works.

And this is why Americans, Christians, and American Christians are thought of by everyone else as homicidal idiots.

Ah. Please enlighten us with your intelligence and tolerance.



Around the Network
Jaicee on 02 June 2019

Okay, so this is U.S. political news: A number of state governments are taking it upon themselves to legally define "personhood" as something that begins at one's first heartbeat so that most abortions will be rendered illegal. (A fetal heartbeat can sometimes be detected as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, which is before many women even know they're pregnant.) These laws indeed make no exceptions even if you can prove that you were impregnated by way of rape or incest, which notably goes further than even what President Trump supports (at least according to his Twitter account). How do we feel about these developments?

Personally, I feel that defining "personhood" as something that begins at one's first heartbeat, i.e. which is defined by the presence of a natural heartbeat, is disingenuous. I mean, okay well what about children, or any other people, with artificial hearts? I guess they're...not people then...right?

You see, people, personhood is so much more than just having a heartbeat, human DNA, or "potential". (Any egg cell or sperm has the "potential" to become a person, but that obviously doesn't mean it deserves legal rights, and we can all recognize that much.) Everything of value to human beings -- from our ability to perceive the world around us to our ability to form relationships -- is made possible by birth. Without these sorts of capacities, ours is but a shell of a life in comparison; a life only in a technical sense, not in a recognizable one.



SecondWar on 02 June 2019

Can Woody Johnson (ambassador to UK) please just do one. Need someone a lot better than a profiteering Trump crony.



Machiavellian on 02 June 2019
EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

Do not worry, as long as Ben have people like you to soften the blow and feel sorry for him, he will be able to recover in no time.  He can go back to his safe place feeling good there are people with enough excuses to justify his tantrum.

I guess we are back to one of your analogies that has nothing to do with anything again.

Oh well, you cannot be good at everything.  I guess my job of making you happy is a failure I will have to live with.

My fav part of this conversation was trying to put conservatives and safe spaces together when it comes to words. That's like trying to put Trump and widely adored together when it comes to the msm. I would've agreed if something physical like guns or bunkers were part of the explanation.

Well I can't be back if I never left, yet I can be forward if I'm always right.

Your lack of concern and second effort when it comes my feelings is quite unexpected. Is this where I assume racism or bigotry?

You see, I told you I can make you happy.  You are back to the term conservatives and I was just talking about Ben, nothing political, just Ben but as always you cannot separate the person from their political lean.

Assumption is as the term says is when you make an Ass out of u and me.



EricHiggin on 02 June 2019
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

My fav part of this conversation was trying to put conservatives and safe spaces together when it comes to words. That's like trying to put Trump and widely adored together when it comes to the msm. I would've agreed if something physical like guns or bunkers were part of the explanation.

Well I can't be back if I never left, yet I can be forward if I'm always right.

Your lack of concern and second effort when it comes my feelings is quite unexpected. Is this where I assume racism or bigotry?

You see, I told you I can make you happy.  You are back to the term conservatives and I was just talking about Ben, nothing political, just Ben but as always you cannot separate the person from their political lean.

Assumption is as the term says is when you make an Ass out of u and me.

Does what you've said in the past count towards what you've said recently, or is every new post to be taken separately?

V  Below V

Machiavellian said:

What Ben wanted was to be treated with kid gloves.  As you stated, if the interviewer acted life a typical conservative Ben wouldn't have gone on the offensive.  What you and Ben wanted is the echo chamber where people say what you want to hear and throw softball questions in your wheelhouse. Ben wasn't ready to be challenged and he was exposed.  Ben may have stated he has made errors in the past but in reality Ben does not truly believe it.  You can tell that when he admitted he made some bad quotes but then tried to justify it to the interviewer.  

So Ben doesn't go after conservatives? What type of echo chamber? Like Crowder? I wonder where he and his show sit on the political spectrum?



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 03 June 2019
EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

You see, I told you I can make you happy.  You are back to the term conservatives and I was just talking about Ben, nothing political, just Ben but as always you cannot separate the person from their political lean.

Assumption is as the term says is when you make an Ass out of u and me.

Does what you've said in the past count towards what you've said recently, or is every new post to be taken separately?

V  Below V

Machiavellian said:

What Ben wanted was to be treated with kid gloves.  As you stated, if the interviewer acted life a typical conservative Ben wouldn't have gone on the offensive.  What you and Ben wanted is the echo chamber where people say what you want to hear and throw softball questions in your wheelhouse. Ben wasn't ready to be challenged and he was exposed.  Ben may have stated he has made errors in the past but in reality Ben does not truly believe it.  You can tell that when he admitted he made some bad quotes but then tried to justify it to the interviewer.  

