I'm heading north of the border ASAP, this country is going to shit fast.
03-27-2017 07:06 PM
#676
| |
|
I'm heading north of the border ASAP, this country is going to shit fast. |
03-27-2017 07:08 PM
#677
| |
|
Plus, I am a diehard hockey fan... |
03-28-2017 01:14 AM
#678
| |
| |
03-28-2017 01:17 AM
#679
| |
Shitpost for the day: People want to believe in conspiracies because the thought of a bunch of flawed humans trying their best and not having the answer to every problem is tremendously more terrifying than the thought of an evil organization pulling strings from the shadows. At least someone is in control in the conspiracy theorist's mind. | |
| |
03-28-2017 04:33 AM
#680
| |
I don't want to believe in conspiracy theories. I just do. Shows what you know about what's going on in our heads. | |
| |
03-28-2017 05:25 AM
#681
| |
03-28-2017 06:39 AM
#682
| |
I disagree and I don't need to defend myself because this is the shitposting thread. | |
| |
03-28-2017 06:41 AM
#683
| |
| |
03-28-2017 07:22 AM
#684
| |
| |
| |
03-28-2017 08:21 AM
#685
| |
Well yeah everyone knows this. How many people go about their daily lives thinking the government are faking terrorist attacks in order to maintain a climate of fear? There's different levels of distrust in government. Everyone expects there to be corruption, that isn't what I mean by "not your friend". | |
| |
03-28-2017 08:42 AM
#686
| |
|
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/2...ginia-governor |
03-28-2017 11:59 AM
#687
| |
|
What I find fascinating is that people who have absolutely no understanding of how Trump works or how his base operates all have such big opinions on current events. Their views of the healthcare thing especially showed that echo chamber at fullest power. |
03-28-2017 12:44 PM
#688
| |
| |
03-28-2017 12:58 PM
#689
| |
| |
03-28-2017 01:42 PM
#690
| |
| |
03-28-2017 02:20 PM
#691
| |
|
It's a convenient excuse to keep up the cognitive dissonance. |
03-28-2017 04:32 PM
#692
| |
| |
| |
03-29-2017 07:28 AM
#693
| |
| |
03-29-2017 07:31 AM
#694
| |
| |
| |
03-29-2017 09:02 AM
#695
| |
|
So are these really the only two choices? |
03-31-2017 07:36 AM
#696
| |
| |
| |
03-31-2017 07:40 AM
#697
| |
| |
04-07-2017 05:05 PM
#698
| |
| |
| |
04-07-2017 10:16 PM
#699
| |
^^ | |
04-07-2017 10:35 PM
#700
| |
| |
04-08-2017 03:53 PM
#701
| |
I can't remember the source but here's my shitpost of the day from twitter: | |
| |
04-08-2017 09:39 PM
#702
| |
"Trump appoints Ivanka to head anti-nepotism task force." | |
08-16-2017 10:48 PM
#703
| |
|
lolo |
09-02-2017 11:14 PM
#704
| |
|
|
09-27-2017 10:06 AM
#705
| |
| |
Last edited by boost; 09-27-2017 at 10:08 AM. | |
09-27-2017 06:15 PM
#706
| |
|
hmmm i dont get it |
09-28-2017 09:35 AM
#707
| |
| |
10-04-2017 06:26 AM
#708
| |
So yet another mass shooting. But it's not a time to talk about gun control yet again. Obviously, there is never a time to talk about gun control | |
| |
10-04-2017 06:53 AM
#709
| |
| |
10-04-2017 05:06 PM
#710
| |
If anyone is taking the bait it's you, believing all this tinfoil hat stuff about false flag mass shootings to encourage gun control. You probably think Soros is behind it, and he's quietly been acquiring a monopoly on crossbows for years. | |
10-04-2017 05:59 PM
#711
| |
Fair enough. Sort of. | |
| |
10-04-2017 06:27 PM
#712
| |
|
Having skepticism about an opinion one comes to through emotion is a virtue. |
10-04-2017 06:40 PM
#713
| |
The danger is that the illogical conclusions that are drawn distract from the logical concerns that caused the doubt in the first place. This is why it's so easy to mock conspiracy theorists... the conclusions often are batshit and worthy of mockery. But the questions... they remain legit. | |
| |
10-04-2017 06:48 PM
#714
| |
|
Wictor hasn't fucked off twitter. His on time is different than your hours and it's the same each day. |
10-04-2017 06:51 PM
#715
| |
Fucked off in the temporary "fuck this shit, going for a beer" sense, rather than "fuck off forever" sense. | |
| |
10-04-2017 06:52 PM
#716
| |
|
You might wanna check out Jonathan Langdale at langdaleca. I haven't checked yet but I think he is on the two shooters train. He and Wictor are two of my most interesting reads. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't, sometimes they're both probably right, sometimes they're probably not. Among their most strong opinions is Langdale is 100% in belief that the DNC killed Seth Rich and Wictor is 100% in belief they did not. |
10-04-2017 06:58 PM
#717
| |
I'm 100% sure the Russians didn't hack shit. I'm pretty sure Seth Rich was the source of the leaks, but as for who had him killed, well the DNC would be the most obvious candidate based on speculation, that's all I can really say. | |
| |
10-04-2017 07:01 PM
#718
| |
| |
10-04-2017 07:16 PM
#719
| |
|
We know Russia has a near 0 probability of having done the deed since that narrative began as obfuscation and has never relied on evidence. |
10-04-2017 07:19 PM
#720
| |
|
His primary account is private (and probably not even his primary anymore) because Twitter has fucked him over multiple times after he said mean things about some favored politicians. You can get all his important stuff from his secondary account (which appears to be probably the primary now). |
10-04-2017 07:24 PM
#721
| |
| |
10-05-2017 09:21 AM
#722
| |
Hey wuf, it's taken me the best part of ten minutes just to scroll through two days of Wictor's tweets. Admittedly I'm getting distracted and reading some of them, but I can't even remember when he posted the threads I'm looking for. Between a month and two months ago. | |
| |
10-05-2017 09:25 AM
#723
| |
I think these threads are hard to find because the key words I'm searching for are spread across tweets. | |
| |
10-05-2017 02:33 PM
#724
| |
|
I used to think like this, but I'm actually starting to come around to the other side. It's actually NOT the right time to talk about gun control. |
10-05-2017 02:58 PM
#725
| |
| |
10-05-2017 06:23 PM
#726
| |
|
And some of it (from a minority) is a push to do what is required to control the citizenry. |
10-05-2017 06:25 PM
#727
| |
| |
10-05-2017 06:37 PM
#728
| |
|
Most of the outrage against guns is sincere (at least sincerely emotional). But the culture of outrage over guns possibly emerges from sinister narrative pressure. When a bomb blows up, nobody blames the bomb but instead the bomber. When a car is used to plow over people, the car is not blamed but instead the driver. Why is it different regarding guns? Perhaps because that became the norm, which was perhaps created by state-authoritarian ideologues. Given that state-authority revolutions are by far the most significant revolutions in modern history, it's pretty amazing that we've avoided the worst of it in this time. |
10-05-2017 06:40 PM
#729
| |
|
|
10-05-2017 06:43 PM
#730
| |
|
Especially ironic in that the proclaimed current head of the political elite by "gun control" advocates' is their archnemesis: Literal Hitler (Trump). |
10-05-2017 11:54 PM
#731
| |
| |
10-06-2017 03:24 AM
#732
| |
I'm pretty sure people would call for bomb control if they were sold over-the-counter with no background checks. | |
| |
10-06-2017 07:29 AM
#733
| |
Some whatsapp chain message | |
| |
10-06-2017 01:36 PM
#734
| |
|
The narrative that there are not already a bunch of regulations on firearm purchases (like background checks) is wrong. |
10-06-2017 01:37 PM
#735
| |
| |
10-06-2017 02:31 PM
#736
| |
Ok. Probably never heard about the private sale loophole | |
| |
10-06-2017 02:33 PM
#737
| |
| |
10-07-2017 11:05 AM
#738
| |
|
Private sale does not function the way firearm antagonists think. |
10-09-2017 11:14 AM
#739
| |
| |
| |
10-09-2017 11:26 AM
#740
| |
Of course it doesn't. Nothing ever does, it seems. There is always very important detail(s) that no one sees, in partular the antagonists. | |
| |
10-09-2017 11:28 AM
#741
| |
10-09-2017 11:46 AM
#742
| |
Also Wuf, when you keep accusing people who disagree with you of having a problem with their mental processes like cognitive dissonance or this or that bias, you're essentially making an ad hominen argument yourself, which is no argument at all. Just sayin'. | |
10-09-2017 11:53 AM
#743
| |
| |
10-09-2017 12:39 PM
#744
| |
10-09-2017 05:27 PM
#745
| |
|
If you are responding to an argument by not responding to that argument, a possible productive response to your non-response is to point out that it was a non-response. I point out cognitive dissonances because they are non-responses to arguments and I desire to stick to the argument. It's a more illuminating way of implying "you didn't address the point" than saying "you didn't address the point" because it provides some explanation that allows the person to examine how it was that he/she indeed didn't address the point. |
10-09-2017 05:35 PM
#746
| |
| |
10-09-2017 05:36 PM
#747
| |
|
BTW Mr Doop I appreciate you expressing your concern on the cognitive dissonance thing. |
10-09-2017 05:41 PM
#748
| |
|
To specifically address your claim that pointing out cognitive dissonances is ad hominem, I don't think it is. Ad hominem is when essentially you attack the person instead of the argument. When I point out cognitive dissonances, I have no intention of addressing the person making them, but to address the argument. It's like this: if you get straw manned, pointing out that the person erected a straw man is not ad hominem. Pointing out the straw man is useful to understand what is and what isn't addressing the arguments and it can help keep the subsequent arguments relevant to the original arguments. |
10-09-2017 05:49 PM
#749
| |
|
The other day I saw a billboard that sparked disagreement in me. I went on about a ten minutes intellectual exercise explaining why the claim of the billboard was wrong, but then I realized my very first response to the claim was cognitive dissonance on my own part. That means that the rest of my argument was basically irrelevant. I was arguing against an illusion. |
10-09-2017 05:55 PM
#750
| |
|
How does one go about solving for cognitive dissonance? It can be hard, but it's doable. Take a step back and address the claim head on, like yes or no and why it is or isn't true. Then if you want to make a different argument that carries with it implication that the impact of the previous claim is not that important, that's fine. |