Just Oakland things: Dozens of teens storm BART train, rob passengers

It would take a pretzel-like logic to make it happen, though. I mean, you would have to purposely look for some kind of subtext, rather than understanding that the end result of "dogs and cats living together" is "mass hysteria."

So now you're claiming that whites and blacks living together results in mass hysteria?

zero! Wait......that wasn't accurate......FUCKING zero would be about right. Maybe they need a mass transit expert like Anc to square these people away.

interesting...the TRE looks a lot like a GO train



Their streetcars look similar to the TTC's new ones as well.

Well, imagine hearing it this way: "This kind of things happen when two species try to coexist."

Oh, well when you use entirely different words in an entirely different context, it sounds exactly the same.

Jesus.

You need a safe room?

Kind of like Yale students bitching about the new season of Samurai Jack supposedly being racist, sexist, and homophobic.

Link for those who think I'm kidding

You say that as if I'm supposed to give a shit. While I do watch for homophobia, racism, and misogyny in media, I'm not the owner nor caretaker of it.

Edit: That said, I looked at the link, and just as I figured, you were hyperbolic. The relevant quote is here:

Wow, such bitching. They even said that while it must be viewed with the same critical eye placed upon all modern entertainment, watching the show was up to the individual viewer! Such horrible things! It's almost like they went out of their way to be open minded about whether or not their initial suspicions were correct or not!

You'd never bitch about a cartoon, would you @Captain X?

Sure, based on the art of storytelling and the like, but not to purposely look for shit to be offended by.

Those Bombardier BiLevels are some of the most popular commuter cars on the continent.

It isn't necessarily anything they were looking for, though. Suppose you're a gay man, and you love cartoons. You're flipping through channels and you come across a guy wearing a dress, with a limp wrist, and he's just the butt of every single joke. He's played off as a scatter brained, fashion minded stereotype who exists as nothing more than comic relief because of his homosexuality. You'd have a right to be offended, wouldn't you? The reviewer of that article wasn't saying "this should be banned," but "this doesn't seem right, you should check it out yourselves." What's wrong with that? Shouldn't we be concerned about people being used as punchlines simply because of their biology?

All I did was flip things around for you so the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak. As for the article, I honestly have to say the person who wrote that review is full of shit and just looking for the kind of stuff the perpetually offended like to "call out." For one, the insistence that because a bad guy was gay, that somehow translates to all gay guys being bad guys. Not going to lie, didn't even occur to me when I watched it that the bad guy robot was supposed to be a gay robot. The other stuff is just typical SJW bullshit. But the point is made about how you have purposely look for that kind of stuff, and honestly have a rather absurd sense of what constitutes an -ism or what's "offensive," and you've experienced just how absurd it is for people to make that kind of accusation, yet, Samurai Jack example aside, I could easily see one of our new moral guardians reading what you said the same way the others have been teasing you about.

Scaramouche is a pretty cool character. I didn't seem him as a gay robot. He's into singing while being a bounty hunter. He calls everyone babe. Even Aku. He's the 3rd top bounty hunter in the land of Aku much to Scaramouche's chagrin.

And there is some suggestion that he's based of the first Scarmouche. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaramouche



And the Scotsman's daughters were funny and besides they ignored dear old dad when the battle came down and they charged in. Dad was probably just having a dad moment since he's old.

You didn't flip anything, though. You did a "what about this guy?" link to an article that had nothing to do with what we were discussing, and then you leaned hard on it like it meant something. When I said I didn't really give a shit, I meant it. Are you sure you made the point you thought you did?

I used an example of exactly the kind of thing you were talking about.

You just made the effort to prove to me that you used pretzel-like logic to make your point, by pointing to another source discussing homophobia, sexism, and racism about a cartoon show. I'm still not sure what you want from your example. So the author of the Yale Herald article apparently found a homophobic, sexist, and racist subtext in a cartoon show, which means your usage of it on my post was valid? Is that it? Are you using the "they used it why can't I?" defense? If so, why? I have no control over what someone on the Yale Herald staff posts as their opinion. I never gave any indication that every critique of any form of media held merit, nor did I say that all claims of sexism, homophobia, or racism in media are always valid. You apparently attempted a "gotcha" moment, but what was there to be "got"?

For those not following, here is the exchange in question:

Did you think you were clever? None of this has a point, serves a purpose or, indeed, leads to a satisfying payoff. All you did was essentially use pretzel-logic, then when I said it was pretzel-logic, you went and showed me an example of pretzel-logic to show your statement was indeed pretzel-logic, and then acted as if I had to now eat words I never said, nor implied, because you actually followed through on my point. Did you think because the source was on the other side of the fence I would be stymied? Seriously, you dropped the goddamn ball on this one, X. I expected better.

I showed you an example of the "logic" SJWs use to play off of you getting a taste of being on the other side of it. It was never about Yale but you keep getting caught up in that.

Who said it was about Yale? You posted an opinion piece about a cartoon show from the Yale Herald. Seriously, are you even here right now? I think you've managed to flip this thing over on top of you, in an effort to make a point no one was trying to make, nor one that was relevant to anything at any time. It's like you thought you had created this brilliant, clever plan, and fuck did it just kick your ass.

This was your plan in action:



Congratulations, genius.

Didn't it guest-star on Thomas the Tank Engine as a luchador train?

That's a green Metrolink!

Bullshit. If you're walking down a dark street in Chicago at 2am, would you rather have to walk past 3 white guys or 3 black guys. You can answer...I know you can..

Ladies and gentlemen, I present irony.

No, like always, you've just managed to purposely miss the point, because heaven forbid you actually learn anything from being on the other side of something for once.

I don't find it ironic in the least that you can't admit the truth. I find it predictable and pathetic.

Scaramouche is a pastiche of Sammy Davis Junior, for God's sake. That was obvious from the first line of dialogue.

Sweet baby Jeebus, just bring the asteroid . . .

Or Sounder!

He says to the ultra-conservative Christian fundamentalist turned liberal atheist.