Recent posts by tenco1 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama wants to take our guns away, yet again.

Originally posted by issendorf:
I mean, it’s not quite right, because technically the NSA spying on you isn’t always because of unreasonable (er) reasons, and it technically isn’t exactly like a search or seizure.

I completely agree that the NSA program was wildly unconstitutional. Just because the government feels it’s NBD to ignore one right doesn’t mean we should stand by while they ignore any and all rights that they find to be inconvenient.

#AllRightsMatter

Yeah, the problem is that it seems the popular conservative opinion is that the likes of the NSA is great and we need to sacrifice this for national security. At least, that’s what Dick Cheney ( I think it’s him, all these old, white guys start blending together), and these dudes think. Unless the letter I got from them was talking about something different; between the buzz words and loaded sentences they mentioned the Freedom Act, not being able to track down terrorists (in all caps, too), and intelligence agencies being undermined. Kinda sucks that they didn’t include any sources, because I don’t really want to trudge through their web page a whole lot and possibly waste time while looking for something that could be relevant to me.

Honestly, though, I wish there was a thread just to talk about some of this political mail being sent. It’s amazing to me how desperate and obvious these people get.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama wants to take our guns away, yet again.

Originally posted by issendorf:

Freedom of movement isn’t a right. Freedom to bear arms is. That’s the difference, and rights aren’t rescinded because the government suspects you of something.

Obligatory Fourth Amendment name drop. I mean, it’s not quite right, because technically the NSA spying on you isn’t always because of unreasonable (er) reasons, and it technically isn’t exactly like a search or seizure. Then again, a gun store refusing service for whatever reason isn’t technically infringing on the person’s “right to keep and bear arms,” is it?unless that’s not the right quote I guess

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Avenues to Reduce Gun Violence

Originally posted by HardZone:
I ignored your evidence because you proved me wrong so I was moving on? I had no problem accessing the site I provided, I was able to look at the all the articles and read them without a ‘paywall’ getting in my way. I’m presuming this ‘articles aren’t accessible’ thing you’re presenting me with to be utter bullshit.

I was able to look at more than five articles, but there was also a popup that stated I’ve read X out of five articles so far, and that I’d have to subscribe for unlimited access. I don’t know if that’s how it’s supposed to be, or if unintentionally found a way around this, but either way I also didn’t find anything about the shooters being schizophrenic; there wasn’t a dedicated search function on the page, and control-f got me nothing. Since you seem to know which shootings in that site were caused my schizophrenics, couldn’t you link to the individual articles like this? (well, unless that link doesn’t work for you, for whatever reason.)

I’m not name calling, I’m asking a legitimate question. Are you going to answer it?

Eh, no. They’re not mutually exclusive, you were doing both.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Bumping this to move this discussion to an appropriate thread.


Originally posted by Bobneson:
And we have indeed seen years without “mass shootings.” It’s called they report it more than ever now, making it SEEM like we have them left and right.

Well, according to this there have been 294 mass shootings this year. Granted, they define mass shooting as “an incident in which four or more people are killed or injured by gun,” which is kinda weak compared to what we normally think of with mass shootings. So, if the nine fatalities in the Oregon shooting is enough to garner this much “mass shooting” cred, then that means from 2013-2015 (according to this ) we’ve had one in 2013, none in 2014 (one short, drat. No survivors, though.) and three this year.

I’m gonna try to find if there are any more since 2008, since that’s when Obama could have tried pushing his anti-gun agenda.

EDIT: Hit the mother load.

2008: no mass shooting with more than nine fatalities, just six for each
2009: Two mass shootings, on with 13 dead and the other with 14.
2010: One shooting just barely made it.
2011: Nothing, just eight fatalities again.
2012: Aurora shooting and Newtown, probably the worst year so far.

So yeah, there have been years with no mass shootings with less than nine fatalities. Woo.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your view on legalization of Marijuana

Originally posted by Bobneson:
I’m only angry because he can’t go just one year WITHOUT talking about gun confiscation.

And I’m sure we’d all like to have a year without a mass shooting.

Originally posted by Bobneson:

It is indeed the actual man. He is publicizing a terrible and dreadful event to push his anti gun agenda.

An agenda that’s fueled in whatever part by other terrible events like this. If he’s arguing for solutions to stop this, why should he be criticized for using this shooting to support his position?

Also, how so has he been publicizing it? I’m not aware of more than one major time he’s addressed this specifically.

EDIT: Wait, this thread’s about pot?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

In a way I absolutely misunderstood your first paragraph. Your second, however, seems to be maintained in the response you just gave.

