INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: McGiver on June 25, 2013, 04:09:58 PM
-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be/5339161 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be/5339161)
I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they appear to be.
This is in no way to detract from the great courage of Glenn Greenwald in reporting the story, and the gutsiness of the Guardian in showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US media is not performing at all.
It is just to raise some cautions as the story unfolds, and to raise some questions about how it is unfolding, based on my experience with high-level political messaging.
Some of Snowden’s emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state objective, rather than to challenge them.
a) He is super-organized, for a whistleblower, in terms of what candidates, the White House, the State Dept. et al call ‘message discipline.’ He insisted on publishing a power point in the newspapers that ran his initial revelations. I gather that he arranged for a talented filmmaker to shoot the Greenwald interview. These two steps – which are evidence of great media training, really ‘PR 101′ – are virtually never done (to my great distress) by other whistleblowers, or by progressive activists involved in breaking news, or by real courageous people who are under stress and getting the word out. They are always done, though, by high-level political surrogates.
b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points – again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit talking points.
c) He keeps saying things like, “If you are a journalist and they think you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly kill you.” Or: “I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.” He also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary, his girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages that the police state would LIKE journalists to take away; a real whistleblower also does not put out potential legal penalties as options, and almost always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side who would PROHIBIT him/her from saying, ‘come get me under the Espionage Act.” Finally in my experience, real whistleblowers are completely focused on their act of public service and trying to manage the jeopardy to themselves and their loved ones; they don’t tend ever to call attention to their own self-sacrifice. That is why they are heroes, among other reasons. But a police state would like us all to think about everything we would lose by standing up against it.
d) It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists – I assume the end of this story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who gets in trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy who gets in ‘trouble.’
e) In stories that intelligence services are advancing (I would call the prostitutes-with-the-secret-service such a story), there are great sexy or sex-related mediagenic visuals that keep being dropped in, to keep media focus on the issue. That very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend who appeared for, well, no reason in the media coverage…and who keeps leaking commentary, so her picture can be recycled in the press…really, she happens to pole-dance? Dan Ellsberg’s wife was and is very beautiful and doubtless a good dancer but somehow she took a statelier role as his news story unfolded…
f) Snowden is in Hong Kong, which has close ties to the UK, which has done the US’s bidding with other famous leakers such as Assange. So really there are MANY other countries that he would be less likely to be handed over from…
g) Media reports said he had vanished at one point to ‘an undisclosed location’ or ‘a safe house.’ Come on. There is no such thing. Unless you are with the one organization that can still get off the surveillance grid, because that org created it.
h) I was at dinner last night to celebrate the brave and heroic Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Several of Assange’s also brave and talented legal team were there, and I remembered them from when I had met with Assange. These attorneys are present at every moment when Assange meets the press – when I met with him off the record last Fall in the Ecuadoran embassy, his counsel was present the whole time, listening and stepping in when necessary.
Seeing these diligent attentive free-speech attorneys for another whisleblower reinforced my growing anxiety: WHERE IS SNOWDEN’S LAWYER as the world’s media meet with him? A whistleblower talking to media has his/her counsel advising him/her at all times, if not actually being present at the interview, because anything he/she says can affect the legal danger the whistleblower may be in . It is very, very odd to me that a lawyer has not appeared, to my knowledge, to stand at Snowden’s side and keep him from further jeopardy in interviews.
Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story of a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American freedom. And I would never raise such questions in public if I had not been told by a very senior official in the intelligence world that indeed, there are some news stories that they create and drive – even in America (where propagandizing Americans is now legal). But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times – rather than the machine itself – that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests – why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times – unless we know about it?
-
That is of course fully possible. All this is a jungle.
-
Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story of a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American freedom. And I would never raise such questions in public if I had not been told by a very senior official in the intelligence world that indeed, there are some news stories that they create and drive – even in America (where propagandizing Americans is now legal). But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times – rather than the machine itself – that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests – why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times – unless we know about it?
This makes a lot of sense. Though, the Big Brother apparatus in Eastern Germany was very invasive, using kids to spy on their own parents. But the fear that you could be watched and punished for what had been heard or seen was huge. So, it did have an effect in itself indeed.
Not on all though.
-
question everything. mmm yes, :yoda:
whoever wrote that is making money by having an opinion. so, now I'm questioning her. :laugh:
-
question everything. mmm yes, :yoda:
whoever wrote that is making money by having an opinion. so, now I'm questioning her. :laugh:
its Naomi (freak-a-deak) Wolf. Yo!!!
-
I didn't know you two were so close. :blonde:
Does she like it doggy style? >:D
-
I didn't know you two were so close. :blonde:
Does she like it doggy style? >:D
we call it wolfie style
-
Better watch out dude. she might sell your scoup to the press
just sayin'
-
I do think he had planned this for years. He is not your average whistleblower, no. He has thought this through and knows perfectly well what he is doing.
IMO, his message is just as important regardless.
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GxPqfHOuYyc/S9-PgKz7phI/AAAAAAAAAHs/muNt-y1VUms/s1600/Jim_Carrey_in_The_Number_23_Wallpaper_1_1024-797241.jpg)
-
Trust no one, trust nothing, I suppose.
What I also keep thinking is how fortunate it is that Edward Snowden is attractive and, apparently, charismatic. I honestly think that there would not have been as positive and supportive a response to a guy who was fat/pimply/balding/awkward. I think, in fact, such a person would have been more easily dismissed. Call me cynical.
-
Kevin Rudd is the new Prime Minister of Australia. I think the most charismatic man in politics for a LONG time. He managed to finally get his position back and oust the person who backstabbed him. I am a big fan. I think he is more honest and trustworthy and competent than any other candidate in Australian politics.
Now would I trust him as far as I could throw him? Not at all. It is all relative.
I don't trust Naomi Wolf either. She is very sexy and smart and meets my interests for both intellect and beauty. In fact her feminist approach is not as radical and bizarre as most Feminists.....but like the Ruddinator, I simply do not trust her by virtue of the pool she swims in. Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association. I don't trust her.
She may be right and because of her intellect, I trust that Snowden may well be someone to cast doubt on too.
There we go. I distrust them both. I think they both have agendas
-
:arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :tinfoil: :yikes: :bint: :tantrum: :soapbox: :ninja: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
-
Kevin Rudd is the new Prime Minister of Australia. I think the most charismatic man in politics for a LONG time. He managed to finally get his position back and oust the person who backstabbed him. I am a big fan. I think he is more honest and trustworthy and competent than any other candidate in Australian politics.
Now would I trust him as far as I could throw him? Not at all. It is all relative.
I don't trust Naomi Wolf either. She is very sexy and smart and meets my interests for both intellect and beauty. In fact her feminist approach is not as radical and bizarre as most Feminists.....but like the Ruddinator, I simply do not trust her by virtue of the pool she swims in. Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association. I don't trust her.
She may be right and because of her intellect, I trust that Snowden may well be someone to cast doubt on too.
There we go. I distrust them both. I think they both have agendas
all that, but the truth is you trust no one.
Just a dig at feminism.
-
Kevin Rudd is the new Prime Minister of Australia. I think the most charismatic man in politics for a LONG time. He managed to finally get his position back and oust the person who backstabbed him. I am a big fan. I think he is more honest and trustworthy and competent than any other candidate in Australian politics.
