Jump to content

Serak The Preparer

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Serak The Preparer

  1. 34 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Reputations matter.  Online.  In life.  Case in point.  To the OP, politics are fine, as long as they can stay semi-objective and devolve into cunty partisanship, ala the CR.  That's the hard part of moderating, separating out those that seem to want to have a dialogue from those that are just an talking-point-spouting ideologue.....

    Do you think you have a reputation of political / social beliefs? While not everything you post is political by any means, I don't think anyone would have to try real hard to figure out where you stand on a given issue. Similarly, if BurntEyes posts something about gun, given his passionate and out-spoken beliefs on 2A, is that immediate dismissal into CR?

    I don't think it should be, for either of you. Reputations do matter, but content should matter more.

    • Like 2
  2. 34 minutes ago, Sgt Hulk said:

    Bro. Orange man bad is the reason for all anger in the world. The world was a utopia of greatness until Nov 2016 my friend.   Ok no more cr as i don’t want to get blacklabbed 

    I'll put you down for a yes then, and look for tweets from other bishops angry at Trump for going to church.

  3. 4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

    How many warnings/bannings does @blacklab have to give on this thread before you realize you need to cut the partisan sniping?

    I don't know if I am included in this, but I don't think it is partisan sniping to explain why people are angry.

    I am not saying whether the anger is justified, but it is also simply not correct to state that people are angry simply that Trump visited a church. To use an analogy I used in another thread, it's like expressing disbelief that putting your finger on a piece of curved metal and pulling can get you charged with murder by firearm!

    • Like 1
  4. @Sgt Hulk I ask you also. Is it the church visit itself that you think is causing anger? Would orange man bad lead to the bishop of the church calling out Trump if he just walked over without any violence?

    • Like 2
  5. 12 minutes ago, Somnio said:

    So wait, people are giving the POTUS shit for visiting a church which was burned down by commie terrorists?!?

    Maybe it's just me, but the outrage seems a bit misplaced.

    WTF?  Is this real life?

     

    9 minutes ago, stone oak said:

    It doesn’t fit the narrative for them. Trump is definitely unhinged but to be upset about that is ridiculous. 

    So do both of you think the main complaint here is that he just visited a church? Like if he just strolled up to the apse and delivered a sermon (or even just a photo op) then there would be the same anger?

    Or do you think it might the tear gas fired into a peaceful crowd on the way that is causing more anger?

    • Like 9
  6. 5 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

    So, question.  I thought being an asshole and calling assholes assholes was part of the surly mantra.  Are we going the way of whale cunt?  I thought threats of violence were the only posts that got one banned, outside of the no politics rule.   Just want a little clarity. 

    There is a thread in About The Board dealing with this issue. Long and short is that @blacklab and @immamac don't want too much personal back and forth (or at least is my understanding). More asshole calling than usual in these parts. I suspect if I were to call someone an asshole in a random football or recruiting thread then it would be as ok as it normally is, but for better or worse these are different threads.

    For example, even that in that thread it is pretty kosher to call female posters cunts with fat asses and all is cool. But this thread is different.

  7. 3 minutes ago, stone oak said:

    Understood. But, you’re plain ignorant if you think Antifa has zero involvement with this entire event. 

    And it you think that Antifa pulled in multiple pallets of bricks in multiple cities in preparation for multiple riots with nothing leaking before hand you would be plain... what? 

  8. 1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    The fires and destruction outside the White House gates the past few nights would seem to be a better indicator of what would happen. You don’t think it would have been a bloodbath if those protestors thought they could actually get close enough to harm the President 

    So not trying to put words in your mouth, but is it fair to say then that you support a decision to tear gas a crowd that might get violent but has not actually gotten violent?

    • Like 3
  9. Just now, troph said:

    I really didn’t think trump could go lower. This is unreal.

    It's been said over and over that there is no bottom. Then there is a gif of Pence being sad. And I laugh, but I shouldn't. Because there is no bottom.

    • Haha 1
  10. 3 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

    Because I mentioned one main issue I had with him was not publicly denouncing police execution? Fuck off, it had nothing to do with race. Maybe you should read some of my other posts before being a dipshit, but that’s obviously not how you work. People like you diminish the meaning of racism and are a blockade to the cause you claim to be passionate about.

    He fucking did publicly denounce the shootings you moron. He was in Europe when it happened and held a press conference in Warsaw, Poland shortly afterwords. He left Europe early to come back to the U.S. as a direct result of the shootings. I am sorry he didn't stop by your house to have a chat afterwords and discuss next steps, but it is simply laughable to suggest that Obama didn't publicly respond to the shootings. 

    • Like 8
  11. 38 minutes ago, Dropout said:

    And the political terrorist movement he is referring to is voters of Bernie fucking Sanders. Of which there were a few on this board.

    Bernie Sanders was the compromise. Not the leader of a terrorist movement.

    You know, fair enough. I still think you are reading waaay too much into his words, but I also know that I have felt aggrieved even when the other party didn't intend to. I get why you are pissed, while also thinking that it is not accurate to say that BT called posters "political terrorists" merely for expressing their opinion.

  12. Just now, Dropout said:

    So the standard goto now is just say you must stand with Trump? Fuck Trump. And fuck Joe Biden. Neither stand with me or any minority community.

     

    It’s not a gotcha. I said he called posters here political terrorists. And he did. Sorry if his balls are in your eyes and you can’t see.

    The same voters who are probably referred to as Antifa or the radical left by the William Barr’s of the world. He is no different.

    No he didn't, at least not in what you quoted. He said there were political terrorist movements. That is not the same thing as calling you, me, or even random Joe Blow on the street a political terrorist. It's like saying is acting like an asshole, or said/did something racists. It doesn't mean that individual is an asshole or racist.

  13. 3 minutes ago, Dropout said:

     

    You’re a mix of William Barr and Chris Matthews. Own it.

    Holy shit. That was your gotcha? Brisket not calling anyone out, not referring to a single poster? Not even calling non-Surly individuals a political terrorist? That is some extreme weaksauce.

  14. 3 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

    I'd argue that the moral core of this country is disgusted by the murder of Floyd. This core is also disgusted by systemic racism and the looting and destruction of business across this country.

    I would argue that the moral core of this country equates the looting and destruction with systemic racism. Being disgusted with the murder of Floyd doesn't DO anything. And it HASN'T done anything. The effects of systemic racism is just that - systemic. It is not just Floyd, and the solution to systemic racism is not to say, "ok, we'll shoot fewer of you". In that sense I think the center of the country needs to be torn apart, at least the complacency of it.

  15. 23 minutes ago, Dropout said:

    Coming from the guy who called posters on this site “political terrorists” for having the audacity to voice their opinions. 

    This is like saying "All I did was put my finger on a piece of metal and pulled on it, and all of a sudden I'm getting charged with shooting a guy!". I don't know the post you are referring to, but I don't think it is the "audacity to voice their opinions" that leads to being called a political terrorist.

  16. 2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I don't like being accused for the actions of my forebears, but at the same time, I don't feel like I or most white Americans should be praised, either.

    It's quite a conundrum.

    This is one hell of a conviction.

     

    I don't think anyone (or at least the large majority of people) are throwing accusations because of actions of ancestors. It is more acknowledgement that our ancestors did some really ahitty things and we benefit from it. Where we go from there can encompass anything from wealth redistribution / reparations to tearing down institutional policies to simple conversations.

    Maybe I am placing too much emphasis on your discomfort with the word accusation but I am coming to feel that as we (whites) think about our history that we start imagining more anger and accusation that actually exists to individuals. 

    • Like 2
  17. 1 hour ago, blacklab said:

    This isn't the thread for your hot takes on police unions, antifa, and anita.

    There's a thread for that @Trey3216

     

    29 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

     

     

     

    21 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:


    The Feds need to apply RICO to Antifa over these riots. I'd love to see several hundred Antifa members each facing decades of prison time. Then squeeze them to find out who they are coordinating with and apply RICO to those people as well.

    Not trying to be the proverbial snowflake, but are above posts by Johnny cool? If so, are replies cool? 

    • Like 3
  18. 12 minutes ago, blacklab said:

    This is not the thread for politics. Start a thread in CR if you'd like to discuss politics around this.

    Understood, and apologies for my contributions to the derailment. Very sincere appreciation to Pancho for sharing his feelings. I think the discussion of "seeing race" vs "not seeing race" was interesting, especially as I also have younger kids who don't currently see race as important (but I don't see that staying the same forever). But even so that should be secondary to just listening and hearing before reacting.

    • Like 1
  19. 10 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

    My statement wasn’t meant to be provocative. If you read it again I was agreeing with brisket, who said essentially that people lost their minds about Obama because of racism and it melted their minds. 

    I was agreeing with him!  I even repped his post!  

    My point in bringing in the I thought Obama was a shitty president was saying - yeah- I agree with you about what is driving this right now- even though you and I don’t agree politically!  

    It was actually topical to the thread and response. And I was saying my disagreement with Obama was substantive and policy based and I didn’t understand/was repulsed by the thought, that the blow back against him was based upon his race and not his actual actions in office- which should absolutely be fair game for criticism, even harsh criticism, in a fair and open minded, racially tolerant society. In fact, that’s when we will know we’ve reached where we want to be- when you can criticize someone based upon words and actions and it has nothing to do with what their identity is. 

    We aren’t anywhere close to there and that makes me sad. I don’t know how we get there. I don’t know if we ever do. I hope we can some day. I fear we won’t. 

    Having second class citizens based upon nothing other than race is unmitigated bullshit. I thought it was on the way out in our country, but I was honestly wrong. I thought it was on the way out because it’s stupid, I didn’t grow up with it, and nobody in my social circle would ever think to out themselves in that way, so I think it’s a marginal and small situation, but I’m clearly wrong about that. 

    PS- I think trump is probably one of the shittiest presidents ever- and it’s not for policy reasons- it’s because he’s a terrible human being. Something I wasn’t putting on Obama. 

    I wasn't complaining about your post, but if you honestly think saying that Obama was a shitty president is not a provocative statement, especially given the recent warning against political statements in multiple threads in DT, than I think your reading of other individuals is a little more suspect than you imagine.

    • Like 1
  20. 3 minutes ago, Iceman said:

    I didn't differentiate because i said 'Presidents'   You can read can't you?  It applied to the conversation in general.

     

     

    Go fuck yourself though.   peace love and happiness crybaby...

    No, you did differentiate in your response. Wulaw called Omaba a shitty president. You replied (in this thread) without comment. Other posters said he was not shitty, and that perhaps other presidents were shitty. That is when you stepped in with your usual butthurt and crying.

     

    So why is it you had no problem with the first, provocative statement? Crybaby indeed.

×
×
  • Create New...