drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
I'll take my ball, which is like a circle but even more circular
How did you get something more circular that a circle!?!?
actually, I just zoomed into it and saw no tiny rectangles. You, sir, are a fraud.
The problem with this is that I've drawn circles. Like just today, I drew one in PowerPoint. I think the Oblongs were just a bit earily in their worship.
Truly, I am humbled this day. You are correct.
How do we know that?
Have wars been started over what you think? They have over the piss.
Pokimane's cookies are like Bella Delphine's gamer girl piss - it matters way more than you actually think. I'll have you know that wars have been started over the latter.
If God wanted shapes rotated he would have oriented them differently in the first place.
Which way did he orient the circle?
I don't think that's true. Blue tribers did show up in the themotte subreddit, but they left eventually. This was long before the move to this site though.
Like? What is interesting happening like now?
Pokimane tried selling rebranded cookies at absurd markup. Twitch streamer drama is a criminally neglected topic on this forum. Shame given how central it is in deciding the course of state policy.
I thought we were shape rotators?
Abuse of the report function can also be modded. Reddit, for example, bans people who abuse the Sucide Prevention Bot. Set a few examples and people will learn.
My posts do go below 0, especially if I make my kind of arguments. I don't know what specific arguments you're making that get you downvoted, but it was a consistent pattern in on Reddit that left-wing arguments took hits only on the basis of their position.
I would argue that downvotes don't help us - they encourage people to signal their approval of an argument instead of actually engaging with it. Better to remove them and force people to respond or move along.
It's not a signal for post quality. I make posts which meet quite a few quality standards, but they get downvoted for making left-wing arguments.
"We don't agree with its agenda or tactics, but we won't condemn them" means "we agree with its agenda and tactics, by revealed preference".
There's a social trick that they may be trying to avoid, wherein the condemnation is waved around as proof to remove Hamas' legitimacy and by extension, the current fighting over the Israel-Palestine issue.
But I acknowledge that I don't know and I don't necessarily have the strongest argument. I think your point is fair, but I'm not yet convinced quite yet.
In your scenario, the US isn't being capitalist in the name of fighting Nazis.
From the standpoint of the socialist, it probably makes no difference - the capitalist mode of production remains in place and is only bolstered by removing more enemies of it. In fact, I recall one spy in the Manhattan Project giving secrets to the USSR precisely over the fear that America would be the only nation with the atomic bomb and it could be subject to fascist takeover.
But a more direct point of evidence to my view is this article.
Notably, the following:
"In this super-charged moment, the first question asked of every Palestinian is: Do you condemn the Hamas attacks?" said Omar Rahman, a U.S.-based fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, a think tank headquartered in Doha, Qatar.
"They are offended by that. They think it misses the point. ... It's an objective fact that Hamas does not represent the majority of Palestinians. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a basis of support or isn't part of the political landscape. ... Not everyone agrees with its agenda or tactics."
Hamas started it by killing civilians, and killing civilians is one of the tactics they use as part of the war.
Yes, in the name of fighting Israel. That is a key component to the issue - the Palestinians would probably support anyone willing to fight for them against the nation they perceive as responsible for the slow dying of their people. We also know that American presidents see a boost to their approval when they declare war - why wouldn't a similar logic apply to any perceived support of Hamas?
The logic wouldn't say that they are a capitalist, the logic would say that they are a supporter of the kind of violence that the US/UK uses against the Nazis.
This is too literal a reading, the consequence of which is that you completely miss the argument being made. The socialist has two conflicting values in the conflict: fighting capitalism and fighting fascism. It would be illogical to conclude that socialist doesn't care about the former just because he supports the latter in this hypothetical.
The point I'm getting at is that we don't know what the Palestinians think of killing civilians because that policy is inherently bundled with Hamas' actions as a group enacting violence to remove Israel from the land. If a socialist in WW2 were to support the US/UK against the Nazis, your logic would have this person counted as a capitalist since they aren't rejecting the violence.
Secondly, you can find videos of a great many things. For example, a video with dozens or even hundreds of rioters burning a building down in the name of their cause. That video doesn't necessarily tell you what the supporters of the cause think as a whole.
Yeah, 68% in the West Bank. Those in Gaza sit at 46%.
Secondly, the poll in question doesn't appear to differentiate between the violent attack on the 7th and the civilian casualties. This makes it a weighing game for the pollee - how much do they support the fight for independence vs. condemning attacks against innocent Israelis? W/o knowing this, we cannot know what people are saying they support.
I find it so hard to want to support the the Palestinian cause even if they have legitimate grievances, because their tactics are so deplorable
I don't think we should conflate Hamas with all Palestinians.
If you're doing something historical, you can also use the person in question's officially preferred pronouns at that time in the story, but don't cleverly split hairs on this one; if you write a story about the Wachowskis, and start out by referring to them as "he", but then switch to "they" when they transition, the Eye of Sauron may look down upon thee.
This is confusing to me. Is the issue that the Wachowski sisters do not use the pronoun "they", but they did use "he" at one point?
I didn't say "niche player", I said "good portion". The claim is that a large number/plurality of anti-GG progressives defended Nyberg, I want to see proof of that.
Secondly, Leigh's tweets, as linked in the top comment, don't even break a 100 likes. The one where she explicitly promoted Nyberg's medium article has 30 likes and 2 quote tweets, with the top response (at least on my end) is someone explicitly referring to Nyberg as a pedophile!
What GamerGate was actually about, to anti-GG, was a bunch of gross ugly people being gross and ugly in public, and worse, trying to exert control over a cultural or media sphere that anti-GG felt they were rightful custodians of. GamerGate was about a bunch of basement-dwelling virgins acting out their resentful misogyny against people who are leading the rise in diverse games. I realise this sounds very similar to what anti-GG said it was about, but I think the distinction is that the public anti-GG line was about behaviour ("they're harassing people") while the real feeling was about identity or even essential attributes ("they're gross").
W/o evidence, this doesn't strike me as charitable as your "What GG was actually about, to pro-GG..." explanation. Pro-GG cares about entryism, but anti-GG is just about denying people who trigger a disgust response?
ain't no claims about it, just straight FACTS
More options
Context Copy link