Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Khaliar: "As I said before, this is yet again a clear example of how you are wedded to your ideological biases and can't see past them on any subject."
Yes, you've said it before. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. The fact that you can't acknowledge this is very demonstrative of YOUR OWN inability to look past your own ideological convictions. Let me put it this way: What is this supposed "ideological bias" I am wedded to? What have I said that supports this theory? (Note: "Every post you've made" and "Everyone knows it" are cop-outs that mean nothing. If you're going to make statements like this, you'd better be able to back them up or you're just a half-rate bullshit artist.)
Khaliar: "Given something that might or might not be a legit police report, you assume it is legit or at least not completely unbelievable. This is reasonable to do, as we have seen all kinds of ridiculous stories about police doing shit that would have seemed over the top even in a comedy skit."
This is why I acknowledged that the fake article about the cop killing the baby IS, in fact, indistinguishable from actual stories about cops acting in similar ways. However, had that article included obvious winks & nudges (for example: "The officer then attempted to handcuff the still-bleeding baby, but due to size restraints was forced to cuff both arms in one loop and both legs in another"), then I would equate it with the 3-year old transgender article in that you'd have to be powerfully, powerfully ignorant to not recognize that as satire.
Khaliar: "Yet when that same thing happens in SJW land, you seem to immediately go looking for a way to play SJW apologist. You read the article to try and find any nuance that will let you play pedantic apology games."
This never happened and you're an idiot for suggesting it. I am not an SJW apologist. That transgender article was an obvious joke. I didn't have to look for any "nuance" to come to that conclusion. The humor (regardless of whether or not I personally find it funny) was not "hidden" in the article, it was blatant and in your face. I love how you and Hodj keep pussyfooting around that, pretending that doesn't count for anything, when it counts for EVERYTHING if you're talking about Poe's Law.
Khaliar: "If it is so over the top that you can't even manage that, you claim it is blatant satire. Yet what you fail to realize is, we have all seen legit SJW stuff that beggars belief and would be a funny comedy skit. Hell, take the Anita video from 5 years ago complaining about bit torrent porn ads. That to me is a hilarious video. It could be parody, yet we know it is not."
To be fair, "we" know it is not because we are familiar with Sark and her work. However, it is worth noting that there is no obvious joke there. There is no wink & nudge that tips off the viewer. As ridiculous as you find Sarkeesian's stance, it at least seems to be entirely sincere, even if you've never heard of Sarkeesian or are in way familiar with her work. If someone saw that Sarkeesian video and asked "Is this a joke?", I wouldn't necessarily blame them for being confused. Holy Christ, do you still not understand Poe's Law?
Khaliar: "Now I know you will claim, yet again, that you aren't a SJW. Yet in your entire history on this forum, you have never taken a view that could be considered anti-SJW. I can't say that anyone else on this forum outside of Lumie has evidenced that utter cultural purity. It is obvious you fit every definition of a SJW except for the one requiring that you have the courage to admit it."
You are an idiot. I don't subscribe to SJW ideology, I don't spread SJW messages, I don't blindly support other SJWs, I don't deny legit criticism leveled at SJWs, I have criticized them myself (Heck, I've criticized Sarkeesian several times). See, here's where you're extremely disingenuous: My schtick is pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy of a lot of the anti-SJW rhetoric that gets masturbated to here. You mistakenly interpret that as meaning I am an SJW, even though I share virtually NO characteristics with them. You have drawn a false conclusion, and from that point you work backwards to awkwardly try to find ways to justify this mischaracterisation instead of looking at facts objectively. You've been doing that for years, you've done it to other posters too (and been called out for it), and even now you continue to completely ignore any facts that don't gel with whatever ideological bullshit you're trying to push. I mean, I get it: Your bubble is precious to you, and you WILL NOT allow it to be disturbed. But the fact that you go around trying to call me an SJW in a feeble attempt to avoid confronting the facts I present that you don't like is, frankly, laughable.
Yes, you've said it before. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. The fact that you can't acknowledge this is very demonstrative of YOUR OWN inability to look past your own ideological convictions. Let me put it this way: What is this supposed "ideological bias" I am wedded to? What have I said that supports this theory? (Note: "Every post you've made" and "Everyone knows it" are cop-outs that mean nothing. If you're going to make statements like this, you'd better be able to back them up or you're just a half-rate bullshit artist.)
Khaliar: "Given something that might or might not be a legit police report, you assume it is legit or at least not completely unbelievable. This is reasonable to do, as we have seen all kinds of ridiculous stories about police doing shit that would have seemed over the top even in a comedy skit."
This is why I acknowledged that the fake article about the cop killing the baby IS, in fact, indistinguishable from actual stories about cops acting in similar ways. However, had that article included obvious winks & nudges (for example: "The officer then attempted to handcuff the still-bleeding baby, but due to size restraints was forced to cuff both arms in one loop and both legs in another"), then I would equate it with the 3-year old transgender article in that you'd have to be powerfully, powerfully ignorant to not recognize that as satire.
Khaliar: "Yet when that same thing happens in SJW land, you seem to immediately go looking for a way to play SJW apologist. You read the article to try and find any nuance that will let you play pedantic apology games."
This never happened and you're an idiot for suggesting it. I am not an SJW apologist. That transgender article was an obvious joke. I didn't have to look for any "nuance" to come to that conclusion. The humor (regardless of whether or not I personally find it funny) was not "hidden" in the article, it was blatant and in your face. I love how you and Hodj keep pussyfooting around that, pretending that doesn't count for anything, when it counts for EVERYTHING if you're talking about Poe's Law.
Khaliar: "If it is so over the top that you can't even manage that, you claim it is blatant satire. Yet what you fail to realize is, we have all seen legit SJW stuff that beggars belief and would be a funny comedy skit. Hell, take the Anita video from 5 years ago complaining about bit torrent porn ads. That to me is a hilarious video. It could be parody, yet we know it is not."
To be fair, "we" know it is not because we are familiar with Sark and her work. However, it is worth noting that there is no obvious joke there. There is no wink & nudge that tips off the viewer. As ridiculous as you find Sarkeesian's stance, it at least seems to be entirely sincere, even if you've never heard of Sarkeesian or are in way familiar with her work. If someone saw that Sarkeesian video and asked "Is this a joke?", I wouldn't necessarily blame them for being confused. Holy Christ, do you still not understand Poe's Law?
Khaliar: "Now I know you will claim, yet again, that you aren't a SJW. Yet in your entire history on this forum, you have never taken a view that could be considered anti-SJW. I can't say that anyone else on this forum outside of Lumie has evidenced that utter cultural purity. It is obvious you fit every definition of a SJW except for the one requiring that you have the courage to admit it."
You are an idiot. I don't subscribe to SJW ideology, I don't spread SJW messages, I don't blindly support other SJWs, I don't deny legit criticism leveled at SJWs, I have criticized them myself (Heck, I've criticized Sarkeesian several times). See, here's where you're extremely disingenuous: My schtick is pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy of a lot of the anti-SJW rhetoric that gets masturbated to here. You mistakenly interpret that as meaning I am an SJW, even though I share virtually NO characteristics with them. You have drawn a false conclusion, and from that point you work backwards to awkwardly try to find ways to justify this mischaracterisation instead of looking at facts objectively. You've been doing that for years, you've done it to other posters too (and been called out for it), and even now you continue to completely ignore any facts that don't gel with whatever ideological bullshit you're trying to push. I mean, I get it: Your bubble is precious to you, and you WILL NOT allow it to be disturbed. But the fact that you go around trying to call me an SJW in a feeble attempt to avoid confronting the facts I present that you don't like is, frankly, laughable.