So Ben doesn't go after conservatives? What type of echo chamber? Like Crowder? I wonder where he and his show sit on the political spectrum?

The echo chamber is his own show where he can say what he wants and put people on that will not challenge his opinion while he lick his wounds.  



EricHiggin on 03 June 2019
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

Does what you've said in the past count towards what you've said recently, or is every new post to be taken separately?

V  Below V

So Ben doesn't go after conservatives? What type of echo chamber? Like Crowder? I wonder where he and his show sit on the political spectrum?

The echo chamber is his own show where he can say what he wants and put people on that will not challenge his opinion while he lick his wounds.  

Again, does what you've said prior count or is every new post to be taken separately, or have you just changed your mind since?

V  Below V

Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

Shapiro explains the entire BBC interview situation. Some is factual and some is opinion. 37:50 - 49:00. Lot's of context in there.

52:10 to 52:25 is also quite telling about Ben...

A few points:

The first thing Ben brings up is that he explains the interview was set up by the BBC as a typical interview to talk about his book, and that he wasn't really anticipating the type of 'interview' it turned out to be, since it was more like a debate and clearly wasn't aimed at talking about the book. Due to this, Ben didn't research the interviewer and prep for a debate, like how the interviewer clearly did against him. Tough to make them look foolish when you know nothing about them and they know what they feel they need to about you.

He agree's he made some poor decisions and said some stupid things, but that the interview wasn't done in good faith. He even points out the BBC producer tweeted out afterwards something along the lines of, 'this was a good example of why you should have people like Shapiro on so you can attack their character'. So basically trick them into coming on the show and then ambush them. Ben does give the interviewer props for getting the better of him regardless and admits he needs to keep his guard up going forward.

That's just a small portion of what's said, but based on what Ben explains here, much of what I've pointed out throughout the conversation already, are in line with what Ben says happened and Steven seems to mostly agree as well. Some things being factual and some opinion.

What you just did was show how Ben went into his safe place where no one will challenge him and talked about the interview.  It doesn't matter what he thought since being prepared is only a way to say you are ready to show a side of yourself you have prepared and performed many of times.  Everything you just stated is Ben believing he was going to be treated with kids gloves.  He believed he was in his safe bubble where he is thrown soft questions he could easily answer. 

Echo chamber, safe place, safe space, bubble, wheelhouse. Are they all referring to similar things or completely different and non related?

I am assuming they are all talking about the same thing, since if they weren't, based on the context it wouldn't make any sense looking back.

To assume a supposed elephant is a donkey, is a little confusing and contradictory if you ask me.



Bofferbrauer2 on 04 June 2019
RolStoppable said:
SpokenTruth said:

You know how Trump, the administration and his base like to claim the world was laughing at us during the Obama administration and that they now respect us?  I'd like to present you with exhibits A, B, C, D and E on the contrary.

(...)

There are also Americans who believe that the world was respecting the USA before Trump became president and then Trump turned the USA into a laughing stock.

I'd say the rule of thumb is that the USA are better off with a democrat as president as far as the respect of the world is concerned. But it's a particular high level of respect, because among developed countries the USA rank very low in a lot of categories. I'd say the main reason for that is the two-party-system of the country which by default groups the right and far-right together, so the far-right can employ a lot more power than they would have on their own.

And yes, the far-right is implemented in the republican party. Last year before the midterm elections I got to see a republican ad during an NFL stream and it was so bad that I was wondering if my internet was acting up. It was a propaganda video that showed hordes of latin Americans invading the USA with the goal to make life miserable for US-Americans. The message was to vote republican to save the USA.

That kind of ad is something that you only get to see from the far-right here in Europe, so in Austria and Germany that would be FPÖ and AfD material, respectively. Furthermore, that kind of ad is not allowed to get aired on TV, so internet platforms are the only option to spread such propaganda and even then it has to come in a neutered form because otherwise the parties run the risk to get outlawed altogether; that happened to the German NPD (Nationalsozialistische Partei Deutschland, so neo-nazis by definition). The AfD is more or less a neutered spiritual successor who learned how to sell the package in an acceptable way (acceptable, as in without facing the serious risk to get outlawed).

I'm no sure abot Austria, but in Germany, that might be too explicit for the AfD, so I'd rather say that's NPD material. But very disturbing in any case, both that they can make and broadcast such things with impunity, and that the people doesn't catch up to such obvious lies.

