This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - eggsalad
Pages: 1 ... 505152 5354 ... 84
1531
« on: October 08, 2015, 03:43:57 PM »
1532
« on: October 08, 2015, 03:12:31 PM »
for listening purely to music it's headphones, for ambiance it's speakers.
1533
« on: October 08, 2015, 03:07:36 PM »
Then again, you never hear "chick" unless the person you're referring to isn't there, or is out of earshot.
Like, "Look at that chick over there," or... "She's some chick from class..." You never hear someone call anyone a chick directly.
That would be weird, I think.
Probably not worth thinking about too hard, though.
I think it has to do with the fact it's never used to describe guys like dude is. So when you're referring to someone in the third person it's effectively the gendered pronoun.
Similarly I don't think anyone refers to girls as "dudes" in the third person.
you're right lol
that's sooooo fucking weird
linguists must have fun talking about this topic if youre addressing a group of people of mixed gender "hey guys" is acceptable but "going out with the guys" means hanging out with males what have we as a culture DONE
1534
« on: October 08, 2015, 03:02:10 PM »
Then again, you never hear "chick" unless the person you're referring to isn't there, or is out of earshot.
Like, "Look at that chick over there," or... "She's some chick from class..." You never hear someone call anyone a chick directly.
That would be weird, I think.
Probably not worth thinking about too hard, though.
I think it has to do with the fact it's never used to describe guys like dude is. So when you're referring to someone in the third person it's effectively the gendered pronoun. Similarly I don't think anyone refers to girls as "dudes" in the third person.
1535
« on: October 08, 2015, 02:49:21 PM »
pluto is now my fav celestial object just because it's so aesthetically pleasing
1536
« on: October 08, 2015, 02:47:25 PM »
Try sticking a finger in your rear Verb, real talk.
It can make orgasm pass-out tier and you get to explore your anatomy.
1537
« on: October 08, 2015, 02:37:45 PM »
Couldn't you explore different pornography, techniques, etc to experience sexual gratification in unexpected ways? Yeah, of course, but the thing is, logically speaking, I don't think there's anything inherently enjoyable about what I'm watching. I'd rather not become a deviant who has to look up some fucked up shit just to get off, you know what I'm saying?
Well I think it's just analogous to music, you explore the different levels of a song and get enjoyment out of it, soon enough basic music with no depth just isn't exciting or stimulating to you. Similarly, pornography can play on taboo and natural triggers in your mind and exploring it produces enjoyment, soon enough vanilla stuff isn't that provocative to you. I mean obviously if there aren't those natural triggers produced by your sexuality then there isn't much joy garnered from the process, but the same can be said about music for some people. maybe i'm biased though because I'm both a sexual deviant and someone who enjoys grind, hardcore, etc.
1538
« on: October 08, 2015, 02:23:57 PM »
That's... An odd view point...
So wait, how do you justify listening to the same album multiple times then? By focusing my attention on specific individual parts that make the song interesting to listen to.
We've sort of had this conversation before. The reason I adore NIN so much is because of how layered a lot of their music is. You can listen to the same song and focus your attention on a specific rhythmic loop, and appreciate how it interacts with all the other sounds. Listen to how the bass complements the drums, or how the synths complement the vocals, et cetera.
With a good, layered track, it's like listening to a different song every time.
On top of that, I don't have the greatest memory in the world, so, it's not once I listen to a song once, I have it in my head forever. Sometimes I don't even like a song at all until I listen to it for the thirtieth time.
And finally, music itself, while static, can have dynamic effects depending on your mood. If I'm feeling depressed, Billy Idol is going to be the last artist I'm gonna want to listen to--because his sound doesn't at all reflect how I'm feeling at that moment, so it's gonna sound different (worse) to my ears.
Music is weird.
Couldn't you explore different pornography, techniques, etc to experience sexual gratification in unexpected ways?
1539
« on: October 08, 2015, 02:15:16 PM »
Australia.
Why would anyone invade Australia
Stronger US ally in the Pacific would be a bit more of a deterrent to China.
South Korea and Japan are fine buffers. China has no reason to engage in military conflict with us because we're so closely commercially tied. We have a very mutually beneficial relationship with them.
Besides, what kind of threat would they realistically pose to the continental USA? It's not like we could actually be invaded. http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-military-expert-if-the-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states
America policy is still grounded in Trumanistic doctrine, unfortunately.
1540
« on: October 08, 2015, 11:01:21 AM »
Our genitalia would not be compatible with aliens you stupid idiots.
Most animals have pleasure apt nerves in their sexual organs to encourage reproduction, one could infer that an alien race would likely have so to (provided they are not asexual or something of that nature), so at the very least you could mutually masturbate with an alien.
But I've thought about this topic before and it'd be very interesting if we met a race that was just absolutely perplexed by our absolute obsession with sex, and how it practically dominates our entire psychs.
Not really
Sex dominates the mind of every sexually reproducing animal
We're no different
Yeah but what if aliens weren't so. And they just don't understand how we operate while being so controlled by that primal emotion.
1541
« on: October 08, 2015, 10:59:12 AM »
Considering Columbus Day already is nothing but a "discuss how white settlers fucked everything up" day, might as well. Same thing, different name.
We fucked up a bunch of savages that weren't going to ever advance or do anything with this land?
Well, yes the Natives weren't exemplars of innocence themselves but genocide isn't exactly the solution.
1542
« on: October 08, 2015, 10:57:55 AM »
I think "former bronies" who look down on bronies now must have no empathy whatsoever. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing people who have climbed out of their own personal abyss look down on those who they perceive as having not. Not saying the brony fandom is an abyss, just speaking to the perspective of those who think it is.
well no it's not really a sense of "im better than you" it's more a sense of "you'll eventually feel the same"
1543
« on: October 08, 2015, 10:56:27 AM »
But I've thought about this topic before and it'd be very interesting if we met a race that was just absolutely complexed by our absolute obsession with sex, and how it practically dominates our entire psychs. Hi, I'm Verbatim.
WEIRDO STOP DISRUPTING MY NARRATIVE
1544
« on: October 08, 2015, 10:54:02 AM »
Damn, I don't think I'd ever refrain from a relationship just for racial reasons. That's a little too hardcore for me. And how significant of a problem is this in reality, if it's a problem at all?
For some groups (blacks/whites) pretty much not at all but for others (Native Americans) it kind of is. And yeah I wouldn't ever advise someone to avoid the one they love because of something so inconsequential, but I think it can be just another thing on your list that helps govern who you fall in love with.
1545
« on: October 08, 2015, 10:51:47 AM »
Considering Columbus Day already is nothing but a "discuss how white settlers fucked everything up" day, might as well. Same thing, different name.
1546
« on: October 08, 2015, 10:49:20 AM »
Our genitalia would not be compatible with aliens you stupid idiots.
Most animals have pleasure apt nerves in their sexual organs to encourage reproduction, one could infer that an alien race would likely have so to (provided they are not asexual or something of that nature), so at the very least you could mutually masturbate with an alien. But I've thought about this topic before and it'd be very interesting if we met a race that was just absolutely perplexed by our absolute obsession with sex, and how it practically dominates our entire psychs.
1547
« on: October 08, 2015, 10:43:42 AM »
Personally, while I agree that diversity is neat, I don't think it's important enough to warrant any sort of regulation or too much care. If we somehow lose a race to mixing (I'm not even sure about your perspective that that's possible), I'm really not sure how much is lost, and I'd prefer racial diversity not be "forced" or anything like that.
Of course. Just in my ideal world most people would love people of the same race.
What would be the point of having diverse races if you weren't able to appreciate the diversity of those races or love those races?
Well I mean you can do that all day, it's just who you breed with. And I'm not saying total exclusion either, it'd be nice to see some mixed couples too in the ideal distribution, just as long as the other distinct groups are sustained. I guess this just kind of sprouts from the different reactions you'll get if you say "I think that person is nice but I have no interest in mating with them because I just prefer a different race sexually" and "I think that person is nice but I have no interest in mating with them because I want to ensure that there are at least some pure-blooded X race people in the future." Hell even typing that felt racist, but it really shouldn't be because it's not "I want my kid to be white", because if I were any other race I'd want my kid to be that race.
1548
« on: October 08, 2015, 10:20:45 AM »
Fluttershy
tbh flutterfags are the scary kind of white people you expect to shoot up a school
1549
« on: October 08, 2015, 10:12:35 AM »
Because it's shit
You're shit
The fans are shit
Kill yourself
Just making sure, you do know this is in Serious right?
Not anymore. It was moved, because this sort of thing doesn't really belong in Serious.
Why, exactly?
These are the permitted topics of discussion in Serious:
Economics
Politics
Ethics
Philosophy
Religion
Military
War
Guns (When relating to politics/technological development not post your raifu threads)
Medicine
Science
Technology
Engineering
Maths
Sexuality/Gender related threads
Couldn't this be said to be a sociological topic?
1550
« on: October 08, 2015, 09:49:23 AM »
Personally, while I agree that diversity is neat, I don't think it's important enough to warrant any sort of regulation or too much care. If we somehow lose a race to mixing (I'm not even sure about your perspective that that's possible), I'm really not sure how much is lost, and I'd prefer racial diversity not be "forced" or anything like that.
Of course. Just in my ideal world most people would love people of the same race.
1551
« on: October 08, 2015, 09:32:36 AM »
What the fuck are you talking about Morality?
However Bronies have done great things, there are multiple charity funds raising money for different causes.
youre kind of illustrating my point here. you feel the need to legitimize being a brony by establishing that bronies are moral up holders of good by donating to charity, even though just liking a show shouldn't require anything but liking the show.
1552
« on: October 08, 2015, 09:29:23 AM »
Stormfront is calling.
discriminate with love, not hate
1553
« on: October 08, 2015, 09:26:57 AM »
The Fandom creates a self-fueling obsession with letting it dominate areas of your life that watching a fun show shouldn't. Bronies as a culture have just primed everyone's reaction in a way that makes it easy for it to be outright disgusting. And the more bronies feel persecuted, the more the fandom takes over their personality.
Doesn't help that leaders and content producers in the community are either just exploiting the fad because pony anything garners fans no matter how mediocre, or are autistic sperglords who don't understand how to manage popularity.
Pretty much anyone from Bungle used to be a brony, and we all cringe at the thought of it.
So you're saying that all Bronies are obsessed with the show?
What?
All of the friends I have made in the community have not had the show take over them. Actually, most of us enjoy the show and actively interact with the community, but that's about 10% of the time I use on ponies. The other 90% goes to a lot of other stuff.
Most Bronies enjoy the show and keep active with the community, that doesn't mean we are all brainwashed sheep following ponies.
You really don't need to preach to me man I've been there done that. I've spent enough time on EQD, youtube, IRCs, tulpa.info, whatever that shit board is on 4chan, and reddit to have a sufficient gauge the core of the brony fanbase. When you defend things like this it just proves the point, "brony" has become part of your identity, but unlike other fandoms of media like dr.who or some shit bronies have this weird sense of morality they like to act like they have, or that they're a friendly loving community for good. The reality is the fandom is wrought with drama, circlejerking, and backstabbing.
1554
« on: October 08, 2015, 09:13:38 AM »
The Fandom creates a self-fueling obsession with letting it dominate areas of your life that watching a fun show shouldn't. Bronies as a culture have just primed everyone's reaction in a way that makes it easy for it to be outright disgusting. And the more bronies feel persecuted, the more the fandom takes over their personality.
Doesn't help that leaders and content producers in the community are either just exploiting the fad because pony anything garners fans no matter how mediocre, or are autistic sperglords who don't understand how to manage popularity.
Also the show got stale and pandery real fucking quick. Season 1 was really only good because it resembled older cartoons in pacing and structure and had a nostalgia appeal while feeling fresh.
Pretty much anyone from Bungle used to be a brony, and we all cringe at the thought of it.
1555
« on: October 08, 2015, 08:58:19 AM »
Obviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriage
He spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him. Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.
The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.
Which is why I said that the article should extend it's sympathy to everyone, not just marriage opponents if it claims to value those things. I think it tells stories about the author's actual priorities.
But gay marriage opponents are the ones that usually get shut down though, which is the whole point of the article.
Comfortable speech doesn't need protected. Uncomfortable speech does.
Everyone including neonazis, KKK rallies, WBC and etc in this context.
Something wrong with that?
no not particularly, the author just seemed rather satisfied with the status quo until it started targetting his beliefs
1556
« on: October 08, 2015, 08:56:56 AM »
He spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved).
What the fuck? Is that supposed to make it okay to roundly shun him?
Is it okay for a uni to shun those other groups? Your answer is my answer. A neonazi just looks at ACT statistics and says "well here we can demonstrate that blacks perform worse in an academic setting because they are innately less intelligent", and we don't bat an eye when he gets shunned.
1557
« on: October 08, 2015, 08:31:56 AM »
Obviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriage
He spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him. Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.
The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.
Which is why I said that the article should extend it's sympathy to everyone, not just marriage opponents if it claims to value those things. I think it tells stories about the author's actual priorities.
But gay marriage opponents are the ones that usually get shut down though, which is the whole point of the article.
Comfortable speech doesn't need protected. Uncomfortable speech does.
Everyone including neonazis, KKK rallies, WBC and etc in this context.
1558
« on: October 08, 2015, 08:19:38 AM »
Obviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriage
He spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him. Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.
The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.
Which is why I said that the article should extend it's sympathy to everyone, not just marriage opponents if it claims to value those things. I think it tells stories about the author's actual priorities.
1559
« on: October 08, 2015, 01:36:08 AM »
Specifically how it views race mixing as a negative thing to be avoided.
But I come to the same conclusion from different values, while Nazism lends itself towards the idea of there being some sense of racial superiority and hierarchy. I acknowledge how incredibly ignorant and destructive that perspective is and maintain that races are for all intents and purposes equal. What makes me dislike mixing then isn't the idea of superior race being degraded by a lesser race, but rather the idea of two distinct racial groups being destroyed as they gradually meld into each other should race mixing continue over time.
I appreciate the individual characteristics of each race, because the more physically different humans can be while maintaining virtually the same cognizant ability is just something I think is cool and awesome to see, and seeing those distinctions dampen is sad.
I guess this would mean I'm admitting I'm racist to mixed peoples because I think they're visually boring.
I would of course never expect anyone other than myself to abide by these ideas, because it is first and foremost based on me thinking distinct racial groups are neat.
Does anyone else know what I'm saying? Am I Hitler's less ambitious nephew?
1560
« on: October 08, 2015, 01:32:45 AM »
YV got money
Pages: 1 ... 505152 5354 ... 84
|
Show Posts
