Social WR Lounge v 235: Arcane Rogue Trickster, but who likes Sickness?

Status
Not open for further replies.
PolishHeadlock2 said:
Lol I've never seen a preboarding fight or on fight fisticuffs. The closest I've seen was a retard giving a stewardess crap because she told him to put his mask over his nose a few months back.

And I think airlines have boarding priorities backwards. I want to be the very last person on the plane before it takes off...
Click to expand...
Fun fact: chances of survival in a plane crash go up as you move from the front to the back of the plane.

How's that for a tradeoff?
 
Jack V Savage said:
1. I said that you supported imposing tyrannical restrictions on poor people because you supported a law that made the gov't to monitor the purchases of TANF recipients and prevent them from certain types of purchases (with cash). The argument there was similar to the one you're making here. If people are lifted out of poverty, they might spend the money badly, unlike currently non-poor people who we know are virtuous enough to spend money properly because of the fact that they're not poor.
2. Yes, you made the argument that the law was so badly written that it would be difficult to enforce as part of the reason it was good. Heroically stupid, though I guess not as cruel as your other arguments.
3. The bill included more than tattoos and casino gambling, and you know it. Furthermore, WTF? Imagine thinking that poor people using welfare to buy tattoos is a major problem in America. Like, don't you feel stupid even typing that?
4. I linked to analysis on it, which itself linked to a piece analyzing the impact. Of course since it's the evil Democrats who passed it, True Progressives have to stretch for some reason to declare lifting kids out of poverty to be bad, and you landed on the argument that if they have too much money, they might get a bunch of tattoos.
5. Or just let people spend their own money how they think is best without piece of shit leftists, who see politics solely as an arena for self-aggrandizement and don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, telling them what to do.
Click to expand...
It all goes hand in hand with the beliefs that poor people are lazy and can't handle money and that's why they're poor. Sickening. Most of the hardest working people I know never had a lot of money. They were too busy putting a roof over the heads of their families and putting food on their tables.

If any good comes of this pandemic, it will hopefully be a recognition of the need to make childcare available (where the need for financial or other help exists) for every family where the parents need to work. (I don't have any hope it will lead to a more nuanced understanding of the working poor anymore.) I have heard multiple reports lately of how women have been disproportionately driven into unemployment and financial dependence by the crisis due to the need to take care of the children. And a lot of men think it's fucking awesome. It's a rolling back of progress for women and a re-assertion of outdated gender roles.

I'm a little confused as to why you're ranting about leftists in this context, though. What did I miss?

Edit: follow-up question, what if I think of myself as both a liberal and a leftist?
 
salamander said:
Wait a sec, I thought you were actually bi and had a kid.
Click to expand...

I technically am and do, but I haven't looked in that direction since I dropped the conscious concealment. My feels and thoughts are geared very strongly one way, and always have been. There was extreme social pressure to be straight within my family and environment, and I was able to perform that role on multiple levels (like millions of others). I resent the absolute fuck out of it, but don't regret my son.
 
Surprised I've never heard "puts the mental in judgmental" before, that's solid.

I used to say that I put the fun in functional alcoholic. I hereby bequeath the saying to anyone who wants it.
 
Deorum said:
I technically am and do, but I haven't looked in that direction since I dropped the conscious concealment. My feels and thoughts are geared very strongly one way, and always have been. There was extreme social pressure to be straight within my family and environment, and I was able to perform that role on multiple levels (like millions of others). I resent the absolute fuck out of it, but don't regret my son.
Click to expand...
So (and I am just asking out of an interest in your thinking and how you see the world plus a measure of empathy,) would you say it might be more of a case that you were able to get through it to maintain an illusory "life" rather than you actually being interested in having sex with women? If that were true (and it only sounds like it going by this post--not judging) I would say that means you aren't bi, doesn't it? You don't need to justify your answer whether it's yes or no, obviously--just wondering what you think about that, and whether or not the distinction matters and why.

I have a lesbian friend who has had heterosexual experiences (voluntarily at least once or twice) who tells me the idea makes her sick to her stomach now. When I first got to know her it was less clear she hated the idea of sex with men from the signals she sent me--my complete lack of fucks given about peoples' sexual preferences seems to make me attractive to lonely lesbians*, but I digress. Your experiences are not precisely similar to hers, but there are lots of different ways you can survive feeling genuinely feel forced into something you find repulsive and the aftermath seems to leave scars that are common among a lot of people (myself included).


*I don't know if you recall the story about my dispatcher job, but out of three lesbians working in that office I slept with 2 of them. Sure, you could say they were bi but I wouldn't--it was circumstances and me being who I am that brought us together I think, not having a penis.
 
Last edited:
Chillin' Nuts said:
Surprised I've never heard "puts the mental in judgmental" before, that's solid.

I used to say that I put the fun in functional alcoholic. I hereby bequeath the saying to anyone who wants it.
Click to expand...
I may have stolen it ages ago but I have no idea where I got it now--MASH perhaps, or I may have come up with it on my own. It's not the first time I used it here, I don't think. For sure I got some of my favorites like, "Yes, I drink but only to excess," from that show.
 
Last edited:
salamander said:
The whole "double life" thing some gays have to do, particularly in my culture, has to be some stressful shit.
Click to expand...
You referring to the whole "down low" thing? Yeah, I can't imagine that's easy.
 
Sara said:
I recently watched the night stalker doc on Netflix and she was the mayor at the time who fucked up and released info to the press about the killer! At least I think it was her
Click to expand...

People are still upset with how she handled the aftermath of the great San Fran earthquake of 1906
 
Trotsky said:
The discussion would hinge on the democratic purpose of the cash distribution. If it's only designed as an income supplement or an economic stimulant then your point would stand. If you guys are talking about cash distributions to address childhood poverty, I have no issue with persons, err, taking issue with targeting where that money is to be spent. That's democracy. The primary counter considerations to that concern would be practical, i.e. how to administer that kind of oversight without diminishing benefits to an extent that does more harm than good to the purpose, not ideological.
Click to expand...

I agree that people (regardless of their character) have influence over policy. Not sure how to make the point that the people's representatives chose cash (rather than targeted benefits) for the program sink in, though. I see it as similar to (but even worse than) busybodies who see people pay for groceries with a SNAP card and get mad that even though the purchases are approved, they're too good for the buyers. Or generally the idea that "in my day, yeah, people used benefits when they needed them, but they were ashamed--they knew they were beneath me and acted like it. Today's poors are too uppity." The way I see it, the whole reason we have gov't benefits is that people living in a country as rich as America are entitled to a basic standard of living and don't need anyone's charity or to accept a lower status in exchange for it. Fuck so-called "leftists" who can't even grant poor people basic dignity.

Trotsky said:
@Jack V Savage and anyone else from California

I didn't realize Eric Swalwell, who I think most would agree is dim-witted and feckless, beat/replaced Pete Stark. Stark had a little venom to him...and not the fake opportunistic kind like Swalwell.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about him (though Pete Stark used to be my rep, Swalwell isn't now--redistricting), but I don't think he's dim-witted or feckless. Stark certainly had venom--way too much, IMO (really, just a massive asshole).
 
I keep seeing notes and clips about how Megan decided that Archie would be a prince, or was told he wouldn’t get a title......um that’s how it’s always been? The only reason prince Andrews kids are princesses is because Charles had just sons, Queen Elizabeth’s sisters kids, no titles, princess Anne’s kids, no titles, pretty sure prince Edwards kids no titles other than lady Louise and what ever the male title equivalent is....did they think they’d be changing protocol?
 
Right on with the snipped part.

Andy Capp said:
I'm a little confused as to why you're ranting about leftists in this context, though. What did I miss?

Edit: follow-up question, what if I think of myself as both a liberal and a leftist?
Click to expand...

Just as few conservatives today are really conservative, a lot of the leftist movement is not really leftist, IMO. So I get the confusion. I call them "True Progressives," because unlike those "corporate Democrats" (whatever the fuck that means), they're sooo leftist that they don't bother to vote, and they oppose any actual attempt to enact a leftward move in policy because it's not enough.

Check out this response in @Lead's thread:

giusti825 said:
Same as 2020. Bernie, Tulsi, and Gravel.

Although if the peoples party takes off and either the green's or the people's party nominates Jesse Ventura, I may support him as well.

This whole list is basically Bernie and a bunch of the right-wing, corporate democrats. You should add at least 3 or 4 progressives.
Click to expand...

Warren, AOC, Brown, Newsom, Castro--all "right-wing corporate Democrats." And there's a bunch of these guys. They also seem to be very generous to some rightists (Hawley, Bannon, Trump, Carlson).
 
Sara said:
I keep seeing notes and clips about how Megan decided that Archie would be a prince, or was told he wouldn’t get a title......um that’s how it’s always been? The only reason prince Andrews kids are princesses is because Charles had just sons, Queen Elizabeth’s sisters kids, no titles, princess Anne’s kids, no titles, pretty sure prince Edwards kids no titles other than lady Louise and what ever the male title equivalent is....did they think they’d be changing protocol?
Click to expand...

The protocol is male-preference primogeniture. The reason the women don't give birth to princes is because they're technically not in the line of succession if their marriage isn't matrilineal. The sons absolutely give birth to princes/princesses. Usually to the second generation.
 
PolishHeadlock2 said:
@Trotsky @LazaRRus I follow this guy on twitter because he's always dropping hilarious videos... had no idea he played in the NBA and was a VP for the Nuggets at one point

Click to expand...

I knew he played in the NBA. What has me confused is I’m positive he’s a white guy, right? (Maybe I misread I’ll check the thread again)

Edit: Ok I read the thread, makes sense. I misunderstood the first part. Yes he’s white lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,274,983
Messages
57,959,920
Members
175,884
Latest member
cloudfair

Share this page

Back
Top