And with that you demonstrate that the SDMB isn’t, somehow, any better than the cesspool out there.
The lousy, gummed-up version of IE deployed on my work PC (thank you IT overlords from 2006!) can’t display comments on any Gawker blogs.
I was initially irked, but have come to realize it’s nothing but an improvement.
You’re whooshing us, right?
What? My grammar was fine, my point was concise, clearly stated and factually correct–the most common usage of the phrase includes the vernacular, “sammich” as opposed to the more traditional “sandwich.” And it is always funny, provided the reader has sufficient intelligence and self-confidence to support a sense of humor. I challenge you to find any of these qualities in appreciable quantity on MSN, CNN or Fox blog comment sites.
“Sammich” is pretty fucking stupid, actually, but I’m more intrigued by the revelation that mister nyx lives adjacent to a cesspool. Upwind, I hope?
youtube is the worst. Every Bollywood video, for example, inevitably descends into a Hindu-Muslim flame war. Really, people???
Teh Op remind me that Obama reel stopid.
From reading the Dallas tornado comments, not every retarded asshole is a tea party conservative. There’s lots of Texas bashing going on in wake of the latest tragedy.
My local paper changed their comment section to except only comments from Facebook logins. Surprisingly that seemed to have cut down on some of the crazy and stupid. People are less likely to post under their own name and apparently a lot of trolls are too lazy or stupid to make a fake Facebook profile.
Many, many eeeeeeeevul cultures.
S’truth, read it on the interwebs.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I think you may mean “accept,” although… it could really go either way.
Take your pick.
Pull up any article about the shootings in Tulsa right now. It’ll make you wonder what decade we are in, and weep for our future.
On any website you can find a good mix of crackpots from the right AND the left. I can’t recall how many comments I’ve seen saying the Conservative government in Canada will destroy this or that sacred Canadian cow (never seems to happen, of course) or be compared with Hitler. Or how a particular business or industry is somehow the source of all evil in the world and needs to be stopped, regulated, or immediately terminated even if the results are world poverty and billions dying.
Better that we die than the endangered spotted tree toad of upper Madagascar (not to be confused with the ubiquitous spotted tree toad in every other place on the frikken planet) might have a hard time of it.
There is an equal helping of stupid on the left, although it might not be so obvious at first glance, or depending on your own political orientation.
Because, as you know, the world could never exist in a state in which both sides were not equally guilty. Because then you’d have to think about why the majority of the vocal crazies are on your side - no, much easier to just say everything is exactly equal, and therefore I and my side is blameless, because that’s just the nature of the world.
Example: For every person saying to just take the oil, there are an equal, if not higher number, saying get rid of oil completely today. Both sides are lunatics. The polarized glasses you are wearing filter the later so that you only see the former and thus you think the way you think.
That may well be. However, there’s arguably a qualitative difference between lunacy that takes the form of overreaction to an acknowledged problem and lunacy that takes the form of flat-out denying the problem’s existence.
I think your own “polarized glasses” may be prompting you to underestimate or ignore a genuine disparity here.
Not to mention that word for word quotes have been given in this thread and in others of right wing lunacy, whereas this:
Is unsubstantiated. Equivocation isn’t the answer, especially not to questions of objective truth, especially not based on the framing of the US media.
One is direct, the other indirect.
Banning pipelines between democratic countries results in more money being sent to brutal dictatorships to suppress and kill their own people. The difference really being that the indirect one is likely to result in implementation because on the face of it proponents can make it sound like a good thing.
It is interesting that you say that when I’ve acknowledged that there are nutters on both sides. Emphasis on ‘both’. Which means that I acknowledge that both sides do indeed have them. I have no idea why you think I am defending one side’s actions over another unless you think I agree with them, which I haven’t indicated that I do. Until I posted, though, it was a pretty one sided conversation.
It is amazing how ‘truth’ seems to be so subjective no matter how much you would wish it to be objective. Objectively, there is no god, yet many seem to disagree with such an obvious assertion. I know I’m right, I know that they are wrong, but people still go to churches/temples/mosques and continue to kill each other over these myths.