Lurker > wah_wah_wah

wah_wah_wah posted...

You'd be surprised how easy it is to fake a story. The media (particularly local media) basically does no research into the stories they report.

That being said, I think a lot of people focus so much on "what they're not telling us" that they miss that the shit they often do tell us openly is pretty horrific behavior. Like even if the Bush Administration didn't take down the twin towers, what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan were catastrophic enough to qualify them all for Nuremberg-style trials.

Woah woah woah, no one is saying the media tells the truth, that's just crazy talk. But people come up with crazy ways to explain things that the media does show. Just because they lie/I'll inform/etc doesn't mean that things other people come up with is true. Their is a truth but I feel not all true the are the consparicy, even if it may be part of it.

I do agree with JFK and there is even a file on it. They basically admitted it without actually admitting it. It makes sense why they did. I don't agree with the method or why but they had a clear agenda.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Looks like it was a big flop, not worse than Harvey

The measured strengths of its winds were definitely not a flop; did you see what it did to Barbuda and St. Martin? The U.S. mainland is fucking lucky that 1) it weakened from a category 5 and 2) its path moved westward in the last 24 hours. The Keys are still getting rocked and we'll see how badly central FL gets it.

Also odd to see a storm considered a "flop" if it doesn't result in dilapidation >__> that's a good thing.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Get into tabletop gaming. It is thriving right now like never before.

Yeah im seeing this a lot on twitch.tv...


Dungeons and dragons is still the big one?

Zeus posted...

Ramsay Bolton was also an incredible heel, although he wasn't nearly as hatable as Joffrey because Joffrey also established himself as a sniveling crybaby so he really had no redeeming features.

Ramsay also has an odd sort of coolness to him. Like, he's clearly crazy, but he's also a bit snarky, and like you implied, he DOES get shit done. So while he's way more squicky in some ways, he's also more likeable in an odd, twisted sort of way.

Sure, you're still rooting for someone to shove three feet of steel directly into his face, but I don't think you get that same universally visceral YES! moment with him the way you do with Little King Shitheel.

wah_wah_wah posted...

GastroFan posted...

I go with the man (who was atheist btw) who said that, and I'm paraphrasing here "maybe the Christians are on to something. Sharing the pain and suffering you're going through with other people helps to make it bearable." That is the most honest assessment of the power of prayer and shared suffering that I've heard either Christian or non-Christian utter.

I don't really think a quick and trite "praying for you" does much of that. Just like how saying "hello" doesn't mean you're genuinely happy to see someone. It's just one of those programmed responses you have to keep up appearances. It isn't harmful, but it probably doesn't do any good either.

When did "hello" ever mean "happy to see you"?

I go with the man (who was atheist btw) who said that, and I'm paraphrasing here "maybe the Christians are on to something. Sharing the pain and suffering you're going through with other people helps to make it bearable." That is the most honest assessment of the power of prayer and shared suffering that I've heard either Christian or non-Christian utter.

For proper morality you need to consider both sides. GameFAQS (and it's owners) publish what it posted on the site - is it moral to force them to publish something that they do not agree with? It's not the only place where people can state their opinions so people can easily say what they want somewhere else.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Again you're dodging that it is a moral question, not a legal one. We can all recognize that GameFAQs can legally do this. That's not what the question is. You are legally permitted to do all sorts of behavior that is immoral and wrong. The law and morality sometimes coincide, but not always.

Again,

Dash_Harber

It is not censorship for them to decide not to publish something. It is also not immoral because businesses that publish things are not morally compelled to publish everything put before them.

I quoted it again because, evidently, you missed it.

Sure it is. I don't want to see that sort of s*** around here and I'm willing to hazard a guess that most other people here don't either, or they'd be over on 4chan or Reddit.

If you have different views on what should and shouldn't be allowed, that's your prerogative. But I'm not being immoral simply by disagreeing with those views.

I said that demanding SBAllen and the rest of the GameFAQs staff give up their right not to publish hate speech was immoral; I never said you made that sort of a demand.

Demanding someone give up their rights isn't immoral?

The "bleakest" thing that can happen here is you will be banned from using a free-to-use website. Pardon me if I don't see that as the end of the world.

I never said you did.

Who's on PCP now?

My post did not even vaguely address the legality of what you were talking about.

Seeking to create an environment where people feel comfortable and striving to minimize discrimination is not in any way immoral.

Demanding that GameFAQs give up their own right to free speech by making them publish whatever you say, on the other hand...

wah_wah_wah posted...

There are many things a person can do that are immoral that are not necessarily against the law. The law is not the same as morality.

GetMagnaCarter explained it best.

It's not censorship. The law doesn't force every business to publish anything that customers want them to. Censorship is when the government or equal authority uses force or the threat of force to force you to not publish something. GameFAQs is a business that publishes people's messages (along with guides, cheats, etc). It is not censorship for them to decide not to publish something. It is also not immoral because businesses that publish things are not morally compelled to publish everything put before them.

I don't think I can make it any clearer.

wah_wah_wah posted...

that if you BELIEVE it is battery acid, then it will hurt him.

They did something like that though. That Gun thing that Mike brought with them, they were yelling at Bill that it wasn't Loaded, but Bill believed it was loaded, so it hurt Pennywise.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/349548-clintons-score-settling-frustrates-democrats

“The best thing she could do is disappear,” said one former Clinton fundraiser and surrogate who played an active role at the convention. “She’s doing harm to all of us because of her own selfishness. Honestly, I wish she’d just shut the f--- up and go away.”

I don't think this is really fair considering only the most bitter excerpts from the book have been revealed, and its marketing has made clear that a huge portion of it is going to be mea culpa.

But I do think that, more generally, the idea that being criticized for not going far enough when your opponents are ripping on each others' wives and families is a little silly as a point of blame for an election loss, and I think those sections of her book are less carefully planned evaluations and more personal venting

There are some words that are acceptable if you agree to allow them, there are other words that are inherently offensive for being sexist/racist/etc.

dummy420 posted...

C. I wouldnt really call it underrated though more like forgotten.

Yeah, I guess that would be the better word.

Not even in syndication, at least not on any channels I get. Maybe Netflix or another streaming service could pick it up one day.

wah_wah_wah posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

This also describes American liberals, actually. The Republicans' and Democrats' social views have this sort of yin-yang thing going on with where they want authority and where they want freedom.

The operatives of both parties don't have what could accurately be described as liberals Neither the Republican Party or the Democratic Party have a hint of liberalism, and the only really care about power. The only part of the Democratic Party that I would even remotely describe as liberal is Bernie Sanders and his justice democrats, and he was predictably destroyed by the conservatives that pull the levers.

I was thinking more along the lines of Democrat voters than Democrat politicians. There's definitely a difference, which is one of the biggest issues in American politics IMO.

This also describes American liberals, actually. The Republicans' and Democrats' social views have this sort of yin-yang thing going on with where they want authority and where they want freedom.

I mean being a conservative should mean you are pro small government, pro businsess and free market enterprise, pro minimum interference in people's lives.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Expensive frozen pizza is a gross waste of money. If you've got the money to spend, go to a restaurant and get a quality pie. If I'm going frozen pizza, I'm going to go with Roma. $2 and about half your daily calorie needs.

A quality pie is like 20 bucks. A DiGiorno pizza is like 5.

Depends on the nature, if it's just swearing or mildly controversial or dirty talk then no.

If it's hate speech of any kind, it absolutely must be censored.

wah_wah_wah posted...

QassTank posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Probably. GameFAQs is not a place that respects freedom of speech. I would suggest an indifference to their lame attempts at enforcing harmony that we can all acknowledge do not work and will never work, or finding another site that will not censor.

Strong username to post correlation.

You didn't use a direct ad hominem, so GameFAQs will approve of it. Thank you for further illustrating the point I was making.

You don't seem to have one.

Yes, there are things you can't say here. Nobody has ever denied that.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Probably. GameFAQs is not a place that respects freedom of speech. I would suggest an indifference to their lame attempts at enforcing harmony that we can all acknowledge do not work and will never work, or finding another site that will not censor.

Strong username to post correlation.

This is the path we were headed on with Obama and what we would have seen if Hillary or Bernie won

wwinterj25 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

it's not a public forum

Wasn't aware this is a private forum tbh.

You do understand that GameFAQs is a private business, right? The reason they let anyone in the door is because we are customers, not because they legally have to. Case in point, they have the ability to ban any user they feel like.