Okay, there we go. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear enough, I just listened to a few too many crazy, fringe-beyond—the-fringe people and let them get into my head.

It is unclear whether you still hold the opinion that the two are comparable, and if you don’t believe that anymore good.

Okay, before I get myself into trouble again, I want to stop playing the pronoun game. Are you talking about sexism and racism, because I was talking about how the paranoia racism can cause in stupid people ( the Mexicans are taking our jerbs, as an example) was vaguely similar to the paranoia I thought I heard from some social media posts by a few nuts on the internet.

I really want to be helpful, understanding, and have an intellectual discussion about this, I really do. I am only reacting negatively here and I apologize for not contributing.

I’m glad you have the wherewithal to recognize what you were doing, and that you’re trying to change that. Really, I am.

As if you’d hear the phrase “Bullying is a problem and I’m afraid to go to school because the other kids will make fun of me.” and you respond “Well not all kids! Remember when you thought girls had cooties?”

Wait, what I said was really like that? How so?

EDIT:

If you deny these things exist because they sound like conspiracy,

OKay, not things are becoming clearer. I wasn’t trying to say or imply that I didn’t think any of that shit didn’t exist because it sounded like a conspiracy. I do think those things exist (I do have some caveats with the patriarchy, but I really don’t want to open that can of worms), it’s just that that one explanation stan gave about how women can feel anxious around men was explained poorly every other time I was exposed to it, and it sounded, to me, like they were saying the woman just knows the man is going to rape her, because that’s what men do. That’s what I wasn’t buying, the implication that the woman is prejudiced against men, and is constantly worrying how the men around her are going to rape her.

Also, I’m starting to see how my first post wasn’t clear enough. So that’s good.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I think it bears acknowledging that a patriarchy doesn’t necessarily create a repressive environment for women, but it probably will.

Hey, look at that, another thing I agree with, and is part of my overall feelings towards the patriarchy.

You’re not helping the choir… you’re merely encouraging the tone-deaf and making everyone look bad. I think that’s the trap you’ve fallen into, Kasic (and 0Gamer).

Count me in there, too. I’m sorry, but I just can’t bring myself to want to say I’m a feminist specifically because those radicals are the first thing I picture when I think of feminism. I know that makes me part of the problem, and I had said the exact same thing you just did, Pete, but I just saw a few too many bad apples a bit too soon,

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Sorry tenco, your comparison to women being afraid of men to people being afraid of black people wasn’t explicitly implying they’re the exact same issues.

I…wasn’t trying to- was I trying to?

You still brought it up and compared them without addressing the wildly different histories and wildly different societal implications of the two stereotypes.

Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t know I had to write an essay on the entire history of the subjugation of women and Africans.

So yes, those are both stereotypes, good job. You matched the cards. Now why were you bringing up this point in the first place? How does it elevate the discussion? What does it say about feminism and patriarchy?

I was just trying to fucking say that that I got it, that I agreed with stan, that that issue was finally explained in such a way that could fit in my white-privileged, chauvinistic fuckwit mind.

Here’s your opportunity to explain how you’re genuinely not trying to take down feminist arguments with vague relationships, but are somehow just innocently mentioning the comparison.

W-what? How could I possibly have been weakening feminist arguments? But regardless, I wasn’t fucking comparing the two (yeah, congratulations, you’re a fucking psychic, you should get payed for this), I was just trying to say how I’ve only had bad experiences with feminists sounding just as paranoid and sexist as a stereotypical old, racist, white dude, and now I had my first fucking decent one with stan. I’m sorry I phrased it wrong at first, and I hope I’ve made my stupid little thought process understandable now.

Let’s spend more time clarifying your opinions that are incredibly important to women’s issues.

Yes, let’s. I’m so glad you’ve taken this burden upon you to drag this out for as long as it needs to.

EDIT: The hell? Hold on, I’ll fix this.
EDIT2: Fix’d
EDIT3:

I’m a dick for assuming you were going absolutely nowhere with that because now I gave you a nice fluffy opportunity to say you had a point that wasn’t what I admonished you for.

Nope, sorry to disappoint you, I’m not going to go anywhere with this. I wasn’t trying to say anything more than I already did.

Or maybe I was trying to say something more. I don’t fucking know, you’re the expert here.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Yeah, that’s all it is. A prejudice women have against men.

Hey now, I didn’t say that… Oh wait, no, I did.

I mean, I didn’t say it was ill-founded, there are good reasons to be wary of guys in those situations. It’s just in my experience you have people try to explain it and they phrase it like men are conspiring against women and they sound like that crazy lady who thinks artificial insemination is bad because then men won’t need women anymore and will try to commit genocide against them.

But yes, let’s spend some time discussing how it’s prejudiced to be afraid of men, just like it’s prejudice to be afraid of black people. That’s the important discussion here. Those are identical issues that have identical histories and are totally comparable.

Oh thank you, that’s good. I’m glad you’re not misconstruing what I’m trying to say.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by stanwise:

These stereotypes are as harmful to women as they are to men, but still. Like it or not, men are stereotyped as the gender that commits more violent acts, especially rape. Women don’t particularly worry about getting raped by women. Men don’t particularly worry about getting raped by women.

Okay, now you’re speaking my language. It’s just stereotypes, and that women are doing what every other person in the world does: make split-second decisions about a person’s character based on how they look.

It’s just every time I’ve seen someone try to explain that it has come across the same way as an old white guy explaining why he tenses up everytime he sees a black kid near him. It’s always sounded like they actively think the men/blacks are plotting to rape/mug them, but no, it’s just a few prejudices bubbling up in the heat of the moment.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

What I was wanting is what your OPINION was as to why producers had those opinions.

It’s pretty much that most of the time when a piece of media had a woman as their protagonist they included a bit of social commentary about women’s issues at the time (for example, the recent Agent Carter dealt heavily with the sexism of the 50s) because art influences art, every other piece of media with a prominent female character wanted to do the same. Combine this with the fact that discussing feminism is such a hot topic (read: lucrative) to write about, people latch onto whatever subtext they can and laud it as part of the Feminist Manifesto and fellate themselves for recognizing a social progressive tone in a piece of media.

Then there’s the issue of the “strong female character,” and how people debate who is or isn’t a strong character, or even if it’s possible for someone to be strong and female (See articles made about the one-armed woman in Fury Road). This, to me, seems to intimidate writers because they feel they aren’t able to write an acceptable female character, and if they ever did try to do so and fail, they’ll be scorned for being a misogynistic pig. That’s another reason I think the aforementioned WB thinks Wonder Woman would be “too complicated” to write.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid
But, why would a woman necessarily have to be “complicated”?
And, why is it “assumed that they have to put in a female-empowerment message to justify the movie’s existence”?

Oh sorry, was I not clear enough? I was trying to imply how those reasons were complete bullshit. There’s no reason an original action movie (or any piece of entertainment for that matter) couldn’t come out and have a female lead, we’ve just gotten to the point where, if a female lead ever does pop up in a film where their gender otherwise doesn’t matter, people are going to try to find the reason why she’s a female, like there has to be a hidden motive behind the decision. Especially if her gender doesn’t factor in to her backstory, motivation, or any event in the plot.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
Besides, what does the fact that it’s an adaptation have to do with anything?

It means that, unless the movie wants to take liberties with the source material, there’s no way it could just change the gender of the protagonist, especially if they’re decades old (Captain America), or an actual person (guy from American Sniper). There’s definitely a disproportionate amount of movies with male leads versus female lead, but there’s also disproportionate amount of big budget adaptations that sample the past half-century of disproportionately male-centered stories.

Honestly, I don’t think it’s because people prefer male leads, rather that males are considered the default, and as such people are expected (sometimes from both sides) to give a reason why the lead has to be female. It’s why WB doesn’t want to make a Wonder Woman movie, because she’s “too complicated” to write for, because it’s assumed that they have to put in a female-empowerment message to justify the movie’s existence.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

That’s 10, and probably enough to clearly illustrate a glaring gender bias in featured protagonists. Why are so many movies made about men?

Because literally every movie there is an adaptation of something else. The only real case you’d have is for The Lego Movie, but it honestly would have made for a worse story if it did because it wouldn’t be able to play with the “seemingly average guy is actually a super-special snowflake” trope as effectively.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Originally posted by issendorf:

Out of curiousity, am I dumb or ignorant for thinking liberalism is fucking moronic? No wrong answers here – whichever one you choose will highly amuse me.

Neither, you are downright evil for not following the Holy Liberal Elite, you are a pitiful, unenlightened cretin for agreeing with the anti-humanitarian belief of conservatism!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

Originally posted by Ceasar:
ignoring that the companies literally do not need to make a single cent more or change their operating practices to still be bringing in the exact same amount of money

Then why don’t they do that now?

Because they don’t want to.