Btw, NPD didn't get outlawed. while it was considered unabashedly unconstitutional, it didn't get banned because of it's insignificance in elections. In other words, as long as the party is not popular, it's safe. Would the AfD run such an ad online, I'm sure they would also get into the same legal troubles as the NPD did - but since the party is popular, chances are it would get banned unlike the NPD.



The Nintendo eShop rating Thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237454 List as Google Doc:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aW2hXQT1TheElVS7z-F3pP-7nbqdrDqWNTxl6JoJWBY/edit?usp=sharing

The Steam/GOG key gifting thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242024/the-steamgog-key-gifting-thread/1/ 

Free Pc Games thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248138/free-pc-games/1/

Machiavellian on 04 June 2019
EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

The echo chamber is his own show where he can say what he wants and put people on that will not challenge his opinion while he lick his wounds.  

Again, does what you've said prior count or is every new post to be taken separately, or have you just changed your mind since?

V  Below V


I am assuming they are all talking about the same thing, since if they weren't, based on the context it wouldn't make any sense looking back.Echo chamber, safe place, safe space, bubble, wheelhouse. Are they all referring to similar things or completely different and non related?

To assume a supposed elephant is a donkey, is a little confusing and contradictory if you ask me.

I have no clue what you are talking about.  The video you posted only gave Ben a chance to state his opinion where he wasn't challenge on his stance.  He gets an opportunity to state how he viewed the interview but not really his performance.  This is what is called an echo chamber, when the person agrees with everything you say and give you comfort on your position.  Why don't you go find a video where someone challenge him on his performance during that video and maybe I can see your point.



EricHiggin on 04 June 2019
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

My fav part of this conversation was trying to put conservatives and safe spaces together when it comes to words. That's like trying to put Trump and widely adored together when it comes to the msm. I would've agreed if something physical like guns or bunkers were part of the explanation.

Well I can't be back if I never left, yet I can be forward if I'm always right.

Your lack of concern and second effort when it comes my feelings is quite unexpected. Is this where I assume racism or bigotry?

You see, I told you I can make you happy.  You are back to the term conservatives and I was just talking about Ben, nothing political, just Ben but as always you cannot separate the person from their political lean.

Assumption is as the term says is when you make an Ass out of u and me.
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

Does what you've said in the past count towards what you've said recently, or is every new post to be taken separately?

V  Below V

So Ben doesn't go after conservatives? What type of echo chamber? Like Crowder? I wonder where he and his show sit on the political spectrum?

The echo chamber is his own show where he can say what he wants and put people on that will not challenge his opinion while he lick his wounds.  

Machiavellian said:

EricHiggin said:

Again, does what you've said prior count or is every new post to be taken separately, or have you just changed your mind since?

V  Below V

I am assuming they are all talking about the same thing, since if they weren't, based on the context it wouldn't make any sense looking back. Echo chamber, safe place, safe space, bubble, wheelhouse. Are they all referring to similar things or completely different and non related?

To assume a supposed elephant is a donkey, is a little confusing and contradictory if you ask me.

I have no clue what you are talking about.  The video you posted only gave Ben a chance to state his opinion where he wasn't challenge on his stance.  He gets an opportunity to state how he viewed the interview but not really his performance.  This is what is called an echo chamber, when the person agrees with everything you say and give you comfort on your position.  Why don't you go find a video where someone challenge him on his performance during that video and maybe I can see your point.

None of these have anything to do with the other and don't build upon each other?

We initially talk about Ben going on Crowder (and nothing to do with Ben's show), and you say Ben went on Crowder because it's a safe place, echo chamber, bubble, etc, so he would be treated with kid gloves, unlike how he was treated by the BBC.

Then you later state the echo chamber, wheelhouse, etc, you had mentioned earlier, is actually Ben's own show where he can be in his bubble and have on guests who won't give him a hard time so he can feel good about himself.

Then I point out it was Ben on Crowder's show that we have been talking about, both of them conservatives, at the very least viewed that way, which is partially based on my conservatives and safe spaces point, and where you initially pointed out Ben and his echo chamber, safe spaces, etc, being on Crowder's show.

You also pointed out that my making 'assumptions' made an a** out of me and you. If I am, or at least are viewed as an Rep elephant, why try and say that makes me a Dem donkey? This is a joke btw, and could understand if you didn't catch this one.

Does this clear things up or are you still unsure about the connections between the posts?