This is great.
https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/sta...39110502256641
Printable View
This is great.
https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/sta...39110502256641
This isn't great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYUT36YGOh8
Live footage of what is, apparently, the largest nuclear power station in Europe. There's a fire.
It looks like the fire was an admin building / museum on the same property as the nuclear reactor.
Firefighters have put the fire out.
I hear radiation levels are normal.
There are 6 reactors at that location, 3 of which are active. None of them were hit, AFAICT.
Saw that. Made me tear up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Not a nuclear physicist, but would a reactor go up from a fire or shelling? I thought it needed some kind of nuclear reaction gone wrong.
Don't you remember Fukushima? All it takes it for the cooling systems to be compromised. A simple power cut can do that if the backup systems fail. In the case of Fukushima, the tsunami flooded the backup generators.
Thankfully, this does appear to not be as serious as it could have been. Of course Russia is being condemned for this, but it's war, it might not have been Russia. If NATO are looking for excuses to get involved, a nuclear crisis would be an excellent way to do so. Not saying that's what I think happened, but I'm not ruling it out either. Attacking nuclear power plants is ridiculously stupid for any party to do, more so Ukraine or Russia themselves.
Whoever did this is fucking nuts. Russia is the most likely culprit, for obvious reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Obviously not.
Yeah, maybe NATO secretly moved artillery and planes into Ukraine for just this purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1WGUUGXMAonx3P.jpg
This is your problem poop. You won't consider the seemingly unlikely scenarios. False flag operations have been war tactics for as long as humans have waged war.
Who stands to gain the most from this turning into a nuclear crisis? I don't think it's Russia.
I don't think it's likely. But nor do I find it likely that Russia would intentionally target nuclear power plants with missiles so close to Russia. That seems absolutely nuts as a battle tactic.
It's possible that the fire was a fail safe of some sort, a controlled means of destroying nuclear secrets in the event of a Russian invasion. But it could have been started with the sole intention of making this a nuclear crisis. I don't dismiss that idea. Or maybe Russia are just really fucking stupid. I don't dismiss that idea either.
I did consider it. I considered it and realised quickly that it was ridiculous. The problem here isn't that I don't consider ridiculous possibilities, it's that you are so badly wanting to find reasons to be against NATO that you're prepared to consider ridiculous possibilities as plausible.
For one, you can't even answer the basic question: How? How does NATO shell a nuclear power plant in Ukraine? You think they have a secret unit with Russian uniforms, Russian artillery, and Russian planes that they secretly parachute into Ukraine to do this, and hope no-one notices?
Nor can you answer the question: Why? Why would NATO want to poison Ukraine with nuclear waste? What is there to be gained from that?
You have a funny way of interpreting others.Quote:
it's that you are so badly wanting to find reasons to be against NATO that you're prepared to consider ridiculous possibilities as plausible.
They're saying it was shelled, but I'm yet to see footage of anything actually striking the building, even though there's a security camera pointing right at the site. So right now it's a simple fire. Anyone can star a fire.Quote:
How? How does NATO shell a nuclear power plant in Ukraine?
There is no poison. It's merely a controlled fire, right? Let's see if this incident is used as leverage.Quote:
Nor can you answer the question: Why? Why would NATO want to poison Ukraine with nuclear waste? What is there to be gained from that?
I mean, you seem to think that because I suggest NATO might be looking for a reason to enter Ukraine, and that securing their nuclear power plants could be a pretext for doing this, that I imagine NATO as some special military force that is sneaking into countries to sabotage power plants. They can simply recruit Ukrainians to do it. NATO are already supplying weapons to Ukraine. It would be easy to sponsor an act of sabotage without actually entering the country.
I'm just open to the idea that this isn't necessarily an act of Russian aggression. It's crazy for anyone to attack a nuclear power plant, so whatever happened is ridiculous. There is no non-ridiculous way for this to happen.
Well, you've been trying to blame NATO since this thing started. Granted, at least you're aware enough to realise the country that is the aggressor deserves most of the blame, but still...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Citation for bolded? Have you seen footage of the fire starting that resulted from something other than shelling?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So anything bad that happens in Ukraine is potentially a NATO covert op to use as "leverage." Leverage to do what?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If the invasion of a sovereign democratic country isn't a good enough pretext to send troops to Ukraine, the shellling of a nuclear power plant won't be either.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is even more ridiculous than parachuting in a fake Russian army unit. What Ukrainians are going to set fire to their own nuclear plant?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You have to find someone in the Ukraine who is actually willing to do this to their own country. You're basically asking them to commit treason. "Here, Ukrainian agent. Go blow up your nuclear station, kill thousands of your own citizens, and turn the surrounding countryside into a radioactive zone. You up for that? Good. Any questions?"Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's fine to entertain ideas, but you should at least think about what reason there would be to do it for NATO. So they can go in and start WWIII? You think that's what the West wants?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Russia has a long history of not caring about people's lives. They sent in soldiers to Chernobyl when it happened to clean it up, knowing they were going to die. Not volunteers mind you, they were ordered to go in. Their favourite war tactic for hundreds of years has been to send so many men into the attack they overwhelm the opponent, even if it means taking huge casualties.
You think Putin cares if more Ukranians die? He doesn't even care if his own soldiers die.
No. This is your binary way of seeing things.Quote:
Well, you've been trying to blame NATO since this thing started. Granted, at least you're aware enough to realise the country that is the aggressor deserves most of the blame, but still...
I've been assigning blame to both Russia and NATO.
Potentially being the key word. I never stopped believing 9/11 was an inside job of some sort. There are no limits to what people will do to preserve power. If they're not throwing nukes about, it's because nobody wants a nuclear wasteland as a prize for winning a war.Quote:
So anything bad that happens in Ukraine is potentially a NATO covert op to use as "leverage." Leverage to do what?
The link I posted above was a livestream of the security camera, but I didn't see it start, I tuned in after hostilities had ceased. It's no longer a live stream, and is up as evidence of the attack.Quote:
Citation for bolded? Have you seen footage of the fire starting that resulted from something other than shelling?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYUT36YGOh8
See comments for a timeline of events.
The fire appears to have started after a tank fired at the building. From the pov of this camera, the reactors appear to be behind the action, the focus of the attack is presumably where the power plant security are based.
It's not a false flag. It's a straight up capture of a nuclear power plant. It doesn't look like the reactors were ever in danger of being hit, but it's still shit the bed action.
But NATO are certainly capable of false flag events. I really don't know if they are itching for an excuse or not. I just don't trust NATO any more than I trust Putin. That might look to you like I'm looking to blame NATO, or taking Putin's side, but that's once again a binary way of looking at it.
You're wrong. A nuclear incident in Ukraine makes this a global problem, not a regional problem.Quote:
If the invasion of a sovereign democratic country isn't a good enough pretext to send troops to Ukraine, the shellling of a nuclear power plant won't be either.
Interesting you call them democratic. I wonder what you were saying when the democratically elected pro-Russian government was overthrown in 2013?
It's a building on the outskirts of the site. At no point did the reactors look in danger. I'm suggesting that the motivation might exist, yes.Quote:
This is even more ridiculous than parachuting in a fake Russian army unit. What Ukrainians are going to set fire to their own nuclear plant?
No. "Here, Ukrainian agent, go start a controlled fire and we'll use propaganda to make it look like the world just dodged a nuclear bullet".Quote:
"Here, Ukrainian agent. Go blow up your nuclear station"
That's how I would imagine such an incident playing out.
Who knows? We threw nukes about to end WWII, and somehow convinced everyone it was for the greater good. We can take Russia out now before they get stronger, and convince the world it's for the greater good. Maybe it would be for the greater good. Maybe WWIII now is better than WWIII in 20 years.Quote:
It's fine to entertain ideas, but you should at least think about what reason there would be to do it for NATO. So they can go in and start WWIII? You think that's what the West wants?
So yes, maybe NATO do want WWIII.
So does every country that ever went to war. You do know how many people NATO have killed, right? It's a lot. And those lives weren't lost defending NATO territory. They were lost defending NATO interests.Quote:
Russia has a long history of not caring about people's lives.
I don't think I've ever once suggested that Russia are the good guys. But NATO are not the good guys either. The West are not the good guys. Our recent history shows we are no better than Putin. Ok we might revolve our leaders, but the same people pull the strings of government, which is why foreign policy never changes. USA foreign policy is UK foreign policy. It's NATO foreign policy. The West. We're basically USA's sphere of influence.
I'd rather be on NATO's side than Russia's, but not because of any moral reason. Simply because I think NATO is much, much stronger.
Popular revolution. Will of the people. If you elect someone and he turns out to be a cunt, you have every right to throw him out rather than suffer him until the next election.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Again, so every time something bad happens in Ukraine we should raise the idea that it might be NATO. School gets bombed? Hospital razed? Holocaust memorial blown up? Any of those might be NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You live in a tinfoil hat world.
Right, starting a fire near a nuclear reactor is going to be the false flag that brings NATO into the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The US decision to use nukes cost 150k Japanese lives, and saved probably the same number of US lives that would have been lost if they had invaded mainland Japan. Not saying that's fair, but it's certainly defensible.
But now NATO not only want WWIII to happen, they're prepared to pre-emptively nuke Russia lol.
My point is no country in the world has been profligate in spending its own soldiers' lives as Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's sad if you actually believe this.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So, it was a NATO tank disguised as a Russian tank? Or, a Ukrainian tank they got from NATO with the express mission of setting fire to the building?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Or, can you now admit the idea that NATO was involved is not supported by anything approaching reality?
The meat of this conversation hinges on ong fiercely adhering to being skeptical about every piece of information coming out of the fog of war, whereas poopy wants to believe some of it is true.
I'm kinda in awe of ong's ability to remain logically distant from this and to provide a fairly consistently independent perspective.
Though it is frustrating, to have every piece of information you try to use to understand what's actually happening called into question.
I feel that on poopy's side of things, too.
I think ultimately ong's right. We can't trust any single piece of information, and the echo chamber of news can make it seem like something is coming from multiple sources when it's just a lot of repetition w/o fact-checking.
But I also think that when a preponderance of evidence in live videos coming not only from the war zone but also from nearby countries receiving refugees does allow for a statistical accumulation of tenuous, untrusted information to congeal into something real.
Like, I don't trust any word from any captured Russian soldier about them not knowing where they were going or why. That's easy to tell troops to say. I do trust that at least some captured Russians are being treated well and given access to some communication to call their families.
It's impossible to know of all that was staged to paint a picture for me. I've seen only a few videos of that happening. It could be the reality on the ground is that never actually happens unless there's someone trying to film it to propagandize things.
I can't know.
It's a shitshow.
***
That nuclear reactor is leagues more advanced than the Chernobyl reactor. It's not even the same kind of reactor.
It would take a dedicated bombarding of the reactor itself (not nearby buildings) to cause a nuclear disaster. More accurately, it would take a bombarding of the containment chambers, which are underground and made from 1 m thick steel.
A fire on the site cannot cause a disaster. A stray or ricochet bomb/missile is not enough.
Those can kill the plant, but not release any nuclear materials.
It would take a dedicated bombarding to release the nuclear materials.
This is a modern nuclear plant, not a 60 year old one.
Well kinda, the construction started in 1980, though it's been modernized recently. Still wouldn't call it modern, but at least a generation ahead of Chernobyl. From what I was quickly able to gather, the PWR design that it uses is significantly safer than the Chernobyl RBMK, in that it should auto-shutdown in case of cooling failure or runaway reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Another take would be that if you're equally skeptical of all information, you're also equally willing to accept any information. Just as an example, later independent research into the Ukraine reporting on kills in 2014 was found to be pessimistic, the real losses for Russia were higher. So far the US has more or less confirmed the numbers they have been reporting.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You can just assume that everyone is lying, and to an extent you would probably be right. There are still levels to this game, and Russia is finding all new levels at the moment. Ukrainian junkie neo-nazi administration has been bombing their own civilians? Ok yeah. There's skepticism and there's willful ignorance.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1499783085055004680
Sure. That's one theory. Another theory is outside parties funding and arming opposition forces. You believe what you want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Fair. I never took my tinfoil hat off after 9/11.Quote:
Again, so every time something bad happens in Ukraine we should raise the idea that it might be NATO. School gets bombed? Hospital razed? Holocaust memorial blown up? Any of those might be NATO.
You live in a tinfoil hat world.
Quote:
But now NATO not only want WWIII to happen, they're prepared to pre-emptively nuke Russia lol.
You're so trigger happy, wanting to argue with me, that you miss the point and instead assume I'm talking about nuking Russia.
I didn't say NATO want WWIII to happen. I made the point that it's possible that NATO might think it's better to go to war with Russia now than sometime in the future. Think about that. It might be true. It might not be. Neither of us know. But think about it. Is it possible that Russia will be a more dangerous enemy sometime in the future? Of course. Does that mean we should try to stop it from happening? ANd if so, at what cost?
This is what people in NATO will at least be informally discussing. Nobody "wants" world war, but some might think it's inevitable, and the only question is how much worse it will be if we don't act now.
This is every bit as much as a concern as being paranoid about Putin invading Poland. One small miscalculation from either side could trigger world war. One misplaced rpg at a nuclear power plant. Right now we're as close to world war as we've been in my life.
lol thanks, but I think it's evidence of sociopathy. Maybe decades of the west declaring war on foreign lands has desensitised me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
I'm in no doubt that a lot of the time, I'm blinded by my mistrust of the authorities. But I'm also in no doubt that people like poop are often blinded by their trust of the same authorities. There is always more than one side of the story. Always. And there are rarely any good guys when it comes to war.
I think you just have to weigh the probabilities of things based on evidence. If you're willing to entertain every far-fetched scenario as being plausible, you're not doing thinking right imo. A lot of things are "possible" in the sense they can't be disproven; that doesn't mean you should believe them.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Ong likes to paint me as this naive guy who continuously falls for gov't propaganda when it comes to NATO, but when I habitually call out gov't propaganda in the Brexit thread, he tells me to go back to Canada.
I've never once told you to go back to Canada. I've asked you why you don't. There's a very subtle difference between the two. One implies I don't consider you welcome here, the other is a rhetorical question intended to make the point that you obviously don't think the UK is such a bad place to be. It's very disingenuous of you to pretend that I'm doing the former, not the latter.
Everyone knows the "why don't you go back to where you came from?" line is a dogwhistle and it's disingenuous of you to pretend you're using it without knowing somewhere in the back of your mind that it is.
Nonsense. You know the context in which I've used such language, because we've had this discussion before. I can't help it if you deliberately take my comments out of context. What's that Latin phrase about bananas?
Brute' et two bananas
I think.
Et tu la banane?
Right, right
Brute' et tu la banane
but I'm pretty sure it means "Brutus ate 2 bananas!"
which is what Julius Caesar said when he was falsely murdered for stealing bananas
if I remember my Roman history, I mean.
Credit where credit is due, this was gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Also the Putin thread title gave me a chortle.
I was going to call it the "Rootin' tootin' Putin done started a-shootin' thread" but it seemed a bit OTT.
:)
We do a little trolling.
Biden gets asked twice today if he thinks Putin is a war criminal. He says "no," both times.
After the second time he walks back the journalist and asks her if she asked him if he thought Putin was a war criminal. She says "that was the question, yes." He replies, "Yes, yes I do think he's a war criminal."
Ok Gramps, bedtime.
Trump still bragging about passing the dementia test. I like this take on it.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRTsArJX...jpg&name=small
:lol:
George W. Bush, while giving a speech to criticize Putin's invasion of Ukraine, made a Freudian slip and accidentally called himself out.
“The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.”
-GWB
:lol:
"He shrugged and said ”Iraq, too” under his breath. “Anyway. I’m 75,” the Republican leader added as the crowd erupted in laughter."
I'm liking GWB more and more, especially compared to what followed. He's a dumdum with no business ever being the president, being pulled around by Cheney and Rumsfeld, but he seems like an affable fella.
If we're ranking world leaders on how much fun they'd be to have over for a beer, I agree GWB is right up there. And, we'd have to invite Boris and Donald as well. Funny how highly negatively that quality relates to one's competence as a leader.
I don't reckon Hitler would be much fun to have a beer with.
You don't have to be a fun guy to be a shitty leader. But it helps.
So Trump's entire staff and his daughter ratted on him for the Jan 6. event.
Basically everyone around him was all, "Dude. You lost. Suck it up." and drunk Rudi Giuliani is all, "make them stop counting votes ASAP, declare victory, allege fake votes and blame the damn libs."
All the money Trump raised at the end of his campaign to "fight the stolen election" was put into a fund and, conspicuously, not used to support any legal actions to do with the election being stolen.
I, for one, am totally shocked that a man like Trump would scam people who trusted him to do a job, then scurry off with all the dough.
And he's still a legitimate contender for POTUS in 2024, apparently. Rudy for Vice Prez!
It appears Texas wants to secdee from the nation. #MTGA
https://twitter.com/NotDevinsMom/sta...17772776181761
The jokes write themselves.
This is not going to have any consequences, will it? Isn't this kind of a Homelander situation? If you don't get that reference you'll have to watch the first 3 seasons of The Boys and then get back to me. tl;dw: in the sense that actually catching him could be more dangerous than not catching him. He gets a hell of a lot of free airtime through this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...nding_idly_in/
I'm quite amused by the mental gymnastics people go through to still go with the "good guy with a gun" narrative after this one. I always thought it was stupid, and I was never burdened by any positive notions about cops, and I am still dumbfounded at the level of ineptitude on display here.
At some point they'll have to release the body cam footage... that'll be quite something.
^^ This is why they need to arm the teachers, so they don't have to wait for the cops to grow a pair. Better yet, arm the kids.
SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade - ending 50 years of abortion rights in the US.
I mean... other countries looking better by the minute.
When's the brain drain?
Count me in on that one.
UK definitely looking for academics. Can't say the package is very attractive though.
The Onion is not fucking around.
https://i.imgur.com/eYuNmby.jpg
Truly shocking decision. A group of old, (probably) religious bigots think they can tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies, no matter what the circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Let's hope more than a few states see sense.
US obviously has not learned from UK policy to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda in order to deter people trafficking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61961871
Been a bit too busy watching the UK self-immolate to pay attention to the Jan. 6 hearings, but what glimpses I do get seem pretty wild.
Trump tryng to choke a Secret Service agent, and to grab the steering wheel to take them up to the Capitol so he could lead the insurrection, seem to be the highlights so far. Ironically, the Secret Service agent had to defend himself from the man he was sworn to protect.
:popcorn:
OMG, what did I miss?
I mean... I knew it was fucked up, but dayum.
Admittedly, she was testifying 2nd hand information in a lot of the juicy bits. She heard from someone who was there that described the thing that happened. She overheard a comment in the hallway or from the next room.
Her language was often, "He said something to the effect of..." indicating it's not a verbatim memory, but also when answering the same question in different settings, her answers vary around what follows that preface in a way that does seem consistently non-wolfy, if I may use such language. She seems to be making an honest recollection each time, and not sticking to one exact, manicured version of her story, I mean. Which tends to make me want to believe her.
But this can't be the end of the stories she told. They'll have to call people closer to these events to get their testimony.
There's a method to the process of starting with low-level clerks and people on the fringes of the people in power. The lower level clerks have nothing to lose, weren't as entrenched in their loyalties to a specific person, were perhaps still a bit naive in the pureness of governance.
Get those people with little to lose to testify first and implicate people closer to the center of it all, then slowly wedge your way through the layers and let each one pile blame on the next.
Apparently there was some secret service agent who was in the car who is prepared to testify under oath that she's fos, but if there is, they don't seem to be in any hurry to do so.
I mean I can believe he did something like that, or that he didn't. It's not like my opinion of him is going to change much either way. Still, it's good theater. If there was a mini-series made about of his presidency I'd definitely watch it.
I'm just amazed being afflicted by the 2nd hand fb smoke from a friend of an expat friend who's a staunch trumpie, commenting on all of this on FB. What about Hunter and Burisma, they're all RINOs, why aren't they broadcasting the "other viewpoints", we're all sheeple buying into the democrat brainwashing, "I haven't watched any of it".
The brain's one helluva drug. You've decided to believe one way, the brain's gonna do some pretty impressive gymnastics to protect you from having to challenge those ideas.
Btw ong get over his butthurt from being called a racist yet?
Who called me a racist?
I had a private chat with mojo, I pointed out there's a difference between butthurt and bored. I got bored of the conversation so withdrew. That's really all there is to it. It ceased to be a stimulating discussion for me.
Yeah ok.
Damn, Ong is turning into a real libtard. First he went all woke on me for using the word 'gammon,', now he's being a snowflake 'cause someone called him a racist.
Soon he'll be screaming to rejoin the EU.
Define "butthurt" for me guys, because it seems to me that by your idea of what it means, you're both butthurt that I'm not butthurt.
I mean, this is the quality of conversation here and you're wondering why I fuck off for a week or two.
Sorry, Mr. Wokey McSnowflake, we'll try not to hurt your feelings from now on.
You probably think this is funny, but it lacks humor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You're being a jerk.
Whether or not ong is offended by it, I don't allow direct insults and negativity.
If there's purpose to a greater discussion, if there's passionate debate of ideas and something crosses a line, I can be more forgiving and understanding.
Just firing negativity out of the blue is not allowed, here. You know better.
Don't be a jerk.
And no, being sarcastically hypocritical isn't any better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He's a big boy, he can handle a little ribbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Sure I can, I'm not complaining about you being a jerk. It's funny though how you kinda morally judge people for disagreeing with you, but while you and cocco are all "lol butthurt", mojo sent a private message to check if I'm ok. He's the nice guy here. Not me, not poop, not cocco. So next time you feel like taking moral high ground, think about that.
Stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You, too, are a big boy, and you know how to disagree respectfully.
This is the sentence you should be paying attention to.
Never go full banana.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You know what my stance is. You know where the line is.
You know you've crossed it.
I'm talking to you out of respect for your long history of being able to see reason when push comes to shove.
If some new poster showed up posting what you've just posted, it would be an insta-ban.
Take that to heart.
I am respectful of you as a person, and the history you have, here.
Please offer the rest of us the same.
No, you stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You're completely overreacting to a little gentle teasing between two people who've been on here for years like it's some kind of savage, deep personal insult.
You're absolutely right. It would never occur to me to send someone a private message to see if they're ok because one of their friends called them "butthurt" and another one called them "Wokey McSnowflake."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Right, because assuming that you're capable of handling a little teasing from your mates means I'm disqualified from taking a moral position on anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The irony is if I actually thought someone was a snowflake who would be upset by being called one I would never do it. So next time you feel like lecturing me on being a nice person, think about that.
Tbh, that sounds more like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well, it was because I hadn't posted in a long time, it was before cocco started this thrilling conversation. And it was more because my conversation with mojo was getting a bit heated and he was concerned he had offended me, not because he thought I was butthurt about anything you or cocco said. But bravo on thinking the world revolves around you.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
I was simply pointing out that you lack something that mojo has. I think that is empathy. And this isn't judgement either. I lack genuine empathy. I don't give a fuck about the feelings of other people, but I respect it when people take my feelings into consideration. I recognise that they are morally superior beings to myself.Quote:
Right, because assuming that you're capable of handling a little teasing from your mates means I'm disqualified from taking a moral position on anything.
You're not. You're my moral equal. You're not an asshole, but you're not a nice guy either. You're just a guy, just like me, only we have different opinions.
I hadn't been paying attention to that. Sorry. Afaict he was asking you if you were ok because we were teasing you.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I asked someone if they were ok just a few days ago. I take good care of my students too. It's not that I don't have empathy, it's that I expect a grown man to be able to handle some teasing, as I said. I didn't realise the two of you were arguing and that's what made him PM you.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think you are selling yourself short here. I think you tend to back off when someone is getting genuinely butthurt. You're not a complete dick ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Gee, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah but it's not because I care about other peoples' feelings, rather it's because I care about not wanting to be an arsehole. And I do care more about the feelings of people I like than people who I don't like or don't know. So I guess there's that. But for the most part, I have thick skin and expect everyone else to too.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
I mean there's more to empathy than this. Mojo and I were having a debate and it got a bit heated, he was saying things like "dude I'm your bro" and whatnot, implying he was at least somewhat offended by my tone. But that didn't stop him checking in on me and even apologising if I was offended. And here's where I'm not the person he is... I didn't apologise, largely because I didn't think there was any need, but that shows that I'm not thinking about his feelings quite as much as he is about mine. I only see it from my pov. This is why I think he's a better person than I am, why I lack the empathy he has.Quote:
I asked someone if they were ok just a few days ago.
This statement is like a pizza cutterQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
All edge and no point
I'm not under any impression that ong feels insulted. Nor am I insulted. Nor do I think anyone who may be reading this and not participating would think you actually insulted anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I apologize that I misstated myself and spoke in a way that gave you that impression.
I apologize for giving the impression that I was not respecting you as a person and individual.
That was not my intent.
Please forgive me.
***
I'm asking you kindly to respect the tone we've established on FTR.
Consider it a favor, if you like.
As far as I'm concerned there only needs to be 1 rule:
Treat everyone with respect and try not to be a dick.
I'd say this is two rules, but in pointing this out I feel like I might be breaking the second rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
Me when I come visit you next year.
http://forgifs.com/gallery/d/315392-...k-rage-fit.gif
Quality contribution there boost. Popcorn gif a week late. 9/10 would watch again.
You act like a week is off pace for this strange life support dependent corner of the internetQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Valid point.
Anyone surprised that Trump buried his ex-wife at one of his golf courses in a pauper's grave to gain some tax loophole?
Me neither.
I saw that. I assumed there was a sane explanation for it. If they really did it to legally make that land tax exempt, that would be incredible. That is movie villain levels of cunning.
There's no way though, right? If you could just bury your ex wife on your lot, making it legally a cemetery, in order to gain tax exempt status on that property, then everyone would do it.
Holy shit was that the voice of reason from Oskar?
Not a legal expert, but I assume a couple of things are true:
1) It has to be a business land, not your backyard for the tax status trick to work. I don't think you can just bury grandma in your backyard and claim your house is now a cemetary and you get a tax break. You can bury her there if you want, but if you're hoping for an economic reward from it, it's not coming.
2) Most people who own a business don't do this on their business' land because most people would find it disrespectful to the person they're burying there. Trump is not most people.
I'm sorry but if I were to die, and having me buried in a parking lot provided financial benefit to the family I've left behind, I wouldn't feel disrespected. I'd feel nothing because I'm dead, but if I was watching from heaven I'd be pleased.
I wonder what her family thinks of it.
I wouldn't care either if it was me. But I'd be surprised if anyone had asked her where she wanted to be buried and she said "wherever makes my ex-husband the most money."
Tbf though, what he did was probably more tasteful than this Tory MP doing a photo op with a brain-dead boy in a coma. The grinning is the cherry on the cake.
https://www.echo-news.co.uk/resource...ery-fullscreen
As distasteful as that is, presumably the other lady is a relative? They're both grinning like it's a completely normal photo op.
I think the other woman is his mom. I have no idea why she looks so happy. I think they're both a little off-center.
I can't believe the FBI would be so brazen as to desecrate hallowed ground!
The irony that he campaigned against Hillary Clinton saying that her private email servers contained classified documents that could be accessed by America's enemies - and that makes her ineligible to even run for POTUS.
If this is what they take him down for, it'll be like nailing Al Capone for taxes.
I think if they charge him for this it will mean widespread political violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Here's my thinking: they probably wouldn't have gotten a warrant if they were inconsequential classified documents and even less likely that they'd indict. The problem is, that means the public can't know what the documents in question are. So a pivotal piece of the trial is hidden, and Trump, et al, can spin conspiracy theories of persecution in that information void.
Look at how mainstream republicans have reacted to just the search. They want him to go away, but no individual one is willing to give up his base, and so their only option is to toe the line, further ratcheting up tensions. It's a twisted version of the preWWI european alliance powder keg.
Saw "Mar a Lardo" trending on twitter last nite and I have to say I can't believe it took until 2022 for someone to come up with that.
The state of USA politics right now...
"We have created ten thousand million jobs"
And I thought the UK was a shitshow.
Not following things too closely these days, but looks like the Rs are a bit disappointed they didn't have a bigger success at the midterms.
Also, a lot of the guys Trump endorsed went down in flames. Good times.
Rumours are the Orange Menace is threatening to run again in 2024. If it's him against Biden I guess the one who survives to Nov. 24 wins.
I heard Trump was waiting until after the mid-terms to see if his cronies had taken enough positions of power to guarantee him a win in 2024. Many election officials from 2020 left the job after receiving death threats, and those positions were open to be filled, and a lot of election deniers were trying to get those jobs.
So... we'll all just wait and see, I guess.
I believe there are many people in the republican party who secretly wish Trump would choke on a cheeseburger before 2024. If he can walk, he will run. He seems to have some dumb feud with DeSantis. If for nothing else, he'll run so he can do rallys. He loves to do those... complain about the 2020 election to a captive audience, do little YMCA dance, eat McDonalds on the flight home.
The fear is that most likely DeSantis will run away with the nomination and Trump won't endorse him.
"Better than Washington, better than Lincoln. " lol
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/s...33487926706177