Serak The Preparer

Slorch, I totally get saying that nobody knows if it's true or not. But with proverbial gun to the head, do you think it's more likely that he said what was reported, or more likely that he didn't? Not asking for criminal conviction, no court-room preponderance of evidence, just curious what you think is more likely?

So why are the tweets you linked calling them BLM protesters? Wouldn't it be just as valid to say "Look at these Youth Justice Coalition protesters!", or "Man, these Sunrise Movement Los Angeles protesters suck!" You posted tweets specifically calling them BLM, then when there was pushback, rather than admit that your "source" made some inflammatory assumptions, pulled this lame association bullshit as a response. But sure, no politics on DT!

So you think that a random woman (who is presumably not a racist) is willing to look like a crazy racist to the internet, jeopardizing future job prospects, social interactions, etc., and that this is more likely than her being just a random racist crazy person?

LOL, please define "cancel culture" and then explain how this fits within your definition. Bonus points for including socialist in the definition.

I am somewhat in agreement with you on the overall appropriateness of wishing cancer on anyone. I agree with Roma (and I am sure others) that any wish I have to this effect has no effect on the outcome re: Rush, but I also believe that wishing bad thoughts causes self-damage, in that it makes it easier and easier to wish or cause harm on others. That being said, I think it was disingenuous to claim that this wish is because of politics. It removes any focus on the abject piece of shit Rush is. Intentionally or not, you minimized the cause of the reaction.

Oh fuck off. Disdain, disgust, hatred, or reveling in cancer-related death for Rush is not because of "politics". It is due to decades of thought, word, and deeds targeting and causing harm to large groups of disenfranchised people. Crawl through his bio and tell me his comments about women and African Americans are about politics. He is a uniquely malignant force in America and it is not because of tax policy or farm subsidies.

Eh, you are only 1/3 right. You forgot step 1: commit genocide against native population to increase borders and expand natural resource base, along with step 2: enslave people and exploit unpaid labor to build ruling caste. When you add step 3 as referenced in your post, it's really a pretty solid plan!

Umm Biff, may wanna check the names in that tweet.

Question that naturally follows, is it the first or last name that is more worrisome for his future?

Holy crap, now we just need a VAPA post. Is he still alive or has he been Bernarded?

You dummy, that can't be the case. All the gun experts in this thread very clearly analyzed the audio of the cell phone video and conclusively found that the first shots were made by a long gun / rifle / AK-47.

I totally agree with that. Also it gets really old seeing the "women are bad at math" memes. It sucks and we should do better.

- I may not have a good handle on social etiquette of tagging, the OCD in me likes the clarity it offers but it is perhaps a bit too much.

@SydneyCarton You continue to be full of shit. Please, show me the post that where he "showed up, ate crow, and showed more integrity and humility about being wrong or uninformed about something than currently 99.9% of American society does these days". The closest one I can find is "I’ll wear the sexist portion of it because this is Surly and I was kidding. And if it offended anyone, I’ll be in my bunk" That's a good post, which was included in a reply to another poster and may not have been seen. I suspect if @Homesickhorn had made his last post after the initial call-outs, there would have been very little back and forth. But between the defensiveness in that post and others, there was not a lot of "integrity and humility about being wrong or uninformed" until his last post, and the criticism ("pile-on") stopped. Your over-the-top language is silly and makes you look like a clown. Hell, even @Homesickhorn gave the most sincere, abject apology the world has ever seen, people can still respond. If you say something stupid, then apologize, other people are not obligated to stop being pissy with you. He was not "punished for doing the right thing". Seriously, what was the right thing, and what was the punishment? How much of a pile-on was there, after his post where he acknowledged a dumb post with sincerity? The CR has a lot of stupid bullshit in it, and the only reason I made my first post was because I would really like it if posters like @Homesickhorn really did post in here. Hence pointing out that the right lesson is not "don't post in CR", it's "don't call women cunts, and if it is just a joke that landed badly, being used in an ironic sense, try to clarify". Finally, @Homesickhorn I hope you understand that I'm not trying to continually call you out here. I am tagging you a lot because obviously your posts are part of the conversation with Syndey, but very much acknowledge that you owned the post, I would drop it if it weren't Syndey being such a hyperbolic character.

