41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 08, 2023, 11:05:53 PM »

lol tell me you'll be single until the day you die without telling me you'll be single until the day you die

42

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread

« on: May 01, 2023, 02:16:00 PM »

I’m back.

No analysis - but I can offer a very important

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Boston AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

lol i hope someone has taken gary bettman's shoelaces and belt and stuff. and no sharp objects for the next few days.

43

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do liberal elites worship Satan?

« on: April 29, 2023, 06:09:58 PM »

All hail our dark lord, ruler of the dewey decimal system.

As a member of the liberal elite, I confirm that we all worship Satan. This is not a secret, you could have just asked.

I sacrificed a baby just this morning. It's blood was delicious.

hey please don't be so obvious, you nuts. you're just supposed to put 666 in lots of stuff and always set your clocks to 9:11, shit like that. i mean damn is this your first day in the cabal or what?

44

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 19, 2023, 07:16:29 PM »

i wonder why fox news didn't answer this lawsuit by simply proving that the election was rigged and their evidence was accurate. i was made to believe that there were veritable mountains of obvious, direct proof that the election was rigged and that anyone who said otherwise is a desperate shill.

wouldn't it have been a good idea for fox to use some of that evidence here? it seems like it would've saved them a lot of money.

45

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread

« on: April 13, 2023, 04:30:26 PM »

iceman we need your nhl analysis. tell me why boston is so good, i haven't been paying attention.

46

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: April 10, 2023, 12:23:45 AM »

hillary clinton caught LAUGHING this is epic

just out of curiosity, is the implication supposed to be that she thinks the sexual abuse of children is funny?

47

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 24, 2023, 02:12:01 PM »

this shit doesn't move the needle for me at all. i couldn't give less of a fuck about trump paying daniels and then technically not recording it properly or whatever. who cares.

the motherfucker is literally on tape begging governors to fix the 2020 general. and then separately inciting a mob to try to overthrow the federal government and install himself as a fucking dictator. how about we try him for actual crimes that matter at all.

48

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 10:02:16 PM »

my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship.

If I only censor things a little bit instead of a lot, that's okay in your world?

if you're not even going to bother reading what i write, then i'm not sure why i should do the same for you.

49

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 10:15:33 PM »

Tell you what, next time you get published, I'll change the words you write, not only post-publication but post-mortem..

lol dig my corpse up and carve swastikas in it for all i'll give a shit. i'll be dead. lmao i love that apparently i shouldn't be concerned with offending living humans, but i should be deeply concerned about offending the sensibilities of dead people. pick a lane fam.

but to your point, if i die and my estate voluntarily decides to change some words in some shit i wrote because they feel like it, i don't think that's censorship. honestly even if my estate were like "we hate gary, fuck him, we're not publishing his idiot writings anymore and we're burning every copy we own," i still don't get how that's censorship. the fact that i personally wouldn't want that to happen changes nothing.

50

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 09:03:17 PM »

That's a way of saying it's not a big deal. I don't think that's relevant to the thread topic. People have a problem with the censorship itself, not the importance or lack thereof regarding it.

no, it's a way of saying that no idea, opinion, or plot device present in the story has been removed. my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship. it could be similarly helpful for one or more of you to define what you think censorship is instead of just asserting that it's obvious.

which new message deviates from the original work? can you be more specific?

You already quoted that.

i quoted changes in adjectives. descriptions. you said that the revisions push a new message that is different from the original. can you elaborate on the old and new messages and how they differ?

Certain words have certain meanings. Other words have other meanings. How is nuking certain words from the story and replacing them not censorship of the idea of the original word?

so again it seems that your definition of censorship is just "change." i think that's too vague to be useful. "nuking certain words and replacing them" happens literally every time any written work is edited by anyone.

what controls for me is the use of coercion and the suppression of ideas and opinions. sure, you can say "every word relates to an idea," but i don't think it's useful to call all forms of editing censorship.

When I say a person is fat, that means something specific (that they have an overabundance of fat). If I say they're enormous, that is much more vague. It could be that Augustus Gloop is a powerlifter. You don't know anymore because the new word is more vague. That's the whole point of changing it.

whether or not an edit causes confusion for the reader really doesn't have anything to do with the question of "is this edit censorship."

where exactly is censorship taking place? if that is censorship, then i would submit that the word no longer has any meaning. at least no meaning beyond "anytime anyone does something i personally would not have done."

Please, Gary, you're smarter than this.

feel free to elaborate. i made it clear what i think censorship entails and why this doesn't fit the criteria. "i am obviously right" doesn't interact with what i said at all.

You making this post is fucking stupid. Mocking people for having a problem with censorship, even if you don't think it is important, is not okay. If you have a problem with the thread then you can proceed to fuck off and leave the rest of the people discussing the topic alone. The world does not revolve around Gary's List Of Important Things Gary Takes Seriously.

i'm not mocking anyone for having a problem with censorship. if the roald dahl books were actually being censored, i'd probably agree with you all.

i'm mocking you lot for sounding like a bunch of 14-year-olds who say bedtime is fascist.

51

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 04:51:27 PM »

If it is not a big deal, then why the bother of changing it in the first place?

i said it's not important to the story.

If trying to convey a message different from the original work isn't censorship, then what is censorship? Should we just call it spindoctoring instead? Would that appease your child-like attempt to mock the thread?

which new message deviates from the original work? can you be more specific?

i think censorship is about suppression/repression of ideas, coercion, force, that sort of thing. let's look at the actual chain of events. so basically no one was saying anything about the roald dahl books or asking them to change anything. then the people who own and publish the books voluntarily chose to work with a non-profit organization to change a small amount of the books' language to "ensure Dahl's wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today."

where exactly is censorship taking place? if that is censorship, then i would submit that the word no longer has any meaning. at least no meaning beyond "anytime anyone does something i personally would not have done."

also as an aside to the whole thread, this is not a fucking sacred text, written by god, where no word can be changed lest we incur The Wrath of the Dahl. lmao my brothers and sisters in christ, they're children's books. i love them too, but they're children's books. and the idea that making them slightly more inclusive by changing words like "fat" to "enormous" is some egregious violation of our collective childhoods is...i'm sorry, but it's fucking stupid lol. relax.

52

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 03:19:24 PM »

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/21/1158347261/roald-dahl-books-changed-offensive-words

The character Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is no longer called "fat." Instead he is described as "enormous," The Telegraph reports.

Instead of being called "small men," Oompa-Loompas are now "small people," the article says.

Further, the changes to these books include adding language not originally written by Dahl. In his 1983 book The Witches, he writes that witches are bald beneath their wigs. According to The Telegraph, an added line in new editions says, "There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that."

i too am super mad about this censorship. and that's definitely what it is. anytime anything changes, that's censorship. i hate censorship!

it's just super important to me (and to the story!) that gloop is called fat instead of enormous. the story doesn't even make sense now. how am i supposed to explain this to my children?

53

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread

« on: February 13, 2023, 04:47:30 AM »

gg go chefs

54

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread

« on: January 31, 2023, 01:33:08 AM »

hello yes i am an STUIPD eagles fan ha ha

LOL! i got you good.

55

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Flat Earth AI Poems by ChatGPT

« on: January 24, 2023, 01:10:34 AM »

write an epic poem in the Homeric tradition called "Tom Bishop Tom Bishop What Is He Your Leader?"

Tom Bishop, Tom Bishop, what is he, your leader?
A man of strength and courage, feared by all creatures.
With a heart of gold and a will of steel,
He stands tall, a hero among men.

He roamed the land, seeking adventure and fame,
Fighting monsters and beasts, putting them to shame.
His sword, a mighty weapon, forged in the fire,
Could cut through armor as if it were mere wire.

He sailed the seas, facing storms and high waves,
Conquering all who dared to stand in his way.
His ship, a sleek vessel, built for speed and grace,
Was the envy of all who saw it in its race.

He climbed the peaks, scaling cliffs and high walls,
Defying death and fate, he stood tall and never falls.
His shield, a shining emblem, bore the mark of the brave,
And all who saw it knew that he was not to be depraved.

Tom Bishop, Tom Bishop, what is he, your leader?
A man of strength and courage, feared by all creatures.
With a heart of gold and a will of steel,
He stands tall, a hero among men.

But his deeds have not gone unnoticed,
For the gods above have taken notice,
They have chosen him to lead the mortals,
And guide them to glory and victory,

Tom Bishop, Tom Bishop, what is he, your leader?
A god among men, and a god among gods,
With his wisdom and his strength,
He will lead his people to greatness.

Tom Bishop, Tom Bishop, what is he, your leader?
A man of strength and courage, feared by all creatures.
With a heart of gold and a will of steel,
He stands tall, a hero among men.

So let us sing his praises,
And tell the tales of his deeds,
For Tom Bishop, our leader,
Will forever be remembered.

56

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread

« on: January 15, 2023, 03:29:49 AM »

57

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread

« on: January 09, 2023, 11:03:13 PM »

the final wpa/epa plot for the 2022 nfl regular season.

58

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: January 06, 2023, 03:49:08 AM »

the wolf of wall street

tbh i don't get why this movie was so highly acclaimed. the first two hours were just the same scene over and over again. jordan narrates himself doing coke and banging hookers. that's really all that happens. things pick up a little bit in the final act, but then the movie just sort of ends.

that said — i actually found it to be pretty entertaining. the cast is great. the script prefers to show and not tell. and it's absolutely hilarious at times. i think each individual scene is fantastic. it's just that there are way too many of them, and they're all the same.

59

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly

« on: January 05, 2023, 01:56:55 AM »

That's not the right link though. The data is from https://goodsciencing.com/covid/athletes-suffer-cardiac-arrest-die-after-covid-shot/

It shows that over 1000 athletes have died since the introduction of the vaccine, not 16.

if you have to lie to make your point, then it isn't a good one.

for one thing, you don't know anything about the medical histories of the deceased people in your lying source. you just assert that they must have died due to being vaccinated. that's extremely dishonest.

for another, here are some of the cases your dishonest source calls "athletes."

• Nik Mohd Faiz Nik Mohd Azmi (37), amateur runner and university lecturer
• Oscar (14), Cyclist suffered a cardiac arrest while riding his mountain bike.
• Princess Bajrakitiyabha (44), of Thailand suddenly collapsed while jogging with her dogs.
• Unnamed male (49) table tennis player suddenly collapsed during a competition.
• Gary Tiller (62), Curling player who represented Newfoundland province.
• Anuj (16), playing cricket with his friends in Uttar Pradesh, India
• Laurent Fellon (61 motherfucking years old), French Moto3 (motorcycling) race winner, double Moto2 world champion and, from 2017, a MotoGP frontrunner. He had been suffering from cancer for a few months and has now died.
• Franck Anne (47), trotter driver and owner, breeder trainer of trotters in France.

apparently an athlete is "anyone who does anything." lol these lying idiots clearly just did a news search for anyone who had a cardiovascular issue and then declared that they got sick because of the vaccine because they are too young, even though they count people literally in their 60s. and then they get even more dishonest by comparing their results to an IOC study that confines itself to actual athletes under 35. and oh by the way, it concludes that "SCD occurs more frequently in young athletes, even those under the age of 18 years, than expected and is predominantly caused by pre-existing congenital cardiac abnormalities."

you are a liar. your source is a liar. you literally cannot even have this discussion without lying over and over and over again. just stop.

60

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 10, 2022, 07:26:12 PM »

"Federal official", of course, means a legitimate one. Fraud has occurred in the past and the official was not removed via impeachment. Here is an example of a state senator removed directly by a judge after a heinous Democrat vote fraud scheme:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201114182126/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story.html

PHILADELPHIA -- Saying Philadelphia's election system had collapsed under "a massive scheme" by a Democratic candidate to steal a state Senate election in November, a federal judge took the rare step of invalidating the election and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.

In making such a sweeping move, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer of U.S. District Court in Philadelphia did for the Republicans what the election had not: enabled them to regain control of the state Senate, which they lost two years ago.

Judge Newcomer ruled Friday that the Democratic candidate, William G. Stinson, had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia's 2nd Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason -- such as a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city -- to do so.

you started this by agreeing with trump's assertion that part or all of the constitution should be suspended:

Trump is correct[...]Large parts of the Constitution can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

how does the stinson case demonstrate that any part of the constitution can be — or should be — discarded in instances of election fraud? was the pennsylvania state constitution suspended in any fashion?

your article actually seems to imply that there is, in fact, a constitutional remedy that is available and has been used before. maybe trump should try taking some of his iron clad evidence to the courts? really odd that he hasn't already. what's he waiting for?