I would pay to see it.
Is it just me or do the “Cheerios” logos just make it worse?
I’ll bet if I don’t click on that I’ll know anyway it’s the Pungent Stench Been Caught Buttering front album cover. (I spose I’ve been wrong before, though, but I think I’m not, here.)
This is the crux of the matter that Octopus is too cowardly / disingenuous to acknowledge. He knows perfectly well that the Republican cray-cray exceeds the dem cray by a metric shit-ton, but that won’t conveniently fit into his agenda, and so has to FUCKING TEDIOUSLY re-hash the same alt-right talking points because he has nothing else to fall back on.
Guess I haven’t been paying attention - “socialist” has been added to the Octo Lexicon, then? I need to keep up:
statist
pottymouth
virtue signalling
hive minded
tds
read a history book
I’m sure I’m missing some. None of those, btw, are in any way uncommon, but your (unsubstantiated, at that) overuse of them has, by now, completely diluted any weight they might have once had.
If the Dems have anyone in their pool of talent remotely resembling Donald in character and (lack of) intelligence, that person would never stand a chance of winning a presidential primary.
Our far lefties may be a little out there for much of the electorate but don’t bullshit us and tell us that Bernie and AOC aren’t smart or make shit up every day.
Policies, my ass. It’s not just that you’re a stupid piece of work, Octo, it’s that you insult us by assuming that we’re equally stupid.
If Democrats were as craven and devoid of morality as Republicans, we’d be inaugurating Michael Avenatti on Wednesday.
^^^^^ Like. ^^^^^
I haven’t read any of this thread, but I think I’m finally getting a sense of Octopus.
While it’s my sincere belief that he/she is genuinely quite bright, I think the thing that gets him/her into conflict around here is a profound cognitive rigidity and an outsized reliance on a pretty specific ideology.
He/she seems to work backward from his/her deeply-held belief about the world As It Should Be to whatever issue is at hand. The frame almost never fits, and he/she stresses it shockingly beyond its original engineering design parameters in a valiant, if pathetic, effort to make it fit.
But anything other than getting the frame of simplicity around such complex issues would cause him/her relatively much more cognitive dissonance and intellectual angst than the judo match with the antiquated frame.
There’s also a bit of an academic’s take on everything. He/she seems well educated, but like a PhD who’s never worked in the real world, he/she becomes an impediment to getting important work done.
Those who’ve worked on teams in large organizations usually remember at least one like we’re talking about here: you know what their answer will be regardless of what the issue at hand is, or what problem you’re trying to solve. You learn to work around them if you can’t get rid of them. They add no value and become caricatures of themselves.
I’m also reminded of this keyboard study tied to conservative/liberal brains:
“A study by scientists at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, found differences in how self-described liberal and conservative research participants responded to changes in patterns. Participants were asked to tap a keyboard when the letter “M” appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a “W.” The letter “M” appeared four times more frequently than “W,” conditioning participants to press the keyboard on almost every trial. Liberal participants made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw the rare “W,” indicating to the researchers that these participants were better able to accept changes or conflicts in established patterns. The participants were also wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in their anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency and a more appropriate response. Liberals were significantly more likely than conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts during the experiment, and this correlated with their greater accuracy in the test.”
Source (PDF)
Octopus is simply constitutionally incapable of not typing ‘M.’
M…
Drat!
Hey ink for brains? Were you trying to out yourself as a trock?
A certain metaphor about wrestling pigs may apply here.
Wrestling pigs, dancing monkeys, quasi-fish creatures . . . pretty soon this is going to be a Journey to the West
Don’t forget pigeon chess.
I say “Hey Octo, Truth Social is just an app away.”
He says “I’m not looking for agreement. I’m looking for honest debate, which this place used to have before it became a hive mind and resorted to personal insults, inane depravity and disrespectful madness.”
So he spews ink-spattered excrement at us to provoke us into honest debate. That always works.
@octopus, as you may or may not have noticed, I’ve been moderately tolerant of you in the past, but it appears that this was mostly because I never really read much of what you’ve posted, and just remarked that the purple octopus with the top hat and monocle was kinda cute. But having read the recent exchanges in which you (and others, but always prompted by you) have derailed the Trolls R Us thread, my opinion has changed very much for the worse. And it’s bullshit like that quoted above that has done it.
This is such a complete load of crap that you are either delusional or trolling. In what universe is “defunding the police”, “abolishing the police”, or “elimination of incarceration” supposed to represent the prevailing opinion of progressives? (Not sure what “community justice” is supposed to mean.) Progressives seek a peaceful and just society and have been appalled at the brutality and outright killings regularly inflicted by some police forces against Black people. What they have called for is reform of police culture so that all citizens are treated fairly under the law, and preferably not killed by the likes of Derek Chauvin. To characterize this as wanting to abolish police forces and eliminate incarceration is the most reprehensible kind of dishonesty and reckless attempt to smear your opponents, exactly the attempt “to exploit emotions to energize an electorate” you accuse others of doing, in yet another unsurprising and unintended projection.
So it’s your honest considered opinion that the FBI retrieving top secret documents that were said to include highly sensitive nuclear secrets, signed off by an FBI director appointed by Trump, an AG noted for his political neutrality, and a highly respected magistrate judge, was politically motivated by Trump haters? Or at least, that rational people will see it that way? You either a liar, delusional, a troll, or maybe all three.
You will note that the context of what you’re responding to is about cannabis. To use terminology like “addiction and overdose” and “narcotics” in that context is just more totally delusional right-wing blathering.
It’s nice when, on a forum such as SDMB, you tell a good joke, and get some responses like “Nice one”. Or if you make a good point in a discussion, and someone says “That makes sense - thanks for the cite!”
It gives a sense that you’re contributing something, and have been appreciated.
For those who lack the ability to converse like an adult, or tell a good joke, or contribute anything to a discussion, they still seek the feedback and acknowledgement from others that they even exist.
So they shit the bed for attention. Sure, it’s negative attention, but at least someone is responding to them. They drop a turd into the punchbowl at the party where others are discussing interesting topics. They can’t contribute to any sort of complex discussion, but Boy-Howdy! Now people are discussion the turd in the punchbowl!
What fun! I did that! My Turd!
This is what we’re dealing with here.
Now I regret wasting my time with a serious response to this fucking dipshit troll.
I’m still waiting for the eight legged one to tell us what cities were burned down.