sartorial tips from the fucktard D&D idiot train (Chat Thread) - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > sartorial tips from the fucktard D&D idiot train (Chat Thread)

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sergg posted:

It's amazing the amount of emotional capital people sink into into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict considering how low-intensity it is compared to all the other conflicts going on all around it.

Strong levels of racial/cultural identity are involved on both sides.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 04:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 23:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

RuanGacho posted:

I've been thinking about making a local government and you thread for a few months now. Generally going over the forms that city councils take, who you should probably be complaining to when traffic lights don't get fixed. Maybe cover some other things like how you can get involved, the way public records are supposed to work and often don't. I have always found it curious how much people focus so much on the national level politics because it seems like worrying about the things we can change the least. If you want some perspective on what I mean, consider the change that the single city council member being a socialist in Seattle has caused. Any thoughts or comments on the idea?

I'd agree that this sounds fascinating and excellent.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 07:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I prefer turkey meat- lower in fat, cholesterol and calories.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 07:59

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I study nutrition science and policy for a living :shrug:

:shrug:

.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 08:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

XyloJW posted:

Obligatory answer: Red Tornado

Obligatory answer: Ozymandias

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 20:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

SubponticatePoster posted:

I live pretty close (maybe half a mile) from railroad tracks and find the sound somewhat soothing at night. Well, as long as it's the HOOOOOONK HOOOONK and then silence. Sometimes you get a real turd who lays on it like HOO HOO HOOONK HOOONK HOONK HOOO HOO- shut the gently caress up already! The wheels don't squeal, they make kind of a rumbling clackety sound. I don't even notice it most of the time.

Iirc the number of whistles and length are regulated by the train or its length or something. They don't have a choice in the matter.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2014 22:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

illrepute posted:

So what's the endgame of the d&d chat thread, anyhow? You've gotta know we're just going to turn back into LF and march on the rules thread before getting banned to the last poster.

I think you just answered your own question.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2014 00:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's almost certainly intentional- like the upside down flag.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2014 04:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sharkie posted:

Note that the flag is upside down, which is apparently a dogwhistle that people use to mean "our nation is under threat."

It's a naval signal for ship in distress.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2014 04:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Broken Machine posted:

Is it really ethical to have established this thread, conducting an experiment with human research subjects without getting informed consent first?

It's certainly legal under the Common Rule unless he's working for an institution receiving federal research funding. There's not a strong sign of hazardous outcomes, either, so as long as we avoid too much suicidal ideation in response to political outcomes we don't like, in my professional opinion we're probably fine. I have a conflict of interest, though. Maybe he should appoint an outside review panel? At least get a consult.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2014 15:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

hobbesmaster posted:

Theres no question that this kind of human subject research needs an IRB though.

No, it doesn't, that's the point. Unless SA is taking NIH grants or something, there's no IRB requirement.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2014 16:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

corn in the bible posted:

There is a new report saying this.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140703/02494927769/nsas-xkeyscore-source-code-leaked-shows-tor-users-classified-as-extremists.shtml

HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:

Had a friend on AIM freaking out about this. He also sent me this link.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/07/nsa_targets_pri.html

The two reports linked contradict themselves in their rush to overstate the NSA's claims and actions. The supposedly horrifying comments in the leaked code are saying that they're monitoring the sites in question because Tor is used by extremists, not that everyone who uses it is an extremist:

leaked code comment posted:

These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by extremists on extremist forums.

They're presumably tracking people going to the sites associated with these tools because they can compare that sample of users with the sample of users who use the app and other groups to cross-identify them with whomever their target population is. Like a lot of the NSA leaks, it's not novel, incriminating or interesting beyond the breathless, Rall-style coverage.

On the bright side, the comments left under the articles by paranoid schizophrenics are fun.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2014 21:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

quote:

Zwarte Piets were once openly characterized as Santa's slaves. Today, the Dutch refer to them as Santa's sidekicks and "good friends."

# ¿ Jul 3, 2014 22:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

Personally when I went to Europe it confused the hell out of me when the term "liberal" suddenly meant "quasi-libertarian" in a good number of countries.

:eng101:

it's usually the more philosophically and historically accurate construction of the term, in fact! To vastly oversimplify, Liberalism was originally the term for a bunch of philosophies built on individually oriented universal deonotological rights systems, quite primitive ones at first. These were some of the foundational philosophies that got us to the modern era of republicanism, but it turns out (shocker) that building a society around an absolute, fundamental and God-given right to personal property that supersedes all other things has a tendency to make people kill each other.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2014 04:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Note the "extremely oversimplified" part, though. I can't give you a full history of philosophical liberalism, but the wikipedia page looks to be very good aside from the very top of the article. Here's the definition/etymology section:

"wikipedia posted:

Words such as liberal, liberty, libertarian, and libertine all trace their history to the Latin liber, which means "free". One of the first recorded instances of the word liberal occurs in 1375, when it was used to describe the liberal arts in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man. The word's early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations. Liberal could refer to "free in bestowing" as early as 1387, "made without stint" in 1433, "freely permitted" in 1530, and "free from restraint"�often as a pejorative remark�in the 16th and the 17th centuries. In 16th century England, liberal could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion.[13] In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath...confest his vile encounters". With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823. In 1815, the first use of the word liberalism appeared in English. By the middle of the 19th century, liberal started to be used as a politicised term for parties and movements all over the world.

Boiled down, you could say Liberalism is a big tent for all ARE FREEDUHMS arguments, with all the rhetorical power and political/practical problems that that entails.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2014 04:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Swan Oat posted:

also is it more lf to support france or germany in the world cup please help me d&d

Both are capitalist pigs, you are traitor to the cause.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2014 17:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hedera Helix posted:

I'm afraid I have some unfortunate news to share.

_{why was this thread never goldmined}

That really does deserve a goldmine.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2014 21:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

size1one posted:

An entity is required, personhood is not. It's completely reasonable to separate people from legal constructs.

Corporate personhood is a legal construct. So is the category of "people".

# ¿ Jul 5, 2014 20:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

N. Senada posted:

Can some people help me better understand the concept of corporate personhood? What rights does a corporation enjoy that is separate from the rights an individual has under American law? Is it just to allow corporations to do business in the way an individual would or is there more to it than just that?

This is what I'm using to try and understand the issue better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

but I'm sure there are better sources.

The wikipedia article actually looks like a good place to start-outside of a law school, you're not going to find anything resembling an unbiased account of the issue, which is obviously very complicated and politically fraught.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2014 22:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

size1one posted:

The first case deals with a non-profit, which I believe should be treated differently from a for-profit corporation. Non-profits serve a different purpose than corporations and should have stronger rights than corporations.

It's pretty trivial for a for-profit corporation, or a group of for-profits, to set up nonprofits as mouthpieces. That's what a lot of PACs and 501(c)(3)s are.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2014 01:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

The ~~FDA~~USDA reign of terror has limited me to quarter pounders.

Ftfy. FDA doesn't get involved with meat patties.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2014 02:30

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Red Cross is generally above reproach. The incidents Ignatius M. Meen is referring to occurred

1) because they encountered the unprecedented situation of getting roughly 15 times the amount of blood donations that they were equipped to handle- and blood has an expiration date

2) due to a snafu in their communications office. The head of the Red Cross of the US also resigned in response to that incident.

Those are literally the only misdeeds I know of coming out of the Red Cross in a large number of years.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2014 06:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

:stonk:

Jesus, that makes my posting look concise. He/she could've stopped after the first paragraphs. Is this the person that started a political philosophy thread OP by declaring themselves an ancap?

# ¿ Jul 7, 2014 00:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The first couple google results for the username are accounts of them getting banned from other forums as well.

I wonder if, when the mods get a serial offender like that, they're ever tempted to write stuff in the "Punishment Reason" field that will make neat little patterns or images. "hey look, your serial shitposting helped me draw a cute little bunny!" or something along those lines.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2014 00:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Calling it now- Huntsman is one of the DnD mods.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2014 02:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Weigel's recent article on the practice included a picture of one of the coal rollers who did, in fact, have Truck Nutz on his modded vehicle.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2014 07:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Randler posted:

Why did people settle there in the time before A/Cs if it's so unbearable? They can't have oil and gold everywhere, can they?

One of the first inventors of A/C, John Gorrie, has a statue in the Capitol Building's main hall for a reason.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2014 21:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Every time I see references to I/P threads or arguments I have to doublecheck and correct my assumption that it's another EFF thread.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2014 04:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Zizek is popular because Zizek is an incredibly goony man. I strongly suspect he adorns his bedroom with anime posters.

drilldo squirt posted:

So is he just crazy or selling books to idiots for money?

Fallacy alert: False Dichotomy. Why not both?

# ¿ Jul 11, 2014 11:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Tatum Girlparts posted:

For some reason D&D seems like the dumbest forum to report in. Like, isn't the unspoken agreement we're all here because we're insufferable argumentative assholes? Why would you not just argue with someone?