Now would I trust him as far as I could throw him? Not at all. It is all relative.
I don't trust Naomi Wolf either. She is very sexy and smart and meets my interests for both intellect and beauty. In fact her feminist approach is not as radical and bizarre as most Feminists.....but like the Ruddinator, I simply do not trust her by virtue of the pool she swims in. Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association. I don't trust her.
She may be right and because of her intellect, I trust that Snowden may well be someone to cast doubt on too.
There we go. I distrust them both. I think they both have agendas
all that, but the truth is you trust no one.
Just a dig at feminism.
Completely wrong. Sorry McJagger.
I am happy to look at the underlying principles or framework or positions that underpin an argument and then the argument itself.
If you give me a credible statement from the Dalai Lama, I am going to look at it in two ways. Firstly from his position and possible motive or capacity and secondly for what is said. Therefore i will think 'OK great, whatever. This is from the guy who thinks he is a reincarnations of blah, blah, blah. Well meaning nut saying something clever. Very nice." I will not rally behind him and sing his praises but will register it for its own merits.
I would do similar for a troll coming up with a nugget of truth or a conspiracy theorist touching on something inherently valuable.
Someone I trust with history saying cogent and logical things that seem to hold an inherent truth, I will back too.
Even people like that Girlwriteswhat or George Carlin or Christopher hitchens that lay it all out there take it or leave it, I may agree completely with, in part, or disagree with, BUT I do trust for its lack of bullshit.
I do trust mcJagger but not blindly.
-
Perfect, you trust (but not blindly) those who share your version of the world.
That's agreeing with, not trusting.
It was your negative statement about feminism that brought up the red flag for me.
Let me re-read, maybe I missed her feminist manifesto.
-
Perfect, you trust (but not blindly) those who share your version of the world.
That's agreeing with, not trusting.
It was your negative statement about feminism that brought up the red flag for me.
Let me re-read, maybe I missed her feminist manifesto.
Feminism, as a whole, is corrupt and defeated already. It does not serve the purpose it originally did, far from it.
-
Not at all.
If some ascribes to a political ideal or a cultural persuasion or a value based system that does not align or mesh with yours...then you ought to be on the backfoot with them from the outset.
A radical funadamentalist Chrisian that would see me and all non-practicing Christians condemned to the afterlife and rather more quickly than our used by date, is not inherently wrong with every thought and utterance BUT such utterances MUST be viewed against the context of their viewpoint. If they say as an isolated soundbyte. "All humanity are god's children". then you have a right to say "Fabulous but did you not say 10 seconds ago that all that did not worship Jehova be thrown into the darkest hots pits of hell...or whatever"
It is all relative.
If a Christian Fundamentalist who has never overtly endorsed such preachings says something nice and wise, you similarly can say "Good, great, so you disagree that we ought to be cast into hellfire and be tormented in eternity?'
If though the person had no such conviction and never made any affirmations one way or the other you would not question their standpoint...would you?
-
Not at all.
If some ascribes to a political ideal or a cultural persuasion or a value based system that does not align or mesh with yours...then you ought to be on the backfoot with them from the outset.
A radical funadamentalist Chrisian that would see me and all non-practicing Christians condemned to the afterlife and rather more quickly than our used by date, is not inherently wrong with every thought and utterance BUT such utterances MUST be viewed against the context of their viewpoint. If they say as an isolated soundbyte. "All humanity are god's children". then you have a right to say "Fabulous but did you not say 10 seconds ago that all that did not worship Jehova be thrown into the darkest hots pits of hell...or whatever"
It is all relative.
If a Christian Fundamentalist who has never overtly endorsed such preachings says something nice and wise, you similarly can say "Good, great, so you disagree that we ought to be cast into hellfire and be tormented in eternity?'
If though the person had no such conviction and never made any affirmations one way or the other you would not question their standpoint...would you?
That would normally be a fine argument, but modern feminism is actually becoming quite harmful to society as a whole. Undeniable.
-
Not at all.
If some ascribes to a political ideal or a cultural persuasion or a value based system that does not align or mesh with yours...then you ought to be on the backfoot with them from the outset.
A radical funadamentalist Chrisian that would see me and all non-practicing Christians condemned to the afterlife and rather more quickly than our used by date, is not inherently wrong with every thought and utterance BUT such utterances MUST be viewed against the context of their viewpoint. If they say as an isolated soundbyte. "All humanity are god's children". then you have a right to say "Fabulous but did you not say 10 seconds ago that all that did not worship Jehova be thrown into the darkest hots pits of hell...or whatever"
It is all relative.
If a Christian Fundamentalist who has never overtly endorsed such preachings says something nice and wise, you similarly can say "Good, great, so you disagree that we ought to be cast into hellfire and be tormented in eternity?'
If though the person had no such conviction and never made any affirmations one way or the other you would not question their standpoint...would you?
then you admit that you are immediately suspicious of her simply because wage is a feminist. Even writing an article that is off topic of your suspicion.
-
Not at all.
If some ascribes to a political ideal or a cultural persuasion or a value based system that does not align or mesh with yours...then you ought to be on the backfoot with them from the outset.
A radical funadamentalist Chrisian that would see me and all non-practicing Christians condemned to the afterlife and rather more quickly than our used by date, is not inherently wrong with every thought and utterance BUT such utterances MUST be viewed against the context of their viewpoint. If they say as an isolated soundbyte. "All humanity are god's children". then you have a right to say "Fabulous but did you not say 10 seconds ago that all that did not worship Jehova be thrown into the darkest hots pits of hell...or whatever"
It is all relative.
If a Christian Fundamentalist who has never overtly endorsed such preachings says something nice and wise, you similarly can say "Good, great, so you disagree that we ought to be cast into hellfire and be tormented in eternity?'
If though the person had no such conviction and never made any affirmations one way or the other you would not question their standpoint...would you?
then you admit that you are immediately suspicious of her simply because wage is a feminist. Even writing an article that is off topic of your suspicion.
Come on McJagger
"Because she is Feminist AND because you have read a lot of her writings and have ground to make a well grounded judgement in this regard"
That is what you really meant didn't you, McJagger. Want to know my answer to that FAIR question?
She is very sexy and smart and meets my interests for both intellect and beauty. In fact her feminist approach is not as radical and bizarre as most Feminists
You are not going to pretend that I did not at least imply from the above that i had not read any of her writings....right? No, good, just checking ;)
-
Yes. I just assumed you saw her on a Sunday morning show.
What else could I infer when yo also mentioned her beauty?
;)
Certainly not her writings. 8)
-
Yes. I just assumed you saw her on a Sunday morning show.
What else could I infer when yo also mentioned her beauty?
;)
Certainly not her writings. 8)
Really? Then how would I assess how radical her writings are against the other feminist writers?
You sure you could not infer anything else?
What about my talking of her intellect and the appeal of that? What has that to do with her appearance? How would i judge this?
Tell me again about what you could or could not have inferred about my view of her writings ;)
-
Just inferring from what little sexist :zoinks: offering you gave in your original post.
