mdk

Treason Day Shitposting Thread

Treason Day Shitposting Thread

Treason Day Shitposting Thread

The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

@terminal a clarification...... on a clarification, actually. From the labor text, the impression I'm getting is there's Character, who's a source of inspiration/authority/idolatry/whathaveyou, and that character's supposed followers destroy the world. Then in the clarifications, there's this:

Q. They have to inadvertently cause the destruction of their entire world?
A. Their history, actions, or ideals - as elaborated upon above - should serve directly as causal factors that lead to everything they value being destroyed, against their own wishes.

Which is just different enough to be a cause for concern to me, the guy who perpetually misinterprets every labor challenge. Is it true to say that the Character must be the original source of the destruction, like directly complicit in the destruction? Or would a situation in which, like, the followers simply twist the Character's will or wishes into tragic results..... does that fit the bill?

Like hypothetically if I was writing a story about Jesus looking at the Crusades, would I have to add a part where Jesus orders the Crusade himself only to regret it later, or would the Pope calling for genocide in Jesus' name be sufficient to clear the challenge?

Adversity and Pride

THAT is what gay pride is. That is why heterosexual pride is cringy. Because heterosexual people have never suffered for being heterosexual.

@Rica

Bologna. Hetero marriage has been around for thousands of years, a special brand of existential suffering.

Here's the disconnect. The people who torment the different are themselves a minority. The vast majority of us just don't care about your personal tastes in anything, because why would we? Then along comes a pride parade (pick any pride), and the apathetic masses are painted right into the opposition. Maybe we deserve it -- we sat idly by for 250 years while gay marriage was illegal in the US, that's wrong, that's on us, right? But (for the majority) it wasn't about hate or prejudice or anything malicious -- just pure apathy. Again, still wrong, fine -- but for a lot of hetero people, the first introduction to rights movements was "You're our enemy, and we're going to beat you." I understand how and why that came to be, and you're not entirely wrong -- but that shit puts people on the defensive.

The 'hetero pride,' the 'red pill,' the 'white history month' type shit -- sure, it's frivolous and dumb, but it's entirely understandable. Somebody is just (they think) innocently going about their business and perceive themselves suddenly treated like a villain, and the first response is "Hey, no I'm not, I'm just a person too." They're not entirely wrong either.

edit: reading over it, I realize I ought to note that yeah historically speaking it was another story altogether. Speaking about today's world, today's counter-pride stuff.

Congress finally responded to my email!

<Snipped quote by The Nexerus>

Opposition can have an important role to play in setting the political agenda or keeping the majority party in check. But, yeah I can see how, writing to a candidate you don't agree with, to put forward views they don't agree with, so they can present them to a parliament who won't agree with them, could be a huge waste of time.

@KnightShade

jesus it's worse over there, innit

Congress finally responded to my email!

I sent an email to my congressman about 3 years back. He got back to me! Now all I have to do is tell him what it was I was talking about again (the 2013 shutdown) and what he has to do to fix it (in 2013), and he'll be happy to help resolve my situation!

The system works!!

UK Leaves EU

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Woah, no. I'm under no obligation to do anything. I'm asking political questions to someone who historically on this website wants to engage in political issues. I've not seen him deviate from the views of the republican party once in the 7 years I've been here (unless the democrats are also guilty, then the problem can be addressed) when I've changed my views countless times. I wanted to see if that applies even when a majority of conservative voters are for the bill and so it runs clearly against democracy, and political process. It does, and he doesn't appreciate me asking those questions.

I voted to remain in the UK. But I the recognize the decision to leave as the valid one.

@scribz

Hmm? I'm routinely opposed to the republican party. Pro-choice (for governmental purposes at least), pro-marriage-equality, disliked pretty much all of the presidential candidates I've ever seen... Though I'll probably wind up voting for this one, if only as an anti-clinton vote. Nearest you can label me is libertarian, but with realist foreign policy (which necessitates some domestic compromise).

But it's interesting.... That analysis you gave of me is sort of exactly what the spin-doctors want you to perceive. A story pops up in the press and gets written as 'GOP wants to throw all abortion-havers into a dungeon forever,' and I'll go in and read the actual bill and post what the bill actually says (like, idunno, 7-year-old boys who want an abortion need a note from their mother), and why I don't think that's such a bad idea. But that only registers as "Look at MDK, defending the GOP again, what a tool."

Mind you, that's a brilliant play by the architects of spin, and I can appreciate that. But it is a bit frustrating to have my intellectual contributions over a seven-year period of observation reduced to a single inaccurate bullet point.

now then

Brexit and nfl-guncontrol are two very different beasts. The EU referendum was a popular vote, but congressional voting in the US is not. (Nor, I believe, are parliamentary proceedings in the UK). We are a representative democracy; our duly elected representatives in congress are tasked not with precisely mirroring the momentary and fluctuating will of the people (else ACA would be long dead), but rather with representing the best interests of the constituency. Usually when 'the will of the people' conflicts with the representative's notion of 'their best interest,' that congressman will abstain from the vote. In this case, operating procedures are being utilized to prevent a vote altogether, on the grounds that political pressure from constituents of all affiliations would compel the congress to pass a bad bill. This is the best example in recent memory of why we are a representative democracy in the first place, rather than pure democracy. The stupid bill will not pass, because it will not come to a vote. It should never have been proposed in the first place, but here we are, and thank god someone had the good sense to step on its throat and kill it.

Toccata & Fugue, presented by 15 electric guitars

The Unpopular Opinions Thread.

This conversation is going well.[/meta]