Here's the rap sheet of "BabyChoom", whose posts in the Eastern Europe threads are an example of behavior sufficient to justify reporting and discipline, by any standard.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jul 11, 2014

# ¿ Jul 11, 2014 16:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

For the record, although I'm not all that knowledgeable on the subject, there are several different formats or rulesets for formal debate, and iirc they're not all equally worthless.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2014 17:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

kelvron posted:

So I'm helping my family clean out my Grandfather's apartment, and found most of his Republican memorabilia. Life membership pins, commemorative presidential coins, and a few other things. I don't think my Uncles (one's a docent at the GWB Presidential Library, the other's pretty GOProud too), my pretty non-political aunt, or my liberal mother want any of it. Do anyone here have any ideas what I should do with it?

Create a self-challenge thread.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2014 17:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Formal debates have their merits, but public education isn't one of them. Usually debate is impressive for the level of research debaters have to put into their statements(at the high levels we're talking a full filing cabinet of notes for a single debate), but you're still getting a limited and rhetorically laden construction of the issue.

RevusRangerous posted:

Do you think the Intelligence Squared debates are any good? I'm not an expert but I've like the ones I've heard. They poll the audience before and after and sometimes there are pretty significant swings.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/

Well, preliminarily, the three puff quotations on the index for the group are from WSJ, NYT and HuffPo, which is not a good sign.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 02:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

If they host a debate between Hitchens and Fry, there's no reason to think of the organization as even remotely interested in anything resembling rational discourse or argument.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 03:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I stand corrected, but if Team Smug Atheism are involved, it's not a productive debate.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 04:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

If the thesis being debated is that the Catholic church is evil, then it's not a productive debate. We can keep doing this if you really want.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 04:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Thanatosian posted:

I don't think anyone said anything about pure evil. Just whether they're more evil than not. And I think it's a pretty good debate to have, if only because most people seem to think that the problem with the Catholic Church is a few bad apples, when, in fact, there's a healthy amount of evidence that the issue is a bad tree.

Also, I don't think taking an anti-religion stance is particularly "edgy" given the audience.

Congratulations on missing the point and being swayed by a topic you are emotionally invested in! You are the target demographic for this lovely audience-baiting debate platform!

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 04:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Thanatosian posted:

Yeah, Hitchens was an imperialist piece of poo poo. I give him credit for being willing to try waterboarding, though, and changing his mind about it after he experienced it. More than I can say for a lot of imperialist pieces of poo poo.

And the Catholic Church does a tiny percentage of the worthwhile poo poo they're capable of doing (they spend a minuscule amount of their revenue on charity), and they do a lot of terrible stuff other than just spreading lies about birth control in the developing world.

This wasn't the discussion subject. The question that gave rise to this discussion was whether intelligence squared was a worthwhile debate platform. Hitchens being on their debates (let alone Fry) is a good sign that it isn't. We already know your position on Catholicism, you've made it abundantly clear, you're not adding anything by repeating it several times.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 05:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

To the extent that the debate forum frames the issue as it did, and to the extent that they used Fry or Hitchens, who are demagogues, IQ2 is not a good debate platform.

Thanatosian posted:

Most academics with a background in the Catholic Church are probably going to be reliant on good relations with said church in order to continue having access. Which makes taking a public position of "the Church has done more bad than good" bad for their career.

So people knowledgeable or qualified on the subject are automatically invalidated. Nice framing.

Thanatosian posted:

So, when I ask "who," I'm asking you to actually name some names. Saying "someone with an academic background" is like polling "generic Republican" or "generic Democrat" against an actual candidate; the hypothetical is almost always going to outperform real human beings.

That's because virtually anyone with experience in the subject area would be a better choice than Hitchens or Fry. Pick anyone with a degree in comparative religion or ethics- oh wait, you've already decided they're all biased. I guess we're left with a popular comedic actor and a member of the four horsemen. A capacity for pithiness and snark, which is all either of these men are skilled with, does not translate to meaningful debate credentials.

Again, all of this is largely made irrelevant by the worthless debate topic. It's just something for militants on both sides of the issue to jerk off over. It was a debate designed to draw an audience, not to inform or produce reflection. Participants don't demonstrate knowledge of nuance on the issue, because it's designed to obscure, rather than elicit, that outcome.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Jul 12, 2014

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 06:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 23:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Even with the disclosures, for volume of work done I believe they have a better safety record than any other group in the world- and they're actually disclosing the exposures, which is sadly not as common in other national research entities.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 10:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > sartorial tips from the fucktard D&D idiot train (Chat Thread)

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.05)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS