Octopus Overlords

Good times.

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:28 pm
So far Trump has rattled more cages than anyone in recent memory.
I'm okay with that.

So rattling cages is the end goal?

Are you trying to fill the vacuum left by Rip?

What good has come of rattling the cages?

Would you be okay with a President Schumer rattling the cage?

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:34 pm Ya know.....I went to lunch and I pondered this over a nice Jersey Mikes #17.
As I sat there I noticed that other customers were coming in and NOT ordering #17.
I stood up and asked them why and anyone that couldn't explain why they weren't ordering a #17, I berated them until they came around to my way of thinking and ordered a #17. Turns out some of them were vegan and #17 is Philly Steak, but hey, f em.
They couldn't explain why they didn't want a #17 to my satisfaction, so they got what they deserved.
I only wish I had a few friends with me to make me feel more like I was doing the right thing.

When did you decide to descend into full on Troll? Holding an opinion over a sandwich is not even remotely the same as holding an opinion over which side has acted less responsibly over the last few decades. That you refuse to even try and educate yourself or look at any facts, or even provide any facts, simply shows you are posting just to bother others and not to even attempt a true dialouge. Sad.

Yeah....I'm the troll.....

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:34 pm Ya know.....I went to lunch and I pondered this over a nice Jersey Mikes #17.
As I sat there I noticed that other customers were coming in and NOT ordering #17.
I stood up and asked them why and anyone that couldn't explain why they weren't ordering a #17, I berated them until they came around to my way of thinking and ordered a #17. Turns out some of them were vegan and #17 is Philly Steak, but hey, f em.
They couldn't explain why they didn't want a #17 to my satisfaction, so they got what they deserved.
I only wish I had a few friends with me to make me feel more like I was doing the right thing.

If getting a new administration, or even a new policy stance, was as easy as ordering a sandwich you might have an analogy there.

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:34 pm Ya know.....I went to lunch and I pondered this over a nice Jersey Mikes #17.
As I sat there I noticed that other customers were coming in and NOT ordering #17.
I stood up and asked them why and anyone that couldn't explain why they weren't ordering a #17, I berated them until they came around to my way of thinking and ordered a #17. Turns out some of them were vegan and #17 is Philly Steak, but hey, f em.
They couldn't explain why they didn't want a #17 to my satisfaction, so they got what they deserved.
I only wish I had a few friends with me to make me feel more like I was doing the right thing.

You're not good at analogies, are you?

No, but the sandwich was delicious!!
Isn't that whats important here?

Alefroth wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:40 pm
So rattling cages is the end goal?

Are you trying to fill the vacuum left by Rip?

stimpy's not talking about rattling our cages, specifically. Those clowns' cages in Washington. He's not trolling, let alone trolling the forum specifically like Rip did. He's got himself in a bit of a pickle and decided to treat it like a personal attack (which, to be fair, is part of it at this point, mostly because it's 2019 and "My opinion is as valid as the next person's" has been mockworthy for decades) instead of an actual discussion on his thoughts on the matter.

If I were to go into the drumpster fire subreddit and declare drumpf a career criminal and traitor to the office, it'd be me versus a 100 people, not 5-10. That said, I would put some facts on the table to back it up. And with that said, I'd never do it in the first place since any ardent drumpf supporter is not going to be swayed by facts at this point anyway, so the whole endeavor would be a waste of time and energy.

if stimpy spends a little time thinking about why he holds the opinions he does, I'll consider the effort worth it. I don't care if he tells us about it. I don't actually enjoy giving him a hard time, contrary to appearances. I've held more than one opinion that was both unpopular here and not thought through. Some of those I've changed. Some I'm still working on. Some I continue to defiantly hold. All have been seriously thought about and this forum has helped me with that. I hope it helps him too, no matter how unpleasant an experience it is.

In Trump America, shit gives YOU!

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:07 pm

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:34 pm Ya know.....I went to lunch and I pondered this over a nice Jersey Mikes #17.
As I sat there I noticed that other customers were coming in and NOT ordering #17.
I stood up and asked them why and anyone that couldn't explain why they weren't ordering a #17, I berated them until they came around to my way of thinking and ordered a #17. Turns out some of them were vegan and #17 is Philly Steak, but hey, f em.
They couldn't explain why they didn't want a #17 to my satisfaction, so they got what they deserved.
I only wish I had a few friends with me to make me feel more like I was doing the right thing.

