Eh, the site's been rebounding pretty steadily gotta say, just EE is still slow :/ - but it's always been slow
. Also do get some interesting news on ulmf I'd never have heard about from my other news sources, so ehhh
In some news, man stabs colleague in Russian Antarctica Expedition; and to "kill a mockingbird" voted America's best-loved novel by a massive PBS survey, kind of surprisingly. Slow news day...
You must be registered to see the links
You must be registered to see the links
I don't know what the general consensus is on PBS. Do we categorize them as "fake news" or "Trump approved"? Someone should put together a list or something...
That Russian stabbing thing pretty much spells the recent news cycle. Shit's so common for the red flag nation that having that kind of news leak into the west is a bit... shocking? I wanna say that's the word, but eh. I think it's more people being bored of hearing the same "Trump is Hitler" "Democrats did x" shit that something different is welcome, even if it's Russia. And, if we've resorted to Russian news for something different, well, shit.
I don't need a prince in shining armor, I can make a point myself.
That's fine. I was pointing out his hypocrisy.
I don't and it's not exactly true he was BTFO by everyone. Not knowing something and being emotional are two different things and I have seen slicer having valid points more than once. This time he fell for it because of feels. Calling for politicians to be killed is giving exact reaction that is expected. Why? So it can be pointed out as: "Look at all those bad people! Look at all those nazis calling for murder!". Not a way to go.
Listen, a broken clock can be right twice a day. That doesn't mean it's not broken or you shouldn't get it fixed. It just means it's not working and you should probably do something to correct that. Then again, this is a functioning person, and, well, no analogy stands up to scrutiny.
Actually... He did recognize that and it bothered him a lot, see, it's quite transparent:
Actually, no. He was mocking your grasp of English and trying to backpedal.
Give credit where credit is due, laugh when it's laughable. No point in hating someone because of past or different opinions, same goes for liking someone.
But, giving credit to someone you disagreed with is hard, I acknowledge as much, doesn't mean it can't be done.
There is a difference. You're giving the benefit out of not wanting to call stupid where it is, and I won't dispute your reasons cause that requires me to care enough and you to reciprocate that feeling. It's clear neither of us cares enough to buy each other's farm, so let's skip that. I want to say your naive, but experience has taught me the opposite. You're well aware and trying to be kind, and I can appreciate that. Slicer, however, isn't a baby (see: doubt) and can handle criticism. If he wants to call someone a "troll" or "toxic" rather than argue like an adult, then it's clear he has no argument and it's better to either call it out or ignore him. I prefer calling out
and then ignoring.
Not everything, I agree with examples provided, but what about marriage? Sure, there are emotional decisions that can mess things up, but lack of emotional element turns marriage into an awful chore.
Okay, now you're going into debate territory and, as much as I enjoy our debates, Slicer did make a good point about it diverting from the main purpose of the thread (although, if anything, our debates draw in more attention). I will point out that marriage requires emotional investment, yes, but it's less about reacting and more about empathy. When you can empathize with another Human being, you come to understand and bond with them. It's a purely scientific thing that naive/idealist persons say "can't be measured by science." It can, but nobody really wants to invest any of the time or energy into writing 7 billion equations and matching each one to their closest variable. C'mon, man! Catgirls and starships!
One thing regarding screwing up an address would be to blame someone else. Stamp thing, if confirmed really does add extra fuckery to it.
There's a phrase which applies: Too many cooks spoil the broth. You could argue the more people involved in an operation, the easier it is to see it through. Unfortunately, that's only when the situation requires more bodies to move more stuff. In the case of a special ops in the military or government ops, the fewer bodies and minds involved, the easier it is to maneuver. In this instance, the fewer people you have involved in your bombing attempt, the easier it is for you to maneuver because it requires fewer lips to be sealed and less room for error. You can't account for people, in the same vein that you can't predict how they'll react.
This, another reason where my bias came from, timing and no-threat seems weird. "It's too obvious!". Well, in terms of social-engineering and manipulating a crowd, you don't go for over complicated methods, most of the time that fails. It's better to create discord and let people create certain arguments and argue between each other. When you scream at other person, you focus on that person, not on what's going in the background.
Soros headlines conspiracy theories mostly due to his views on globalization and such. It's not hard to attribute a billionaire Jew to everything bad about Liberal/Left ideology and then say "The Jews did it!" when shit goes south. Hell, Hitler had a terrible habit of using that excuse up until Russia slapped his shit across Berlin, to which point he shifted the blame to his own generals. Hello, history.
That said, I'm also not discounting that a billionaire non-religious Jew that
allegedly hates the west and all its machinations and wants a one-world government (again,
allegedly) would invest all his hard-earned shekels into Hillary Clinton and multiple nefarious schemes to not only undermine a global superpower, but then establish a totalitarian dictatorship that favored his ideology and those in strong support of it. Again, you want Hitler? 'Cause, that's how you get Hitler.
Could be simple stupidity and need of being recognized by doing dumb shit, but yeah, seems weird.
The current intelligence level of Democrat's isn't exactly that high, I'll admit. I would still buy that it's a setup for the dude to be that dense about things intentionally rather than taking every opportunity to avoid getting blown up. The natural instinct of "let's not get blown up" generally overpowers any momentary novelty of "look at this bomb, guiz!"
