|
there's a one i haven't seen since grade school. 'he's doing it so i will too.'
i'm sure this will do everyone some good. a very proud moment indeed.
meanwhile let's have xdaunt come in again and tell us all how the conservatives of the thread routinely are alone together on the high road.
or let's hear more about how 'us people' look at one piece of news and declare it an absolute victory while you look at one post and declare the entire thread is awash with visions of people sucking dicks and cum splattering down 'our' shirts after the reacharound 'i' was just finishing up with Schumer
i think you need a break. and to think LL got banned because he intentionally misstated an argument. lul.
|
United States44203 Posts
I made a vaguely sexual metaphor for you to get offended about, suggesting that Trump supporters are like a wife in total denial about a mistress.
|
You can do better Kwark. The standard is messy blowjobs on national TV. Go try someone choking on a gifted manly unit in a press interview, or your old rape analogy to explain a point.
|
United States44203 Posts
Honestly I just found the idea of the mistress analogy amusing when it came into my head. Stuff like Trump Jr. saying that he'd actually decided to come clean about all the emails on the morning that he was caught because he just couldn't deal with all the lying anymore because it's just not who he is. And Kushner going "Oh, that email, yeah, I see why you could think that makes me look bad but I actually didn't read the email so that's why what I said wasn't a lie because I didn't know it wasn't true. Oh, the thing that I said I didn't know was in the subject? Yeah, I also don't read the subjects of emails. Don't worry about it."
Like at a certain point they're not even trying anymore. It's all just "nah gurl, that's crazy, you know you my whole world'.
|
On July 13 2017 03:17 brian wrote:
there's a one i haven't seen since grade school. 'he's doing it so i will too.'
i'm sure this will do everyone some good. a very proud moment indeed.
meanwhile let's have xdaunt come in again and tell us all how the conservatives of the thread routinely are alone together on the high road.
or let's hear more about how 'us people' look at one piece of news and declare it an absolute victory while you look at one post and declare the entire thread is awash with visions of people sucking dicks and cum splattering down 'our' shirts after the reacharound 'i' was just finishing up with Schumer
i think you need a break.
I'd take admitting there's a double standard at work and your thoughts if it's worth correcting. If you want it lightly moderated, say so. xDaunt's been one of those out in front advocating very limited bans/warns.
I haven't seen any real feedback yet, so the request for comment stands from the previous page. Does the banhammer behavior reflective of new, unwritten standards or not?
|
i'd take you actually responding to something as opposed to starting a blank slate and redirecting a conversation away from what you started it with.
i'd also take a well reasoned case on standards, double or otherwise. to pretend that standard is suddenly covered in cum but only for liberals is a joke.
even though you've yet to afford me the same privilege, to actually acknowledge what you've written, no. i don't think it's evident of a new standard. i don't typically view two people doing something and then declare that it applies to all.
sorry, not liberals, 'banlings.'
aside: have banlings finally found a title that isn't banlings? cause that one sucks.
|
On July 13 2017 04:05 brian wrote:
i'd take you actually responding to something as opposed to starting a blank slate and redirecting a conversation away from what you started it with.
i'd also take a well reasoned case on standards, double or otherwise. to pretend that standard is suddenly covered in cum but only for liberals is a joke.
sorry, not liberals, 'banlings.'
aside: have banlings finally found a title that isn't banlings? cause that one sucks.
Let's start with you understanding what StealthBlue said, and telling me that someone swallowing a load of Obama's cum on live TV is just another day in US pol. I'm looking for someone with eyes open and willing to say messy oral sex by US presidents & senators is beyond the pale. Alternatively, tell me you wish Republicans did it more because there's nothing wrong with it.
Context, since this is ground zero of change goalposts "I'm responding you're not responding"
Followup
|
lol, again not responding to a single thing i said in response to you.
i've answered your question in the last post. i happened to edit it in at the same time of your response, so my bad.
with regards to the value of the post itself, id be shocked if anyone thought it was anything other than garbage. but let's build this ant hill sky high.
i'm intrigued to see what your endgame here is with making a case out of a clearly bad post. a post that not one other person thought worthy to even acknowledge. luckily i'm sure you'll tell us so that you can ignore everything else i've said.
|
On July 13 2017 04:18 brian wrote:
lol, again not responding to a single thing i said in response to you.
i've answered your question in the last post. i happened to edit it in at the same time of your response, so my bad.
with regards to the value of the post itself, id be shocked if anyone thought it was anything other than garbage. but let's build this ant hill sky high.
Sorry if you don't like my methods of revealing the double standard, or wanting to follow you down the "Shift to xDaunt's High Road." None of that is directly pertinent to the existence and persistence double standard, and sidestepping it with a repeated "I'm responding, you're not responding."
One last time: You question the method of exposure and what this means about a high road approach without saying anything about whether or not you approve or believe of the double standard. You've have three tries, why don't you get it on the fourth!
