*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

I was working as a carpenter and someone used construction glue to cement my radio to my workbench. We pranked each other a lot, so that didn't really bother me.
Thing is that in order to move the radio, it had to be destroyed.

When I told the owner of the company that I'm fine with a prank, but this had destroyed my radio, and I want it replaced, preferably by the person who pranked me.

The owner started to lecture me about personal responsibility, and I cut him off and asked, "Isn't it the responsibility of the person whose prank caused destruction of my property?"

He got all red-faced and fired me for not letting him lecture me.

I collected unemployment for 6 months after that. What was his "cause" aside from, presumably, my belligerence (from his POV)?


IDK the exact laws, but I fail to see why that employer wouldn't fabricate any old story to blame me for the loss of my job.

First, never use logic with someone in authority. That's the wrong approach.

Second, did you ask prank-boy first to replace ur stereo? Because if you do and he says 'lol no way' then file that in your head and destroy something of his later so he gets the point that you're not to be fucked with.

Third, taking your petty shit to the boss doesn't deserve a firing. But, assuming you don't have time to take up with the labor authority, probably better to just let it go than seeking justice.

Edit: also, what banana said. An employer is generally not motivated to fight it out in these circumstances.

[wufwugy]

Second, did you ask prank-boy first to replace ur stereo? Because if you do and he says 'lol no way' then file that in your head and destroy something of his later so he gets the point that you're not to be fucked with.

That can work but I see it usually blowing up. Somebody who would destroy a stereo on a prank and not offer to pay for it immediately is the kind of person who can dish it out but cant take it.

[BananaStand]

That can work but I see it usually blowing up. Somebody who would destroy a stereo on a prank and not offer to pay for it immediately is the kind of person who can dish it out but cant take it.

Somehow I think we're missing some elements to this story. Sounds like there were more bullies than pranksters working in this shop.

[Poopadoop]

That can work but I see it usually blowing up. Somebody who would destroy a stereo on a prank and not offer to pay for it immediately is the kind of person who can dish it out but cant take it.

Well if he's the type to escalate to lacing your lunch with ebola, you're probably right. In that case it becomes a bit more tricky.

In my experience pranking is done within boundaries that both parties respect. Bullying has only two outcomes: defy the bully or submit to more bullying.

[wufwugy]

Well if he's the type to escalate to lacing your lunch with ebola, you're probably right. In that case it becomes a bit more tricky.

In my experience pranking is done within boundaries that both parties respect. Bullying has only two outcomes: defy the bully or submit to more bullying.

I have been successful with a third option, but it's something I'm good at doing and I always dislike it when somebody says "here's what I would do" so I didn't want to do that. The third option is to change the frame with the bully. Befriend the bully, give him reason to like you and respect you, make him feel like you like him and respect him. Then you can impart on him that you don't want to be pranked like that. Unless his IQ is lower than you think BStand's is, he'd usually listen.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That's perfectly plausible. No critiques.

[Savy]

You never moan about things like that by talking, you do it in writing.

[wufwugy]

You never moan about things like that by talking, you do it in writing.

man that is so true.

[wufwugy]

I can't think of a regular here that I think has a lower IQ than me.

I never took a test but I estimate I'm probably around 110 at best.

Nowhere near Savy's proven genius level based on that one thing he solved that one time.

[Poopadoop]

I can't think of a regular here that I think has a lower IQ than me.

I never took a test but I estimate I'm probably around 110 at best.

Nowhere near Savy's proven genius level based on that one thing he solved that one time.

lolz, does anyone else remember how pissed he got when it was pointed out that one test doth not a genius maketh?

[Savy]

Nowhere near Savy's proven genius level based on that one thing he solved that one time.

That no one else could do.

lolz, does anyone else remember how pissed he got when it was pointed out that one test doth not a genius maketh?

I don't, can you please reference better in the future when making sweeping statements.

[wufwugy]

I've never seen Savy and Ed Witten in the same room. Just sayin'.

[Savy]

I've never seen Savy and Ed Witten in the same room. Just sayin'.

Accomplishing things is a bit too try hard imo. I imagine my IQ is only 107ish so even you're probably more intelligent than me.

[wufwugy]

Accomplishing things is a bit too try hard imo. I imagine my IQ is only 107ish so even you're probably more intelligent than me.

Well then I'm vastly underestimating what 110 means. There's no way I have a higher IQ than you. I don't even look at puzzles much less solve them. Only some of my talents excel when it comes to numbers and shapes and that other IQ stuff.

[Poopadoop]

I don't

Well there's a surprise. That argument went on for pages IIRC.

[wufwugy]

My read is he was doing that British dry wit thing the whole time.

[wufwugy]

The areas of intelligence I possess are humor, language, social, creativity. Mostly all divergent thought. I can tackle a problem with lots of possible answers very well, but I do not have a good time of tackling a problem with only one possible answer that well.

[Savy]

The areas of intelligence I possess are humor, language, social, creativity. Mostly all divergent thought. I can tackle a problem with lots of possible answers very well, but I do not have a good time of tackling a problem with only one possible answer that well.

All stupid people think that they can do those things well.

[Poopadoop]

All stupid people think that they can do those things well.

How would you know? This isn't about finding a pattern in some shapes.

[Savy]

How would you know? This isn't about finding a pattern in some shapes.

If people aren't shapes then why are you so obtuse?

#mathsburns

[Poopadoop]

If people aren't shapes then why are you so obtuse?

#mathsburns

If you assume one thing you're good at can be applied to everything, then you're mistaken about the concept of intelligence.

People aren't shapes. If you can't tell the difference then that explains the diff. between yours and a more rounded intellect.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If people aren't shapes then why are you so obtuse?

[wufwugy]

How would you know? This isn't about finding a pattern in some shapes.

Actually wait I challenge the premise. I have known (do know) some stupid people. They don't believe they do any of those well.

[wufwugy]

All stupid people think that they can do those things well.

Indeed.

Difference is I know.

[Poopadoop]

The areas of intelligence I possess are humor,

Yes.

language,

Volume of words does not equate to mastery in using them, but I can say the same thing about myself.

social,

I will gladly give you that, with the caveat that you're being evaluated relative to other conservatives who post here, of which you're clearly the least pig-headed and unobjectionable.

creativity.

I think you're very good at coming up with your own ideas in general, so yes.

I do not have a good time of tackling a problem with only one possible answer that well.

A neuropsychologist would define you as 'right brained'. Apart from a slight streak of stubborness and know-it-all-ness, I think this is accurate. I have the same mind as you in that way.

[wufwugy]

Volume of words does not equate to mastery in using them, but I can say the same thing about myself.

I give you guys my worst.

The classes I did the best in (by a lot) were the ones where we dissected and explained literature and created our own literature.

[Poopadoop]

I give you guys my worst.

The classes I did the best in (by a lot) were the ones where we dissected and explained literature and created our own literature.

Sometimes I start writing and i just love writing so much that I write a big 'ole bunch of words only to realize later that I have gone off on umpteen different tangents and lost the plot along the way.

I attribute this to the fact that in face-to-face conversation I can barely hold my own with a houseplant. It bugs me, but it just is how it is, which is why writing is my preferred medium.

[wufwugy]

In a group of about fifty, I found a specific hidden theme in a very obscure Chinese film that nobody else did that the prof was looking for.

I'm good at that type of pattern recognition, but not numbers and shapes pattern recognition.

[spoonitnow]

Bernie Sanders is a fucking cuck

[Savy]

I can't help but admire you for sticking to your message.

[wufwugy]

I can't help but admire you for sticking to your message.

That's a very interesting take. On the surface I don't agree, but I haven't thought much about it so that's meaningless.

[wufwugy]

What do you think about his stuff with GMO

[Poopadoop]

What do you think about his stuff with GMO

Briefly and off the cuff, I think he doesn't have enough data to evaluate the likelihood of the various possibilities.

More generally, I think it's easy to imagine low-probability/high impact events that make for a nice story. We could .e.g., argue that exploring space is bad because we might run into an Evil Empire that is bent on making us all into space slaves.

His arguments work both ways because it is all based on uncertainty - in reality, observing a rare event has no impact on the probability of a similarly rare event occurring. That said, I think he has on the face of it a reasonable basis for discarding the normal curve when it comes to economics; just no reason to think that discarding the normal curve is the norm rather than an exception.

[spoonitnow]

GMOs are the shit, they've fed the fuck out of tons of people who would have starved to fucking death

[Poopadoop]

GMOs are the shit, they've fed the fuck out of tons of people who would have starved to fucking death

Yeah, something like that.

As i understand it, Taleb is pointing out catastrophe as a possible outcome of GMO because we don't understand all the variables at play and can't predict any chaotic effects that might arise out of their interactions.

It's a bit of an argument about how knowing what we know now doesn't necessarily reflect the real world because of lolvariance. But with no evidence about variance it's arguably difficult to contend we should base our decisions on the unknown possiblities which are infinite and not measurable.

I think Taleb's contribution to maths is to show that our estimates of what variance is are not as informed as we thought they were, and we shouldn't as a default dismiss models that aren't evidence-based. That leads to a bit of a kerfluffle though where we can assume any model with no evidence 'just because', whereas any reasonable model depends on what's already been observed based on the Likelihood Principle whereby the past is a reasonable predictor of the future.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, something like that.

As i understand it, Taleb is pointing out catastrophe as a possible outcome of GMO because we don't understand all the variables at play and can't predict any chaotic effects that might arise out of their interactions.

It's a bit of an argument about how knowing what we know now doesn't necessarily reflect the real world because of lolvariance. But with no evidence about variance it's arguably difficult to contend we should base our decisions on the unknown possiblities which are infinite and not measurable.

I think Taleb's contribution to maths is to show that our estimates of what variance is are not as informed as we thought they were, and we shouldn't as a default dismiss models that aren't evidence-based. That leads to a bit of a kerfluffle though where we can assume any model with no evidence 'just because', whereas any reasonable model depends on what's already been observed based on the Likelihood Principle whereby the past is a reasonable predictor of the future.

That's great. I really like having your insight into Taleb.

[BananaStand]

That leads to a bit of a kerfluffle though where we can assume any model with no evidence 'just because',

RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!

THE DOCTOR IS LYING!!

TRUMP TRIED THE FIRE MUELLER WHILE HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM

TRUMP IS STUPID

TRUMP WANTS TO FUCK HIS OWN DAUGHTER

What a kerfluffle.

[Poopadoop]

RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!

"Let's meet a Russian with some dirt on our opponent." Yep, nothing to see there.

THE DOCTOR IS LYING!!

"This big fat slob who eats garbage and never exercises is a fine specimen of a man."

Sure, seems plausible.

TRUMP TRIED THE FIRE MUELLER...

Confirmed even by Hannity, that arbiter of truth.

... WHILE HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM

Not sure where you got this from; wasn't me.

TRUMP IS STUPID

Evidence is mixed on this one.

TRUMP WANTS TO FUCK HIS OWN DAUGHTER

Not sure if that's entirely true, but he does seem to have an unnatural interest in talking about and touching her body.

[BananaStand]

"Let's meet a Russian with some dirt on our opponent." Yep, nothing to see there.

The Russians offered information and asked for a meeting. OF COURSE YOU TAKE THE MEETING!!

DUH!!

Even if it is your intent to decline the offer, you at least listen to what it is they are offering. At the very least you might get a hint of which tree to bark up to find the dirt yourself.

The fact that the meeting happened is indicative of nothing. I'm not sure what other evidence you have to suggest there is more to see there. So it's not clear to me why you are doing so, and denying any other plausible explanation. Seems like a kerfuffle.

[BananaStand]

We know Russia offered dirt to the Trump campaign. We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was accepted, despite 18 months of massive efforts to find some. Also, there's even less evidence that the Trump campaign offered anything in return, which is a key element of collusion.

We know Russia SOLD dirt to the Clinton campaign, for money. That is an established fact.

The lesson in all this, is that Russia is an ass-hole. We really should be taking strong action against them. I know such and such house committee put in some sanctions or whatever, but meh. We could crush the ruble if we wanted to.

But we can't. Because the crybaby sore loser left handcuffed this president. Trump can't touch Russia with a 40 foot pole right now, so evil remains unpunished. Nice going dems.

[wufwugy]

Funny thing* regarding Taleb, I'm like rah rah at like 2/3rds of what he says about economics but the rest is like dude needs to learn.

As a remarkably smarter guy than I am, the dude is worth a listen. But that doesn't make him perfect.



*Is it yet obvious that I start like 1/3rd of my posts with "funny thing" or "funny that" or "funny to note". What a fucking cuck**



**Which reminds me, the thread title needs changing. I have half a mind that this was Spoonitfag's master plan to get us all to post in a thread that says CUCK. It ain't good for image. It ain't good for frame.

[spoonitnow]

Funny to note that this thread is full of fucking cucks

[spoonitnow]

Russia was playing both sides, but they were playing Clinton's side much harder because [for most people] she was expected to win.

Big whoop. Same shit, different election. Happens all the time, all over the world.

[Poopadoop]

And yet despite being pure down to his toes, Trump fired one guy who was investigating him on Russia and tried to fire the next one...

So either a) he's guilty and thinks he can solve his problems by lolfiring everyone who might be able to prove he's guilty; or b) he's innocent and tried to obstruct justice because he believes the Fox and Friends narrative that loldeepstate is after him. In this scenario his only crime is that he doesn't have a clue how firing everyone in charge of investigating him makes him look guilty, and wouldn't stop the investigation anyways.

All of which kind of speaks to the point about him being dumb as a sack of burgers.

[spoonitnow]

There's no evidence that he "tried to fire the next one," just hearsay. There's also no evidence he fired the first guy because of anything to do with Russia. There's not much evidence that the first guy was even investigating him over Russia. Any assertions otherwise make you look like a clown.

[Poopadoop]

There's no evidence that he "tried to fire the next one," just heresay.

Well even Hannity's sources (eventually) confirmed it. That's good enough for me.




lol "The fake news is just trying to distract you....oh wait, it's true? Hey, there's a car crash!!"

There's also no evidence he fired the first guy because of anything to do with Russia.

There's so many alternative facts provided by Trump and others on his side as to make it seem suspicious. He says one thing, the White House Gargoyle Conway says another, the press secretary has a different excuse. Sure, whatever.

Regardless, it must have occurred to him (or someone on his team with a brain) how it would look.

There's not much evidence that the first guy was even investigating him over Russia. Any assertions otherwise make you look like a clown.

You mean apart from Comey's comments before he was fired and sworn testimony afterwards? Damn, someone needs to get logic a lawyer the way you are torturing it.

The most generous interpretation of the whole story is that Trump's ego couldn't deal with the idea that Russia helped him win, and that he's too stupid to know he can't just go around firing everyone involved to get the investigation to stop.

[BananaStand]

There's so many alternative facts provided by Trump and others on his side as to make it seem suspicious. He says one thing, the White House Gargoyle Conway says another, the press secretary has a different excuse. Sure, whatever.

How would it have looked if he fired Comey, and then when asked why, he answered "It's classified"

Maybe that was exactly the case, but instead he gave a different story in order to manage "optics". Someone mentioned once that's pretty important.

I think it's entirely plausible that the soon-to-be released memo about FISA abuses has Comey's name all over it. Trump seems to have been aware, long before anyone else, that he was under surveillance. Maybe he knew that Comey aided and abetted Obama's abuses of power.

If that's the case, optics be damned, Comey has to go.

How is that scenario any less plausible than one where Trump fired Comey to obstruct justice?

Seems to me that if you're the kind of person who just looks at a set of questionable circumstances, and decides to infer the worst just because you don't like the person in question, you are guilty of a kerfuffle.

[Poopadoop]

How would it have looked if he fired Comey, and then when asked why, he answered "It's classified"

Maybe that was exactly the case, but instead he gave a different story in order to manage "optics". Someone mentioned once that's pretty important.

I think it's entirely plausible that the soon-to-be released memo about FISA abuses has Comey's name all over it. Trump seems to have been aware, long before anyone else, that he was under surveillance. Maybe he knew that Comey aided and abetted Obama's abuses of power.

If that's the case, optics be damned, Comey has to go.

How is that scenario any less plausible than one where Trump fired Comey to obstruct justice?

Seems to me that if you're the kind of person who just looks at a set of questionable circumstances, and decides to infer the worst just because you don't like the person in question, you are guilty of a kerfuffle.

Oh, so now there's ANOTHER reason why he fired Comey, to add to the three or four provided at the time.

Just a perfect example of propaganda at work. The more alternative facts you can provide, the less people will know what to believe.

Goebbels would be proud.

[BananaStand]

Rather than try and fail to counter your many arguments, I'm just going to give up by dropping a backhanded insult, along with some nazi references for good measure.

Wp

[spoonitnow]

I should have known better than to try to poke at it with logic. It gets cranky when you do that.

[Poopadoop]

Rather than try and fail to counter your many arguments, I'm just going to give up by dropping a backhanded insult.

Wp.

[BananaStand]

Grown men following pro wrestling?? You brits really need better pro sports.

[BananaStand]

Also, I need it explained to me how Trump firing Comey, or considering firing others, is an indication of his guilt.

If he was guilty, he would be doing everything possible to lay low, and AVOID the appearance of interference. The only way that's not the case is if he has the intelligence of a piece of toast. Anyone with an IQ of 9 would know that the optics of such a move would stir the pot, and it wouldn't end the investigation anyway.

On the other hand, if Trump is innocent, then he would know for sure that these people are engaged in a fruitless investigation. Whatever they are doing, it is not going to uncover any evidence of Russian collusion, because Trump knows for sure that he didn't collude with Russia. From Trump's point of view, whatever they are doing must be outside the scope of the investigation. Whatever they uncover must be the result of a witch hunt coordinated by the opposition. This theory is supported by the fact that anonymous sources are leaking suggestive, but ultimately meaningless, garbage in order to color the media discourse against Trump.

If you're Trump....are you just gonna let all that happen? Are you really gonna not-fire people because of lol-optics??

Trump's behavior seems to be strong evidence against the existence of Russian collusion, not the other way around. And I really can't believe that there are people in this world, and in this thread, who consider themselves intelligent, and still don't get this.

[CoccoBill]

The Orange Ocular Effect. Since Trump is smart he can't have done anything stupid.

[BananaStand]

The Orange Ocular Effect. Since Trump is smart he can't have done anything stupid.

"anything's possible" is not a compelling reason to spend 2 years and triple-digit millions of tax payer dollars on a political stunt whose sole purpose is to undermine a duly elected president.

I posed perfectly plausible explanations for the alleged impropriety, and I posed compelling and salient challenges to the theories of guilt.

The response: "your brain has been turned orange"

News Flash!!! That bullshit is WHY Trump won. So keep it up.

[Poopadoop]

I posed perfectly plausible explanations for the alleged impropriety, and I posed compelling and salient challenges to the theories of guilt.

Your explanations are only plausible on the assumption that Trump is innocent and has the capacity for some measure of self-control. Given the lack of evidence for these premises, there's no reason to find the rest of your arguments compelling.

News Flash!!! That bullshit is WHY Trump won. So keep it up.

Trump won because people accused his followers of being mindless sheep? Lol, ok then.

[BananaStand]

Your explanations are only plausible on the assumption that Trump is innocent and has the capacity for some measure of self-control. Given the lack of evidence for these premises, there's no reason to find the rest of your arguments compelling

The alternate explanation assumes that Trump is guilty of collusion. It assumes that the man who has accumulated immense wealth, achieved celebrity status, and became a wildly successful politician is also monumentally stupid. It assumes that the living icon of business success fails to grasp public relations and political optics in ways that are obvious even to ordinary citizens. And it assumes that efforts to conceal his crime were undermined by an accidental confession to Lester Holt.

Given the lack of evidence for these premises, there's no reason to find that version of events compelling.

Trump won because people accused his followers of being mindless sheep? Lol, ok then.

Trump won because open minded independent thinkers were put off by being called mindless sheep whenever they deviated from the preferred progressive narrative.

[Poopadoop]

The alternate explanation assumes that Trump is guilty of collusion. It assumes that the man who has accumulated immense wealth, achieved celebrity status, and became a wildly successful politician is also monumentally stupid.

Actually, my present preferred hypothesis is that he doesn't like the investigation because it's going to turn up dirt on him that otherwise wouldn't come to light. Money-laundering with Russians is one possibility, given his history of shady dealings (Trump University being the classic example). The guy clearly hasn't been flying straight in his business life and he doesn't want to be investigated under any pretense.

It assumes that the living icon of business success fails to grasp public relations and political optics in ways that are obvious even to ordinary citizens. And it assumes that efforts to conceal his crime were undermined by an accidental confession to Lester Holt.

No, it assumes he lacks an internal censor and/or thinks he can get away with anything like he has his whole life.

Trump won because open minded independent thinkers were put off by being called mindless sheep whenever they deviated from the preferred progressive narrative.

First, referring to yourself as open-minded may be being a bit generous. Of your ~1800 posts here, none of them have ever suggested there's much if any flexibility in your opinions.

Second, if that is true of you, don't assume you're representative of his supporters.

[Poopadoop]

Trump won because open minded independent thinkers were put off by being called mindless sheep whenever they deviated from the preferred progressive narrative.

Also, it 's just a lame argument to begin with. It's like saying the people who voted for Hillary did it 'cause they were sick of being called cucks. Iow, you're putting the cart before the horse.

[spoonitnow]

Trump won because open minded independent thinkers were put off by being called mindless sheep whenever they deviated from the preferred progressive narrative.

There's a pretty significant amount of evidence to support this.

[BananaStand]

Deputy FBI Director, and former acting Director Andrew McCabe took "terminal leave" today. Basically burning up all his vacation time before he's officially allowed to retire in March.

While he was investigating Hillary Clinton, Clinton and her allies donated some $700K to McCabe's wife's senate campaign.

And now a memo detailing corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement is set to be released and McCabe seems to be taking every precaution against getting fired and losing his benefits.

What's your "preferred hypothesis" on this one Poop?

[Poopadoop]

Deputy FBI Director, and former acting Director Andrew McCabe took "terminal leave" today. Basically burning up all his vacation time before he's officially allowed to retire in March.

While he was investigating Hillary Clinton, Clinton and her allies donated some $700K to McCabe's wife's senate campaign.

And now a memo detailing corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement is set to be released and McCabe seems to be taking every precaution against getting fired and losing his benefits.

What's your "preferred hypothesis" on this one Poop?

My hypothesis is you're trying to change the subject.

[BananaStand]

My hypothesis is you're trying to change the subject.

I thought we were done with the first subject. I was under the impression that our agreed upon conclusion is that I have the facts, and you just have crazy leftist conspiracies supported by nothing but wishful thinking.

[Poopadoop]

I thought we were done with the first subject. I was under the impression that our agreed upon conclusion is that I have the facts, and you just have crazy leftist conspiracies supported by nothing but wishful thinking.

Sounds like more victim talk to me - oooh the left wing is trying to blame my president for something he didn't doooo...

[spoonitnow]

It gets angry when it hasn't had its nap.

[Poopadoop]

It gets angry when it hasn't had its nap.

You better have a nap then.

[spoonitnow]

Women and pussies always argue in the same way:

I know you are, but what am I.

[BananaStand]

https://nypost.com/2018/01/29/people...fessor-claims/

We need to be tolerant and accepting of all different cultures.....

BUT ONLY INDIANS CAN DO YOGA!

[spoonitnow]

https://nypost.com/2018/01/29/people...fessor-claims/

We need to be tolerant and accepting of all different cultures.....

BUT ONLY INDIANS CAN DO YOGA!

Stop making yourself a victim.

[BananaStand]

Stop making yourself a victim.

Fine, but don't come cryin' to me when you get called out for watching Tyler Perry movies in a racist way.

[spoonitnow]

Fine, but don't come cryin' to me when you get called out for watching Tyler Perry movies in a racist way.

Indian people using air conditioning supports brown supremacy.

[spoonitnow]

CUCK NYE BTFO

[OngBonga]

I have two log burners.

Two.

[wufwugy]

Good to hear.

[BananaStand]

Dems want to end the use of the term "chain migration". Jackie Speier was on CNN this morning pushing the term "family reunification".

Confirmed cuck.