|
|
Post by verbaltoxin on Jul 27, 2012 11:47:26 GMT -6
Auntie Cheesus: desertgeek: Just curious, does anyone know if this guy is a James alt?
www.fark.com/comments/7232812/78300960#c78300960
No, I don't think that's a James! alt.
yeah don't think so. No one is who they say they are anyway. Fark teaches me there are a LOT of people who sound insanely similar to eachother. Never ceased to amaze me that someone could come out with something like "Student Loans are equivalent to the slavery the blacks had in the cotton fields" and mean it as if it was their completely valid, non-insane argument.... then have people actually supporting it and saying "That's a GREAT analogy YEAH!" That's a different example. Farkers by and large are not at all tolerant of differing opinions and the discussions regularly become an echo chamber with Farkers repeating things they heard on Fark as if they were original thoughts. Kind of like the memes stolen from 4 chan Farkers always take credit for. Lately in the politics tab I've been trying to look at things from the outside, sort of taking a devil's advocate point of view. A lot of the guys there whose views I share, I would never want speaking for me. In fact I can think of a few Farkers right off the top of my head who are perfect for the John Stewart "You're Not Helping" graphic. |
|
|
|
Post by Auntie Cheesus on Jul 27, 2012 11:58:30 GMT -6
Verbaltoxin/Lingualvenom: Lately in the politics tab I've been trying to look at things from the outside, sort of taking a devil's advocate point of view. A lot of the guys there whose views I share, I would never want speaking for me. In fact I can think of a few Farkers right off the top of my head who are perfect for the John Stewart "You're Not Helping" graphic.I'm curious how a discussion of something like the "Chick-Fil-A" controversy would work in this group. Then again, I have friends that, while I may disagree vehemently with some of their views, I can still be friends with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharktrager on Jul 27, 2012 14:47:45 GMT -6
Don't kid yourself, GD was protected. She was allowed to break rules consistently, in many cases allowed to post and say things we were having deleted in the old wrestling threads. Remember the Armbra controversy? And while we've kind of focused on Smiths' complaints, other had the same reaction from the mods.
It just reached a point where they couldn't justify the discrepancy on a site of that size and they acted. Her absence, however, is proof that the basics of our complaints were pretty valid. They took away certain privileges she had abused and she took her ball and went home because she needed those to continue to generate income. It took restricting her account to do what the mods refused to do, and it prevented those who were covering for her from being able to keep doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by verbaltoxin on Jul 27, 2012 17:13:52 GMT -6
Verbaltoxin/Lingualvenom: Lately in the politics tab I've been trying to look at things from the outside, sort of taking a devil's advocate point of view. A lot of the guys there whose views I share, I would never want speaking for me. In fact I can think of a few Farkers right off the top of my head who are perfect for the John Stewart "You're Not Helping" graphic.I'm curious how a discussion of something like the "Chick-Fil-A" controversy would work in this group. Then again, I have friends that, while I may disagree vehemently with some of their views, I can still be friends with them. My view? I don't care. I know it's controversial to not automatically call someone against gay marriage a homophobe, but honestly, I refuse to give someone that level of power over my words and actions. Those against it are on the wrong side of history and in a while, we'll all laugh at them and think about how stupid it was that we got so up in arms over it. Of course gays should be able to marry, is my point. Some dumbass with a restaurant giving money to a bunch of church groups though isn't boycott-worthy, in my opinion. Now if one chooses not to eat there because of that, I won't judge. I just don't care about Chik-fil-A to make them the centerpiece of the gay marriage issue. Like I said, I don't want them having that power. Now having spent as much time on Fark as I have, I know how my views can have holes poked into it. Fine, but my point is, it's a damned fast food joint. Eventually Dan Cathy will die and gay marriage will be legal universally. It will pass. All things pass. Do what you want and don't get on my case about it. That's my view. |
|
|
|
Post by LucklessWonder on Jul 28, 2012 6:57:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by hobblekitty on Jul 28, 2012 11:57:33 GMT -6
LucklessWonder:
That is an interesting and thought provoking argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auntie Cheesus on Jul 28, 2012 12:55:18 GMT -6
hobblekitty: LucklessWond er :
That is an interesting and thought provoking argument.
It would be if KFC bites weren't like little nuggets of wonderful and the seasoned wedge fries like baby Jesus' gift to ranch dressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auntie Cheesus on Jul 28, 2012 13:03:10 GMT -6
Verbaltoxin/Lingualvenom:
Yesterday at 12:58pm, Auntie Cheesus wrote:Verbaltoxin/Lingu alvenom: Lately in the politics tab I've been trying to look at things from the outside, sort of taking a devil's advocate point of view. A lot of the guys there whose views I share, I would never want speaking for me. In fact I can think of a few Farkers right off the top of my head who are perfect for the John Stewart "You're Not Helping" graphic.
I'm curious how a discussion of something like the "Chick-Fil-A" controversy would work in this group. Then again, I have friends that, while I may disagree vehemently with some of their views, I can still be friends with them.
My view? I don't care. I know it's controversial to not automatically call someone against gay marriage a homophobe, but honestly, I refuse to give someone that level of power over my words and actions. Those against it are on the wrong side of history and in a while, we'll all laugh at them and think about how stupid it was that we got so up in arms over it. Of course gays should be able to marry, is my point. Some dumbass with a restaurant giving money to a bunch of church groups though isn't boycott-worthy, in my opinion. Now if one chooses not to eat there because of that, I won't judge. I just don't care about Chik-fil-A to make them the centerpiece of the gay marriage issue. Like I said, I don't want them having that power.
Now having spent as much time on Fark as I have, I know how my views can have holes poked into it. Fine, but my point is, it's a damned fast food joint. Eventually Dan Cathy will die and gay marriage will be legal universally. It will pass. All things pass. Do what you want and don't get on my case about it. That's my view.
My view on the subject: Mr. Cathy has every right to speak his mind and give money to groups he believes are doing the right thing. I have every right to my beliefs and I believe I won't contribute indirectly to his causes by dining at Chick-Fil-A.
|
|
|
|
Post by hobblekitty on Jul 28, 2012 15:36:50 GMT -6
Auntie Cheesus: hobblekitty: LucklessWond er :
That is an interesting and thought provoking argument.
It would be if KFC bites weren't like little nuggets of wonderful and the seasoned wedge fries like baby Jesus' gift to ranch dressing.
That was mainly sarcasm, LOL. We don't actually have any Chick-fil-A in this area but if we did I wouldn't eat there. They have the right to their opinion, and I have the right to use my (admittedly limited) dollars to show my disagreement with those views by not dining at their establishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by LucklessWonder on Jul 28, 2012 16:35:32 GMT -6
I believe Chick-fil-A's breakfast minis (as pictured upthread) might be the tastiest mass market chicken nugget fast food in the US. However, I will not be purchasing them in the future as I'm very much pro gay marriage (My father is gay, and I'm around 3 or 4 on the Kinsey scale myself).
So, i get to be a fat bastard by other means. such as the Ledo's pizza I'm currently scarfing down, or the waffle house triple chilli hash browns I tend to order in drunken stupors.
|
|
