Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Gasometer]

...nearly 7 more days......

 

[Groin guru]

Where? Show me.

The politics thread when you were so breath taken by AOC dancing and kept constantly bringing up Trump despite me saying time and time again I don't like him but he was the lesser of two evils.

She's only been in congress for a few months and she's put her foot in it almost daily (rebuttal: "SO HAS TRUMP!!!!" - again, he isn't the topic of discussion. AOC is). From the Amazon deal (costing new yorkers 25k new jobs), to the 'Green New Deal' to countless times highlighting her basic level of understanding,and the fake controversy surrounding her dancing - that no one had an issue - everyone actually thought it was refreshing and cool (rightfully so).

Yes she is young, but she has been propped up because socialism is all the rage, she's a female of colour, charismatic, and apparently "grew up in the Bronx" (despite many highlighting the lies). It's not bullying. She's just being taken to task because she knows very little. It's exactly why she refuses to go on any talk show or debate anyone that isn't on the left.

AOC - Green New deal:


Errors:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...tezs-trillion-mistake/?utm_term=.8941822a5f91

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...dria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/

she couldn't remember the three branches of government her party needed to win

could be in this section for days...

Campaign finance allegations:


Systemic racism:


wanting 70 percent tax on the “tippy-tops” of wage earners and comparing herself to Republican President Abraham Lincoln

 

[Groin guru]

What a strange slap fight.

TOD thinks it's the lack of 180 makes the whole comparison flawed (which seems fair enough), but you both went back and forward in a bizarre intellectual dance making your best efforts not to get straight to the crux of the matter and to try and score points, which basically just makes you both look a bit, well, silly.

That a fair enough summation?

You missed the part where I was right and TOD was wrong for the entire journey!

 

[Groin guru]

What a strange slap fight.

TOD thinks it's the lack of 180 makes the whole comparison flawed (which seems fair enough), but you both went back and forward in a bizarre intellectual dance making your best efforts not to get straight to the crux of the matter and to try and score points, which basically just makes you both look a bit, well, silly.

That a fair enough summation?

You missed the part where I was right and TOD was wrong for the entire journey!

 

[kaboom kid]

"Holier than thou"? I never said that. And yes, it IS a football club. Which chooses to invest itself in the well-being of its players. Well-being meaning encompassing all aspects of personal development. Why you insist on thinking that the two must be mutually exclusive, or that a more wholistic approach to developing players somehow constitutes a political agenda is beyond me. But then fear does weird stuff to people's minds.

Also not sure why you brought up The Huddle, but since you did, here's more scariness. Watch at your own peril. (Or don't. Your decision.)






"Most of all, we appreciate our young people. Bright, hardworking, resilient, and strong, who attend The Huddle every day, and are open to teach, learn, grow, and help one another."

Really struggle to understand why this stuff incenses you so much. But hey, to each his own.

Massive fan of The Huddle and the work it does in the community. I personally think it's great that it's linked to our club and that our players are so involved. I believe a football club shouldn't only be about football and has a really important role to play in the community. You see this first hand growing up in the country but its even more powerful at AFL level.I sort of get where Snake is coming from however as I do find gender politics and virtue signalling pretty tiresome. I value what he has to say even if I don't agree with some of it. Isn't an internet forum a good place for lively debate?

 

[Tas]

This is amusing...

MIT published an article called, "The Hipster Effect: Why anti-conformists always end up looking the same" on 28 Feb 2019, which goes on to look at the science behind why efforts to reject the mainstream merely results in a new conformity. The article had a picture of a bearded hipster in a flannel shirt wearing a beanie on the front of the article.

A man saw the picture and sent an angry letter to MIT saying he was going to sue them for using his image without his permission and that it was inflammatory to label him a hipster.

MIT checked with their art department who contacted Getty Images who confirmed that the man in the picture was just a male model who dressed up as a hipster, the man lamenting that even his family thought it was him.

Aside of the funny confirmation of the original article, I found it pretty interesting.