Bringing into question feminism in a post unrelated. :zombiefuck:
Topic was about the NSA spying and Snowden being a pawn.
Do you think she would hold such opinions if the leaker was a female? :green:
-
:popcorn:
-
He went to bed.
I was only poking at him because he was drinking.
I know he enjoys it.
I'm a giver.
-
That's really nice of you. :P
-
Just inferring from what little sexist :zoinks: offering you gave in your original post.
Bringing into question feminism in a post unrelated. :zombiefuck:
Topic was about the NSA spying and Snowden being a pawn.
Do you think she would hold such opinions if the leaker was a female? :green:
OK. I want you to replace the words "Naomi Wolf" with "George W Bush".
I think George Bush is subpar intellect and that when he says anything resembling intelligence, that i strongly suspect it is written by a smarter political commentator to make him sound cleverer than he is. I more strongly suspect an agenda in saying what he has been instructed to say what he says.
So I have equally reasoned justification on his form for suspecting he is untrustworthy and for the statement in THIS context to be suspect.
OK...now go ahead and make the sexist argument.
Good luck.
BTW I was and I do ;)
-
Not at all.
If some ascribes to a political ideal or a cultural persuasion or a value based system that does not align or mesh with yours...then you ought to be on the backfoot with them from the outset.
A radical funadamentalist Chrisian that would see me and all non-practicing Christians condemned to the afterlife and rather more quickly than our used by date, is not inherently wrong with every thought and utterance BUT such utterances MUST be viewed against the context of their viewpoint. If they say as an isolated soundbyte. "All humanity are god's children". then you have a right to say "Fabulous but did you not say 10 seconds ago that all that did not worship Jehova be thrown into the darkest hots pits of hell...or whatever"
It is all relative.
If a Christian Fundamentalist who has never overtly endorsed such preachings says something nice and wise, you similarly can say "Good, great, so you disagree that we ought to be cast into hellfire and be tormented in eternity?'
If though the person had no such conviction and never made any affirmations one way or the other you would not question their standpoint...would you?
then you admit that you are immediately suspicious of her simply because wage is a feminist. Even writing an article that is off topic of your suspicion.
Actually, yeah. If someone openly voiced third wave feminist shill, I would instantly be very suspicious of their motives. Modern feminism is a trick. A scam. Like scientology. Call me a tinfoil hat man all you like, but that's how I feel about that.
-
:CanofWorms:
As I stated before all that, but the truth is you trust no one.
Just a dig at feminism.
Unless you want I forget you brought feminism into the discussion.
I suppose I can do that, but you'd have to edit first. :laugh:
-
:CanofWorms:
As I stated before all that, but the truth is you trust no one.
Just a dig at feminism.
Unless you want I forget you brought feminism into the discussion.
I suppose I can do that, but you'd have to edit first. :laugh:
but the truth is you trust no one
Ah it seems we've come to a fundamental disagreement here. As someone who was trained to kill terrorists along with a team of other people, I've had it burned into my mind to trust a teammate to have my back. I'd trust my pop with my life. And my mom and sister. And probably any of my old army buddies too.
When I see behavior that obviously has some kind of hidden agenda behind it, yeah i'm gonna squint and say "hey. You're up to some bullshit here."
-
I'd fart, squint and say, something stinks here and it's not my ass.
-
I'd fart, squint and say, something stinks here and it's not my ass.
So we agree. ;)
-
:CanofWorms:
As I stated before all that, but the truth is you trust no one.
Just a dig at feminism.
Unless you want I forget you brought feminism into the discussion.
I suppose I can do that, but you'd have to edit first. :laugh:
One's ideals and values inform their thinking.
So was I acknowledging that she was not trustworthy based on her viewpoints. Viewpoints shown in the past to be unpalatable and based in her feminist outlook?
Or was I saying irrespective of what she has said or done in the past, Naomi Wolf is a Feminist and Feminists suck?
Either way I was not saying that her POV has no merit but rather that I am likely to question it because of its proponent, apparent merit or not. Naomi Wolf has pushed lines of values that go against mine, therefore I will second guess anything she says because I know it comes from the same well as the garbage I disagree with.
Not seeing the jab at Feminism
-
Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.
Not a dig?
I misunderstood. :green:
-
Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.
Not a dig?
I misunderstood. :green:
You did. It was an explanation.
-
Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.
Not a dig?
I misunderstood. :green:
You did. It was an explanation.
i would say that makes sense, but Aussies are spawned from criminals and cannot be trusted.
See my point? Your point has nothing to do with being Australian. Hers has nothing to do with feminism. It was a completely unrelated topic.
Your point about your PM was valid, because the point was about the government and the surveillance state, which, by association, his job is directly related.
-
Forgot a smiley. :orly:
-
Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.
Not a dig?
I misunderstood. :green:
You did. It was an explanation.
i would say that makes sense, but Aussies are spawned from criminals and cannot be trusted.
See my point? Your point has nothing to do with being Australian. Hers has nothing to do with feminism. It was a completely unrelated topic.
Your point about your PM was valid, because the point was about the government and the surveillance state, which, by association, his job is directly related.
No that does not make sense. Why not?
"Aussies are spawned from criminals"
Now I could tell you that Aussies were not all spawned from criminals. Even barring the fact that many Aussies are Aboriginal or from Aboriginal stock, many Aussies are actually "spawned from free settlers. More people came to our shores through gold rush, pearl diving, to buy up stations and farmsteads, and general immigration than the few hundred "criminals". Which in itself would kind of shoot a rather large hole example BUT you may say, "Ok, whatever, but the point is still cogent"
Except that it is not. Why? Because even were my forefathers criminals (have not found any criminal flavour yet which is a shame), you would still have your work ahead of you trying to show that my criminal ancestors somehow unimind with me to inform my choices AND see evidence of the same untrustworthy preoccupations. Furthermore you are probably aware that most ofthe poor convicts of the first fleet were at best petty criminals and only steal to live and living in untenable squalor and poverty.
Nice try.
But to be fair. Are there non-feminists who I would respond in a similar way for reasons not to do with feminism but because I thought them untrustworthy based on their world view, beliefs, values and what i have seen of them?
Absolutely.
Dalai Lama.
George Bush
Charles Manson
Geraldine Dawson
Jenny McCarthy
Lindsay Lohan
Paris Hilton
These people I have various reason unrelated to Feminism that i would not trust them EVEN if what they said sound perfectly rational, logical and reasonable. I would have actual reasons to not trust them based on what i know of them and the values, beliefs or worldviews they hold.
Maybe if I did this you would say, you are just having a dig over, reincarnation belief, stupidity, psychopathic disorders, Autism Speaks agenda, generation rescue, crack whores or airheads. I possibly would disagree and show you a list similar to the above except it would not contain the person we were discussing and instead be replaced with "Naomi Wolf". :)
-
Maybe I'm stuck in an :asthing: TOM episode, but I still don't see why you had to include
Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.
And it wasn't a dig at feminism.
What, in her article, supported the feminist agenda? :dunno:
-
Americans are spawned from the wretched refuse of teeming shores. :viking:
-
Americans are spawned from the wretched refuse of teeming shores. :viking:
That's why we are by far the most awesome people on the planet! :viking:
-
Maybe I'm stuck in an :asthing: TOM episode, but I still don't see why you had to include Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.