You're not good at analogies, are you?

It doesn't help that Jersey Mike's is no good either.

NickAragua wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:13 pm In Trump America, shit gives YOU!

I think I would have gone with Amerika though.

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:11 pm
stimpy's not talking about rattling our cages, specifically. Those clowns' cages in Washington. He's not trolling, let alone trolling the forum specifically like Rip did.

I wasn't actually invoking Rip's legendary trolling capabilities, but his idea that what the government needed was a good dose of chaos.

Which got me thinking- Which D&D alignment do you think the federal govt. should be, and what is it currently?

I'd say it should be lawful neutral. Currently it's getting pretty close to chaotic evil.

pr0ner wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:26 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:07 pm

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:34 pm Ya know.....I went to lunch and I pondered this over a nice Jersey Mikes #17.
As I sat there I noticed that other customers were coming in and NOT ordering #17.
I stood up and asked them why and anyone that couldn't explain why they weren't ordering a #17, I berated them until they came around to my way of thinking and ordered a #17. Turns out some of them were vegan and #17 is Philly Steak, but hey, f em.
They couldn't explain why they didn't want a #17 to my satisfaction, so they got what they deserved.
I only wish I had a few friends with me to make me feel more like I was doing the right thing.

You're not good at analogies, are you?

It doesn't help that Jersey Mike's is no good either.

You are entitled to your opinion.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:37 pm You are entitled to your opinion.

...but not your own facts

2 pages. Wow. In my opinion, that's wagon circling territory. If I were stimpy, I wouldn't want to engage in nearly 20 different directions of people weighing in on my diary of a gaze at the political theater, either. I guess maybe the many to one relationship, rather than a few to many relationship may make it less wagon circling and more surrounding, so perhaps my opinion is uninformed and I should re-evalute. 2 pages. Wow.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:37 pm

pr0ner wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:26 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:07 pm

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:34 pm Ya know.....I went to lunch and I pondered this over a nice Jersey Mikes #17.
As I sat there I noticed that other customers were coming in and NOT ordering #17.
I stood up and asked them why and anyone that couldn't explain why they weren't ordering a #17, I berated them until they came around to my way of thinking and ordered a #17. Turns out some of them were vegan and #17 is Philly Steak, but hey, f em.
They couldn't explain why they didn't want a #17 to my satisfaction, so they got what they deserved.
I only wish I had a few friends with me to make me feel more like I was doing the right thing.

You're not good at analogies, are you?

It doesn't help that Jersey Mike's is no good either.

You are entitled to your opinion.

No, he's not.

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:52 pm Yeah....I'm the troll.....

Not the biggest troll, but troll nonetheless.

Unagi wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:42 am

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:43 am

Unagi wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:39 am Secret is out. Stimpy supports Wall.

Not really.
stimpy just doesn't support Politicians playing games and carrying on with business as usual.
For better or worse, to me it's just kinda refreshing to see someone try and stick to their campaign promises.
<snip>

<snip>
The campaign promise was that Mexico would pay for the wall.

Could we get back to the part where you said you were refreshed by Trump trying to keep his campaign promise?

Is it your opinion that we live in Mexico?

Ya know, between the delicious #17 sandwich and all the responses, this troll is feeling kinda full for now.
I'm gonna go start preparing my snack tray for tonight.

LordMortis wrote:2 pages. Wow. In my opinion, that's wagon circling territory. If I were stimpy, I wouldn't want to engage in nearly 20 different directions of people weighing in on my diary of a gaze at the political theater, either. I guess maybe the many to one relationship, rather than a few to many relationship may make it less wagon circling and more surrounding, so perhaps my opinion is uninformed and I should re-evalute. 2 pages. Wow.

Honestly it's true. I don't agree with stimpy at all, but do people expect a serious response to this kind of ganging up? It's... Not conductive to the very discussions everyone is trying to say they are seeking. Even if stimpy wanted to give his opinion it's not very fun to give a counter argument here. How those who continue these ganging up conversations don't see that is beyond me.