@Homesickhorn, for crying out loud, if the lesson you learned is that you shouldn't post in the CR, then you really are thick. You called AOC a dizzy cunt, then when called out, just said it was a funny joke. Most people don't consider that a funny joke. You didn't seem to find anything wrong with it and argued that it was in good taste. That's a dumb opinion. But shit, dumb opinions in CR are just as common as dumb opinions in Recruiting, Basketball, or Football. Ok, that last part is a lie, nothing has as many dumb opinions as Football. That being said, anyone who said you were a piece of trash also had a dumb opinion. Again, that happens. You got what, 2 or so negs? Maybe 3-4? If that really does scare you away then yes, please don't post here. The post I am quoting, saying it was dumb to post it? Good post, just don't take the wrong lesson from it. And @SydneyCarton, if @Homesickhorn had made this post first instead of several posts defending it, nothing would have happened. I very sincerely say this when I say I am sure that he really is a good dude. Most people are. But most of us don't know him. If his post here is dumb, it should get called out. And the great news is it works both ways - his real life isn't affected (or shouldn't be!) by negs or posts calling him out. There was no "echo chamber going batshit". Perhaps both of you should thicken the skin just a tad.

You forgot to call her a cunt also. You know, just in a funny, joking kind of way.

Sorry for not responding earlier, work is crazy right now, but how do you square the first sentence of the first post with the statements in the others? You (and others referenced in my earlier post, who are not exactly paragons of reasoning) keep posting claims that BLM wants to disrupt the nuclear family. If you don't think they are, why are you saying so?

@Axiom of Choice For someone who seems to want to elevate the discourse of discussion, you have a strange way of showing it. From your initial post where you (like @GRHorn, @workswithseed, and @Onboard 2.0) you immediately claim that BLM has as an objective to disrupt the nuclear family. Whether through conscious choice or willful misinterpretation you leave out words in the sentence, changing the meaning. You can say that @Huckleberry was rude or dismissive in his reply, where he pointed out the other words in the objective (e.g. the requirement for nuclear families) but I am not sure what you expected. Especially given your multiple posts on logic / philosophy, I would hypothesize that you are certainly capable of parsing the sentence. So, are any of the following thoughts correct? 1- You hadn't read the statement so accepted the notion from others that BLM is trying to disrupt nuclear families. 2- You read the statement but missed the notion of requirement. 3- You read the statement, saw the notion of requirement, but you think that this is the same thing as disrupting the family itself. 4- You willfully misrepresented the objective of BLM in order to make a point (maybe about marketing)? 5 - Something else?

Narrator: that was not tough to grasp.

"Every state's favorite other state' - Minnesota likes Canada Shit, did I miss something in quarantine? Does this mean no tariffs on maple syrup or Canadian Bacon? Is defunding the police really about transitioning to Mounties?

While I assume you are throwing that 0.0001% number out there as your baseline, I don't think it is absurd to say you are several orders of magnitude too low on that. I think it is way closer to 1%. Still not likely, to be sure. But that is enough for me to at least suggest we should think about this contingency.

i think the idea of secret service arresting trump is super low. But that is not the only concern. Also, what does option 1 even mean? I think we will have a substantial shift in use of mail-in ballots. In your writing, it seems that this necessitates opportunity for substantive foreign interference. I do not think that foreign interference is likely, so how would option 1 even be assessed? Just to be complete, I would say option 1 is likely (assuming as you did that mail-in ballots necessarily facilitate opportunities for foreign interference. I think option 2 is unlikely. How would you rate the likelihood of the following additional items? 1B - Substantial shift to the use of mail in ballots during pandemic leads to Trump / Barr / Other national Republicans claiming interference without evidence? 2B - Trump uses this claim to prepare some kind of legal challenge to election, leading to some level of chaos / confusion as to next president?

Surprised by your post @Bama Chick, especially calling Faith a bitch. I sweater god, not trying to mansplain (I am a white dude, full disclosure), but despite @washparkhorn's declaration, Karen is not a gender-neutral insult. Yes, you can call a man a Karen, just like you can call a man a pussy, a bitch, a cunt, etc., but the point of calling a man these things is to further emphasize that women are inferior to men in some way. This is far from gender neutral. The behavior that many white women display is absolutely terrible and is certainly a result of weaponizing the privilege they have, but I am not sure that we as a culture really need another pejorative term aimed at women. Doing so gives cover to the behavior / comments that Faith noticed, about further emphasizing the gender / looks / quality of the targets using even more misogynistic language.

What's the situation like in Texas? I live in California now, and here there were significant shortages of blood. At least locally, they started offering free COVID-19 antibody test with donation and all of a sudden it's a 3-week waiting list to donate. Is that being done in your area?