+ Show Spoiler +On July 13 2017 03:17 brian wrote:
there's a one i haven't seen since grade school. 'he's doing it so i will too.'
i'm sure this will do everyone some good. a very proud moment indeed.
meanwhile let's have xdaunt come in again and tell us all how the conservatives of the thread routinely are alone together on the high road.
or let's hear more about how 'us people' look at one piece of news and declare it an absolute victory while you look at one post and declare the entire thread is awash with visions of people sucking dicks and cum splattering down 'our' shirts after the reacharound 'i' was just finishing up with Schumer
i think you need a break. and to think LL got banned because he intentionally misstated an argument. lul. Methods & "High Road" On July 13 2017 04:05 brian wrote:
i'd take you actually responding to something as opposed to starting a blank slate and redirecting a conversation away from what you started it with.
i'd also take a well reasoned case on standards, double or otherwise. to pretend that standard is suddenly covered in cum but only for liberals is a joke.
even though you've yet to afford me the same privilege, to actually acknowledge what you've written, no. i don't think it's evident of a new standard. i don't typically view two people doing something and then declare that it applies to all.
sorry, not liberals, 'banlings.'
aside: have banlings finally found a title that isn't banlings? cause that one sucks. it "is a joke" with zero evidence. Assertions without proof counts for jack. On July 13 2017 04:18 brian wrote:
lol, again not responding to a single thing i said in response to you.
i've answered your question in the last post. i happened to edit it in at the same time of your response, so my bad.
with regards to the value of the post itself, id be shocked if anyone thought it was anything other than garbage. but let's build this ant hill sky high.
i'm intrigued to see what your endgame here is with making a case out of a clearly bad post. a post that not one other person thought worthy to even acknowledge. luckily i'm sure you'll tell us so that you can ignore everything else i've said. Triple down on zero.
|
this isn't worth it. my bad.
|
Blue's point however crude was about the feckless behavior of Ted Cruz, a matter which I'm pretty sure everyone agrees on. It wasn't particularly graphic either.
That said I think Cruz is kind of an odd target, considering he hasn't really been one of the most vocal defenders of Trump in recent times. It rings kind of like insulting Marco Rubio's robot moment. Not really currently relevant.
If you want to make vague implied sexual references when Chris Matthews interviews Obama because of his "thrill up my leg" comment I'll roll my eyes but not be offended, I'd consider them about the same level of comments.
|
Hahaha
On July 13 2017 07:41 Agenor wrote:
Well, it is puzzling why xDaunt, Danglars, GreenHorizons and LegalLord are still allowed to post here. Any debate with them in the end comes down in how honest they actually are about their position. Their arguments are so bad, one cannot debate with them without questioning their integrity. The way they debate and compose themselves absolutely makes a personal attack a necessity. Because, let's face it, any debate with them in the end comes down to one thing; are they immoral or are they lying?
And at this point, even staunch conservatives like Plansix get frustrated and start to call them out.
That said, it is telling that not so long ago, xDaunt was actually TL staff.
I must say that I find it quite a mystery why a community that formed around an esports played in Korea is so staunchly repressive and right wing in their political consensus. Or maybe it has to do with the way TL staff runs their website? Does that appeal to repressive people that love supporting authority? One has to wonder.
This is too good, but I think it belonged here.
|
That shit is pretty rich.
The way they debate absolutely makes a personal attack a necessity. They're either immoral or lying. TeamLiquid is staunchly repressive and right wing.
Why are they still allowed to post here?
Perhaps he needs a little thoughtfulness to understand how repressive he would actually be not wanting people to post here that he disagrees with deeply.
|
On July 13 2017 10:06 Danglars wrote:
That shit is pretty rich.
The way they debate absolutely makes a personal attack a necessity. They're either immoral or lying. TeamLiquid is staunchly repressive and right wing.
Why are they still allowed to post here?
Perhaps he needs a little thoughtfulness to understand how repressive he would actually be not wanting people to post here that he disagrees with deeply.
I've enjoyed trying to imagine the mind that lumped us together politically and rhetorically, called p6 a "staunch conservative", and deemed TL an oppressive right wing minded place.
Reminds me of "The Dress"
|
Maybe he just wasn't American? For me you all are right wing crazies with Bernie maybe passable as moderate.
|
Team liquid is represented by a horse. Its common color is light blue. The horse is the symbol for europes dominance over other continents. Light blue is the color of the aryan races eyes. Team is a collective group for an action. Liquid is a six letter word and is second to the team meaning liquid is the six other continents other then europe and the other six continents are the lesser Impure continents that the website will rally its followers to conquer.
You guys didn't know this already?
|
On July 19 2017 23:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Hell, in a few of those I was forced to vote Republican simply because the Democrats put forward people so unqualified that voting for them even just to spite the Republicans would have been irresponsible of me. Name the races, the candidates and why you came to those conclusions. Clearly you feel very strongly.
Tell me that that isn't the kind of bait that really gets to the core of why Kwark's usage of his mod status as a license to shitpost is seen as problematic.
Never mind, see below.
|
Looks to me like he's asking you to give some teeth to a barking proposition, what does his mod status have to do with it?
|
"Ok, tell us, are you a racist fuck? U mad bro?"
Evidently a bait. If he really wanted to know there was definitely a better way to ask. But I'm sure you know that.
|
I'm pretty sure when he wrote "name the races," he meant like a race for governor, city councilman, or state rep, something like that, not race as in skin color.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