Chrisoc13 wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:37 pm

LordMortis wrote:2 pages. Wow. In my opinion, that's wagon circling territory. If I were stimpy, I wouldn't want to engage in nearly 20 different directions of people weighing in on my diary of a gaze at the political theater, either. I guess maybe the many to one relationship, rather than a few to many relationship may make it less wagon circling and more surrounding, so perhaps my opinion is uninformed and I should re-evalute. 2 pages. Wow.

Honestly it's true. I don't agree with stimpy at all, but do people expect a serious response to this kind of ganging up? It's... Not conductive to the very discussions everyone is trying to say they are seeking. Even if stimpy wanted to give his opinion it's not very fun to give a counter argument here. How those who continue these ganging up conversations don't see that is beyond me.

The difference between what stimpy is doing, however, and what happens when most people bring up a contrary opinion (as you've done in the past, and as I've done in the past) is stark. stimpy doesn't appear to be trying to engage in good faith. Even when people are disagreeing with you, no one is calling you a troll (at least I hope not), because you address arguments (until you get too frustrated, that is ).

The nature of the beast around these parts is that people with opinions that are contrary to the majority (i.e., stuff that leans right) tend to get a lot of responses, and responding to those responses can get overwhelming. The people who are doing the responses aren't intentionally "ganging up", though. It's just that they have something they want to say on the topic. Sure, it's often something that's often been said before (although perhaps in a different way), but how are we going to reasonably stop people from engaging in discussion?

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:44 pmbut how are we going to reasonably stop people from engaging in discussion?

Have you considered some type of electronic barrier to the site? Something like a firewall? The internet isn't sending its best people here.

Smoove_B wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:49 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:44 pmbut how are we going to reasonably stop people from engaging in discussion?

Have you considered some type of electronic barrier to the site? Something like a firewall? The internet isn't sending its best people here.

And qt3 should pay for it.

Most, if not all, of the responses to my posts have been filled with snark or judgmental comments.
Trying to elicit a reasonable discussion under those circumstances is shaky at best.
Especially when you're dealing with someone who wont back down and considers themselves quite snarky too when need be.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Chrisoc13 wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:37 pm

LordMortis wrote:2 pages. Wow. In my opinion, that's wagon circling territory. If I were stimpy, I wouldn't want to engage in nearly 20 different directions of people weighing in on my diary of a gaze at the political theater, either. I guess maybe the many to one relationship, rather than a few to many relationship may make it less wagon circling and more surrounding, so perhaps my opinion is uninformed and I should re-evalute. 2 pages. Wow.

Honestly it's true. I don't agree with stimpy at all, but do people expect a serious response to this kind of ganging up? It's... Not conductive to the very discussions everyone is trying to say they are seeking. Even if stimpy wanted to give his opinion it's not very fun to give a counter argument here. How those who continue these ganging up conversations don't see that is beyond me.

The difference between what stimpy is doing, however, and what happens when most people bring up a contrary opinion (as you've done in the past, and as I've done in the past) is stark. stimpy doesn't appear to be trying to engage in good faith. Even when people are disagreeing with you, no one is calling you a troll (at least I hope not), because you address arguments (until you get too frustrated, that is ).

The nature of the beast around these parts is that people with opinions that are contrary to the majority (i.e., stuff that leans right) tend to get a lot of responses, and responding to those responses can get overwhelming. The people who are doing the responses aren't intentionally "ganging up", though. It's just that they have something they want to say on the topic. Sure, it's often something that's often been said before (although perhaps in a different way), but how are we going to reasonably stop people from engaging in discussion?

I honestly think if people see someone posting something they don't agree with stop and see how many people are already responding. If it's greater than 1... I don't know maybe show some constraint? Observe for a minute?

Nobody has to change anything they are doing. But if people don't think it is stifling conversation in here... It is from at least one point, I assume I'm not alone. If that's what people want then fine but it's something worth thinking about.

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:07 pm Most, if not all, of the responses to my posts have been filled with snark or judgmental comments.

And yet those are the ones you choose to respond to, ignoring the others.

stimpy wrote:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion

Opinions can still be sorted into varying degrees of quality. Shouldn’t people strive to have rational, supportable opinions?

This idea that conversation stifles conversation is new to me. If one doesn't want others to engage with their ideas / opinions, why post them on a public forum?

Zaxxon wrote:This idea that conversation stifles conversation is new to me. If one doesn't want others to engage with their ideas / opinions, why post them on a public forum?

I personally don't want to have to respond to a constant stream of opposition. I don't mind engaging in conversation, but yes piling on can stifle conversation.

I get that in certain cases, largely when those piling on are trolls. But that's not what's happening here (or, frankly, what ever really happens here). In this case, the poster in question posits poorly thought-out drivel, then refuses to engage.

That's not a reason to avoid response.

Zaxxon wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:01 pm I get that in certain cases, largely when those piling on are trolls. But that's not what's happening here (or, frankly, what ever really happens here). In this case, the poster in question posits poorly thought-out drivel, then refuses to engage.

That's not a reason to avoid response.

Who the fuck are you to judge my posts as poorly thought out drivel???
Sorry I don't measure up to the eloquent posts you make. Don't read them. You may get stupid. Like me.
Oh sorry...you're not trolling, are ya?

Zaxxon wrote:I get that in certain cases, largely when those piling on are trolls. But that's not what's happening here (or, frankly, what ever really happens here). In this case, the poster in question posits poorly thought-out drivel, then refuses to engage.

That's not a reason to avoid response.

It pushes some personalities into troll mode. And I get it, because it's very frustrating to respond to.

I'm not speaking hypothetically, I'm speaking from personal experience. I rarely post my opinion in here if it is counter to the general known consensus anymore because I simply don't have time or desire to deal with endless piling on. Once you defend one point of view boom 3 or 4 more people have 1 or 2 posts each. And then people are asking why you aren't responding directly to their point etc. It's exhausting and gives a very unwelcoming feeling to any opinions that aren't mainstream OO. Because it's never just "huh, interesting you have another opinion" it's much more judgemental and strong.

Anyways I've said my piece about it and I won't have time to respond more tonight on it so don't take it as anything other than lack of time if I don't respond again, but people should stop and think what they want this forum to be. If they want it to be mostly same mind people speaking with slight variations to debate over than the way things are going is working fine. But don't expect much more than what happened today. Write stimpy off as a troll all you want, but I bet this conversation would have gone differently if it has been approached differently.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... et%20Troll
Look familiar to any of you?

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:07 pm Most, if not all, of the responses to my posts have been filled with snark or judgmental comments.

I wasn't being snarky. I truly wanna urinate on your copier.

Only if I can mousse your hair while you're doing it.

hepcat wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:16 pm

stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:07 pm Most, if not all, of the responses to my posts have been filled with snark or judgmental comments.

I wasn't being snarky. I truly wanna urinate on your copier.

PC Load Urine?

Chrisoc13 wrote:I rarely post my opinion in here if it is counter to the general known consensus anymore because I simply don't have time or desire to deal with endless piling on. Once you defend one point of view boom 3 or 4 more people have 1 or 2 posts each. And then people are asking why you aren't responding directly to their point etc. It's exhausting and gives a very unwelcoming feeling to any opinions that aren't mainstream OO. Because it's never just "huh, interesting you have another opinion" it's much more judgemental and strong.

I hear you. It can certainly be a pain to hold an opinion that runs counter to the majority. And be exhausting. I'm with you 100%. But I still come back to it being a choice to share a particular post. I legitimately don't understand the desire to post something but simultaneously desire that others not interact with that post. Why post, then?

people should stop and think what they want this forum to be. If they want it to be mostly same mind people speaking with slight variations to debate over than the way things are going is working fine.

I want this to be a place where folks of differing opinions can share and engage. And I think in general, it is (despite pr0ner being clearly wrong in his opinion of Jersey Mike's).

But one has to accept that when sharing an opinion, if you aren't prepared to back it up via further discourse, you run the risk of others continuing the discussion without you. That's literally what a forum is.

But don't expect much more than what happened today. Write stimpy off as a troll all you want, but I bet this conversation would have gone differently if it has been approached differently.

I don't think this incident is all that relevant. Frankly, some opinions are worth more than others, and some are flatly wrong. The current political environment has brought out the knives more than in the past, but a large piece of that is that while everyone's entitled to an opinion, not every opinion is deserving of respect.

Maybe stimpy would be more open to friendly engagement if others here had come in with arms open and weapons sheathed, but those interactions are informed by prior postings by stimpy. Plainly, we all know stimpy's MO, and know that (s)he's highly unlikely to listen to reason. A day's discussion doesn't occur in a vacuum.

I just noticed you're a moderator.....lol.
That explains a lot.
And do tell, oh wise one.....what exactly is my MO and show me what led you to that OPINION?
(That should buy me 45 minutes....)

Chrisoc13 wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:10 pmbut I bet this conversation would have gone differently if it has been approached differently.

If a person posts an opinion about a human rights issue, they take a position that might be considered morally objectionable or we've fully established that the person in question is a card-carrying deplorable, I think I'm ok with a group of people piling on said poster and giving them the business. To clarify, I'm not claiming any of those things here or for anyone in particular. I'm just saying (to paraphrase elsewhere), I don't need to tolerate your (collective) intolerance. I don't need to respect a position that's couched in ignorance (in the truest sense of the word) just because you (collective) believe it.

If you post your opinion on agricultural practices or Fitbits and repeatedly get dog-piled, that's definitely an issue.

Stimpy, no idea what you're looking for, but here's five cents you didn't ask for but I will share, heh. You, like most RP posters, make posts that are amalgamation of opinions and facts (often offered to support said opinions). One thing I learned way back in Gone Gold days is that there is a pretty smart and experienced bunch of posters here (dwindling in the age of reddit and FB but still). If I post testable facts I should be fully prepared to be challenged and have citations or I get exposed as having my facts wrong. This happened to me back in GG days over some Israeli RP issues and I was pretty thoroughly debunked. Over the years after that and increased study, I came to realize my old opinions were based on more bias than information and today my views are quite different. I share this, because I see you sharing testable facts that very clearly don't hold up and I don't see you replying with any sources to back up your facts. So all we are left with is your opinion that everything is a dialectic, both sides are and shall always be equally to blame. Or something, I am still frankly even struggling with defining your thesis.

To wit, when you post things like:

Dems haven't been able to or been concerned enough to do shit about it in how many years that they were in control.

That is not an opinion. We can actually go back and explore the history of border protection and immigration actions and see, in other words what you're stating is a testable fact. So do you have any sources that prove this? You don't. Fact is that border spending has absolutely skyrocketed as of late under both R and D presidents and particularly under labor/union Dems, the Bushes and Obama. Since 2000, the border wall has gone from well under 100 miles to well over 600. The amount of border troops has skyrocketed. We can go on and on, but why when you are apparently conflating fact with opinion. Don't believe me?

Here, from a conservative source just in case that matters to you,

President Obama has a mixed record on immigration. On one hand, he is the most stringent enforcer of immigration laws in American history — far outstripping the deportation numbers of the George W. Bush and earlier administrations. On the other hand, his executive actions have helped shield large swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation. [ed. note: read DACA ]

The Obama administration has deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants. This record-setting pace of deportations holds up even when counting only those from the interior of the United States — 1.18 million of them under Obama’s watch. By contrast, the Bush administration deported 2 million people and a confirmed 555,164 from the interior of the United States. Interior deportation numbers for the first two years of the Bush administration aren’t available but under any realistic assumption his numbers could not possibly exceed Obama’s.

The chance that an illegal immigrant will be deported under the Obama administration is an average of 1.48 a year compared to 0.83 percent under the Bush administration. The Obama administration has surged enforcement immigration laws against employers — issuing 15.5 times as many fines against employers and 8.3 times as many arrests for violating immigration laws as his predecessor. Detention for those who crossed the border has also increased under the Obama administration — including for many of the roughly 227,000 children and families who have surged across the border since 2010.

There is just no two ways about it, President Obama initiated and expanded a harsher immigration enforcement regime than President Bush or any other President in American history.

Now, I don't see eye to eye with CATO on everything but I can't argue with their facts that Obama increased DACA protections while simultaneously increasing border enforcement on an almost epic level. Sorting out whether those odd-bedfellows of policies are a good match is when we get to apply opinion and more facts. But opinions by themselves without nurturing facts are just a gateway drug to bias. And of course, just like assholes, everyone has got one.

Edit: Border security spending really got kicking in the modern age in 1986 after one of the most recent major overhauls of the immigration/border system.