The Pitters' Place

Moira was a bisexual New Yorker who lived with both her boyfriend and her girlfriend and everyone got along just fine. But yeah, she and Skyhawk do share the habit of not knowing what the fuck they are talking about and trying to project that failing on to their opponent.

Derived Absurdity wrote:I'm putting words in your mouth, huh? And what words would those be?

That I don't consider publicly keeping a record of quotes from yourself to be a sign of narcissism. However I don't think it's a sign of being an asshole.

I worded it poorly yesterday; guess I was tired.

Moira was hottt.

Moira was actually a 54 year old fat dude from Oklahoma.

I disliked Moira way before it was cool. Just sayin'.

phe_de wrote:

Derived Absurdity wrote:I'm putting words in your mouth, huh? And what words would those be?

That I don't consider publicly keeping a record of quotes from yourself to be a sign of narcissism. However I don't think it's a sign of being an asshole.

I worded it poorly yesterday; guess I was tired.

You must be tired a lot.

CashRules wrote:Moira was a bisexual New Yorker who lived with both her boyfriend and her girlfriend and everyone got along just fine.

CashRules wrote:Moira was actually a 54 year old fat dude from Oklahoma.

At least one of those people is hawt.

aels wrote:I disliked Moira way before it was cool. Just sayin'.

Samsies! She seemed desperate to prove that she was as smart or smarter than everyone else.

And I never, ever bought the 'Oh, I'm a hot redhead 18 year old bisexual with two live-in partners'. STOP THAT. YOU ARE NOT.

aels wrote:And I never, ever bought the 'Oh, I'm a hot redhead 18 year old bisexual with two live-in partners'. STOP THAT. YOU ARE NOT.

Yah, pretty much.

I wanted to believe...

On the topic of old forum members that some people have a problem with... what was the name of that one woman who always had drama with Brandon? The one who was an active Wikipedia contributor, and got freaked out when Brandon mentioned he knew which user she was?

Malk?

I would not be surprised to find out that Malk and Moira are the same person.

Malkatraz

Who was moira?

She was a 51-year-old man from Oklahoma and a 19-year-old bisexual girl from New York with two live in partners and a broken leg who knew everything. Castor had a crush on him/her.

Lol, it's happening again. More violence at Trump rallies, more liberals condemning it. The exact same people who have literally been saying Trump is going to be the end of the world don't want anyone to actually try to stop him. I honestly don't get how these people function, I don't know what they want.

Derived Absurdity wrote:he exact same people who have literally been saying Trump is going to be the end of the world don't want anyone to actually try to stop him.

Because violence at Trump appearances is such an effective method of stopping him. . . .?

It's not. But they're not complaining that it's ineffective, they're complaining that people are doing it at all.

I just don't get how, if you say for almost a year that Trump represents an existential threat to Hispanics and Muslims and that he would destroy the world and that he's the end of democracy and that he's Hitler/Mussolini/Mao/Satan all rolled into one, you would be mad at some people sort of overreacting in an attempt to stop him. If he's so bad, why is it okay to just wing it and hope for the best on Election Day? Why shouldn't you do whatever you think is necessary to stop him?

Because they're not complaining that it doesn't work, they're complaining that it's violent at all. I was always told that violence is okay if it's against something that represents an existential threat to you. Then it's basically self-defense. Violence was necessary to defeat Germany, it was necessary to defeat the communists, it was necessary to defeat slavery, etc., and only hippies who don't understand how the real world works would disagree. So why is violence against Trump and his supporters not necessary, if he's as bad as everyone says he is? Lol, people defend Hillary Clinton's violent record by saying violence is sometimes necessary and then look at Trump rallies and say violence is never ever ever necessary. It just seems like some blatant double standards to me.

Derived Absurdity wrote:https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/738614060778815488

I never called Trump fascist. But I know that physically harming a politician and his/her supporters is a fascist tactic.
Basically, Michael Tracey is advocating fascism to prevent fascism.

I don't think you know what fascism means.

But that's okay, no one else does either.

Derived Absurdity wrote:I don't think you know what fascism means.

But that's okay, no one else does either.

True that.
I guess I used "fascist" and "violently authoritarian" as synonyms.

Again, if someone represents an existential threat to you, I don't think advocating violence against him or her would be "violently authoritarian" as it would be just basic self-defense.

Derived Absurdity wrote:Again, if someone represents an existential threat to you, I don't think advocating violence against him or her would be "violently authoritarian" as it would be just basic self-defense.

Except that in this case, it would play right into the narrative that right wing nuts like to spin about being bullied victims of liberals. I think the best weaponry against Trump is to deflate him and his supporters through cruel mockery.

I don't think the pundits who criticize trump while simultaneously denouncing the violence at his rallies are guilty of having a double standard per se; they're being hyperbolic when comparing him to [insert evil dictator here], and they know they're being hyperbolic.

Violence is acceptable only very rarely, and I don't think Trump represents anything close to enough of a threat to warrant advocating violence.

Trump is most certainly enough of a threat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-ben ... 16186.html

Eh, sorry, that article isn't really too convincing. If there are specific points you want me to address let me know, but I'll give my overall thoughts on the matter:

Trump may be a giant asshole, all his supporters may be giant assholes, but assholes are allowed freedom of speech, assembly, and association too. If a group of anti-Trumpers want to peacefully protest outside of a rally then that is their right. If Trump supporters attack them then the aggressors should be arrested and vice-versa.

But to think that in order to protect against some perceived threat against civil liberties we get carte blanche to violate the actual civil liberties of others through violence is, to me, non-sensical bullshit.

Now, I don't want to be misconstrued, I hate Trump, but to me the only thing that separates him from other politicians is that he isn't pc.