Since you're derailing your own thread and trying to snipe others anyway... > *Originally posted by **[petesahooligan](/forums/9/topics/688504?page=2#10894011)**:* >Because [Jan]'s struggling with generalized anger over the humiliation, he lashes out at any perceived insult that he can and becomes extraordinarily vigilant about them, real or imagined. I don't mean to call him out specifically except to point out that it's pretty indicative behavior amoung young white men. It's not an uncommon viewpoint. The "it wasn't me" card doesn't work so well when multiple people have called you out on your hypocritical bullshit in this thread, or, well, pretty much any other thread you were kind enough to share your AA sponsor speeches in. But no, you won't concede that you're the problem; you won't concede that your passive-aggressive third-person narration you're trying to make sound like an objective description of all the evil things that undeservedly happen to you on this forum (because, apart from being a diva, you're also a demagogue) actually deteriorates the quality of any and all discussions with you; you won't concede that you claim authority over every single thread you participate in; you won't acknowledge or even address any points raised against your usually superficial theses unless you find a way to twist them about to your liking and needs. No, you'll just continue to live in your own world, harping on about how shitty SD is (even though you haven't done anything to improve it), how awful your adversaries are (even though you piss them off with your constant - and yes, I mean *constant* - bullshit and inability to put yourself in their shoes), crying rivers and pretending to be the victim when you're actually the culprit - and at that, of the kind that doesn't even have the gut to wear the cape and own up to what he's done. You're a victim of your own making. That you have the audacity to outright *lie* every couple months that you come here "in search of ideas" or whatever inane bs you always say, is just laughable. You come here to blow the steam off, you come here to boost your ego, you come here to pretend you're better than others - and it doesn't matter if it's *your *pacifism,* your* liberalism, *your* morals or *your* penchant for pointless graphomania; because who cares what other users feel like when > *Originally posted by **[petesahooligan](/forums/9/topics/688094?page=1#10885603)**:* >I come here to write. (Why do you come here?) you don't even grasp the core purpose of an online forum. Look at the water, pete. Just look at the water. also >Your experiences seem relatively narrow and appear to be formed almost entirely through events on campus. When I was on campus we were doing anti-nuclear demonstrations in response to Chernobyl. So... excuse me for not giving you the kind of deference that you seem to think you deserve. this is pure gold, you're meme material now.

>But no, you won't concede that you're the problem; you won't concede that your passive-aggressive third-person narration you're trying to make sound like an objective description of all the evil things that undeservedly happen to you on this forum (because, apart from being a diva, you're also a demagogue) actually deteriorates the quality of any and all discussions with you; you won't concede that you claim authority over every single thread you participate in; you won't acknowledge or even address any points raised against your usually superficial theses unless you find a way to twist them about to your liking and needs. This is such an awesome scolding! It really pulls out all the stops. Biguglyorc, I'm seriously (and sincerely) impressed. The fact that you're flattering me with so much attention notwithstanding, it's really well written! Except for maybe that it's one massive sentence. You should check out Kurt Vonnegut. He famously hated semicolons. Cormac McCarthy also writes with a simplistic grace that you might enjoy. (Or Hemingway, even.) >you don't even grasp the core purpose of an online forum. >Look at the water, pete. Just look at the water. You lost me a little bit here. I don't get this reference... is this like some Aesopian or Narcissian thing? Help me out. I may be self-indulgent but that doesn't mean I'm smart! >this is pure gold, you're meme material now. I can hardly wait. Maybe afterwards I can get my ego into the Thanksgiving Day Parade. In rebuttal (because I think you're probably hoping for one), what credentials do you rely on when you justify telling me what this forum is for? I mean... are you refering to some manual that I'm unaware of, or are you simply relying on the vast disparity in our post counts? Or maybe it's our chasm of time between our registration dates... what do you think? Help me put trust your judgment here. When you call me an asshole, how do I know that you know what you're talking about?

So, as far as I've been able to look into it, it seems this law C-16 is just a federal statute that's streamlining stuff that's already in place in the provinces, and the provincial laws have been in laws for a few years already without destroying the country. So I guess it's all right - though it still seems like we have better things to worry about that protecting a minority that makes up a tiny fraction of the population. I will say though that it may have already become normalized without my noticing, at least for me. I was talking to a friend of a friend about how pizzagate is bullshit, and he miscontrued the argument as saying that I was suggesting wikileaks is fake news [when in fact the fake news sites merely claimed it had come from wikileaks and people don't check directly]. He pointed out 'Bradley Manning' as an example of the government taking wikileaks seriously. Me: You mean Chelsea Manning? Him: I don't call him that. He was born Bradley. Me: Yes, but she's now known as Chelsea. Him: Well I guess I'm politically incorrect! Me: But it's not about being PC, it's just a convention that we all adopt. If someone uses a pseudonym, but you insist on calling them some other name for whatever reason, it's confusing. Him: You know what I meant! Me: Yeah, but I googled it just to make sure, because it confused me for a sec. It shouldn't be hard for you to just use the name she's known by. It doesn't mean you agree with her choices... Him: No I don't! And stop saying 'she'! I met this asshole through a mormon friend, which suggests that he may be a mormon too, or at least that's a possible explanation for his behavior. After that exchange I thought 'do I really want to be on the side of guys like this in this debate?' I suppose that's a question that ought to be at least considered for a lot of the alt-right related arguments.

True, but you'll find examples like your mormon aquaintance in any sufficiently large enough group. Left, right, up or down, you're going to find someone who holds views you at least partially agree with, and still manages to be a complete asshat.

> *Originally posted by **[vikaTae](/forums/9/topics/688504?page=3#10905163)**:* > True, but you'll find examples like your mormon aquaintance in any sufficiently large enough group. Left, right, up or down, you're going to find someone who holds views you at least partially agree with, and still manages to be a complete asshat. Asshole is a way of acting, not of belief. I don't think it really matters what their positions are.

It does if you're not sure you wish to share beliefs with an asshole. If you start down that path, you'll eventually wind up giving up belief in everything. Because, for every belief out there, I guarntee there'll be at least one asshole who also holds that belief.

That's true. I initially thought it was because, while I like most mormons i meet, they tend to be on the conservative side, and conservatives are the ones repeating this pizzagate crap the most [seriously, they might as well have called it a satanist child sex ring while they were at it], but I think maybe this guy was just a conspiracy theorist, and that's definitely a bipartisan bunch.