I think one of the biggest obstacles in this debate is what people believe the mentality of corporations to be. On one side there are people like you and issendorf who believe (or at least imply they believe) that most businesses give at least half a shit about the well-being of its workforce. Whereas you have people like me who think they’re cartoonishly greedy monsters, whose wet dream would be to not have to pay their employees anything.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / University Gender and Sex Reporting Requirements

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

Originally posted by DoomlordKravoka:

I can’t criticize your awful source if the only link is this thread, which makes me think you’re pulling arguments out of your ass.

How about mine?

It might not be the exact one, but it at least has Vika’s excerpt.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is corporal punishment legal?

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by issendorf:
That’s part of the thing, though. Say what you will about the quality of the work some people do, the point of working is to get money to live off of.

Workers have to produce to a level that justifies their wages, and there is pretty much no one outside of managerial staff that produces to a level that warrants a $15/hour paycheck.

Y’know, about a year ago I learned that this local grocery chain called Market Basket has a policy where if an employee works for them for years, even as a cashier, they’ll be paid substantially more than the minimum wage, according to Wikipedia full-time clerks even start out at $12 dollars an hour. I get that there are some terrible employees out there, but because the company rewarded this kind of loyalty in their employees so well, they started to protest for their old CEO back when he was fired. Partially because the person to replace him wanted to cut their pay, but also because the old CEO was able to build loyalty and was actually able to get his employees to like him.

Bit of a non-sequitur, but I think my main point is that this doesn’t have to be a problem. The only reason this is happening is because people feel, one way or another, that they’re not getting paid enough, and they believe, even though these corporations are fully able to give them raises (and they are! Unfortunately, it’s spiraled out of control long before they got off their asses), the only way to get what they want is to change the law.

Because higher costs for goods and services and a reduced number of jobs will really be a boon for minimum wage workers. You know – the two things that are almost guaranteed when you significantly raise the minimum wage.

Again, this is very tangential, but we’re going to have to come to an actual conclusion as a species on how we want the future of jobs to progress. Like, right now we’re trying desperately to employ everyone we have, but at the same time the employers are rewarded far more heavily for getting machines to take the place of the jobs. I honestly think we’re going to need to have a serious discussion about whether we slow down automatization for the sake of employing more people, or saying screw it and get machines to do nearly all of our work for us, getting rid of the need for human jobs altogether.

At the end of the day, businesses are for-profit entities, not charities, and if they don’t make a profit, then there’s no business to employ.

Well, there are non-profit businesses, but I’m being pedantic.

Whether it’s higher costs for products or fewer hours, the business has to deal with a double in their labor costs somehow. But hey, I’m sure those 500,000 people that the CBO predicted would lose jobs from the proposed hike to $10.10 (likely in the millions of lost jobs for a $15 minimum wage) will love that theoretical $15/hour wage they’ll receive at a hypothetical job that’s now handled by an iPad.

So I did a bit of research and it seems that that hike would bring the minimum wage back up to its 1968 peak.

So, it turns out that they’re already doing what I said. Huh.

I’m glad you’ve discovered the fact that companies raise wages without being mandated to do so by the federal government. It’s almost like wages increase without government involvement. Who knew?!

Yeah it’s crazy, and all you need is hundreds of thousands of impoverished citizens to protest for a year!


God, it feels weird making thoughtful posts that actually contribute to a discussion, is this how it normally feels?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by issendorf:

Perhaps Starbucks and WalMart can afford to pay more, but it’s pretty unlikely that the majority of their labor deserves $15/hour.

That’s part of the thing, though. Say what you will about the quality of the work some people do, the point of working is to get money to live off of. Then the problem with the wages people get is exacerbated when their not even allowed to work. Seriously, there are people out there who have to work two part-time jobs because neither will let them work more. It got so bad McDonalds felt the need to release a guide (I can’t for the life of me find the original document) on how to live off minimum wage, kinda funny how it basically says you can’t.

Although, speaking of McDonalds, they’re apparently Raising their wages above the minimum wage, so that’s nice. It shows how corporations were treating the minimum wage like the required wage, but still it’s a nice effort.


I’d say raise the minimum wage to account for inflation, it’s not like our economy’s doing much better than it was in the 70’s. Hell, while you’re at it, make a law tying politician’s pay to the average pay of their constituents. Ooo, and maybe also require that they spend a month on the minimum wage. And to top it all off, give Vermin Supreme the title of Honorary President, so I can get a pony.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by James146:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by James146:

To think that everyone in this forum has shared the same opinion.

I wanted to hear about Hilary Clinton, Ben Carson, and other candidates.

Alright then, I’d like to see Donald Trump become president.

Sure, he’s a collection of damn near everything I hate in this world, but I’ll be damned if his term won’t be the most spectacular thing seen in the past century.

You haven’t really given any reasons or explained his stance on certain political matters.

I did give my reason, though; Whatever happens in his term is going to be amazing to watch. Possibly cataclysmic, but amazing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by James146:

To think that everyone in this forum has shared the same opinion.

I wanted to hear about Hilary Clinton, Ben Carson, and other candidates.

Alright then, I’d like to see Donald Trump become president.

Sure, he’s a collection of damn near everything I hate in this world, but I’ll be damned if his term won’t be the most spectacular thing seen in the past century.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Because you guys refer to him like he represents “the other side.” He doesn’t. He represents a destructive, self involved, disingenuous side, and the only reason he maintains is because people debate with him as if he’s going to change his mind or contribute something.

I dunno, to me it looks like a mixture of Trump/Huckabee’s attitudes and the usual “conservative” counter-arguments. Y’know, the stuff like how self-proclaimed conservatives argue that the Confederate flag is about “southern pride?” Just look at his posts in the civil liberties thread, it’s crazy how similar it is.

Maybe that’s what’s going on, the presidential race is starting, he was invigorated by the new batch of crazy in the Republican primary, and took some notes on how some of the candidates were behaving (I’m still convinced he’s troll, y’see).


Seriously though, the next time you hear Trump responding to something, take whatever he had said and imagine a toddler said it. You’d be surprised how well it fits.

EDIT:

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Holy crap, and I thought I was radically anti-corporate.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Originally posted by Kazeelex:

Just because I like things aimed at females doesn’t mean I’m a girl.

Like I just said: Most people don’t feel the need to question it, which seems to be your case.

I could say the same to those who say no one is an “SJW

You’re missing the point.

Yet you’re still a guy/girl

But also proves you’re serious.

If I choose to kill someone and I get blamed is that victim blaming?

No, saying shit like this is victim blaming,

calling yourself the opposite sex will surely cause more insulting.
For elderly or religious people that’s really confusing,

Because – and I’ll try to make this as simple as I can- you’re blaming the transgender person for the actions of others.

its spreading rapidly and is a ridiculous idea to call yourself the opposite gender.

Why’s that?

I think what everyone here is going by is that gender is a social construct. Its not. Its genetics.

No, sex is genetic, gender is absolutely a social construct.

And – for the record- definitions can change and there might have been a time when they meant the same thing, but this is what the definitions are now and trying to argue against a higher authority than yourself makes you look like a clown.

If I have a penis I am genetically a male human being. I’m not a girl. How is that ignorant?

Because you don’t know what you’re fucking saying.

Let me try to make a list of everything you’ve said in the last two posts that stems from ignorance about sex, gender, and transgender people (and sexual orientation, to boot).

Just because I like things aimed at females doesn’t mean I’m a girl.
That doesn’t mean I should identify as a 10 year old.
Yet you’re still a guy/girl
If I have a penis I am genetically a male human being. I’m not a girl.
Those people are choosing to say they ARE a girl/boy.
I think what everyone here is going by is that gender is a social construct. Its not. Its genetics.
It’s really not. People have started saying that for the last 5 years or so. A decade ago gender and sex were the same thing and still are.
If that’s ever happened the person is “messed up” and there’s probably a scientific term for it.
The parents decide what gender they are.
There’s no spectrum.
There’s male, female, and deformity.
There’s heterosexual homosexual and bicurious.

First off, whenever you’re saying “guy” or “girl” you mean, I assume, the set of genitals a person has when they’re born (for simplicity, we’ll say it can only be a penis or vagina). In which case, the more accurate term would be “biosex male/female,” because, like it or not, calling someone a “guy” or “girl” is broad and says much more about the person than you’re probably intending.

Secondly, the body just determines sex, and as Vika and stan were saying, you can literally be born with the wrong body, because the mind is what determines gender.

And thirdly, there are hemaphrodites, asexuals, pansexuals, gender-fluid, bisexual, and-I-can’t-remember-what-else.

The only thing I’ve learned about this world is that there are no edges; there has never been a time when some entity or concept doesn’t meld with something else.


God, here I thought I’d be able to make light-hearted quips and pick apart silly little things people do, but no. I’m getting legitimately fucking pissed trying to talk to you.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Confederate Flag and Civil Liberties

Originally posted by jhco50:
Only liberals and dictators ignore what the constitution says to further their control of the country and it’s people.

I’d imagine so, but I can’t remember a time when a dictator considered the Constitution in order to ignore it. I’m sure it would send a powerful message, but their time would probably be better spent eating Swiss cheese and surviving assassination attempts from the Three Stooges.