No need, I have it memorized and I can’t see the movie without thinking of it. It’s one of the best SNL skits of all time.
Good call!
Bryan Eckers is stating that it is in some way significant that “only women” have defended Starving Artist in this thread. In other words, his post is saying that the fact that “only women” have done so implies something. Mr. Nylock is wondering what it’s supposed to imply. (And so am I, as it happens.)
The utility of the question is whatever utility comes along with understanding what point Bryan Eckers was trying to make.
I, for one, would be interested in seeing what you think is wrong.
:rolleyes:
One thing you could do it read the thread, or just track backwards through the relevant quotes. Or you could do what the two of you are doing.
I even did a brief recap attempt for you, but that appears unhelpful. Perhaps it was so because I omitted the part where SA suggested I was misogynistic for making the observation. Yeah, I know the “logic” there suggests that he may not know what the word misogynistic means, but there you go.
Let’s just give it up, shall we? I am unable to understand your responses in regard to this question.
Before the takedown, I’d be interested to know whether you committing to agreement with it. I assume you are, given the use of quotation marks.
Or is this an academic thing?
I’m confused. Are you Frylock too?
Jesus Christ dude. That was a lot of words where I think about seven or eight would have sufficed.
The correct answer, btw, by conventions long established here at the Dope, would have been:
Those ain’t quotation marks. They are emphasis-asterisks, and they’re there because the person she was replying used them around that word.
But having said that, asking the question “why is that wrong” is a pretty strong indicator that the person asking the question is predisposed to find it right.
Oh, true. Tip of the iceberg, though. It’s a rather complex character flaw. We could get deeply psychoanalytic about it, if I believed in that sort of thing.
Sr. Weasel: What you chatting about?
Me: Uh, I’m being taken to task for my compulsive need to be understanding toward all people.
Sr. Weasel: Yeah, it’s kinda weak. Merlin judges you.
(Merlin is my cat.)
[QUOTE=Hentor]
I don’t think good people do good things when they give cover to the grotesque though.It really is no skin off my nose what she does with her time and effort though.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I struggle with this all the time. It was a thread I started on this same board that made me rethink my slash and burn approach to dealing with prejudice. I’ve also read quite a few articles recently taking people to task for disowning people they view as beyond understanding when really they have a responsibility to try to connect and facilitate understanding.
So someone’s gonna think I’m doing something wrong either way. I may as well go with the thing that’s more authentic to me.
Plus, I want to understand. I don’t post here because I want to live in an echo chamber. If someone holds a radically different ideological worldview but is willing to talk to me about it without hurling insults and frothing at the mouth, I am interesting in learning more, if only because it teaches me to defend my own position better.
[QUOTE=Hentor]
It’s a Wonderful Life isn’t helping. I’m just imagining Spice Weasel in the bottom corner of the screen saying, “You know, Mr. Potter isn’t all bad.”
[/QUOTE]
He’s not, right? He can’t be. Otherwise he’s not really a person.
I don’t know what he (ddsun) thinks is wrong, so I can’t know whether I agree with him or not. Quoting a huge post and saying that things are wrong with it doesn’t say much. Since he asked what he should do, I suggested that I’d be interested in seeing his argument.
As to why you’re questioning me about this, I’ll note that you have 29 posts in this thread, second only to Starving Artist himself. I’m wondering why you’re so invested in this.
I think a more fundamental convention is to read the thread before posting. It’s especially true when you’re making implications of some weird kind about a particular post.
In fact, 9 times out of 10, a question like “What did you mean by that post?” is best answered by reading the posts that preceded it. I know it’s a stunning concept.
I’m asking whether you agree with what SA wrote, not with what ddsun didn’t write yet. That should have been obvious.
The end of that sentence is not a logical conclusion of the beginning of that sentence.
As for my investment, I guess I’d say that you can’t win if you don’t play. They can’t all be winners, but things like “Wait for it” was kinda like hitting three cherries.
Man what are you at. I read the thread, happened not to notice your post enough to remember it, then saw Bryan s post later, didn’t see the reference, wondered what he meant, saw someone else did to, then was completely confused by your weirdly defensive post that seemed to think it was describing a prior post of your in a way that should clear everything up but didn’t. And here now you seem to be intimating the question was an attack. I just wanted to know what Bryan meant. Just fuck. Fuck. What is it with you people.
There are all-bad people walking the earth. Not many. But they are out there.
(I am not suggesting that SA is one, though I am also not suggesting that he is not. I am only speaking generally.)
I neither agree nor disagree. As ddsun noted, he’d have to unpack it to analyze it more. I’m not willing to do that. But if he wants to try, then I’d be interested in seeing it. And yes, it’s obvious that you’re trying to back me into a black/white corner. I’m not interested in playing that.
If you’re interested in unpacking the post and saying what you think is wrong with it, I might be more interested.
Ah, so you’re just playing the snark tossing game. Is Starving Artist germane to the game or do you play it with anyone?
Isn’t she talking about her husband in that quote? Maybe I’m misreading it, but I think she is. It’s a reference to the person sitting at the bottom of the screen. He couldn’t literally be doing that if he’s a person.
Um, what? I said the sample size wasn’t large enough to make any general hypotheses, i.e. nothing of statistical significance can be inferred. If there have been two defenders of Starving Artist and they both happen to be female, that’s no more significant than flipping a coin twice and getting two heads in a row.
If there were six defenders who were all female, then we might have a vague suggestion of a gender effect (or just an unremarkable coincidence). Twenty or more defenders, all or 95% female, would be more compelling.
I’m trying to parse this and failing. I’m now convinced a number of you are inebriated (and make no mistake, I envy you that. I am merely drugged on Benadryl, and that’s not as fun.)
The quote was my husband making fun of me for being too nice. The mockery continued.
Sr. Weasel: Don’t you have anything more useful to do than be nice to trolls?
Me: I’m… more or less, I’m apologizing to someone for being nice to trolls.
Sr. Weasel: Wow, you somehow find ways to get lamer and lamer.
And yes, I was saying Mr. Potter couldn’t be all bad, or he wouldn’t be human. And yes, I’ll concede some people are all bad. They are called sociopaths. I even feel for them, in a way, but not in a way that would result in me trusting them or wanting anything to with them.