The original article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...i-conformists-always-end-up-looking-the-same/
The article in relation to the complaint: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/07/hipsters-all-look-same-man-inadvertently-confirms

 

[ferball]

giantroo and KiwiRoo HEy guys, I'm really sorry to hear what happened.

BTW - Grafton's just down the road from here. Sort of. I hear people saying shit like this **** wit said all the time. Next time I go out for a beer I expect to hear people saying he's done the right thing.

 

[ferball]

A hipsters' relationship to non-conformity is pretty similar to the one the AFL has with integrity isn't it?

 

[Sopwiths North]

No. That was step 2. You listed 4. You're just trying to circle out of it. There is a reason why you are more than willing to breakdown certain people, and less inclined to even go near others. You're pulling matrix like moves to get yourself out of this. I assume because you don't want to upset those that look up to your point of view (sopwiths for example).

Zero consistency. So called 'voice of reason' but you just highlighted your inconsistency. It's okay...keep sticking to 'step 2' and ignoring the rest though

Geez Groin, a bit demeaning there, passively painting me out to be some sort of mindless follower, who “looks up” to TOD’s opinions like I don’t have any original thoughts of my own. For the record, I’ll be the first person to say I look to him for learning about all things footy, because he is infinitely more experienced and learned than me, and he’s been an invaluable teacher. But as for the rest, there is no “looking up to”. We are equal. There is no leading or following or idolising or whatever it is you seem to be insinuating. TOD and I are just same page kind of people.

With respect to this weird argument you’ve started with him, I’m not sure what’s so difficult about understanding the crucial factor of their respective motivations when it comes to whatever step that was that’s being quibbled over. Seemed clear to me. (See how I bolded and italicised and underlined it just so it’s clear for you. Hope that helps.)

 

[Sopwiths North]

Massive fan of The Huddle and the work it does in the community. I personally think it's great that it's linked to our club and that our players are so involved. I believe a football club shouldn't only be about football and has a really important role to play in the community. You see this first hand growing up in the country but its even more powerful at AFL level.I sort of get where Snake is coming from however as I do find gender politics and virtue signalling pretty tiresome. I value what he has to say even if I don't agree with some of it. Isn't an internet forum a good place for lively debate?

So you value his constant iterations across multiple threads about the North Melbourne Football Club being overtaken by political activists in some sort of bizarre conspiracy (hint: it's just society's moral progress, no conspiracy), and his constant claim to entitlement to his club? You value his direct attack on Ben Brown for merely speaking out about equal rights? You value his repeated bleatings that women have no right to play footy at AFL level?

I usually like your postings kaboom, but this one's got me a bit confused. Sure there's value in lively internet forum conversation - absolutely. But racism and sexism and any other kind of discrimination or hate speech, and I don't care how veiled or subtle it may be, needs to be called out. Every time. Yesterday saw 49 innocent people gunned down by a white supremacist simply because of their faith. That was a catastrophic, horrific, immense act of hatred. Supported in its aftermath by the facebook posts of thousands, which is sadly telling. I don't care how small or how veiled or how hidden - you call it out. Because acts of hatred like what happened yesterday grow from a culture of long-term and widespread tolerance of it at smaller levels.

So lively discussion, sure. Tolerance of discrimination and hate speech over and over again? Nope.

 

[Val Keating]

The politics thread when you were so breath taken by AOC dancing and kept constantly bringing up Trump despite me saying time and time again I don't like him but he was the lesser of two evils.

She's only been in congress for a few months and she's put her foot in it almost daily (rebuttal: "SO HAS TRUMP!!!!" - again, he isn't the topic of discussion. AOC is). From the Amazon deal (costing new yorkers 25k new jobs), to the 'Green New Deal' to countless times highlighting her basic level of understanding,and the fake controversy surrounding her dancing - that no one had an issue - everyone actually thought it was refreshing and cool (rightfully so).

Yes she is young, but she has been propped up because socialism is all the rage, she's a female of colour, charismatic, and apparently "grew up in the Bronx" (despite many highlighting the lies). It's not bullying. She's just being taken to task because she knows very little. It's exactly why she refuses to go on any talk show or debate anyone that isn't on the left.

AOC - Green New deal:


Errors:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...tezs-trillion-mistake/?utm_term=.8941822a5f91

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...dria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/

she couldn't remember the three branches of government her party needed to win

could be in this section for days...

Campaign finance allegations:


Systemic racism:


wanting 70 percent tax on the “tippy-tops” of wage earners and comparing herself to Republican President Abraham Lincoln

Are you referring to the Trump thread? Strange that I would bring up Trump in his own thread. I was taking the piss about her dancing....I actually thought you liked Trump. Weird. Anyways I like AOC because she brings up things in Congress that make them all uncomfortable, she can do that because she’s not corrupted by doners.

Stuff like this

 

[Orange Peanut]

If it's so integral why not emphasis it more? Instead it's just two among 4. Seems like if that was integral it'd be highlighted in the opening and reinforced at the end? Or bold/underline...anything to actually highlight that it is the main point.

Orrrrr....you're just clutching to that point because then you save face and say it was my fault.

Dude as a great admirer of you and TOD, and someone who sits on the fence with a lean slightly towards your side of politics, this is weird. TOD's whole point was about opportunism and people changing sides. It might have been one of 4 points, but surely you can see it's the main crux of where he's coming from?

 

[KiwiRoo]

giantroo and KiwiRoo HEy guys, I'm really sorry to hear what happened.

BTW - Grafton's just down the road from here. Sort of. I hear people saying shit like this **** wit said all the time. Next time I go out for a beer I expect to hear people saying he's done the right thing.

cheers Ferball. If you hear people saying crap like that you may like to point out to them in a non violent way (don't need any more of that) that some of the victims were children..Lets see if they could justify that.

 

[Groin guru]

Geez Groin, a bit demeaning there, passively painting me out to be some sort of mindless follower, who “looks up” to TOD’s opinions like I don’t have any original thoughts of my own. For the record, I’ll be the first person to say I look to him for learning about all things footy, because he is infinitely more experienced and learned than me, and he’s been an invaluable teacher. But as for the rest, there is no “looking up to”. We are equal. There is no leading or following or idolising or whatever it is you seem to be insinuating. TOD and I are just same page kind of people.

With respect to this weird argument you’ve started with him, I’m not sure what’s so difficult about understanding the crucial factor of their respective motivations when it comes to whatever step that was that’s being quibbled over. Seemed clear to me. (See how I bolded and italicised and underlined it just so it’s clear for you. Hope that helps.)

If you took it that way it isn't my issue. You are merely assuming that I was insinuating that. I wasn't. People are allowed to look up to others and various people carry more weight with regards to statements/opinions. TOD happens to be one of those people.

No different to me valuing the insights/opinion of posters like K4e and Snake on certain issues because I feel they are more logical and less likely to keep quiet. Being consistent and calling it how it is.

Dude as a great admirer of you and TOD, and someone who sits on the fence with a lean slightly towards your side of politics, this is weird. TOD's whole point was about opportunism and people changing sides. It might have been one of 4 points, but surely you can see it's the main crux of where he's coming from?

I simply made the point that I could swap a few words around and do something similar with an individual that is very similar in many ways. I knew TOD wouldn't touch that with a 40 foot pole. I did it my self to prove the point. Not only did I highlight that AOC and Owens are very similar (just opposing sides), but I highlighted (IMO - no one else's, just my own) that TOD is happy to go full tilt at people like Owens, but would never critique an individual like AOC. Zero consistency. Selective criticism - which is fine. TOD has people he doesn't want to upset and any criticism of AOC is often met with "you're a sexist, you want people to be poor, you don't care about the planet, and you're a racist" . You must keep the peace.

I respect TOD (and of course will continue to do so) and this is only my opinion. My no means am I attacking him or anyone else - we are adults here (well everyone but Chadwiko is because he showed his true colours when he squealed to Chief and tried to get me banned for a joke ). I'm just pointing out an observation. No different to the gender equality thread. TOD was quite critical of Jordan Peterson (and fair enough, he raised good points and is entitled to do so) but I bet he wouldn't touch issues like the wage gap because again - selective.

Sent via Ham radio in my cabin in the woods.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Are you referring to the Trump thread? Strange that I would bring up Trump in his own thread. I was taking the piss about her dancing....I actually thought you liked Trump. Weird. Anyways I like AOC because she brings up things in Congress that make them all uncomfortable, she can do that because she’s not corrupted by doners.

Stuff like this

I dislike her because she’s a socialist moron and a hypocrite, I.e. Critical of any efforts to bring down Maduro in Venezuela. Her understanding of international relations and the purpose of sanctions is amusing because it is extremely limited. Her stubborn refusal in not denouncing Maduro (who has killed a lot more than 50 people and has active death squads) is laughable. She was mighty quick to call out the NZ tragedy, but not Venezuelan death squads, I wonder why. She comes from the same abhorrent philosophy that guides Maduro.



Not too many people are scared of her posing any serious or intellectual challenge:
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/09/1...apper/index.html?r=https://www.google.com.au/

 

[Val Keating]

I dislike her because she’s a socialist moron and a hypocrite, I.e. Critical of any efforts to bring down Maduro in Venezuela. Her understanding of international relations and the purpose of sanctions is amusing because it is extremely limited. Her stubborn refusal in not denouncing Maduro (who has killed a lot more than 50 people and has active death squads) is laughable. She was mighty quick to call out the NZ tragedy, but not Venezuelan death squads, I wonder why. She comes from the same abhorrent philosophy that guides Maduro.



Not too many people are scared of her posing any serious or intellectual challenge:
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tapper/index.html?r=https://www.google.com.au/

She’s hardly a moron. Say what you want about socialisim, but capitalism isn’t great either. Capitalism is destroying the planet.

People in Venezuela don’t actually want America to have them as their next war zone fwiw.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

She’s hardly a moron. Say what you want about socialisim, but capitalism isn’t great either. Capitalism is destroying the planet.

People in Venezuela don’t actually want America to have them as their next war zone fwiw.

Agree to disagree.


It’s bloody easy to criticise capitalism, but choosing a viable solution not so easy. Knowingly choosing an ideology that has always resulted in authoritarianism and death is astonishing.

Did I say war zone or interventions, I said sanctions. It is clear from Trump’s large scale withdrawal from Syria that a military intervention is currently off the cards. Sanctions are often used to avoid military entanglements. Having death squads roaming the streets, one could argue that already is a war zone. The coverage of the NZ terror versus the Venezuelan deaths is astonishing.

 

[kangaspurs]

Agree to disagree.


It’s bloody easy to criticise capitalism, but choosing a viable solution not so easy. Knowingly choosing an ideology that has always resulted in authoritarianism and death is astonishing.

Did I say war zone or interventions, I said sanctions. It is clear from Trump’s large scale withdrawal from Syria that a military intervention is currently off the cards. Sanctions are often used to avoid military entanglements. Having death squads roaming the streets, one could argue that already is a war zone. The coverage of the NZ terror versus the Venezuelan deaths is astonishing.

Yeah, but sanctions have been proven in places like Iraq to do far more damage to a nation's civilians than to those in the ruling party, or those who are in that circle of influence. All sanctions do is increase the inequality between the haves and have nots in the sanctioned countries, and sends millions to starvation and then death.

 

[tazaa]

My biggest issue following Fridays tragic events is the free speech argument that continues to linger and rise up from ignorant Australians on one persons right to voice their opinion, inclusive of racist overtones that incites division.

For years, so called lefties have been up in arms about political agendas that seek to divide and vilify Muslims, Africans and immigrants who are only migrating to western nations because the West has wreaked havoc on their homes. The irony is uncanny.
Politicians like Anning, Morrison and Abbott who spruce the anti-Islam sentiment in Main Stream Media and on Twitter/Facebook platforms for votes and political gain, don't acknowledge the far reaching and serious impact that it has. Now we know how far it goes. Gunning down 49 innocent civilians.

For years they were warned against doing so by mild mannered Australians. They were pressured to stop and those with voices of reason who called for restraint and basic respect were shouted down. It has culminated in a 28 yo Australian becoming so warped and hate-filled - he has decided to take the lives of innocent defenseless humans going about their day in peace.
For what? Votes? 3 more years in parliament? Another massive donation? It has to stop and has to be called out for what it is. It needs to be punished.

No more can excuses for people like Senator Fraser Annings whose comments come off as free speech, as his own opinion be continued. You lose that right as soon as a racist rhetoric develops that seeks to further divide the community. We've seen how far that influence can travel and its catastrophic.

This terrorist was not raised a killer, nor was he raised to be a White Supremacist. This man grew up in Queensland and somewhere along the way was so heavily influenced by the online and MSM propaganda that he decided to commit one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in history and the worse on NZ soil.

If our political leaders are serious about addressing this issue and putting an end to such events, then it must become law that anything deemed to be racist and that is designed to cause human harm needs to be outlawed and punishments handed out. Otherwise this is only the beginning of what could be a new breed of terrorist that will destroy our peaceful and harmonious way of life. Enough is enough.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Yeah, but sanctions have been proven in places like Iraq to do far more damage to a nation's civilians than to those in the ruling party, or those who are in that circle of influence. All sanctions do is increase the inequality between the haves and have nots in the sanctioned countries, and sends millions to starvation and then death.

Very debatable and Iraq is one example.

The 1999 figures are disputed, academically.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29225933/

Plus, the Venezuelans were rummaging through rubbish for food before any USA sanctions.

Weaponised trade is the new way of warfare. Our role in any American war against China will be distant blockade via the malacca straits and East Indian Ocean.

Anyway, I do agree that sanctions and economic blockades have a measure of evil about them, especially if you think of the example of the British blockade against Germany in the First World War, which killed hundreds of thousands, but helped end the war by fueling the collapse of Germany's home front, which saved more lives in the long-term. They morality of sanctions and blockades is debatable, but there are many different types of strong and weak economic sanctions and blockades, and we have come a long way since 1914-18 and even 1991-2003.

Economic sanctions are ultimately intended to stop a greater evil.

 

[Sopwiths North]

If you took it that way it isn't my issue. You are merely assuming that I was insinuating that. I wasn't. People are allowed to look up to others and various people carry more weight with regards to statements/opinions. TOD happens to be one of those people.

No different to me valuing the insights/opinion of posters like K4e and Snake on certain issues because I feel they are more logical and less likely to keep quiet. Being consistent and calling it how it is.


I simply made the point that I could swap a few words around and do something similar with an individual that is very similar in many ways. I knew TOD wouldn't touch that with a 40 foot pole. I did it my self to prove the point. Not only did I highlight that AOC and Owens are very similar (just opposing sides), but I highlighted (IMO - no one else's, just my own) that TOD is happy to go full tilt at people like Owens, but would never critique an individual like AOC. Zero consistency. Selective criticism - which is fine. TOD has people he doesn't want to upset and any criticism of AOC is often met with "you're a sexist, you want people to be poor, you don't care about the planet, and you're a racist" . You must keep the peace.

I respect TOD (and of course will continue to do so) and this is only my opinion. My no means am I attacking him or anyone else - we are adults here (well everyone but Chadwiko is because he showed his true colours when he squealed to Chief and tried to get me banned for a joke ). I'm just pointing out an observation. No different to the gender equality thread. TOD was quite critical of Jordan Peterson (and fair enough, he raised good points and is entitled to do so) but I bet he wouldn't touch issues like the wage gap because again - selective.

Sent via Ham radio in my cabin in the woods.

Huh. Well, okay - divest yourself of "my" issue if you like. But you're still "assuming" that TOD and I see each other as being on different levels from one another, and that's pretty presumptuous of you, in my opinion. You really don't know anything about how we see one another, but I can tell you for a fact that it's not in a man up/man down scenario. Our "statements/opinions" carry equal weight with each other. So before you go accusing people of "assuming" things, maybe take a look at your own assumptions as well.

We get to decide for ourselves who we "look up" to. No one else designates that. When you assume it about someone else, it comes off as a judgement on the value of the person you are identifying as subordinate. And you can fob it off as being "their" issue if you like, but it's just a little something to keep in mind.

 

[Groin guru]

Huh. Well, okay - divest yourself of "my" issue if you like. But you're still "assuming" that TOD and I see each other as being on different levels from one another, and that's pretty presumptuous of you, in my opinion. You really don't know anything about how we see one another, but I can tell you for a fact that it's not in a man up/man down scenario. Our "statements/opinions" carry equal weight with each other. So before you go accusing people of "assuming" things, maybe take a look at your own assumptions as well.

We get to decide for ourselves who we "look up" to. No one else designates that. When you assume it about someone else, it comes off as a judgement on the value of the person you are identifying as subordinate. And you can fob it off as being "their" issue if you like, but it's just a little something to keep in mind.

But I think of everyone as equal so there are no subordinate roles. Just that some are worth listening to on various topics/issues and some that are not. We have a finite amount of time so I feel that's fair. The idea that your opinions carry equal weight is fanciful. If I wanted an opinion on Ed lower I'd speak to TOD. If I wanted to get an opinion on living in Canada I'd speak to you. That's just how it is - even forest plots in meta analyses use a weighting system and there are far more variables at play when it comes to humans.

I've looked at my assumptions and opinions and they look fine.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Former Rising Star in induced coma after motorcycle accident

Marc McGowan
Mar 17, 2019 5:16PM


FORMER AFL player Rhys Palmer is in an induced coma at Royal Perth Hospital after a serious motorcycle accident on Saturday night.

Palmer, the 2008 NAB AFL Rising Star, underwent emergency surgery, including having his spleen removed, and is fighting for his life.

The 30-year-old, who played 123 AFL games for Fremantle, Greater Western Sydney and Carlton, was riding with a female passenger when their vehicle collided with a car at a Perth intersection.

The female passenger hurt her hand in the incident and also went to hospital.

WAFL club Swan Districts, where Palmer is due to play this season, released a statement on his condition on Sunday.

"The health and wellbeing of Rhys and his passenger is of utmost importance to the club. There is no consideration of anything else at this point in time," chief executive Jeff Dennis said.

"The thoughts of everyone at the club are with both of them and their families at this very difficult time."

 

[iSmack]

My biggest issue following Fridays tragic events is the free speech argument that continues to linger and rise up from ignorant Australians on one persons right to voice their opinion, inclusive of racist overtones that incites division.

While I harbour intense suspicion of people who claim free speech to disguise racist and discriminatory behavior, I don't believe in censoring hate speech. It pains me to say this as a member of the African, muslim and immigrant community, but I will go so far as to say that we need to even protect hate speech.

The reason I say this is because I believe that censorship is a cure that is worse than the disease.

Worse than hate speeches potential to harm individuals and society as a whole, is the government's potential to inflict more harm by enforcing "hate speech" laws.

I'm of the firm opinion that we have undercover facists, racists and islamophobes in government who would love nothing more than to use such laws to silence dissenting views and disempowered groups.

That been said, violent and discremonatory conduct must be swiftly and harshly punished.

But speech conveying discriminatory and hateful ideas should be rebutted.......and here is my problem with Australia's politicians and media outlets.

Instead of rebutting such hateful and discremonatory ideas, they are taken advantage of for further gain by politicians and allowed to flourish with little to no rebuttle by media outlets.

Infact, not only are proponents of hate speech allowed to flourish, media outlets are known to select weak debators to represent the sensible opposing views.

This "rigging" distorts the debate and allows hateful speech to fester with no strong and credible rebuttle leading to the proponents of such ideas the false sense of credibility.

As much as it hurts me to see people who look like my father, mother, sisters and brothers executed in cold blood (yes I saw the murderers live feed) I do not believe in censorship of hateful speech.

I believe censorship of hate speech will only increase intergroup distrust and discrimination. Instead, hate speech should be confronted with a strong and direct rebuttle and not pandered to by politicians looking to score political points or rigged by media outlets to sell a story.






Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk