Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Trump is like an animal going to the vet.  He doesn't understand what is going on but he knows he doesn't like it and is going to make sure everyone knows it.  

th?id=OIP.GMA5rZ9dTtmA-59nLcoaqAHaDp

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think it has meaningful differences.  First, people are motivated to get responses to their content.  The easiest way to get responses is to be extremely for/against whatever the event is.  Second, compounding, the character limit dissuades nuanced discussion.  Both of those are bad.  

I don't see how the first is a meaningful difference.  In fact, I can't even tell which one you're talking about.  The character limit thing is also overblown.  Threads exist in Twitter to go as far beyond the limit as you want.   And only like 1% of tweets hit the limit.   There are tons of short posts on message boards as well.  The very nature of written online communication strongly encourages brevity; hence tldr. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It's much easier to have a good message board than a good twitter dialogue.  We joke about this place, but the level of content here is 100x better and people that generate shit are chased off.  That's not what you see on twitter.  

 

I go on twitter to get jokes and what not, but consciously have to limit my exposure to it because it makes everything dark and the world depressing.  So many idiots, so willing to transmit lies, so willing to misrepresent the other side's position.  It's Open Source Fox.

The reason for that is simply that we're a relatively small community tied to graduates of a great university.   Go to texags, reddit, 4chan, and you'll see that message boards aren't inherently different than Twitter in that respect.   In fact, Twitter is much better than a place like Texags because there are plenty of good, smart people on Twitter that cut down the nonsense. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Message boards are part of the problem too.

The medium is not the problem, it's the use of it. 

All of these are, at their core, fantastic tools that connect people. You can use them as a great source of information and knowledge. You can also use them to share pictures of doo doo and convince yourself that minorities and vaccinations are evil. 

Like television, it can be great it can rot your brain. It's up to the user and how they use it. 

  • Like 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, TornACL said:

The medium is not the problem, it's the use of it. 

All of these are, at their core, fantastic tools that connect people. You can use them as a great source of information and knowledge. You can also use them to share pictures of doo doo and convince yourself that minorities and vaccinations are evil. 

Like television, it can be great it can rot your brain. It's up to the user and how they use it. 

It's the built in incentive systems though that make them distinct.  Twitter's incentive system is to generate content that grabs attention in a sea of other stuff.  If you don't do that, you are yelling into the void (which you can tell because no one interacts with your message).  On this forum, you can offer a medium level take an be assured that others will read it because you pic a topic, click on that topic, and chew on it.  There is little need to avoid feeling like you are talking an no one is listening here.  

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

I missed the part where I said anything about police brutality towards black men. You have no idea of my thoughts on that. They’re two separate issues. You’d do best to try not to read other posters minds and just go off what they’ve actually posted. 

Apologies for assuming that an ardent Trump supporter would be anti-BLM.

Posted
1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

Trump is like an animal going to the vet.  He doesn't understand what is going on but he knows he doesn't like it and is going to make sure everyone knows it.  

Image result for far side first tutored

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

He's about to ask Congress for another $4.5 billion in 'wall' money. 

I swear he said those pesos will start rolling in any day to pay for this bullshit. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

Twitter isn't all that different from this or any other message board.  There are just millions of people on it and it displays posts from essentially a topic search format rather than thread format.  

Yea but Twitter is full of idiots...

Posted
3 hours ago, Jograves said:

Clearly for worse. And this isn't solely a trump issue, although he's been ruining it long before he was in office. All politicians should stay off it.

Twitter is great for sports. It's ruined by politics, as are most of the good things about being alive. Facebook has always sucked. 

Yeah twitter is great for hobbies. Most of my follows are museums, arts, literature, and other cultural entities and it's fantastic for learning about events and online exhibits.

Posted
3 hours ago, brown water said:

I’ll take president Instagram over president Lindsey Graham. 

Mayor Pete vs Senator Graham.  

That would make for an epic matchup.  Many Republicans would vote third-party.    

Posted
4 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It's the built in incentive systems though that make them distinct.  Twitter's incentive system is to generate content that grabs attention in a sea of other stuff.  If you don't do that, you are yelling into the void (which you can tell because no one interacts with your message).  On this forum, you can offer a medium level take an be assured that others will read it because you pic a topic, click on that topic, and chew on it.  There is little need to avoid feeling like you are talking an no one is listening here.  

And on twitter, many people are basically getting paid to post.  Same with Facebook and Instagram, same with people pumping out videos on YouTube.  On places like Surly?  Probably only one or two getting paid to post.   

Posted
37 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Mayor Pete vs Senator Graham.  

That would make for an epic matchup.  Many Republicans would vote third-party.    

Too bad Mayor Pete wouldn't challenge Lindsay to come out of the closet. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, RPM said:

Too bad Mayor Pete wouldn't challenge Lindsay to come out of the closet. 

You know, I'm completely supportive of anyone staying in the closet if they aren't comfortable coming out.  But this guy Mayor Pete, he kills me -- "yeah, I'm gay.  I'm also a Harvard grad, a Rhodes Scholar, a Navy intelligence officer who deployed to Afghanistan for 7 months, an amateur musician, and I speak several languages."  Lindsey Graham couldn't touch this guy, no matter how much he might like to.

Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

You know, I'm completely supportive of anyone staying in the closet if they aren't comfortable coming out.  But this guy Mayor Pete, he kills me -- "yeah, I'm gay.  I'm also a Harvard grad, a Rhodes Scholar, a Navy intelligence officer who deployed to Afghanistan for 7 months, an amateur musician, and I speak several languages."  Lindsey Graham couldn't touch this guy, no matter how much he might like to.

I’m completely cool with forcing them out of the closet if they are in a position of power, and have been using that power to make life difficult for other LGBT types.  

  • Like 3
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m completely cool with forcing them out of the closet if they are in a position of power, and have been using that power to make life difficult for other LGBT types.  

Nope.

Posted
7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Because it's none of my fucking business.

For me, the line is drawn by their policy positions. If someone runs on an anti-abortion platform or "family values" platform and tries to control the conduct of other individuals, then their private lives are fair game because they've made other persons' private lives a political matter. It's like that one dude from Tennessee or some other Appalachian state a couple of years ago who was publicly anti-abortion but was found to have pressured his mistress into having an abortion.

  • Like 8
Posted
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I can't wait til we get to the point where it doesn't matter if a dude chooses to suck dick one day and fuck a chick the next day.

Gore Vidal would be proud as fuck.

I'm fine with whatever goes on between consenting adults as long as it only involves consenting adults.  

Posted
1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I think it's all of our business to protect the innocent from oppression. 

You can fight that battle without outing closeted individuals. 

Posted
18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You can fight that battle without outing closeted individuals. 

I believe the hypocrisy of the oppressor exempts them from that courtesy. 

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I believe the hypocrisy of the oppressor exempts them from that courtesy. 

. . . which is a hypocritical perspective in and of itself.

Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . which is a hypocritical perspective in and of itself.

Let's take the sex part out of the equation.  Would you be OK with outing a Republican who ran on a "Lock drug users up and throw away the key!" platform if he liked to smoke a bowl in the privacy of his own home?  

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . which is a hypocritical perspective in and of itself.

How is it hypocritical if I only call out the hypocrisy of hypocrites? Who else's hypocrisy can I call out? 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

Let's take the sex part out of the equation.  Would you be OK with outing a Republican who ran on a "Lock drug users up and throw away the key!" platform if he liked to smoke a bowl in the privacy of his own home?  

Well, for starters it's a bad analogy.  Sexuality is not a choice. The decision to smoke a bowl is absolutely a choice.

So, I reject the question.

Posted

i don't want to turn this into a whole separate topic on the honorable donald trump thread, but the thought of a closeted gay man holding a high public office is very dangerous for a number of reasons.  much like getting into someone's financials, you don't want someone wielding power who can be compromised for any reason, including their sexual preference.

for all we know, graham is secretly gay and somehow trump knows.  wouldn't that explain a few things?

Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, for starters it's a bad analogy.  Sexuality is not a choice. The decision to smoke a bowl is absolutely a choice.

So, I reject the question.

Using the power of the law to oppress gay people is a choice.  

  • Like 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, bolverk said:

If a public official makes my private life his fucking business, then I'm sure as shit going to make his mine.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. 

Posted

I think it's a topic for another thread, but I'll just leave it at this:  I don't think it's right to damage a gay person because they damage gay people.

I'm not going to discuss this any further.  It's how I feel . . . and I'm hardly pure in this regard . . . but as a matter of policy I think it's wrong.  That's enough for me.

Posted
37 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think it's a topic for another thread, but I'll just leave it at this:  I don't think it's right to damage a gay person because they damage gay people.

It’s less about damaging them, and more about exposing them and getting them out of the power/position where they are damaging others.  

None of us give a shit that Shep Smith is gay (we all knew it for years before he came out, but I digress). As far as I know, he’s never went out of his way to promote homophobes and their behavior or to damage other gays.  The worst he’s done is run some bitch over who was trying to hold a parking spot.  

If some of his coworkers were gay, and were promoting homophobia, throw that closet door wide open. 

But you’re right, it’s for another thread.  

Posted
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

for all we know, graham is secretly gay and somehow trump knows.  wouldn't that explain a few things?

Secretly?

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't want to turn this into a whole separate topic on the honorable donald trump thread, but the thought of a closeted gay man holding a high public office is very dangerous for a number of reasons.  much like getting into someone's financials, you don't want someone wielding power who can be compromised for any reason, including their sexual preference.

for all we know, graham is secretly gay and somehow trump knows.  wouldn't that explain a few things?

Wait - Graham is secretly gay?

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...