Author Topic: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet  (Read 51714 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Svata

  • Doesn't even fucking know anymore
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1415
  • Gender: Male
  • No, seriously, fuck astrology.
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1050 on: October 11, 2017, 06:32:38 pm »
https://notalwaysright.com/an-electronic-alarm/97272/

Yes, it's NAR... but if that story's true... holy shit. I thought zero-tolerance couldn't get any worse.


Schools honestly believe that no students have any rights whatsoever.  So they treat them as criminals when they're in class.  It's the way of the world honestly.

Ironbite-and it's stupid.


pretty much
"Politician" is the occupational equivalent of "Florida".

Offline pyro

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
  • Gender: Male
  • Pretty unremarkable for a talking fire.
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1051 on: October 12, 2017, 02:26:45 pm »
Of course there's the guy in the comments that supports a blanket ban on personal electronics in schools.
I operate under Crocker's rules. Feel free to be mean to me, if it'll help us communicate more effectively.

Color is not as black and white as we like to think.

Offline SCarpelan

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1052 on: October 12, 2017, 05:13:10 pm »
I just saw a Gandhi misquote used to support closing the borders from refugees and closing all the reception centers. It's apparently a new meme going around in the Finnish anti-refugee circles.

The misquote translated: "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way it treats its weakest members." ("Kansakunnan mahtavuuden määrittää sen tapa kohdella heikompia jäseniä")

For fuck's sake. Not only does it combine a Gandhi quote and a Truman quote but it doesn't even make sense in the context. Apparently kicking out the refugees is somehow protecting the weakest in our society.

Edit: To be more accurate, I do understand their train of thought. They think the resources used to help the refugees should be used to help poor Finns which means they are mistreated if we accept any refugees. Even if you accept this overly simplified logic the quotes are misused and this is what made my blood boil. The combining of the quotes hides how this usage goes against their spirit. The way the sentence is formed in Finnish implies that the quote applies to "the people" in an exclusive, right-wing nationalist sense.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 05:43:35 pm by SCarpelan »

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 7370
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1053 on: October 13, 2017, 01:23:13 am »
That reminds me: There was a recent study that showed that the majority of Greek philosopher quotes used on Libertarian boards are fake.

EDIT: https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/918431668658212865

Louisiana Sheriff explains why he wants to keep "good" people in jail.


« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 03:49:54 am by Askold »
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 7370
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1054 on: October 13, 2017, 01:43:05 pm »


...What?

...I assumed that USA would have gotten over this type raxism few decades ago already.

Bonus: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/whitehall/mc-nws-whitehall-daycare-racist-letter-20171006-story.html
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9694
  • Gender: Male
  • TIME JUDGED ALL!
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1055 on: October 13, 2017, 03:04:42 pm »
What a fine upstanding citizen.

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 7370
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1056 on: October 16, 2017, 02:24:02 am »


OH NO! The campaign for ethism in gaming journalism has failed because there are no white men in an ad for a game...

...Wait a minute. What does whites and/or men being in an ad have to do with ethics in gaming journalism?

In unrelated news, Kotaku In Action is melting as they argue over whether or not a gaming series that has been about fighting Nazis since 1981 is now bringing in daily politics into the game by having the player character fight Nazis.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/76m912/lovely_marketing_by_wolfenstein_2_1010/

Quote
I wonder how the fuck anyone at Bethesda let Antifa's rallying cry get thrown in with their marketing lmao.

Quote
If they want to virtue signal and glorify modern McCarthyism-style witch hunting, then I'm fine just pirating the game instead of paying for it like I had planned to. I'll pop it right off my steam wishlist and "vote with my wallet".
Note, punching cyborg-Nazis is now a McCarthy style witch hunt.

Quote

   "I'm a bit conflicted on this"

I'm not; these idiots have mishandled a marketing campaign so badly that some people in the year 2017 are going to side with the Nazis in a fucking Wolfenstein game. You know how hard it is to fuck up that bad?

...Yes, it is the fault of Bethesda marketing department that KiA sides with Nazis. This is no different from the "This is why Trump won" defense. Someone implies that a Nazi is a Nazi and in response people who had nothing to do with Nazis will suddenly convert into Nazism in support of real Nazis. They can't help it. Not their fault really. /s

Quote
The good thing about the Left’s insistence on “you are either with us or a Nazi” is that they’re pushing people into the welcoming arms of the Right.

Quote
Probably why they associated the "Alt-Right" with white nationalists: to deny centrists a banner to rally under that would declare their dissociation with the Left as well as the traditional Right.

I don't think it's gone as planned.

ALT-RIGHT ARE WHITE NATIONALISTS! YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT! Alt-right was literally created by white supremacists to create a more PC and more marketable banner that would attract people to Neo-Nazism and white supremacy. And now that their image is "spoiled" they made up the "alt-lite" group and try to get that off the ground.


Getting tired of this, just one more:
Quote
I legitimately don't know how they screwed this up.

I was gonna get the game after having fun with the first one, but then the marketing guys doubled down on the whole contemporary politics thing.

I rather not give my money to a group that supports labeling people as Nazis and then condoning the assault of them.

OH NO! They labeled a Space-Nazi-Cyborg as a Nazi just because he has swastikas all over him and is part of a Space-Nazi-Cyborg army. How totally unfair!
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9694
  • Gender: Male
  • TIME JUDGED ALL!
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1057 on: October 16, 2017, 03:43:14 pm »
I honestly don't think anyone on KiA was paying a lick of attention to this series until this year.  Now it's suddenly political.

Ironbite-and Bethesda is riding this one into the bank.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1058 on: October 17, 2017, 05:59:52 pm »
My dog-eared copy of "Weird War" is radical leftist because it has people fighting Nazis?

Cool, thanks KiA!

Offline Skybison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 736
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1059 on: October 18, 2017, 05:21:55 pm »


Truely the best way to honor the memory of the holocaust is to sell cheep crap so kids can get free candy.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3755
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1060 on: October 18, 2017, 06:15:37 pm »
Proof that souls, God, Jesus, and Heaven all exist!

Quote
The Soul: Back in the 5th century B.C., the philosopher Parmenides persuasively argued that, because it is impossible and absurd for something not to exist (because if it doesn't exist, it isn't something and can't be spoken of), all change and difference are impossible. He proved that, under the basically materialist physical theories of the world that dominated Greek science to that point, the observable universe could only exist as an utterly undifferentiated, eternal, motionless, and changeless infinity of matter. Since this flew in the face of all observable evidence (the world does, in fact, change!), the next several centuries were spent trying to dig physicalism out of the hole Parmenides had pushed it into. Some people tried saying, "Well, that's just silly, obviously change exists and motion happens," so Parmenides' follower Zeno came up with his famous motion paradoxes in order to say, "No, YOU'RE silly. Obviously change and motion are impossible and absurd, and your contrary observations -- not to mention you yourself -- are merely a delusional phenomenon of the eternal changeless mass of undifferentiated matter."

More serious attempts to defeat the Parmenidean problem included Plato's theory of ideas, but the most convincing and most economical theory (in my opinion) was Aristotle's, which introduced accidental and substantial immaterial forms into physical theory -- entities which, through union with matter, reduce actually-existing potencies to actually-existing acts. This sidestepped the Parmenidean problem rather neatly by giving an account of change that does not require the affirmation of non-existent entities "coming into being." The universe was now a sea of potencies being reduced to act and back again. It remains the best account ever given of how change is possible, and (after throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the Cartesian revolution), I think philosophers are finally starting to recognize that again. Of course, forecasting trends in human understanding has only a slightly better success rate than divination, so I could be wrong about whether academic philosophy is finally on the cusp of a new Aristotelianism -- but I still think Aristotle's theory of forms is the best explanation for the observable universe.

In Catholic thought, what is popularly referred to as the "soul" is simply the substantial form of the body, more or less as Aristotle conceived it. Catholics are hylomorphists rather than dualists. Which is to say, a person is not an immaterial soul floating around in a material body somehow, but rather a person is an immaterial substantial form (a soul) united with particular matter (a body), without which neither soul nor body are intelligible. This is the best explanation for the observable universe that we have. (I don't think this is dogmatically defined for Catholics, so it could change if some superior physical theory came along, but hylomorphism has quite a bit of inertia at this point and -- for my money -- no particularly good challengers.)

This is, incidentally, one of those big differences between Protestants and Catholics -- I'd bet money Drollinger's a dualist, and dualists have a whole range of problems with their theory, even though they use the same word ("soul") to describe the occult immaterial entity floating around inside the body that somehow interacts with it. And then you try and fix those problems, and then you end up talking about monads, and everyone is sad except Liebniz... but I digress.

Point is: does the observable universe exist, in some form other than as an eternal undifferentiated mass of changeless matter? In other words, are we having this conversation right now? Then, if Aristotle is right, accidental and substantial forms must exist, and the soul is (in Catholic thought) merely the substantial form of the human being. So if human beings exist, so do souls.

What this theory subscribes you to: Immaterial entities exist, which cannot be directly observed yet have definite effects on the observable universe, and humans are not altogether material entities. (Neither are lions, fungi, chairs, particular rocks, or -- this was a fun paper to write -- holes.)

What this theory does NOT subscribe you to: The immortality of the human soul. (You'll notice that is not even touched on above.) The specialness of the rational soul as compared to, say, the soul of a rock. Any of the nonsense desperate evangelicals sometimes spout about how when people die they weigh slightly less because the soul leaves their body.

God: While it is entirely possible that the universe/multiverse has existed from eternity (indeed, talking about time at all gets weird back at the Big Bang), we nevertheless observe that some things in the universe are changed by other things. If we ask, "What caused this to change?" in succession, we must ultimately reach a first cause, because the chain of casuation cannot regress into infinity or there would be no observable motion today (think Zeno again). Basic enough -- that's just Aristotle's Physics (not even his Metaphysics!). Everybody reads that one page in the Summa Theologiae for some reason (even though the Summa was a deliberate exercise in corner-cutting in order to distill complex ideas for first-year seminary students) and thinks Aquinas came up with this, but Aquinas himself makes clear in the much more complete and effective cosmological argument in the Summa Contra Gentiles that he's just cribbing Aristotle again.

"Yes, sure," you may say, "I'm happy to stipulate that there's a first cause, but it could be the universe itself, or the multiverse, or some other thing that isn't what we commonly understand as 'God.'"  And, fair enough. Way too many people run a simple first-cause argument and then think they're done, but all they've done is prove a first cause and slapped a name on it, not proved any of its attributes.

And yet, as Aquinas goes on to show (I think convincingly) if the first cause is immutable, as Aristotle contends, this has several logical entailments: the first cause must be eternal, with no passive potency, thus no physical form or body, and it must have no composition, while no limitation may be placed on its power.

Bracketing the question of whether the first cause is good, or indeed intelligent at all, a single omnipotent immaterial being that caused everything would seem to be a reasonably good candidate for the name "God." (Aquinas says that goodness and intelligence can be predicated of God only analogically, and I am not at present altogether convinced by the arguments leading to even that limited claim.)

So, you want to see God's measurable effect on the observable universe? You have an observable universe -- there's your effect.  :)

And there you go: God and souls, and that's pretty much all from a pre-Christian philosopher who wasn't particularly religious and who was regarded with deep suspicion by Christian authorities when first re-introduced to the West.

What this subscribes you to: a pretty limited form of deism. The abandonment of many objections to more explicitly religious claims ("there's no evidence of an omnipotent sky-being who created the universe!" Well, no, actually, there is, although we can debate the name we want to give it).

What this doesn't subscribe you to: any particular religious claim based on revelation. This argument addresses common objections to revelation, as mentioned above, but provides no positive evidence for revelation. Also, this account of God is limited enough that you don't run into the Problem of Evil.

Christ: I'll prove to you Christ existed based on the measurable impact he has on the observable universe as soon as you prove to me that Diogenes -- or Julius Caesar -- existed based on the measurable impact he has on the observable universe.

But, of course, that is impossible. Historical claims cannot be evaluated the same way that scientific, mathematical, or philosophical claims can be evaluated. Because history is by definition unobservable, and its effects on us today are not completely evident, we can never progress from theory to certainty when it comes to history; we only have what we've been told through the historical record, and what we've discovered through the good offices of archaeology and so forth.

I'll be the first to admit that the life of Jesus of Nazereth cannot be proved with certainty. But his life and acts are pretty well attested for a non-government figure in 1st-century Palestine. We have five sources that claim to be eyewitness accounts, and our best Biblical scholarship has concluded that four of them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts) were written within the probable lifetimes of the Apostles, while the fifth (John) is iffy. We do not find contemporary contradictions of their claims, even though they inhabited a relatively literate and highly interconnected empire (where books like the Gospels could spread in a matter of months, not years), even though they claimed thousands of eyewitnesses, many of whom (Pontius Pilate comes to mind) would have had strong motivation to refute the basic claims of the Gospels.

We do not find that the Apostles had motivation to lie, either. Although much about many of their lives remains unknown, it certainly appears from the concrete historical record that St. Peter (who was likely responsible for Mark's Gospel, either through direct dictation or through his followers putting his teachings to paper within 10 years of his death) lived a painful, often cowardly life before being executed by crucifixion on Vatican Hill while still insisting that what he claimed was true. Unverified but plausible traditions about each of the other Apostles tell a similar tale.

(Incidentally, this, to me, is the main reason I don't buy into Islamic revelation. It all sounds plausible enough -- angel in a cave talks to a guy, reveals God's words, whatever, that's basically Moses and Mary for ya -- but the only guy we have to verify this is Mohammed himself, who had no eyewitnesses, performed no public miracles, and whose religion led him to conquest, glory, many women, riches, and a peaceful death rather than impoverished suffering and public execution.)

To my knowledge -- college dorm room showings of Zeitgeist aside -- there is simply no serious historical debate about whether Jesus of Nazereth, often called Christ, existed.  He's sufficiently well-attested that everybody pretty well agrees he happened, that he preached at least some of the things the synoptic Gospels say he taught, and that he was executed. The debate is about whether Christ's miracles, and in particular his alleged resurrection, actually happened. And a lot of that debate, IMO, comes from unwarranted skepticism about the possibility of miracles because way too many people fell for David Hume's ridiculous standard of evidence for miracles.  Since we've already accepted that an omnipotent immaterial Creator exists, above, the claims the Gospels (and Acts) make don't require an especially high standard of proof.

Are the Gospels' claims plausible? Given what we already know about God's omnipotence, yes, these are plausible claims. Do they contradict anything we know about the universe? No. Are they contradicted by other contemporary sources? No. Are they reinforced by one another and by other contemporary and subsequent sources? As well as could be expected in 1st-century Palestine, though not as well as I'd like -- I'd love for Josephus and Clement of Alexandria to have been a little earlier and quite a bit more thorough. Are they more plausible than contradictory claims made by other religions? I think so... although, if you get to the end of this and decide Zoroastrianism makes claims more plausible than Christianity, you go where your reason tells you.  Does accepting these claims explain anything useful about today's world? Yes: we can finally stop forcing ourselves to explain away each and every single supernatural claim ever made as a trick or a delusion; we can just take the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima (for instance) and say it may have happened (or may not have happened). Accepting the Jesus hypothesis answers a few related questions as well.

That's not a proof, because historical "proofs" do not exist, but it's good enough reason, I think, to repent of my sins and believe in the Gospel.

What this subscribes you to: Christianity
What this doesn't subscribe you to: organized Christianity (although, once you take the Gospels as read, I admit it's not a long jump from Point A to Point B). Also, accepting some form of Christianity does not necessarily exclude at least some other religious claims.

Heaven: Jesus talks about Heaven a lot in the Gospels. If you think the Gospels correctly conveyed Jesus's words, and that Jesus was probably the god he claimed to be, then Heaven probably exists. If not, then we still must accept an immaterial state of being, because of souls and God and so forth, but this state would not have any of the attributes Christians generally associate with Heaven.

What this subscribes you to: nothing particularly

We see from the foregoing that atheism and materialism are both false, and so, while tolerating the error for the sake of human freedom, we should also work to prevent their demonstrably flawed conclusions and "completely unfounded assumptions" from influencing public policy.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote
If you don't like what I'm saying, there's a good chance you're the reason I'm saying it.

Offline Wurdulac

  • Neonate
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1061 on: October 19, 2017, 12:19:05 am »
Proof that souls, God, Jesus, and Heaven all exist!

Quote
The Soul: Back in the 5th century B.C., the philosopher Parmenides persuasively argued that, because it is impossible and absurd for something not to exist (because if it doesn't exist, it isn't something and can't be spoken of)....

Made it that far before my brain said "that is the dumbest fucking thing" and refused to read further.
Then again, I could be wrong.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3755
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1062 on: October 19, 2017, 12:36:41 am »
Proof that souls, God, Jesus, and Heaven all exist!

Quote
The Soul: Back in the 5th century B.C., the philosopher Parmenides persuasively argued that, because it is impossible and absurd for something not to exist (because if it doesn't exist, it isn't something and can't be spoken of)....

Made it that far before my brain said "that is the dumbest fucking thing" and refused to read further.

I'd read further, because he gives his refutation in the next paragraph.

EDIT: In fact, in the next few sentences...

Quote
He proved that, under the basically materialist physical theories of the world that dominated Greek science to that point, the observable universe could only exist as an utterly undifferentiated, eternal, motionless, and changeless infinity of matter. Since this flew in the face of all observable evidence (the world does, in fact, change!), the next several centuries were spent trying to dig physicalism out of the hole Parmenides had pushed it into.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 02:45:26 am by dpareja »
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote
If you don't like what I'm saying, there's a good chance you're the reason I'm saying it.

Offline Wurdulac

  • Neonate
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1063 on: October 19, 2017, 11:23:14 pm »
Proof that souls, God, Jesus, and Heaven all exist!

Quote
The Soul: Back in the 5th century B.C., the philosopher Parmenides persuasively argued that, because it is impossible and absurd for something not to exist (because if it doesn't exist, it isn't something and can't be spoken of)....

Made it that far before my brain said "that is the dumbest fucking thing" and refused to read further.

I'd read further, because he gives his refutation in the next paragraph.

EDIT: In fact, in the next few sentences...

Quote
He proved that, under the basically materialist physical theories of the world that dominated Greek science to that point, the observable universe could only exist as an utterly undifferentiated, eternal, motionless, and changeless infinity of matter. Since this flew in the face of all observable evidence (the world does, in fact, change!), the next several centuries were spent trying to dig physicalism out of the hole Parmenides had pushed it into.

I don't think that refutes the part I quoted.  Also, I read further.  Lots of shifting goal posts, conflation of ideas, typical stuff.  Could probably do a point-by-point refutation but, like most everything, that seems really pointless.
Then again, I could be wrong.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3755
Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Reply #1064 on: Today at 12:04:59 am »
Proof that souls, God, Jesus, and Heaven all exist!

Quote
The Soul: Back in the 5th century B.C., the philosopher Parmenides persuasively argued that, because it is impossible and absurd for something not to exist (because if it doesn't exist, it isn't something and can't be spoken of)....

Made it that far before my brain said "that is the dumbest fucking thing" and refused to read further.

I'd read further, because he gives his refutation in the next paragraph.

EDIT: In fact, in the next few sentences...

Quote
He proved that, under the basically materialist physical theories of the world that dominated Greek science to that point, the observable universe could only exist as an utterly undifferentiated, eternal, motionless, and changeless infinity of matter. Since this flew in the face of all observable evidence (the world does, in fact, change!), the next several centuries were spent trying to dig physicalism out of the hole Parmenides had pushed it into.

I don't think that refutes the part I quoted.  Also, I read further.  Lots of shifting goal posts, conflation of ideas, typical stuff.  Could probably do a point-by-point refutation but, like most everything, that seems really pointless.

What I told him was that even if I accepted everything he said, I find the Christian god (and indeed monotheistic gods in general) to be so heinous that if one exists, I'm doing everything I can to kill the fucker.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote
If you don't like what I'm saying, there's a good chance you're the reason I'm saying it.