And it wasn't a dig at feminism.
What, in her article, supported the feminist agenda? :dunno:
You are not looking at the big picture.
Naomi Wolf passing comment on a whistleblower and casting doubt on his honesty. I can take this on the basis that I do not know either Snowden nor Naomi Wolf and so I can take this on the merits presented.
Here is the problem. I do know her. I know her writings. I know that what she writing and the values and beliefs she has evidenced in her writing is rather different to mine and an affront to my reasoning and values. Therefore I can only view anything she says as to be VERY carefully scrutinised at best or dismissed as not worth considering at worst.
Why? Because the brain and mental faculties that have given birth to the "interesting" ideas she has, that i disagree with, is the same brain that has her considering Snowden's merits.
So this context bears a few questions.
What kind of writing she does? What kind of beliefs? Why do I feel THAT way about her interesting ideas?
I believe explaining it like I did ticks all the boxes and does not have a dig but rather explains my position.
-
Trust no one, trust nothing, I suppose.
What I also keep thinking is how fortunate it is that Edward Snowden is attractive and, apparently, charismatic. I honestly think that there would not have been as positive and supportive a response to a guy who was fat/pimply/balding/awkward. I think, in fact, such a person would have been more easily dismissed. Call me cynical.
Al, I can't trust PMS ELLE's opinion here for two reasons
1. She is a feminist
2. She is making a sexist comment.
If this guy wasn't attractive (wink wink) then he wouldn't be taken seriously. :-*
When I question her motivations for her comment based on these two criteria, i am taking an unrelated dig at her, not the contents of her post. :hugs:
-
Here is the problem. I do know her. I know her writings. I know that what she writing and the values and beliefs she has evidenced in her writing is rather different to mine and an affront to my reasoning and values. Therefore I can only view anything she says as to be VERY carefully scrutinised at best or dismissed as not worth considering at worst.
Except that you DO NOT know her. You know her at work, doing a job. You also know her views on feminism. This is completely related. :congrats: you just stereotyped.
-
Here is the problem. I do know her. I know her writings. I know that what she writing and the values and beliefs she has evidenced in her writing is rather different to mine and an affront to my reasoning and values. Therefore I can only view anything she says as to be VERY carefully scrutinised at best or dismissed as not worth considering at worst.
Except that you DO NOT know her. You know her at work, doing a job. You also know her views on feminism. This is completely related. :congrats: you just stereotyped.
Not at all.
Here is an example to illustrate.
Let's say that my actual name was "The Reverend Al Swearengen". Let's say I belonged to a Fundamentalist Christian sect and that I was known to, as my churches frontman, lay on hands to heal and to attend exorcisms.
You would be stereotyping if you knew only that i was a Reverend and on this basis formulated an idea to share with others about what and who I was about. "I bet he is a solemn, holier-than-thou, fatcat, used to being toadied up to by his flock and underlings". as stereotyped as this may be, it may be right or wrong. (I bet there are a percentage of dumb blondes that fill their stereotype)
If you knew a little more and that I did all those exorcisms and laying on hands, you may be stereotyping me as some wacko David Koresh in the making, someone so out of touch with reality than I am a bad day off going the full congregation murder suicide pact.
If though you had read my writings and media and in my different accounts I had written so very bland things but the occasion thing to get the antenna up, my saying here that I "see daemons move around and through people" and that "anyone not believing in God is unable to be included as a member of humanity", would NOT be you stereotyping IF you saw an article unrelated to religion or his specific religious beliefs or affiliations, but was talking about a whistleblower....
Yes you COULD reasonably say something like "I know this Reverend, I don't trust him as far as I could thrown him. He is a wacko. He has some very weird ideas. It is small wonder though. The Christian Fundamentalists with their "spiritual connectedness" really can go too far. Makes people like this guy. What he may be saying may be OK but I have read some of his stuff and some of it is just nuts. I do not trust him or his judgment."
Congratulations McJagger, you do not know what a stereotype is.
-
Americans are spawned from the wretched refuse of teeming shores. :viking:
That's why we are by far the most awesome people on the planet! :viking:
:viking: (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/4th-july/statue-of-liberty.gif)
-
I erred. I meant that you attributed your bias to something unrelated (not related) to the article.
Feminism.
Because her job is a feminist writer/activist you stated mistrust of her on a completely unrelated topic.
Further, you actually cited feminism as the reason her opinion cannot be trusted on an article about the surveillance state.
What exactly does feminism have to do with the surveillance state.
:hide:
-
I erred. I meant that you attributed your bias to something unrelated (not related) to the article.
Feminism.
Because her job is a feminist writer/activist you stated mistrust of her on a completely unrelated topic.
Further, you actually cited feminism as the reason her opinion cannot be trusted on an article about the surveillance state.
What exactly does feminism have to do with the surveillance state.
:hide:
I agree. Feminists cannot be trusted.
-
Trust no one, trust nothing, I suppose.
What I also keep thinking is how fortunate it is that Edward Snowden is attractive and, apparently, charismatic. I honestly think that there would not have been as positive and supportive a response to a guy who was fat/pimply/balding/awkward. I think, in fact, such a person would have been more easily dismissed. Call me cynical.
Al, I can't trust PMS ELLE's opinion here for two reasons
1. She is a feminist
2. She is making a sexist comment.
If this guy wasn't attractive (wink wink) then he wouldn't be taken seriously. :-*
When I question her motivations for her comment based on these two criteria, i am taking an unrelated dig at her, not the contents of her post. :hugs:
...hey, why drag ME into this??? :laugh:
Also, I'm a feminist? dafuq did that happen?
-
Trust no one, trust nothing, I suppose.
What I also keep thinking is how fortunate it is that Edward Snowden is attractive and, apparently, charismatic. I honestly think that there would not have been as positive and supportive a response to a guy who was fat/pimply/balding/awkward. I think, in fact, such a person would have been more easily dismissed. Call me cynical.
Al, I can't trust PMS ELLE's opinion here for two reasons
1. She is a feminist
2. She is making a sexist comment.
If this guy wasn't attractive (wink wink) then he wouldn't be taken seriously. :-*
When I question her motivations for her comment based on these two criteria, i am taking an unrelated dig at her, not the contents of her post. :hugs:
...hey, why drag ME into this??? :laugh:
Also, I'm a feminist? dafuq did that happen?
you are a sexist then? :laugh:
-
Again you are missing out on the big picture
In the Rev Al example I used, you COULD say "Ok now Rev Al is talking about whistleblowers and so we can view it in complete isolation to what we have seen of his writings and how his mind makes connections and ascribes values. This time he is saying something very much not to do with mainstream Christianity, nor Fundamentalist Christianity, or strange Daemon seeing or whatever. Here we are simply seeing a write an article about his judgment of whether you should trust someone. Why ought we not trust his judgment on this thing?"
I just think to do so would be stupid, but that is just me. I tend to think if you have seen someone making some very dubious associations in the past in respect to their beliefs and values, you do not trust what they say in the future.
If Rev Al was to suddenly backflip and denounce the church and his beliefs and say that maybe some of the crazy shit he had spouted was hysteria or whatever, you know what, I still would not trust him to come up with rational conclusions about non-associate stuff. Even if he did not see everything with a "Daemons walk amoung us, Spiritual power, Sky Faerie protecting us" filter, I would still question whether the intellect that allowed his mind to go down that path is not susceptible to the next misjudged ideology.
This is why I do not trust Naomi Wolf. Even IF she gave us her beliefs in her Church (Feminism) for which she prays at the altar, i would have to see a LOT of her writings to give me a sense of her being able to make reasonable assessments and rational judgments.
Without this it is someone i do trust (and for good reason) asking me to not trust someone. I expanded on the reason - that was all.
-
Trust no one, trust nothing, I suppose.
What I also keep thinking is how fortunate it is that Edward Snowden is attractive and, apparently, charismatic. I honestly think that there would not have been as positive and supportive a response to a guy who was fat/pimply/balding/awkward. I think, in fact, such a person would have been more easily dismissed. Call me cynical.
Al, I can't trust PMS ELLE's opinion here for two reasons
1. She is a feminist
2. She is making a sexist comment.
If this guy wasn't attractive (wink wink) then he wouldn't be taken seriously. :-*
When I question her motivations for her comment based on these two criteria, i am taking an unrelated dig at her, not the contents of her post. :hugs:
...hey, why drag ME into this??? :laugh:
Also, I'm a feminist? dafuq did that happen?
you are a sexist then? :laugh:
Is there a third option?
-
Gladium meum visne, puella? :arrr:
-
Trust no one, trust nothing, I suppose.
What I also keep thinking is how fortunate it is that Edward Snowden is attractive and, apparently, charismatic. I honestly think that there would not have been as positive and supportive a response to a guy who was fat/pimply/balding/awkward. I think, in fact, such a person would have been more easily dismissed. Call me cynical.
Al, I can't trust PMS ELLE's opinion here for two reasons
1. She is a feminist
2. She is making a sexist comment.
If this guy wasn't attractive (wink wink) then he wouldn't be taken seriously. :-*
When I question her motivations for her comment based on these two criteria, i am taking an unrelated dig at her, not the contents of her post. :hugs:
...hey, why drag ME into this??? :laugh:
Also, I'm a feminist? dafuq did that happen?
If you are not a feminist, you support the patriarchy. You mysoginyst filth.
-
Wasn't Elle's custom title once, female misogynist of the aspie elite? Jack likes that about her.
-
Wasn't Elle's custom title once, female misogynist of the aspie elite? Jack likes that about her.
Come to think of it, I do remember something like that.
-
Again you are missing out on the big picture
In the Rev Al example I used, you COULD say "Ok now Rev Al is talking about whistleblowers and so we can view it in complete isolation to what we have seen of his writings and how his mind makes connections and ascribes values. This time he is saying something very much not to do with mainstream Christianity, nor Fundamentalist Christianity, or strange Daemon seeing or whatever. Here we are simply seeing a write an article about his judgment of whether you should trust someone. Why ought we not trust his judgment on this thing?"
I just think to do so would be stupid, but that is just me. I tend to think if you have seen someone making some very dubious associations in the past in respect to their beliefs and values, you do not trust what they say in the future.
If Rev Al was to suddenly backflip and denounce the church and his beliefs and say that maybe some of the crazy shit he had spouted was hysteria or whatever, you know what, I still would not trust him to come up with rational conclusions about non-associate stuff. Even if he did not see everything with a "Daemons walk amoung us, Spiritual power, Sky Faerie protecting us" filter, I would still question whether the intellect that allowed his mind to go down that path is not susceptible to the next misjudged ideology.
This is why I do not trust Naomi Wolf. Even IF she gave us her beliefs in her Church (Feminism) for which she prays at the altar, i would have to see a LOT of her writings to give me a sense of her being able to make reasonable assessments and rational judgments.
Without this it is someone i do trust (and for good reason) asking me to not trust someone. I expanded on the reason - that was all.
ah, the big picture. As opposed to what you actually wrote?
As long as we are playing make believe, can I be David McKoresh?
:lolwat:
-
Wasn't Elle's custom title once, female misogynist of the aspie elite? Jack likes that about her.
I don't remember, but that does sound like something I'd do. :laugh:
-
Again you are missing out on the big picture
In the Rev Al example I used, you COULD say "Ok now Rev Al is talking about whistleblowers and so we can view it in complete isolation to what we have seen of his writings and how his mind makes connections and ascribes values. This time he is saying something very much not to do with mainstream Christianity, nor Fundamentalist Christianity, or strange Daemon seeing or whatever. Here we are simply seeing a write an article about his judgment of whether you should trust someone. Why ought we not trust his judgment on this thing?"
I just think to do so would be stupid, but that is just me. I tend to think if you have seen someone making some very dubious associations in the past in respect to their beliefs and values, you do not trust what they say in the future.
If Rev Al was to suddenly backflip and denounce the church and his beliefs and say that maybe some of the crazy shit he had spouted was hysteria or whatever, you know what, I still would not trust him to come up with rational conclusions about non-associate stuff. Even if he did not see everything with a "Daemons walk amoung us, Spiritual power, Sky Faerie protecting us" filter, I would still question whether the intellect that allowed his mind to go down that path is not susceptible to the next misjudged ideology.
This is why I do not trust Naomi Wolf. Even IF she gave us her beliefs in her Church (Feminism) for which she prays at the altar, i would have to see a LOT of her writings to give me a sense of her being able to make reasonable assessments and rational judgments.
Without this it is someone i do trust (and for good reason) asking me to not trust someone. I expanded on the reason - that was all.
ah, the big picture. As opposed to what you actually wrote?
As long as we are playing make believe, can I be David McKoresh?
:lolwat:
Sure. YOu could pretend to be David McKoresh. You could pretend my point is invalid.
Playing games can be fun.
If you tire of playing, perhaps you could point out what you find difficulties in ascribing to the big picture.
-
Sure. YOu could pretend to be David McKoresh. You could pretend my point is invalid.
Playing games can be fun.
If you tire of playing, perhaps you could point out what you find difficulties in ascribing to the big picture.
My bad. I didn't know, reverend al, that hypotheticals are, in fact, reality. :green:
-
Sure. YOu could pretend to be David McKoresh. You could pretend my point is invalid.
Playing games can be fun.
If you tire of playing, perhaps you could point out what you find difficulties in ascribing to the big picture.
My bad. I didn't know, reverend al, that hypotheticals are, in fact, reality. :green:
Analogies by their very nature and by definition underpin an idea. An idea that you have said is oppose to the big picture. I have also showed as to how this directly correlates with what point I was arguing.
-
I didn't dispute your point.
I stated two things.
1. You don't trust anybody-you state that you do, therefor I must take you at your word.
2. Your hole point was a simple dig at feminism.
Which doesn't make sense. The article was completely unrelated to feminism.
I'm wondering if I should've, instead, accused you of being closed minded against feminism, whether or not feminism is the subject matter. :CanofWorms:
-
I didn't dispute your point.
I stated two things.
1. You don't trust anybody-you state that you do, therefor I must take you at your word.
2. Your hole point was a simple dig at feminism.
Which doesn't make sense. The article was completely unrelated to feminism.
I'm wondering if I should've, instead, accused you of being closed minded against feminism, whether or not feminism is the subject matter. :CanofWorms:
Being that the point i was arguing is that i was not having a dig at Feminism but merely explaining that I did not trust Naomi Wolf nor the man she told us not to trust and then explained the reasons why, I say you absolutely did dispute it.
If you had of gone this route of my being close minded, I would possibly have said something like "That if by saying Feminism you are talking about the gender equality or humanism, or respecting people and their rights or any of the other things that people often claiming to be feminists or supportive of feminists, then THAT is NOT feminism. If you are asking whether I am close-minded in respect to promoting women as equals in rights, and intellect and respect and having follow on benefits befitting such a station....then you would be wrong.
But IF you are talking about FEMINISM not this watered down misleading notion of humanism and gender equality people wrongly associate....then YES I am close minded. Close minded as I am with Sexism, Racism, and a whole lot of irredeemable nasty worldviews."
But try it if you like. Be kind of redundant now maybe.
-
Having a dig at feminism, al?
Can you tell me what he feminism argument is in the article by Naomi wolf?
If there is no feminism agenda, then you were having a dig at feminism. If it wasn't a dig at feminism then you dont trust anybody. :autism:
-
Having a dig at feminism, al?
Can you tell me what he feminism argument is in the article by Naomi wolf?
If there is no feminism agenda, then you were having a dig at feminism. If it wasn't a dig at feminism then you dont trust anybody. :autism:
No not at all.
No I do not have to see a feminist argument, nor does one need to exist. I do not think that a Feminist agenda (can we say viewpoint or framing, or you are necessarily wanting the more stronger terms to try to force an extremist angle), gets turned off when not talking on specifically Feminist topics. It is a filter to which colours your world view specifically and generally.
But these things are not alone. Bigotry and stupidity and political and religious viewpoints all manner of things will colour your worldview and not leave your filter when examining things unconnected to that ideology.
But in that too is whether or not a person can be judged on what they have written before and whether what they have written is able to be judged against what they have written, said or inferred before.
I do not trust known liars. If someone is caught out lying and they write something innocuous, I think it is wise not to trust what they wrote EVEN IF it has nothing to with what they lied about.
I think it is smart.
I think the same for people with wacky ideas, dumb ideas, and so forth.
She is someone I have good reason not to trust. It matters not a damn if what she says is Feminist at all or not. The fact that she has shown through her writings to be someone I distrust on that basis and I have no good reason to count on her judgment to be anything but impaired and her values likewise....I think it is natural for me to distrust her.
Nothing crazy or out there about that.
Because I do not trust her, it far from means i don't trust anyone.
-
But your not seeing the big picture. :squiddy:
-
But your not seeing the big picture. :squiddy:
OK, and how do you see the big picture?
-
Having a dig at feminism, al?
Can you tell me what he feminism argument is in the article by Naomi wolf?
If there is no feminism agenda, then you were having a dig at feminism. If it wasn't a dig at feminism then you dont trust anybody. :autism:
the big picture.
-
Having a dig at feminism, al?
Can you tell me what he feminism argument is in the article by Naomi wolf?
If there is no feminism agenda, then you were having a dig at feminism. If it wasn't a dig at feminism then you dont trust anybody. :autism:
the big picture.
...and yet this has been comprehensively and critically answer. So unless you are more specific, I must get the big picture.
-
I have a dig at feminism every chance I get. Those people are not trustworthy at all.
-
But your not seeing the big picture. :squiddy:
OK, and how do you see the big picture?
Must distance one's self from it.
Not to in any way contribute to the current discussion. It was a question screaming for an answer.
-
But your not seeing the big picture. :squiddy:
OK, and how do you see the big picture?
Must distance one's self from it.
Not to in any way contribute to the current discussion. It was a question screaming for an answer.
i am a feminist (among other things) by virtue of this fact, Al doesn't trust any opinion I have on subjects different from feminism.
-
Haven't really been following the discussion.
-
I am also a father, a liberal, a tax payer, a dodger fan, etc, etc, etc.
The big picture is why judge someone because part of who the are?
-
I am also a father, a liberal, a tax payer, a dodger fan, etc, etc, etc.
The big picture is why judge someone because part of who the are?
Sorry, you just totally blew it with me, Dodger fan.
-
I am also a father, a liberal, a tax payer, a dodger fan, etc, etc, etc.
The big picture is why judge someone because part of who the are?
Sorry, you just totally blew it with me, Dodger fan.
:indeed:
Dodgers, phooey
-
Better a Dodger fan than the Cub fan.
-
Better a Dodger fan than the Cub fan.
Braves fan here
Genesis is the Cubbie fan
-
Braves! At least, have given their fans something to cheer for in the last two decades.
Doing well now.
-
I am also a father, a liberal, a tax payer, a dodger fan, etc, etc, etc.
The big picture is why judge someone because part of who the are?
Sorry, you just totally blew it with me, Dodger fan.
beat me to it :laugh:
Though my criticism is "You follow SPORTS???"
-
Totally. Sports are gay. I mean I watch the superbowl for the commercials and that's it. I actually discussed this with my English teacher last semester. Guy was real into sports, and liked debate. So I brought it up. I asked him why it was necessary for dudes at sports bars to actually stand up and scream, and pump their fists as if they were the ones who's accomplished the feat of strength and skill they'd just witnessed.
I then stated that the only way i'd care about a sport, is if I was playing in it myself, because then it would be fun. Otherwise, whats there to be interested in?
He couldn't come up with anything. He tried to say that perhaps it was a carry over from the tribal nature of humans, but I shot that down as conjecture.
TL;DR, this is just bullshit. :2thumbsup:
-
But your not seeing the big picture. :squiddy:
OK, and how do you see the big picture?
Must distance one's self from it.
Not to in any way contribute to the current discussion. It was a question screaming for an answer.
i am a feminist (among other things) by virtue of this fact, Al doesn't trust any opinion I have on subjects different from feminism.
Actually I do not think you are a Feminist. Not in the real sense. I think you are an idealist. I think you look at the world not from Feminist filter but rather an idealists filter. I think you believe in the good associations you believe Feminism has or has provided. I think your idealist does at best makes you very resistant to seeing the bad in Feminism and at worst blinds you entirely.
Do I trust you on subjects unrelated to Feminism because you are a Feminist? No.
I distrust your opinion because of your idealist filter.....but I do entertain them anyhow. I think that there is like with most of the posters, at the very least hidden gems even with people that i actively disagree with on pretty much everything.
I am wary. I am aware you are an idealist and so whatever you say, I check against the fact that you are prone to idealism to varying degrees. On this basis I look at your arguments for things like Feminism and keep your idealism firmly in the forefront of my mind and weigh it against your every syllable.
Hey at the same time someone could make the argument that I am arrogant and opinionated and that my ramblings must be weighed against this filter and really I would have no case to answer.
When you make claims about what I think of you or about you, probably better to ask. I am not shy.
-
I am a giver.
The only reason I am debating whether or not you are having a dig at feminism (because its meaningless) is to give you something to do.
I am ADD. Now I am bored.
I am a realistic ideologue. I understand how things work. I disagree with most of it. I also understand how things should work. I understand that most people are too comfortable to change anything.
I understand that I am getting older and more comfortable. The fight is best left to he youth.
-
I am a giver.
The only reason I am debating whether or not you are having a dig at feminism (because its meaningless) is to give you something to do.
I am ADD. Now I am bored.
I am a realistic ideologue. I understand how things work. I disagree with most of it. I also understand how things should work. I understand that most people are too comfortable to change anything.
I understand that I am getting older and more comfortable. The fight is best left to he youth.
I know. I knew that from the outset and i did enjoy it. You did well and I appreciate it.
I am at least half serious with your idealism but not entirely serious.
I am a cynic. I do not have much time for causes that don't personally affect me. I tend to keep people at an arm's length and as much because of distrust of my summation of them. I like information and learning. I do not understand people in the slightest but love to learn about them. I love sharing ideas.
I stopped getting into fist fights at 34. I realised fighting such fights is a game for younger men.
-
And I enjoy a counter-personality.
I do wonder if I've got it right. I try not to dwell on faults and see problems as something to solve. I wonder if my mindset would be better labeled as delusional.
If ignorance truly is bliss.
-
And I enjoy a counter-personality.
I do wonder if I've got it right. I try not to dwell on faults and see problems as something to solve. I wonder if my mindset would be better labeled as delusional.
If ignorance truly is bliss.
You are right. Whilst you would see promise in a faulty person or ideology, and that is your weakness. I would question a dismiss potential based on prior history which is not promising, and that is mine.
The political revolutionaries, activists, technology front-runners, and the like are generally idealists. The world needs people like that.
It is a mindset fraught with peril, but the payday is there too.
For you, you would say give me reason to believe in something else whilst i would say give me good reason not to believe what i believe. The difference is subtle.
-
I am a giver.
The only reason I am debating whether or not you are having a dig at feminism (because its meaningless) is to give you something to do.
I am ADD. Now I am bored.
I am a realistic ideologue. I understand how things work. I disagree with most of it. I also understand how things should work. I understand that most people are too comfortable to change anything.
I understand that I am getting older and more comfortable. The fight is best left to he youth.
The youth, those with little or nothing to lose, or those impulsive, stupid or idealistic enough to risk what they have.
I'm not too comfortable to change anything, but I do fear losing what I have, and I damn well know it can all-too-easily happen.
-
Imagine shooting all cops and hanging all politicians and journalists! :viking:
-
Totally. Sports are gay. I mean I watch the superbowl for the commercials and that's it. I actually discussed this with my English teacher last semester. Guy was real into sports, and liked debate. So I brought it up. I asked him why it was necessary for dudes at sports bars to actually stand up and scream, and pump their fists as if they were the ones who's accomplished the feat of strength and skill they'd just witnessed.
I then stated that the only way i'd care about a sport, is if I was playing in it myself, because then it would be fun. Otherwise, whats there to be interested in?
He couldn't come up with anything. He tried to say that perhaps it was a carry over from the tribal nature of humans, but I shot that down as conjecture.
TL;DR, this is just bullshit. :2thumbsup:
Boooooo Rage :thumbdn: Sports are awesome :headbang2: :headbang2: :headbang2:
Im watching Wimbledon at the moment. Go on Andy Murray and Sabine Lisicki :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
And playing sports is great fun. I'm the goalie in a 5-a-side team, and we usually play twice a week. It is probably the most fun thing that I do :laugh:
-
Totally. Sports are gay. I mean I watch the superbowl for the commercials and that's it. I actually discussed this with my English teacher last semester. Guy was real into sports, and liked debate. So I brought it up. I asked him why it was necessary for dudes at sports bars to actually stand up and scream, and pump their fists as if they were the ones who's accomplished the feat of strength and skill they'd just witnessed.
I then stated that the only way i'd care about a sport, is if I was playing in it myself, because then it would be fun. Otherwise, whats there to be interested in?
He couldn't come up with anything. He tried to say that perhaps it was a carry over from the tribal nature of humans, but I shot that down as conjecture.
TL;DR, this is just bullshit. :2thumbsup:
Boooooo Rage :thumbdn: Sports are awesome :headbang2: :headbang2: :headbang2:
Im watching Wimbledon at the moment. Go on Andy Murray and Sabine Lisicki :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
And playing sports is great fun. I'm the goalie in a 5-a-side team, and we usually play twice a week. It is probably the most fun thing that I do :laugh:
Explain how that's fun even though you're not playing? If its not ME playing the game, why should I be exited?
-
Totally. Sports are gay. I mean I watch the superbowl for the commercials and that's it. I actually discussed this with my English teacher last semester. Guy was real into sports, and liked debate. So I brought it up. I asked him why it was necessary for dudes at sports bars to actually stand up and scream, and pump their fists as if they were the ones who's accomplished the feat of strength and skill they'd just witnessed.
I then stated that the only way i'd care about a sport, is if I was playing in it myself, because then it would be fun. Otherwise, whats there to be interested in?
He couldn't come up with anything. He tried to say that perhaps it was a carry over from the tribal nature of humans, but I shot that down as conjecture.
TL;DR, this is just bullshit. :2thumbsup:
Boooooo Rage :thumbdn: Sports are awesome :headbang2: :headbang2: :headbang2:
Im watching Wimbledon at the moment. Go on Andy Murray and Sabine Lisicki :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
And playing sports is great fun. I'm the goalie in a 5-a-side team, and we usually play twice a week. It is probably the most fun thing that I do :laugh:
Explain how that's fun even though you're not playing? If its not ME playing the game, why should I be exited?
It is exciting if you care about a player, or a team. I've watched Andy Murray play tennis since he was a 17 year old boy. That's my whole adult life.
To see him win the tournament that in Britain, we see as the biggest in the world, would be exciting. I've grown to kinda care a little bit about him. I would imagine that this is a huge ambition for him.
If I heard that you were close to achieving something that would fulfill your lifes ambition, I would be dead excited for you, and Id be really sad for you if you failed.
It's the same with the football team I support. My uncle has always owned shares in the team, and when I was a kid, he had a seat on the board. I loved going to the football with him, and I would meet the players and they would be nice. I still have a lot of affection for the club, so when the team does well, I feel really happy for them, and when they do badly, I feel sad.
Sorry, that was a rather long, rambling reply :laugh:
-
tbh the only sport I really like is football.
I can watch basketball or hockey or something. team sports (although not baseball or cricket etc), but I'm not really a fan.
Tennis is ok. I haven't watched any of this wimbledon though. I will watch the men's final though, and possibly the women's final.
-
tbh the only sport I really like is football.
I can watch basketball or hockey or something. team sports (although not baseball or cricket etc), but I'm not really a fan.
Tennis is ok. I haven't watched any of this wimbledon though. I will watch the men's final though, and possibly the women's final.
Sabine Lisicki seems like a really sweet person, and is a little bit of a crush :laugh: And, anybody who beats that abomination, Serena Williams, is alright by me :green:
-
All I know of her is she played someone called Radwanker (?) the other day
I will google her. If she's not sufficiently hot enough to have been worth a google, I will pissed off, Flutterbies. Just to warn you!
-
All I know of her is she played someone called Radwanker (?) the other day
I will google her. If she's not sufficiently hot enough to have been worth a google, I will pissed off, Flutterbies. Just to warn you!
Its Radwanska, although I do like Radwanker. From this day on, I now know her as Agnesa Radwanker :laugh:
Sabine Lisicki is attractive enough, but not amazing looking. She just comes across as a really nice person.
Yes, I am kinda much more attracted to personality than looks :headbang2:
-
Totally. Sports are gay. I mean I watch the superbowl for the commercials and that's it. I actually discussed this with my English teacher last semester. Guy was real into sports, and liked debate. So I brought it up. I asked him why it was necessary for dudes at sports bars to actually stand up and scream, and pump their fists as if they were the ones who's accomplished the feat of strength and skill they'd just witnessed.
I then stated that the only way i'd care about a sport, is if I was playing in it myself, because then it would be fun. Otherwise, whats there to be interested in?
He couldn't come up with anything. He tried to say that perhaps it was a carry over from the tribal nature of humans, but I shot that down as conjecture.
TL;DR, this is just bullshit. :2thumbsup:
Boooooo Rage :thumbdn: Sports are awesome :headbang2: :headbang2: :headbang2:
Im watching Wimbledon at the moment. Go on Andy Murray and Sabine Lisicki :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
And playing sports is great fun. I'm the goalie in a 5-a-side team, and we usually play twice a week. It is probably the most fun thing that I do :laugh:
Explain how that's fun even though you're not playing? If its not ME playing the game, why should I be exited?
It is exciting if you care about a player, or a team. I've watched Andy Murray play tennis since he was a 17 year old boy. That's my whole adult life.
To see him win the tournament that in Britain, we see as the biggest in the world, would be exciting. I've grown to kinda care a little bit about him. I would imagine that this is a huge ambition for him.
If I heard that you were close to achieving something that would fulfill your lifes ambition, I would be dead excited for you, and Id be really sad for you if you failed.
It's the same with the football team I support. My uncle has always owned shares in the team, and when I was a kid, he had a seat on the board. I loved going to the football with him, and I would meet the players and they would be nice. I still have a lot of affection for the club, so when the team does well, I feel really happy for them, and when they do badly, I feel sad.
Sorry, that was a rather long, rambling reply :laugh:
That feel when I realize i'm just aloof or something.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhcXQx0FmWRn5Xy5WJKzN1VJPIpml78pKab7nGT6AcjwLu4UyH)
-
Naomi Wilf hasn't been a credible writer for some time now...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/11/from-isis-to-ebola-what-has-made-naomi-wolf-so-paranoid.html# (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/11/from-isis-to-ebola-what-has-made-naomi-wolf-so-paranoid.html#)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389666/fevered-delusions-naomi-wolf-charles-c-w-cooke (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389666/fevered-delusions-naomi-wolf-charles-c-w-cooke)
-
Americans are spawned from the wretched refuse of teeming shores. :viking:
That's why we are by far the most awesome people on the planet! :viking:
:viking: (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/4th-july/statue-of-liberty.gif)
I like this emoticon.
-
Americans are spawned from the wretched refuse of teeming shores. :viking:
That's why we are by far the most awesome people on the planet! :viking:
:viking: (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/4th-july/statue-of-liberty.gif)
I like this emoticon.
Not usually the emote type, so don't even remember posting that. Jack really likes the phrase, wretched refuse of teeming shores. :laugh:
-
Americans are spawned from the wretched refuse of teeming shores. :viking:
That's why we are by far the most awesome people on the planet! :viking:
:viking: (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/4th-july/statue-of-liberty.gif)
I like this emoticon.
Not usually the emote type, so don't even remember posting that. Jack really likes the phrase, wretched refuse of teeming shores. :laugh:
:murica: :murica: :murica: :murica: :murica:
-
Hooray, it's official now! :murica: I'm feeling ever so proud.
-
Australia is the best country, hands down.
-
Australia is the best country, hands down.
You don't have a beautiful statue like ours. :murica: :M
-
Australia is the best country, hands down.
You don't have a beautiful statue like ours. :murica: :M
Statue....Meh
-
But what about the dropbears?
-
But what about the dropbears?
Okay. You have me there. They are terrifying
-
Australia is the best country, hands down.
Isn't most of it a big desert??
-
Australia is the best country, hands down.
Isn't most of it a big desert??
Yup, mostly. What is left is very nice and populated by some million of nice people and friendly reptiles and such.
-
I used to picture all of Australia as being "the outback," with every backyard featuring
at least one eucalyptus tree loaded with koalas. That assumption got me laughed at. :autism:
-
I used to picture all of Australia as being "the outback," with every backyard featuring
at least one eucalyptus tree loaded with koalas. That assumption got me laughed at. :autism:
Oh dear
-
I used to picture all of Australia as being "the outback," with every backyard featuring
at least one eucalyptus tree loaded with koalas. That assumption got me laughed at. :autism:
Oh dear
I was new to the internet. Hey, at least it amused people. :zoinks:
-
I used to picture all of Australia as being "the outback," with every backyard featuring
at least one eucalyptus tree loaded with koalas. That assumption got me laughed at. :autism:
Oh dear
I was new to the internet. Hey, at least it amused people. :zoinks:
In the US do they still congregate around saloons and wear six shooters? ;)
-
I used to picture all of Australia as being "the outback," with every backyard featuring
at least one eucalyptus tree loaded with koalas. That assumption got me laughed at. :autism:
Oh dear
I was new to the internet. Hey, at least it amused people. :zoinks:
In the US do they still congregate around saloons and wear six shooters? ;)
Oh yes. It's still the Badlands over here. :desert: :zoinks:
-
Australia is the best country, hands down.
Isn't most of it a big desert??
Yup, mostly. What is left is very nice and populated by some million of nice people and friendly reptiles and such.
Don't forget the spiders!
-
I used to picture all of Australia as being "the outback," with every backyard featuring
at least one eucalyptus tree loaded with koalas. That assumption got me laughed at. :autism:
Oh dear
I was new to the internet. Hey, at least it amused people. :zoinks:
In the US do they still congregate around saloons and wear six shooters? ;)
They do in my state ;)
-
Australia is the best country, hands down.
Isn't most of it a big desert??
Yup, mostly. What is left is very nice and populated by some million of nice people and friendly reptiles and such.
You can keep all of those poisonous reptiles, we already have MLA, don't need more.
Personally, I need mountains, pine trees, rivers and lakes to feel "at home".
-
I used to picture all of Australia as being "the outback," with every backyard featuring
at least one eucalyptus tree loaded with koalas. That assumption got me laughed at. :autism:
Oh dear
I was new to the internet. Hey, at least it amused people. :zoinks:
In the US do they still congregate around saloons and wear six shooters? ;)
I think gun dueling should be made legal again. :zoinks:
-
Australia is the best country, hands down.
Isn't most of it a big desert??
Yup, mostly. What is left is very nice and populated by some million of nice people and friendly reptiles and such.
You can keep all of those poisonous reptiles, we already have MLA, don't need more.
Personally, I need mountains, pine trees, rivers and lakes to feel "at home".
I think being called a "poisonous reptile" might be the cutest insult you have ever clumsily lobbed my direction.
Touche sir :snake: