Recent posts by urine420 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does SD need more Right Wing regulars?

American “Conservatives” and american “Liberals” are practically identical, but the so called “conservative” liberals differ themselves from the self-described liberals by generally being cunts to minorities and the disadvantaged explicitly and personally in addition to the institutional discrimination that both sides engage in.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Defend liberalism

can i say “tone argument”? Cuz that’s totally a tone argument. The core of the argument is the same regardless of if I capitalise everything or if i dont bother. as long as it’s readable, what’s the problem?

Of course, this is just an example of the mentality which exists in both online discussion spheres, where a dissenting opinion is constructed as coming from a position of insincerity. Your opponent is not using punctuation, must be a troll; an opponent is saying something you would not, must be a troll. It’s all a method of ignoring the heart of the argument and instead constructing a fiction surrounding the circumstance of it’s production to delegitimise it while never having to directly engage it.

edit: if you genuinely have a problem with the clarity of my points, please make a list and I’ll see what I can do to bring things down to your level of understanding. just so you can stop forcing this bullshit aside.

ed 2: aside in the last paragraph was noun form, if that needed clearing up

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Defend liberalism

i use the term jew, as it is the term used by people when talking about this topic. Hell, i’ve even cited the origin of my use of the term. It’s a function of citationality and clarity. Sorry if you’ve got sloppy standards around here.

ed: specifically the ideological figure of the/a jew

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Defend liberalism

try reading, pete, you may learn something.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Defend liberalism

sorry, but you did not understand the point. the jew as an ideological construct is evoked by institutions that promote liberalism as a means of resolving problems that occur in society as liberalism, the ideology, does not have a means to understand these conflicts without the invocation of the ideological figure of the jew.

It is worth noting that i am not literally talking about jews or judaism here, so if you’re reading it that way then you’ll probably not be able to understand my point

edit: your google definition only works as a description of how liberalism is used in american political parlance, not as the actual definition of liberalism would be to anyone who know what theyre talking about (i.e. not americans)

edited for clarity and typos

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Defend liberalism

“liberalism is a bullshit ideology that doesnt provide a framework for meaningfully understanding problems, let alone resolving them. It encourages believers to invoke the ideological construction of the jew (as detailed in zizek, 48) to understand its inconsistencies”

someone argue against this, please. Jhco need not bother as he has failed to learn what liberalism is across the 70 odd years of his life & i dont expect that to change any time soon. I am looking for a reasonable explanation as to how liberalism can be such a dominant ideology when there is no framework within it which allows for the comprehension of the world.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

on one hand, hillary clinton is an insider trader & wife to one of the most right wing dem president. on the other, jeb bush.
fptp voting is (deliberately) fucked y’all

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hey Karma, wanna fight?

No bites? srsly?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hey Karma, wanna fight?

I’ll fight you. any subject & ill take the opposing position to you. how’s that sound?

ed: i just wanna fight tbh. proper ffightclub shit for the same reasons as in the fincher film, but i can’t find anyone to be beaten up by so I’ll take my beating online. just so you contextualise my arguments within my mental state, as so many people seem to love intentionality, rather than text

ed2: got a better offer from the bottom of a can of guinness. maybe in 2 hours.

ed3: ah fuck. here’s a thing for y’all to argue against til i get back to respond:

“liberalism is a bullshit ideology that doesnt provide a framework for meaningfully understanding problems, let alone resolving them. It encourages believers to invoke the ideological construction of the jew (as detailed in zizek, 48) to understand its inconsistencies.”

ed4: may be zizek, 46. its been a coupla months since i read it

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Looks like this forum is dying

i am glad for this subforum’s death. would be nice if the rest of the place went with it imo.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

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

Topic: Serious Discussion / United States Shame "Georgia Edition"

Ideally they would unionize, but the reality of the situation is that there has been a definite weakening of unions in the united states (a concerted effort from both major political parties and business groups. It’s also true to a lesser extent in countries outside of the US). Weakened unions mean less funds to pull from to support striking workers and their families. Furthermore wage-decoupling 1 and inflation 2 mean fewer workers work harder to make enough money to survive on & that those who’re not employed, or under-employed (I could talk about casualization or changes in labour laws, but there’s probably enough meat here as is) are going to be jostling to take the positions of striking workers (scabs). Obviously if you don’t try you ain’t going to succeed, but I personally am finding it hard to be optimistic; I guess the advice is for everyone who can to join their union and try to get others to join their union & if there’s any money spare that you’d spend on charity, to use that towards a currently striking union.

1
fn2.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / United States Shame "Georgia Edition"

Assuming this law was reasonable (which it’s not. the waspy motherfuckers who live there should get their heads bashed in and their wealth distributed to the deserving, or at the very least stop being weepy cunts about someone taking their garbage out) the only reasonable entity to punish is the company. I 100% guarantee that the company runs strict deadlines & overwork their employees (say by setting targets for no. bins collected per garbo team, or by saying x number of neighbourhoods covered by x time) to minimise their overheads; so it’s more than likely that the workers are being fucked into breaking the law (as fuckwitted as this one is), to punish the worker for being forced to break a law is like arresting the balaclava a bank robber wore and letting the robber get off scott-free.

Now onto why the law itself is bullshit: There’s approximately 0% chance that any of the people who live in a wealthy suburb need to not be woken at 6 am. These aren’t people who do three jobs and have maybe 7 hours a day for breakfast, dinner and sleep; these aren’t people who do overnight shifts, or early morning shifts and need that sleep. These are 9-to-5, suits and ties assholes; they got 16 hours of downtime; if they don’t want to be woken an hour earlier, they should go to bed an hour earlier. Their problems are the most fucking trivial possible. Noise limits make sense when they’re for the benefit of those already disadvantaged, not some homeowners-association, gormless, former trustfund kiddie who’s so used to things going their own way that not having their bin emptied to their OCD specifications is warrant enough to call for 30 days in prison. what a fucking farce.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Gay Marriage OK from a Biblical Perspective?

Arguing from a biblical perspective (or arguing with someone who’s arguing from a biblical perspective) is tedious and worthless shite. There’s no points being made, not even any arguments. The biblical argument is saying “this book here says x” as though that even means something. It’s like, why should I care that a book that you’ve picked says something? i could pick any work and say that it says something that’s written in it and it would have just as much meaning to the situation at hand. That the bible says “god hates poofs” isn’t an argument, it’s a statement. Things like “why does it matter what a crusty old book from 1600 years ago says wrt defining how our society should operate?” or “are there any genuinely substantive arguments to be made on this topic?” are far more relevant and interesting things to be asking.

basically, come up with an actual argument, rather than clinging to your safety blanket of preformed opinions (which you only hold cuz your parents held them, and so did their parents and so on and so on)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / United States laws "Utah Shame" Edition

did you not read the rest of his post?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / United States laws "Utah Shame" Edition

I don’t want to be accused of mod sass, but donseptico seems to have a real case of just world fallacy. The idea that the legal system is infallible and doesn’t disproportionately victimise certain classes of people, or that government (especially in america lol) doesn’t do its hardest to marginalise the views of large portions of society (i could rant for ages about gerrymandering, voter ID laws, 1st past the post,, lobbying, elected judges, the influence of the ownership of news production, and how all these factors combine together to create a political situation where the choice people have is between some white old ass neoconservative who’ll sell out his nation to the highest bidder and a black (or woman) old ass neoconservative who’ll sell out their nation to the highest bidder. shits fucked).

Mandatory minimum sentencing is a way to ensure that prisons have steadily increasing populations, which private prison companys want, because it means they get more pay from the govt, and the govt wants because some of that returns to them privately in the form of bribes and lobbying. Basically, its one big scam to take money that is public (i.e. taken from the taxpayer and supposed to be used to benefit the nation) and giving it to private corporations in order to make a few folks more wealthy than anyone should be (is it any wonder that when politicians retire, they always end up on the boards of big corporations, cant imagine why that happens). The goal of all western governments since the eighties has been to pilliage and plunder their nation for the benefit of their wealthy born to rule cunt friends, at the expense of pretty much everyone else. mandatory minimums are a symptom of that (thank ronald reagan for that one)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pay2Win: Great business model or immoral exploitation of the easily addicted and children?

Pay-to-win video games use many of the same systems and psychological “tricks” that video poker machines (“pokies”) do. While the vast majority of the user base of p2w games may never spend money on the game (or will spend a “reasonable” amount) there will be some that spend enough to keep the business model viable. These people in casino & p2w contexts are referred to as whales.

(sorry in advance if that breaks tables, but the formatting system this site uses is super different to everything I’ve used in the past few years so I don’t remember how to resize)
This chart shows average gambling loss per person separated by nation. My home nation of Australia is a world leader in gambling losses, and on average an australian of legal gambling age will lose $500 dollars a year to pokies. Now obviously not everyone is gambling on pokies, which means that the average loss per pokie machine player is far higher. Poker machines have some of the most effective turn over when it comes to gambling profits because they provide particular stimulus that regular gambling does not, something about the way that the computerised visuals and the lack of thought required (but with the need for constant micro-interaction) work function to put people into a super relaxed state. (I am going to go on a bit of a tangent here, but have any of y’all ever felt compelled to get every collectable in an open world game? Cuz it’s kinda the same psychology, it’s a repetitive and simple task that’s just engaging enough to make it super compelling.) And yes, this is the exact same thing “games” such as candy crush or basically any mobile games do. The punchline is that die hard pokie addicts will probably never win a jackpot and if they did then it’d go back in the pokie anyway, but p2w gamers are guaranteed to never see that money again.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pay2Win: Great business model or immoral exploitation of the easily addicted and children?

capitalism always has sympathy and consideration for the vulnerable. those engaged in anti-consumer activity will be shunned by the market, and consumers are always 100% rational and knowledgable about what they are doing so any wrong doing on the part of corporations is short lived in a truely free market. crows, i am disappointed in you for attacking job creating captains of industry with such slander.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Human Stupidity

Originally posted by cromagin2:

I did, the people of OT are not as stupid as they appear to be. Urine420 is a perfect example.

It must be about half a decade since I’ve looked in that place. I really don’t like cliquey, low content shitpost places; and of places to be cliquey and low content, OT ranks fairly low. Looking back on it, it’s kinda insane I’ve spent (a tiny fraction of time with increasingly larger breaks between visits) 7+ years coming here.

Anyway, just cuz something is presented in a dismissive or aggressive way, as opposed to the detached manner typical of “serious discussion” forums, it doesnt mean it is not worthy to be read, understood and responded to.

e: it got a bit ramble-y there, sorry.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Human Stupidity

Originally posted by cromagin2:

How about you give me a hint. I do badly at terribly written satire.

Good thing it wasn’t satire, but if you need me to hold your hand through it, I’ll do it. The OP is arguing from a point of view that places himself as more enlightened than those around him. He wonders to himself how these less intelligent people manage to exist, he views his own intelligence as so much greater than the average person that their having so little intelligence is confusing to him (this is a common device is masturbatory media too: for instance any iteration of sherlock holmes will have sherlock decry the stupidity of those around him). I was showing how the arrogance of believing one’s self to be better than one’s fellow man is a very paternalistic view that has been and is used to justify atrocities. For instance, most colonialist practices have been justified by the belief that they were improving the lives of the people who’s land they were stealing and families they were separating. The belief that some folks are inherently less able to be in control of their own life is fundamentally anti-democratic.

But i don’t believe the OP thought of any of that. Maybe he thought “what’s wrong with those thugs who wear their pants round their knees and listen to garbage hip hop while I listen to dad rock or metal” but that’s the most thought i’d imagine he put in. He’s just an egotistical brat in all likelihood.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Human Stupidity

Originally posted by cromagin2:

If it flew over my head why not tell me what you really meant, as it came off as racist trolling on my end.

Try reading, maybe you’ll learn something

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Human Stupidity

Originally posted by cromagin2:

‘savage, untamed plains’

Stopped there.

*woosh*

(the sound of the point flying over your head)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Human Stupidity

I am so much better than the majority of people, people (more like sheeple) need to be ruled for their own good by wise and benevolent philosopher kings. For instance, the african race is clearly incapable of looking after themselves, both where they have been allowed to roam free (such as in their savage, untamed plains) and when integrated into the civilized world, they fail to achieve even a fraction of what more evolved peoples do (such as in their savage, untamed Detroit). It is a crying shame that these simple, but noble souls, be cared for, for their own safety. We need not try and accept them like we would our fellow man, but care for them as we would a child or a pet.

(the same is true of women and blue collar workers)

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Sexodus

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator