plural
7mo ago
But I'm not sure whose vote your getting with the attack though. Is the game making republicans mad so they lash out? In my mind the undecideds are more likely to be offended by the trend than to internalize that republicans are weird and thus not worth voting for because I don't think weird works as an insult for the outsider looking in. It's just too tepid.
plural
7mo ago
It's odd to me because it seems like such a bad attack. The idea of a young man fucking anything and everything inanimate is not weird. I've heard many comedians or just "funny guys" on podcasts/standup talk about this all the time and they always get laughs. Hell, American Pie's main character fucked a pie and it was simply a joke and I don't recall any big hubub about Jim's character being too weird because he fucked a pie. Though that was a long time ago, I don't remember American Pie showing up as one of those movies that you "forgot" was bad because it fell outside the overton window now. When I saw that Walz used it as an insult I honestly just felt secondhand embarrassment.
The whole "weird" angle of attack seems really bad in general because it doesn't say what they want it to say. If they want to tar Vance for something made up just say he molested someone. If they want to tar republicans for being gross then call them gross, as an insult for anything against the left-leaning the word is already used that way anyway. Weird just doesn't work in my opinion. Comes out somewhere along the lines of calling an old man lame. Yeah, maybe the old man is lame, so what? The word is not insulting enough. Most people probably identify as weird in some way when they're probably not weird at all but since it's not really a pejorative and was in fact celebratory in most cases before this sudden shift. Hell, most of these people probably worship Weird Al and their favorite Radiohead song is Creep, hey there's another better word than weird.
But I feel like the way that the astroturfing is turned up to 11 right now there's a feedback loop going on where it's nearly impossible to tell if a strategy is working or if everyone's just nodding and agreeing with the strategy because, to me, the crux of it all working is getting the majority of people to say that it's working.
plural
7mo ago
All the extensions that I saw that said they did this are defunct now. There's a program for doing it but it sounds like more of a hassle than it's worth if this is happening all the time.
plural
8mo ago
Yeah, I said it was like over half the reports in the janitor queue. We disagreed on how often the reports were "super downvotes" for being too left or too right.
I understand them well enough, now. You can just call me stupid and not be passive aggressive about it, I'm an adult.
I would have no problem with him being banned if the person that instigated the events were even just warned but they weren't in this case or in the others. The rules are different for each poster. Wildcard rule, whatever. I disagree that this is a good way to do things but I stand by the fact that it's simply unfair for seemingly no reason other than accumulation. In most situations the instigator is held to a higher standard than the responder. But not here. It's fair and right that there should be consequences and even if you had given steve a permanent ban but had given the original instigation a warning I would have thought it was a better response than just ignoring someone basically calling anyone who makes a certain argument a pedophile and not even getting an informal warning.
plural
8mo ago
The fact that you think the world operates on the same level with the same understanding for all people is ridiculous. I saw a clear insult receive no warning and you get to say it's not an insult and to not believe my lying eyes because the person who insulted back got some warnings earlier. I accept I don't see everything but I see what I can see, I didn't see most of the warnings that netstack brought up in the other post but I stand by what I've said. You enforce the rules haphazardly and based on divination that's impossible to understand from the outside looking in and then say everything is completely transparent expecting everyone to know everyone else's posting history by default. In most of those examples his seething is preceded by someone needling him and arguing in bad faith that does not get a warning or anything at all. The fact that you can just say "no," and then say you're the arbiter of reality is honestly breathtaking in its rudeness and smugness.
plural
8mo ago
So exhibits a, b, c, are warnings that were not warned or bans that didn't happen? How is it consistent to hold those posts against him if they apparently didn't break the rules? Is it not exactly like I said that those posts are part of a debt that leads to a ban that neither he nor anyone else is aware of?
plural
8mo ago
I'll have to take your word for it as it's all I have, but, like a certain New York City rental bike situation, I know that you and I see the world in different colors.
Anyway, if you want users to not post in a certain way then warning them privately is a pretty bad way of getting other users to know what's okay to post. I've never gotten a private warning but I've read many posts from SteveKirk in the past weeks and months and I'm sure there are some that got warnings I didn't see but this ban is the only one that points out to others that it's not an okay way to post. "Accumulating a record" that no one can see, and only the person who has the record knows that and only then they get to know only by accumulation doesn't seem transparent at all. Not for others or even the person with the record. Especially because "having a record" is the A.#1 reason why anyone gets banned on this site.
plural
8mo ago
This is just pointless. Why is someone getting banned for doing the exact same thing that a poster did above them but the above poster doesn't even get a warning?
The mod queue being how we decide if someone gets banned is just dumb. I check the user/janitor thing every time I'm here and it's like half of the reported comments (which I assume is how they get there) is because someone disagreed with them and they're using the report as an extra downvote. And it's obvious that is skews in one political direction as well, maybe because they're a smaller portion of the people here or maybe it's just their way because it certainly is on places like reddit. But using that as an excuse is surely just going to end up with people deciding the only way to decide what is acceptable on the site is just mass reporting everything they disagree with.
I still don't understand why the mods here can't ever ban people for the things they do that are bad but instead keep a secret tally of bad things that they don't disclose and then ban them for all those things when they do something less egregious. And almost always in a baited argument where the person doing the baiting does not even get a warning.
I can't verify this will solve your problems but I use a firefox extension called imagemax url that i guess was intended to find the largest image size but it actually goes through these things that obfuscate the image link so you can just right click and download the image once you click on the extension (it's just a selection in the right click context menu). It's definitely handy for the new annoying trend of making things undownloadable.
firefox extension link: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/image-max-url/?src=external-rfaq
script link: https://openuserjs.org/scripts/qsniyg/Image_Max_URL
EDIT: Also, some images that have been fucked for me with bad headers or whatever, where they won't open in my image viewer or Photoshop, I can open them in paint and just save them again and it has made them usable for me after doing so.
plural
8mo ago
Thank you. I wonder if not having a direct competitor at this point is having an effect in any way. Much the same as "generic democrat" or "generic republican" can probably beat any specific democrat or republican. I think until he gets into a debate or does like a 60 minutes interview most of this is prognosticating without enough information. Palin not being able to name books or supreme court decisions is a kind of gaff/failure that moves the needle in my mind and as long as Vance can come across as even slightly intelligent he won't be impactful to the election. The fact that they're going so hard and so constantly against him with so little means, in my mind, they don't have much to tar him with. I am surprised they seem to have him out there appealing to the base though, maybe they needed to appeal to republicans more than independents.
Maybe his freshness or even appeal to republicans is a reason to pick him, but maybe it's just that Trump can stand him and considering the volatility of trying to get a VP that might publicly disagree with Trump and get Trump to start huffing and puffing at his own party it might be better to pick an "unlikable toady" than someone who might cause Trump to gaffe himself out of the election. It heads off Trump tripping over himself down the line. Who knows what strategy was put into the choice or if there wasn't any at all, really. Trump feels like a black box that you can't mess with if you want it to perform, if he decides it's JD Vance, then just let it be and try to make best of what you have.
plural
8mo ago
The ad actually strikes me as too jokey to be effective. But maybe it doesn't hit close enough to home for me to understand why it would be effective or offensive in either direction. It just seems like a standard current year SNL skit in that it's not really funny but you can tell it's trying to be and mostly aiming for some agreement claps.
plural
8mo ago
Could you link to those polls? How much of that factual point is democrats responding to the polls? It would not surprise me at all if the polling was far more partisan than when Palin ran and democrats answering presidential polls are probably skewed far more negative nowadays toward republican candidates regardless of who that candidate actually is. I don't think people during the McCain campaign era would be grousing that an assassination attempt against him failed. I think even discounting McCain being an outlier where democrats could like him that kind of opposition party respect just does not exist anymore. Trump is literally Hitler. Vance what's-his-name is VP, well then he's Hitler, too. Not even saying it doesn't work both ways but I'd bet that favorability does not matter unless someone is undecided anymore because anyone who's of the opposite party is going to be as negative as it can get.
I genuinely think it would make little difference who Trump picked. There would be wild and constant hysterics about anyone. Some of it would be mitigated if the person had more experience or was a more palatable gender or race but they'd still be ground into dust by the media machine just like Palin was and Vance is getting done. If Vance's childless cat-lady quote can be so easily taken out of context and create an entire personality for people to hate then anyone who has any public statements in the past is going to get the same treatment.
plural
8mo ago
In a similar vein, Carmen Mola didn't exist and was the pen name for three men and it was only revealed when they won a prize and went to claim it.
plural
8mo ago
I was skeptical but here's what happened when I tried it in a private tab:
https://i.imgur.com/A6o3XVZ.png
https://i.imgur.com/l6wS075.png
https://i.imgur.com/OSixrIk.png
Autocomplete for anything after Donald didn't show up at all, "tru" let alone "trump."
plural
8mo ago
I'm guessing a lot of people are getting words audibly and then repeating them in print phonetically. It's common enough to become a thing. I'm guessing people just read a lot less books/newspapers/magazines where they'd have learned the correct phrasing of things. I remember having the opposite problem where I'd read a lot as a kid and knew words and phrases but not how they actually sounded out loud so when I'd try to say it I sounded dumb but people who learned it from hearing it would know how to say it right but maybe not how to write it.
At least they're probably using the word to mean what it actually means and they just don't know how to spell it. It doesn't bother me but I see so many people use the word nonplussed to mean not impressed (which arguably makes sense) even though it means confused. One thing I see a lot of even really smart people do is say "with regards to" instead of "with regard to" and I have to stop myself from commenting about it at this point.
I think using the wrong words or phrases or spelling them incorrectly isn't that bad of a thing but I hate the new trend of everyone just deciding that being grammatically incorrect is correct if enough people are wrong and doing it enough. Mostly because it feels like people trying to write history rather than letting it happen.
plural
10mo ago
Netflix picked it up for a second season before the first one dropped. So, they're more invested than they usually are about it being successful.
Interestingly, or perhaps not if you know Shane Gillis, it's also one of those rare pieces of media that has critics and users split with critics giving it bad reviews and users giving it good. Almost every professional review seems to talk about how it's anti-woke and lists off instances of how its offensive within the review. I feel like it's being unfairly reviewed in several instances and it really does make me want to root for it, too. One of the reviews that basically just listed a bunch of trigger warnings for sexist/racist remarks or behavior said they didn't laugh once while watching it (interestingly this is not the worst critical review of it).
I watched a couple episodes after seeing the post here and kinda liked it but I usually don't enjoy the awkward/uncomfortable portions of things like this but I couldn't deny it made me laugh. It reminds of FX's first grungy list of original shows. And while reading the reviews and many comparing it to It's Always Sunny made me think of people recently I heard talking about the first season of It's Always Sunny and they said it was "rough"/"hard-to-watch" and I assumed they were talking about that it wasn't as good, but apparently it was too offensive. I haven't watched the show in years because it started to feel like new Simpsons level of paling-in-comparison but it makes me wonder how inoffensive it's become.
plural
10mo ago
- It's faster, maybe? Though it's not really that strange for someone to have something like steak and potatoes and eat the steak and then the potatoes or vice versa. Or maybe it's just preferring more flavoring to less. I don't know how you'd measure that though. Is grilled chicken in a tortilla more or less flavorful than fried chicken?
plural
10mo ago
I remember a twitch streamer I watch who's admittedly very left-wing but also genuinely doesn't act or seem mean at all otherwise, but when Barbara Bush died they did a celebratory stream in response. I really don't know how common it was to dance on graves in public discourse in the past but it really bothers me that the people that do it will claim that other behavior or statements they disagree with is "gross."
Specifically about Queen Elizabeth I was in a discord server about a video game where when it happened someone immediately responded with "good, she was a racist." Though, in real life nobody does that they just never mention it at all or say something equivalent to "oh, that happened." In my real life I see this in reverse for right-leaning political people, they're more likely to be political in real life than they are online. Admittedly I have a smaller pool of right-leaning people to pull from so I can't really tell if they're more civil.
It still bugs the shit out of me that people are so absolutely uncivil and rude in public forums online and rarely does anyone do anything. But I've gotten into arguments with them before and the response was pure defense, there's nothing to be ashamed at all about for being uncivil, mean or rude to people they consider uncivil, mean or rude. Even if I agreed, I don't know how they can sustain it without a bottomless well of anger.
plural
10mo ago
Yeah, and it shouldn't matter either way. If you think it's important to tease apart the minutiae of this example in defense of something that is clearly not pornography then I'll take this conversational detour as an agreement that people deciding that things need to be censored or banned based on a passing familiarity with the content should be ignored.
plural
10mo ago
My experience with this, mainly, are games that are refused from steam without explanation. This happens every few months and sometimes the people in them are children in a towel or underwear but sometimes there's absolutely no one underage in them at all. The tinfoil theory is there's someone that approves games on steam that thinks all anime games are pedophilic in nature. Maybe that's true or not there are quite a few people that are always commenting about how happy they are that steam is trying to put a stop to this stuff and they're always "SJW" when I look at their profiles. They do seem to think that even when the age is changed that it is simply a fig leaf like the little girl who is a 500 year old dragon. Which, to me, suggests that it doesn't matter what their age actually is because they think something drawn underage is underage. Though how they can tell the difference between a 17 and 18 year old anime girl is unknown to me.
To be clear, I wasn't passing on "vibes" that was your word I repeated and should have put quotes around. I was telling you that people interested in this moral crusade are left leaning based on my experience. Though, now, I entirely understand why that other person blocked you because you argue in bad faith by continually misrepresenting others' words to "win" an argument. No, the legislation that deals with child pornography has absolutely nothing to do with videogames that may or may not portray a child or child-looking adults as having anything sexually related at all as being the equivalent of pornography. Nobody is actually talking about pornography but you because you don't understand what we're talking about or are actually trying to misrepresent what we're talking about. The entire crux here is shit like "that anime girl's 17 and wearing thigh high boots, this is clearly sexualizing minors" even people that want to stamp this stuff out don't actually refer to it as pornography.
plural
10mo ago
You're arguing about something that nobody was even asking about. The people that care about "underage" character in videogames have nothing to do with court cases. I honestly don't even understand how you even make that connection with what I said and someone talking about Australian games that are classified "poorly" or refused classification and court cases/laws from the United States. I'll trust my vibes over your info that is not about anything either I or the above comment were talking about.
I can see that. I keep thinking about undecideds and middle America I completely forgot that most people simply don't vote and democrats have a bigger base.
More options
Context Copy link