|
It really is weird to refuse to try something just because it's on someone else's plate. The lady who refused to try Jerry's pie was in the wrong and while it wasn't worth breaking up over in real life, the fact that he did is the joke. It wouldn't be a comedy show without jokes.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:Now that there's a wannabe tyrant elected who's policies will literally kill people, violence suddenly isn't the answer anymore? who's going to die by what policies, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Obamacare going away will kill tens of thousands of people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
At least we still have the affordable care act
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:who's going to die by what policies, exactly? They're already repealing the healthcare bill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
The insurance company bailout really only two notable things: removed the ability for companies to reject based on preexisting conditions (good), and raised rates by amounts so large that people on the lower side of the income scale have been forced to reject any coverage because it would cost more than rent. And that's not even counting the multi-thousand dollar deductible before the coverage would even do anything in the first place. ACA is bullshit; free medicare for all paid by taxes with the option for people to opt out to use their own private coverage is the only sensible option
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
On the subject of violence, Iain M. Banks had an interesting take on the subject in his book Surface Detail, where a bunch of advanced space civilizations agree to settle a dispute with a virtual war. However, as one side is about to lose, they conclude their only option is to cheat, and start attacking their opposition in real space. The reason that physical violence or its absence is at the "core" of interactions, is that once all mutual agreements are reduced away, there are still the laws of physics and your own body with which to fight with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:Congrats on explains the entire premise of the Seinfeld. It's insane narcissists who make big deals out of tiny insignificant things. That's literally the whole point of the show. That's the default of non-characters, too? Seems weird to have no straight man to bounce ridiculousness off of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:Congrats on explains the entire premise of the Seinfeld. It's insane narcissists who make big deals out of tiny insignificant things. That's literally the whole point of the show. They aren't exactly model human beings and aren't portrayed so that you are supposed to be sympathetic to them, however they aren't totally insane and evil. A huge reason why the show works is that they often whine about little things people can relate to. The show is an ode to first world problems. yeah I eat rear end posted:It really is weird to refuse to try something just because it's on someone else's plate. The lady who refused to try Jerry's pie was in the wrong and while it wasn't worth breaking up over in real life, the fact that he did is the joke. It wouldn't be a comedy show without jokes. Yes, exactly. silence_kit has a new favorite as of 20:34 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Ready Player One is an awful novel whose only point is "GUYS, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT VIDEO GAMES ARE A THING"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
I'll just toss in the "explaining comedy is like dissecting a frog" quote and say it doesn't work for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I think I understand the point you're trying to make. Throughout history, those with the bigger stick dictated the rules. That is, if someone wanted control over a situation/territory/people, that person's army could come in and violently take it. However, to think that violence is the core of human interaction is baffling. What about couples who have been together and loved each other for decades? There are many other factors which make up the average human's life experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Yeah, the two driving forces of humanity are actually fear and oxytocin
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
yo rear end is grass posted:I think I understand the point you're trying to make. Throughout history, those with the bigger stick dictated the rules. That is, if someone wanted control over a situation/territory/people, that person's army could come in and violently take it. I'm phrasing it poorly. The absence of violence, while the potential for it always exists, is what I'm getting at. This discussion started with economics and how the rich and powerful control the police. You should never forget what the base reality is. I guess thinking this way is unhealthy or whatever, but don't think the truth of it can really be denied, only avoided for the sake of ones peace of mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
My original point is that violence accomplishes a lot more than peaceful means. Writijg an angry letter ti the editor about your boss being a dick accomplishes far less than unplugging thr buildings internet until he agrees to your demands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:My original point is that violence accomplishes a lot more than peaceful means. Writijg an angry letter ti the editor about your boss being a dick accomplishes far less than unplugging thr buildings internet until he agrees to your demands. All that would accomplish is getting your rear end fired.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Pinned tweets and stickied threads are annoying. Especially the tweets. It just means I have to scroll more to get to stuff I haven't already seen a hundred times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Violence or the threat of violence to people in charge is the only way to effect change in a modern world. The only reason we had a welfare state was because the bourgeoisie were (rightly) afraid of the Soviet Union. A new civil war would've been very quick work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:My original point is that violence accomplishes a lot more than peaceful means. Writijg an angry letter ti the editor about your boss being a dick accomplishes far less than unplugging thr buildings internet until he agrees to your demands. i wonder how many times you've been out of a job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:It does hurt the rioters sure. But even if it isnt literally burning it down. Holding up production or stopping production does more than angry letters ans rallys. What about Warren Buffet? Lots of liberals who hate the Kochs/Waltons seem to fawn over him because he's willing to accept some very modest tax increases. Sentient Data posted:ACA is bullshit; free medicare for all paid by taxes with the option for people to opt out to use their own private coverage is the only sensible option While this is true, I can honestly kinda sympathize with politicians for being afraid to seriously push for this. The health insurance industry is big and powerful enough that I would be very worried about my personal well-being if I was at the forefront of a movement that would cripple it (relative to how it is currently, at least). Ytlaya has a new favorite as of 22:51 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Franklin D. Roosevelt was also a real old money millionaire patrician. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:All that would accomplish is getting your rear end fired. Its like youre intentionally missing the implication. Obviously thatd get you fired. Why? Because it actually threatens the owner. A nasty letter doesnt. Thats why protests often accomplish nothing unless they hit a serious critical mass. Otherwise they are just ignored. But if those protests actually threatened the economic well being of folk in charge, uh uh now this has meaning. The difference? The right kind of violence. You seem to think im advocating doing this or something in real time. Im not. Im just saying historically it alwayd been violence that got poo poo done, not angry talk show segments or Facebook posts. These are catalysts instead of actual change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Its like youre intentionally missing the implication. Obviously thatd get you fired. Why? Because it actually threatens the owner. A nasty letter doesnt. Thats why protests often accomplish nothing unless they hit a serious critical mass. Otherwise they are just ignored. But if those protests actually threatened the economic well being of folk in charge, uh uh now this has meaning. The difference? The right kind of violence. i think you need to read over your posts before you post them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:i think you need to read over your posts before you post them. Jastiger posted:The right kind of violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Its like youre intentionally missing the implication. Obviously thatd get you fired. Why? Because it actually threatens the owner. It also makes trouble for your colleagues and co-workers who probably don't really care all that much about your dispute with your boss and probably won't appreciate you disrupting their work, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:It also makes trouble for your colleagues and co-workers who probably don't really care all that much about your dispute with your boss and probably won't appreciate you disrupting their work, though. If you don't have solidarity, you literally have nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:If you don't have solidarity, you literally have nothing. Perhaps so. Obviously a group of people undertaking a common action for a common cause is always going to do more than one person trying to mount some one-man crusade by themselves. Although, personally, if we went on strike tomorrow, I'd stay at home and enjoy the day off work. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
yo rear end is grass posted:You can't just say that. Beat him up, it'll work better. After all, it'll be it turns out i was the monster all along, i have seen the error of my ways, and to correct this i shall keep being a monster
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Its like youre intentionally missing the implication. Obviously thatd get you fired. Why? Because it actually threatens the owner. A nasty letter doesnt. Thats why protests often accomplish nothing unless they hit a serious critical mass. Otherwise they are just ignored. But if those protests actually threatened the economic well being of folk in charge, uh uh now this has meaning. The difference? The right kind of violence. While I agree with the general idea that non-violent protest accomplishes jack poo poo 95% of the time (though on rare occasions it can accomplish something if it's creating enough negative press for the company/politician in question), I think it's also questionable whether violence can accomplish things in the modern day like it used to be able to 100 years ago. 100 years ago it was a threat to a company if workers striked or threatened to destroy company assets because the company didn't have much of an other choice. But in our modern world, corporations often have the option of simply relocating if workers cause problems. It might cost them money to do so, but it still gives them an option other than acquiescing to the demands of the workers (which effectively limits the workers' negotiating power). The same thing applies politically, in the sense that "a bunch of people with guns" used to be able to pose a reasonable threat to a nation, but now the different in power between a country's military and its people is so great (in the US at least) that this isn't much of an option. Though I think that such violence might still be useful in the sense that it applies pressure on those in power (even if they know the rebels can't take over government, politicians might still have reason to be worried about being assassinated or something).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Name one good thing violence has accomplished. I'll wait.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:If you don't have solidarity, you literally have nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I agree with the general idea that non-violent protest accomplishes jack poo poo 95% of the time (though on rare occasions it can accomplish something if it's creating enough negative press for the company/politician in question), I think it's also questionable whether violence can accomplish things in the modern day like it used to be able to 100 years ago. 100 years ago it was a threat to a company if workers striked or threatened to destroy company assets because the company didn't have much of an other choice. But in our modern world, corporations often have the option of simply relocating if workers cause problems. It might cost them money to do so, but it still gives them an option other than acquiescing to the demands of the workers (which effectively limits the workers' negotiating power). Right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Name one good thing violence has accomplished. Shut down the South in the Civil War, thus preserving some semblence of Democracy in the West
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Any examples that aren't over a century ago?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Shut down the South in the Civil War, thus preserving some semblence of Democracy in the West the rare triple shitpost...we live in golden times. VVV 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
A bit of violence or quite possibly even the threat of violence could've been used to stop Hitler before he gassed a bunch of innocent people . No threat was made and no violence was used against him and welp. e: The dumb-rear end question was literally a legitimate reason to bring up Hitler. "I mean sure threatening to actually do something could've stopped Hitler but can you name any animes where it would've helped  "
3D Megadoodoo has a new favorite as of 00:45 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Name one good thing violence has accomplished. In the Winter War Finnish soldiers fought Soviet forces to a standstill, and kept the country independent. I admittedly am biased, but I much prefer living in a western social democracy as opposed to whatever poo poo show Finland would've been if it had lost the war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Thank you for your answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:the rare triple shitpost...we live in golden times. You gonna contribute at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:A bit of violence or quite possibly even the threat of violence could've been used to stop Hitler before he gassed a bunch of innocent people You could probably say the same about Saddam Hussein, I suppose. I feel like it's difficult to know without hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 01:05
|
|