Noting the median age of the "It's All Hopeless! Summon the Asteroid!" crowd, I'm wondering how much of it is mid-life crisis...
At this point, the real, meaningful options are: 1) Demolish modern, democratic society and start over from scratch, or 2) Fuck it, bring the asteroid. Anything else is just mass hypnosis to maintain the status quo.
How do you figure? I mean, I already know the answer is "Because Anc is a smug little douchenozzle who picks his responses based on their annoyance factor," but both of those options imply a shitload of effort for anyone who survives it.
Oh I don't doubt you've broken a sweat thinking about all the hard work you might have to do in the future. But I'm talking about right now. Neither of those two options require an ounce of effort from you, nor it it likely to ever require anything from you. Thus you have little choice but to return to the USS Lazy-Boy and continue your exploration of the galaxy. Such a hard row to hoe you've set out for yourself.
Doesn't surprise me that you're one of those types who thinks there is a value in labor not bound to the material accomplishment of that labor, but I have no interest in symbolic gestures to "prove" my convictions to win approval I don't value.
Do you often make points that don't exist? Tell us how you do it. In the meantime, I find it entertaining that you're constantly passing judgment on people here - based solely on what they post - but the two women who actually know you are always running to your defense. "Oh, he's not really like that IRL!!!" So either you are what you post or you aren't. If you aren't, why do you assume everyone else is?
Or, option 3, I am what I post but not what someone chooses to perceive in my posts. I'll not answer for what someone else imagines. If I care to dispute something, I will. But my universe doesn't spin on approval from a bunch of assholes on the internet, and I usually don't care. Just as Anc or anyone else is free to dispute if they give a shit.
I'll never understand the internet need to look at others one dimensionally. Do you do that in real life? Or do you accept that the person you are seeing with human eyes is multi-faceted? You accuse UA of judging others, yet can't see that you do the same thing. You pick people like Kirk and apostle to antagonize in an attempt to make them look foolish. But, you're psychologically arguing with a mirror. Now you've set your sights on UA, but he's not as one-sided as you seem to think he is. He's not fitting into your preconceived notions. And, now you're arguing that he's behaving in a way that he isn't but a way which you wish to see him. I kinda interested to see if your head will explode when he continues to not be what you seem to want him to be.
Not "others." Just "those who can't make a point without insulting people." You might try housebreaking him. I'm not the only one who's bored with his routine.
He can make a point without insulting. Just because you, like many other internet warriors on both sides of the political aisle, refuse to recognize those points, but instead take one sentence from an entire paragraph and attempt to paint someone into a corner, doesn't mean the other person can't make a point. It just means you can't counter his point, so you try to be sneaky. My only contention with his posts is that he thinks all liberals behave as you do.
If I wanted America to fail I'd push for massive budget cuts right now so the economy sinks back into recession. Naturally, this is exactly what the Republicans are doing so that begs the question of why they want America to fail right now before an election. I think the answer is obvious. BTW it's now official, budget cuts have caused a double dip recession in the UK and Bernanke is warning that unless the Republicans automatic budget cuts are delayed the US economy "will go off a cliff" (those are his exact words). http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_...teering-us-economy-toward-a-fiscal-cliff?lite
Convenient that those posts have been deleted, and untrue because you've never been rude to me, so there was never any reason for me to call you on something you hadn't done. So now you can decide whether you want to go through every thread following every one of UA's little name-calling fits by scolding the party he's calling names, or simply recommend that he cool his jets occasionally. Or you can let him take responsibility for the consequences of his own behavior. Which do you suppose is the best use of your time?
His behavior is in direct response to you. Just because I didn't react to you the way others do, does not mean their response is not justified. You think you are being clever attempting to belittle others, but it only reflects badly on you. If you don't like the his posts - or apostles, or kirks, you don't HAVE to respond to them.
Like the time right after he joined and he pitched a fit because he decided my signature - memorializing a friend who'd died the week before - was "too big" for his delicate sensibilities? His behavior is a "direct response" to half the Red Room. Looks like you're going to be busy...
Oh. I hadn't realized. He was bitching about some non-consequential thing on an internet message board. I don't believe I've ever seen that sort of behavior anywhere. Off with his head!
A friend of mine had died. He was known to many people here, and I wanted to let them know. I didn't consider his death "inconsequential." You miss the point. He jumped on me right out of the box. He's unnecessarily rude, the majority of the time. Your solution is to lecture the people he's rude to. How does that work, exactly? Will you at least admit that whoever was rude to you when you first joined, it wasn't me?
I didn't say you were the first one to be rude to me - I didn't even say you were rude. I said you attempted to belittle, selectively dissect my posts and paint me into a corner. Please don't insult my intelligence by denying it. As for UA's behavior, I'm not saying he is or isn't rude. I'm saying he isn't one-dimensional. Remember the post that started this? the one where you accused him of being one dimensional?
it's going off the cliff either way, IMO. Methodology is kind of irrelevant because it's too late either way.
Dissecting posts is how one refutes the points in a post. It's called discussion. As for belittling, As for painting you into a corner... I don't deny frequently refuting the points you raise in your posts. The rest is you doing what you're accusing everyone else of doing with UA's posts, i.e., extrapolating. As long as we're clear on the fact that you'll continue to support his perceived right to be as rude as he wants, whenever he wants, regardless of the circumstances. See, I don't mind his being rude per se. He'd be unrecognizable without that charming little tic. It's your attempt to contort it that's at issue here.
Actually, most people do, yes. You make up your mind about someone on the basis of insufficient information (sometimes just the way they look), then "filter" all subsequent information through that bias. This will provide sufficient confirmation bias that it is extremely difficult to change your pardigm. The only real difference on internet is that, since we are here to discuss, these biases are revealed explicitly where in real life they tend to be kept quieter.
