officespace wrote:I dunno I see nothing wrong in what Dave Mac said. I said basically the exact same thing to Warren when I read it and he said that he worded it stupidly.
-Darren
I agree that dave was right about this one. I just thought it was funny that he portrayed himself as the protector of the little guy in earlier posts and then turns around and gets self-righteous on someone else. Warren worded that post badly, no argument. But he's apologized and explained what he meant, so no harm done.
No self righteousness here, was just pointing out a flawed statement. Unlike you did in the earlier thread you brought up, I did not call Warren an idiot, or get angry with him, or try and tear him down. I did not make it personal or proclaim my intellectual superiority as evidence of me being right.
I made a point, point was taken, we can further discuss or not discuss. No one is gonna get overly tender and lash out. I admit that I used sarcasm to make my point, but I hardly equate that with the tactics you used in said earlier interaction. I partly used the sarcasm because I have observed the twins being fairly conscience people and that the wouldn't intently be discriminatory.
yeah I take no offense to what what Dave Mac said. It was defiantly a stupid thing to say and I defiantly should've worded it better. I still stand behind my statement of course but it was a terrible way to word it.
-Warren
age of quarrel wrote:No one poser exposes me more than the twins
officespace wrote:I dunno I see nothing wrong in what Dave Mac said. I said basically the exact same thing to Warren when I read it and he said that he worded it stupidly.
-Darren
I agree that dave was right about this one. I just thought it was funny that he portrayed himself as the protector of the little guy in earlier posts and then turns around and gets self-righteous on someone else. Warren worded that post badly, no argument. But he's apologized and explained what he meant, so no harm done.
No self righteousness here, was just pointing out a flawed statement. Unlike you did in the earlier thread you brought up, I did not call Warren an idiot, or get angry with him, or try and tear him down. I did not make it personal or proclaim my intellectual superiority as evidence of me being right.
I made a point, point was taken, we can further discuss or not discuss. No one is gonna get overly tender and lash out.
You know what? You're right when you say that I was a complete ass in that thread. I won't deny that. I fucked up. It happens. I also realized that I was wrong and apologized, and as far as I know things between him and I are fine.
Just because no one was hurt by what you said this time doesn't mean that you weren't acting self-righteous or that the post wasn't worded shitty. It just meant you got lucky. If you had posted this first:
dave mac wrote:
Yeah man, Yemen could very likely devolve into chaos if there was a power void. The fact that there is ramapant poverty, drug use and a penchant for extremism definitely lends to this possibility. I certainly wasn't arguing that. I'm just saying that the using the phrase "drug-addled yokels" is somewhat akin to racism. Though I doubt that was your intent.
If you think about it, words we use such as Yokel, or Red-Neck, or White Trash (the latter two likely never being ascribed to a yemeni) are terms which we ascribe to people for the most part because they are poor and/or uneducated. We do this in a pejorative sense, much in the same way we use racial slurs. We do this because of the society we live in exalts financial success over everything else and it is ingrained in us to think this way.
If we use a different example, say we were talking about inner city problems in certain US cities. And we were talking about the possibility of community based solutions in South Central or East St. Louis or ... (communities with some drug use problems, though I am not trying to equate the said problems of Yemen and Inner City America) and I chimed in and said that I didn't have much hope for this approach because "The residents of those communities are largely drug-addled yokels". Ouch, you know?
I wouldn't even have commented on it. Instead you belittled him. Again, you were right. But that doesn't mean you have the right to make a statement that is loaded with sarcasm and moral superiority. Just because it wasn't as bad as what I said doesn't make it okay. It just makes it less-worse.
ZACH ATTACK wrote:Do drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. The harder the better. Then you'll go from being lonely to wishing that everybody would just fuck off because their a bunch of fucking buzzkills going on about how 'you've got a problem" and they "just want to be their to help you". You don't need any of them. You just need drugs.
officespace wrote:yeah I take no offense to what what Dave Mac said. It was defiantly a stupid thing to say and I defiantly should've worded it better. I still stand behind my statement of course but it was a terrible way to word it.
-Warren
Cool. Seems like you were able to take that like an adult. Good on ya.
ZACH ATTACK wrote:Do drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. The harder the better. Then you'll go from being lonely to wishing that everybody would just fuck off because their a bunch of fucking buzzkills going on about how 'you've got a problem" and they "just want to be their to help you". You don't need any of them. You just need drugs.
Seems a lot of those "looters" have government ID and government issued weapons. HOW INTERESTING/NOT SURPRISING IN THE LEAST.
ZACH ATTACK wrote:Do drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. The harder the better. Then you'll go from being lonely to wishing that everybody would just fuck off because their a bunch of fucking buzzkills going on about how 'you've got a problem" and they "just want to be their to help you". You don't need any of them. You just need drugs.
officespace wrote:No I say that because 80% of males and 45% of women in Yemen chew khat. They of course are undereducated in a western sense. Of course it is not their fault, but that doesn't make it any less true. Maybe it wasn't the best wording, but it defiantly is a problem if they hope to "grow" their country(for a lack of a better wording).
Yeah man, Yemen could very likely devolve into chaos if there was a power void. The fact that there is ramapant poverty, drug use and a penchant for extremism definitely lends to this possibility. I certainly wasn't arguing that. I'm just saying that the using the phrase "drug-addled yokels" is somewhat akin to racism. Though I doubt that was your intent.
If you think about it, words we use such as Yokel, or Red-Neck, or White Trash (the latter two likely never being ascribed to a yemeni) are terms which we ascribe to people for the most part because they are poor and/or uneducated. We do this in a pejorative sense, much in the same way we use racial slurs. We do this because of the society we live in exalts financial success over everything else and it is ingrained in us to think this way.
If we use a different example, say we were talking about inner city problems in certain US cities. And we were talking about the possibility of community based solutions in South Central or East St. Louis or ... (communities with some drug use problems, though I am not trying to equate the said problems of Yemen and Inner City America) and I chimed in and said that I didn't have much hope for this approach because "The residents of those communities are largely drug-addled yokels". Ouch, you know?
Now, you see, this is a post I can get behind.
And honestly, and you have a shit load more experience than I in this so feel free to correct me, but I actually feel like I hear a lot of complaints like this. "Oh, of course the projects have drug problems, stupid (n-words)" or "Bunch of white trash livin' in trailer parks and drinkin'" etc. etc. etc. While by no means do I believe that people should be divorced from responsibility, I do feel like language like that doesn't help address the actual problem or fix anything.
Exactly. Using language like that just over-simplifies a problem and gives people an easy lens to view it through so they can write it off. If I were to take issue with someone calling the people in the DTES a bunch of no good junkies it is not because I am trying to alleviate the responsibility which falls on drug addicts. I am doing it because it is completely counterproductive to any sort of discussion about the underlying and broad nature of the social problems that are going on down there.
dude, you are completely off base here, I did not attack Warren personally, not in the slightest. If you equate a little sarcasm with being a total condescending ass, I seriously doubt your grasp on logic.
Interestingly enough, my post initiated actual discussion...
officespace wrote:No I say that because 80% of males and 45% of women in Yemen chew khat. They of course are undereducated in a western sense. Of course it is not their fault, but that doesn't make it any less true. Maybe it wasn't the best wording, but it defiantly is a problem if they hope to "grow" their country(for a lack of a better wording).
Yeah man, Yemen could very likely devolve into chaos if there was a power void. The fact that there is ramapant poverty, drug use and a penchant for extremism definitely lends to this possibility. I certainly wasn't arguing that. I'm just saying that the using the phrase "drug-addled yokels" is somewhat akin to racism. Though I doubt that was your intent.
If you think about it, words we use such as Yokel, or Red-Neck, or White Trash (the latter two likely never being ascribed to a yemeni) are terms which we ascribe to people for the most part because they are poor and/or uneducated. We do this in a pejorative sense, much in the same way we use racial slurs. We do this because of the society we live in exalts financial success over everything else and it is ingrained in us to think this way.
If we use a different example, say we were talking about inner city problems in certain US cities. And we were talking about the possibility of community based solutions in South Central or East St. Louis or ... (communities with some drug use problems, though I am not trying to equate the said problems of Yemen and Inner City America) and I chimed in and said that I didn't have much hope for this approach because "The residents of those communities are largely drug-addled yokels". Ouch, you know?
Now, you see, this is a post I can get behind.
And honestly, and you have a shit load more experience than I in this so feel free to correct me, but I actually feel like I hear a lot of complaints like this. "Oh, of course the projects have drug problems, stupid (n-words)" or "Bunch of white trash livin' in trailer parks and drinkin'" etc. etc. etc. While by no means do I believe that people should be divorced from responsibility, I do feel like language like that doesn't help address the actual problem or fix anything.
Exactly. Using language like that just over-simplifies a problem and gives people an easy lens to view it through so they can write it off. If I were to take issue with someone calling the people in the DTES a bunch of no good junkies it is not because I am trying to alleviate the responsibility which falls on drug addicts. I am doing it because it is completely counterproductive to any sort of discussion about the underlying and broad nature of the social problems that are going on down there.
Working downtown I hear a lot of that. Funny thing is, anytime I talk to one of those "loser junkies", they're pretty nice people. Sure, they have done/will do some bad shit, and I don't think they have the right to do so. But I think that their actions have a lot more to do with marginalization than personal preference. I'm positive that if you asked any addict whether they'd rather be living on the streets and hustling for money, or in a house with a solid job, they'd pick the house/job combo ten times out of ten. But if they're constantly on the edge of being fired because they aren't able to deal with their lives in a solid, productive way, then they're going to continue to work outside the boundaries of "civilized" society in an effort to meet those ends.
Basically my argument for legalization, too.
ZACH ATTACK wrote:Do drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. The harder the better. Then you'll go from being lonely to wishing that everybody would just fuck off because their a bunch of fucking buzzkills going on about how 'you've got a problem" and they "just want to be their to help you". You don't need any of them. You just need drugs.
Are they revolting cuz the mummies are rising!??!?!?!
GET BRENDAN FRASER THERE, STAT!
milk came out my nose when i read this.
also stop talking about me guys, it's kinda creepy.
But...but all I do is talk about you, Alexis. WHAT ELSE WILL I TALK ABOUT?
ZACH ATTACK wrote:Do drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. The harder the better. Then you'll go from being lonely to wishing that everybody would just fuck off because their a bunch of fucking buzzkills going on about how 'you've got a problem" and they "just want to be their to help you". You don't need any of them. You just need drugs.
destroy wrote:way too much self-indulgent, self-righteous attempts at intellectual showboating in this thread. shoulda known it wouldn't be two pages on point!
Eh, I just like to argue with people. I mean, don't get me wrong, you may have a point. I just don't see it that way.
Oh well, it is what it is.
ZACH ATTACK wrote:Do drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. The harder the better. Then you'll go from being lonely to wishing that everybody would just fuck off because their a bunch of fucking buzzkills going on about how 'you've got a problem" and they "just want to be their to help you". You don't need any of them. You just need drugs.
destroy wrote:way too much self-indulgent, self-righteous attempts at intellectual showboating in this thread. shoulda known it wouldn't be two pages on point!
let me lighten this up with some things referenced herein...
Ah yes, the obligatory flippant... "discussion is stupid" / "I really can't partake in the discussion so I am going to try and minimize it" post. Glad we got one of those in the thread.
Yeah, just saw a video of the military protecting civilians from the police. Also, not sure if anyone noticed, but I posted a thing from Al Jazeera that stated that looters caught by protesters were carrying gov't issued weapons and gov't issued ID's. Which is pretty standard, actually.
Edit: video of military protecting civilians
link to Huffington Post on looters with gov't connections:
ZACH ATTACK wrote:Do drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. The harder the better. Then you'll go from being lonely to wishing that everybody would just fuck off because their a bunch of fucking buzzkills going on about how 'you've got a problem" and they "just want to be their to help you". You don't need any of them. You just need drugs.
dave mac wrote:
Ah yes, the obligatory flippant... "discussion is stupid" / "I really can't partake in the discussion so I am going to try and minimize it" post. Glad we got one of those in the thread.
That East Stank Louis video is real tight though.
aaaactualllyyy!
what i was trying to accomplish was bringing a little humour and much-needed humility into a discussion that had turned into a battle of wits and inflammatory remarks that steered the whole thing way off-base. i opened the thread expecting to see some decent links and read a bunch of back-and-forth over the intricacies and minuteness of a situation that i admittedly know practically nothing about (not solely due to apathy or a lack of interest, but more so 'cuz, you know... i don't have a job or lifestyle that lets me sit in front of a computer all day, reading up to the minute blogs and news feeds on events that are unfortunately for all practical intents and purposes largely inconsequential to my day to day routine)... instead i found a bunch of off-topic ranting and petty arguing over semantics and things that are largely IRRELEVANT.
even though i wasn't the only one making less-than-serious contributions in this thread it was nice of you to single me out!
"user destroy has some opinions on bands." - tylerpicklesmith, 2010.
uhg... i know I'm trying to argue with the irrational nature of the internet, but it blows me away the way people ignore what is being said and more look to who is saying what to who. Blind allegiance to your friends, sheep following sheep.
bong, you are the only one who made a 'non-serious' post which specifically cited a discussion I was involved in. If you actually read the thread you would have notice discussion of Egypt, discussion of Yemen which is a topic connected to the Egypt topic. Warren brought up and we discussed some 'intricacies' (your word, not mine) about Yemeni demography, which are pretty pertinent to the situation originally being discussed. The discussion digressed into a discussion about language use, which is actually a very valid topic and Willa felt the need to tangent it into saying I did something I didn't...
Lots to chew on there... conversations (even on the internet) tend to go off on tangents and digress into other topics... maybe I am wrong to try and be rational on this board, but fuck it.
