Lurker > CruorComa

I'm courteous and polite but that's because I respect myself, not that I reapect someone else. Respect is earned.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Life is suffering, but you take and bear it, align yourself with the highest good and live well to minimise it.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

No. All nations would have taskforces dedicated to similar operations. Would rather not set a precedent for splintering the internet.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

I gave them the Awoken/Broken Universe for a HoF spot.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

They want semen in it
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Whenever a tragic shooting occurs, why is the gutteral reaction to leap to things like guns, or politics, or racism, or bullying, or video games? If a child has grown to be a maladjusted, poorly socialised, resentful and violently inclined adolescent, it's blatantly self evident that someone/s failed at their job as a parent, so why are they last on the list?
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

It's restricted access shit
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Of course. That's a man's purpose to a household.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Genocet_10-325 posted...

CruorComa posted...

I'm not American, nor am I partisan but I'm so confident that they won't because they operate under no platform beyond 'We good. Trump bad.' I'll take that bet and will close my account if they do.

Screenshotted.

Cool.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

I'm not American, nor am I partisan but I'm so confident that they won't because they operate under no platform beyond 'We good. Trump bad.' I'll take that bet and will close my account if they do.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Stan is centre left. Kyle is centre right.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

God represents the ideal, the higher standard of being and living meaningfully with purpose, and the authority to be held accountable to that standard.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Civ V
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

So, is this a satirical play on the puritan push against comic books, horror movies, metal bands and video games or have we actually come full circle? Poe's Law and all that.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

We all have capacity for evil. Writing things off as 'He was part of x collective' or 'We should ban x' is part of the problem that allows these things to be cyclical and serves no purpose beyond propagating ones own political agenda.

No one ever looks to the parents of people like this. A parents sole purpose is to ready and prepare they're offspring for intergrating and adapting to society. Whether he was bullied to resentment by his peers or became aligned with dangerous ideology, it falls squarely on the parents failing.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

You pass butter
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

To what end? Where is that money going?
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

'What causes the hollowing in cauli stem?'
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Trump. The dnc is broke.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Excellent. May be a good time to get ready to buy some EA shares after a good investor panic.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Kazi1212 posted...

Cool guys, so it seems most people a agree a man wanting similar treatment in return isnt sexist. But I cant shake the idea that a man articulating his wants in the same vein as the woman did would be more likely called a sexist in this day and age. Unreasonable?

In majority cases, yes. But look, at the end of the day in majority cases, if looking for something of purpose and meaning, your future wife and mother of your children, and not just having fun, majority don't measure up anyway.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

There's alot of traditional women out there who want to be the housewife and take care of their man as their priority and purpose. If that's your preference, you're no more sexist than the women who want to be that way by choice. However, if that's the type of woman you're after, dating sites are the last place you'll find them.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

I like him

Hey, I like him too.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

A week or so ago. First time, with nothing major just slight visuals of flickering on my peripheral vision, euphoria and a smile I couldn't wipe off my face. Going again, but heavier in a few weeks.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Yeah. She's a good friend of mine, generally a good person and will do anything for her friends, but she's an ethnostatist who believes race mixing is genocide.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

COVxy posted...

CruorComa posted...

Also, imagine being this guy and actually making a living by doing what he does. "conflicting information" lol

Multi-award winning journalism? Er.. . Yeah, imagine that.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

NonDairyMiltank posted...

you realize there are women who choose to basically "go their own way" too, right?

Okay?
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

There are some things that are sadly taboo for open and honest discussion when it comes to academic inquiry. Namely, the biological, psychological, physiological and neurological differences between sexes and races.

Legitimate studies on such things are few, and those that are done aren't able to be rigorously followed up and scrutinised for the purpose of contextualisation and a genuinely better understanding of ourselves and those around us. This cultural taboo leaves a vaccuum, where the only ones willing to explore these topics are those with vested interested in seeing patterns that would serve to justify and vindicate their preconceived bias' on such things. Naturally the conclusions extracted from these few studies done are extreme and only serve to empower and give credibility to those groups, namely MGTOW, on sex and the Alt-Right on race.

My question is, with alarmists fearful of the apparent growing population of sexists and racists, would it not be beneficial to have open exploration of these topics, removing the taboo and decreasing the percieved legitimacy of these groups that allow them to grow?
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Paper_Okami posted...

CruorComa posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

CruorComa posted...

I have no dog in this fight. Partisan hackery is garbage to me.

aka i have no actual convictions and i feel superior for it.

Ah, yes. Because as numerous and complex as people and ideas are, convictions can only be organised according to a binary red and blue dichotomy.

that's not what i said.

Nor did I declare absence of conviction.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Paper_Okami posted...

CruorComa posted...

I have no dog in this fight. Partisan hackery is garbage to me.

aka i have no actual convictions and i feel superior for it.

Ah, yes. Because as numerous and complex as people and ideas are, convictions can only be organised according to a binary red and blue dichotomy.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Paper_Okami posted...

CruorComa posted...

It's definitely the counterculture at any rate.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNRFCX-WkAA6o73.jpg

These things eb and flow ad nauseum. Liberals won the culture war in the 90's after the masses got tired of self righteous Conservatives became preachy, alarmist and moralising in the 80's. Which the Conservatives won after the self righteous Liberals became preachy and moralising in the 60's etc etc. Liberals are becoming preachy and moralising again, so it only makes sense there's a Conservative counter to that which will inevitably become the norm.

I have no dog in this fight. Partisan hackery is garbage to me.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

It's definitely the counterculture at any rate.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Fail at applying you're degree in journalism somewhere else.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

I love Peterson but I've found many of his supporters are just as empty headed as his detractors. The great thing about Petersons work is how timeless it is. Everything he talks about now, alarmist moralising and the collectivist mob mentality of legislating such things into law, when talking about the partisan Left today, can just as well be applied to the Satanic panic, war on drugs, 'think of the children' puritan collectivist moralising of the partisan Right during the 70's and 80's.
My confusion is at the plethora of those who claim to follow his work intimately, yet miss that point entirely.
He warns of the dangers of legislative infringements on individual liberty for the purpose of satiating collectives but many hear warnings about legislative infringements on individual liberty for the purpose of satiating THEIR(sjw/lefty/the other) collective. Again, it's okay if MY side has the authoratarian power, when he's against such power in totality.
Much criticism and many jokes are made at the expense of the left wing media hearing what they want to hear, but there are many who do the exact same thing only instead of cherrypicking to discredit him, they cherry pick to vindicate their own preconceived notions.

Is it really that hard to not be a partisan hack?
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Neoconservative, paleoconservative, identitarian, protectionist, libertarians, anarchocapitalists... too much to the right to put in two camps.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Depends on whoever's in cultural vogue. As of now, not towing the progressive line quickly slaps you with some kind of label. Conservatives are okay at this point with disagreement as long as you don't insult their intelligence or mock the choices and beliefs they have as much a right to have.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

COVxy posted...

CruorComa posted...

I think you're being deliberately obtuse.

No, psychology completely abandoned psychoanalysis around 1930 lol.

Perfect for you.



You're welcome :)
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

COVxy posted...

CruorComa posted...

Much of it is the foundational bedrock of modern psychology.

No, no it isn't lol.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

COVxy posted...

CruorComa posted...

arbitratily stabbling at psychoanalysis

It's not arbitrary to stab at a purveyor of pseudoscience.

Much of it is the foundational bedrock of modern psychology.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Again, no one really addresses anything. It just devolves into not liking how he lectures or arbitratily stabbling at psychoanalysis. It's just noise. He's had an open policy on wanting to debate leftist professors for the last while, but we're here with nothing but nonarguments about fluff.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

averagejoel posted...

CruorComa posted...

No one ever really addresses anything he says, do they? They just condense complex subject matter to overly simplified, uncharitable and misrepresentative strawfigures, then attack that. It's not impressive.

he said, after reading an article that succinctly addresses what he says

Not really.

'It is little wonder, then, that Peterson is prominent among conservatives (he identifies as a "classical liberal," which is a conservative), angry young men, and the ranks of the alt-right. (Following her recent interview with Peterson, Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman was deluged with death threats; thus giving Peterson the dubious distinction of being the rare "dangerous scholar" who is actually dangerous.) Peterson dresses up the language of misogyny in the woozy jargon of Eastern religion (he identifies chaos, his enemy, with the Taoist notion of the "eternal feminine"); he justifies existing structures of social dominance by deferring to the hard-wiring of ancient crustaceans; he capitalizes words such as Being and Woman and Nature with no apparent rationale. For all his wailing about the dangers of tyranny, Peterson's use of language is itself spookily Orwellian justifying the most noxious, moronic ideas by making them seem intellectual or, in his words, "archetypal."'

This was really the only thing that really dealt with anything he's said and it was low resolution. His lectures unpack single concepts over hours and I wouldn't say it's succinct to handwave over a bunch of them with a paragraph of misrepresentations.

https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/azXLNNp_700b.jpg
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

No one ever really addresses anything he says, do they? They just condense complex subject matter to overly simplified, uncharitable and misrepresentative strawfigures, then attack that. It's not impressive.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Remember the 80/20 rule.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Why are you are a long time regular of the DBG board?
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Paper_Okami posted...

CruorComa posted...

It's a matter of knowing ones place. Athletes are like actors, they're paid to entertain the masses. It's no different in terms of relevance than a porn actresses views on politics. No one cares. Shut up and dance you glorified toys.

something tells me you have a problem with black people

What the hell kind of leap is that?
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

It's a matter of knowing ones place. Athletes are like actors, they're paid to entertain the masses. It's no different in terms of relevance than a porn actresses views on politics. No one cares. Shut up and dance you glorified toys.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Nihilism is weak
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?

Not really. Yes, microtransactions have given players quite the edge to the paying player for GTAO and will undoubtedly do so in RDR2. The flipside though is it's those players that are paying for the perpetual stream of new content for the mode. GTAO is a completely different game than it was at launch. Between regular DLC that charges all players and splits the community based on purchases or the whales paying the way for the entire playerbase for an advantage, I know what most would take. At the end of the day someone has to pay to keep the multiplayer lasting as long as it has.
---

If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?