Remove ads

Cliches you can't stand

Alert: man really people
  • View content
    • man really people When I woke up today, I thought things were going to be...ok. Not super wonderful but at least I wasn't expecting to have to deal with something like...this.

    I am not going quite get into the semi-unfortunate implications that have been thrown around since it didn't quite hit "alright did I accidentally download a SV theme for reddit when I wasn't looking" levels, though I will say that it would probably be better suited to its own thread.

    That said...

    RedDwarfIV said:
    *snip argument*

    Or do you think we should deny black actors roles because it looks racist if you put an uncharitable spin on the situation?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    RedDwarfIV said:
    Exactly. Its not a point I agree with. Hence why I compared it to other, similar things I disagree with.

    Not my fault if you think I'm racist for disagreeing with racism.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    >putting an actual uncharitable spin on someone's argument after complaining about uncharitable spins that weren't really that uncharitable

    Yeah this isn't going fly. Have some points for this.

    As for the other posters involved, I believe you were all participating in good faith if albeit in some cases wording things poorly even if I get what you were trying to say. I would actually recommend making a dedicated thread on Hollywood's casting decisions...mainly so it's all kept in one place if we have to come in again ( :V ), but also because I feel like everybody who wants to talk about this having to go to a new thread about it would give people a bit of time to cool off before resuming their arguments.
     
  • View discussion
    • Warning: Warning
  • View content
    • NemiTheNen said:
    Did you fail high school English, or just have a shitty program?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    warning This is mild enough to not warrant action, but I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that attacking another user through insinuations about their intelligence is not appreciated.

    Carry on!
     
  • View discussion
    • Stop: Stop
  • View content
    • Reveen said:
    You picked a baaaaad time to call revulsion towards firearms unreasonable.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    stop You know that's taking his post absurdly out of context to snipe at him, Reveen. Accordingly, you will receive a 25 point infraction for violations of rules three and four; as well as a one week threadban.
     
  • View discussion
    • Alert: LISTEN TO THIS MAN
  • View content
  • View discussion
    • Stop: ITG towards fictional groups still violates Rule 2
  • View content
    • itg towards fictional groups still violates rule 2 @JayTee has been infracted and threadbanned for three days for violating Rule 2: Don't Be Hateful. Just throwing in token cover about how one doesn't want it applied to real-world(-coded) groups does not keep ITG fantasies about how you want to see a group violently killed from violating Rule 2: Don't Be Hateful.

    Thank you for your time, and please have a pleasant day~
     
  • View discussion
    • Stop: Stop this
  • View content
    • stop this

    @Comrade Future, there is a lot of nuance in the discussion of religion that you seem to be missing in the posts below. Instead, you are expressing these opinions in a highly hateful manner. Islamophobia in your most recent post, along with declaring fanaticism as the most pure form of religion.

    I'm going to be issuing you an infraction under Rule 2. As you have had similar posts in the past, and you did not back off any of these points when called out on the religion bashing, it will be a 50 point infraction, coupled with a three day threadban.


    Comrade Future said:
    Sorry - but so often they try to separate fundamentalists from "moderates", but it doesn't work. First, they can be accused of distorting doctrine and selective citation, but the same applies to non-fundamentalists. For example, the Chalcedonians can be reproached for being neo-Platonists in disguise, Protestants for denying sacred tradition, and so on. It is also possible to accuse a fanatic of violating "non-resistance to evil," but the fanatic can quote passages that condemn homosexuality. But not one of them is authentic - the sacred texts were written at different stages of the slave society. Religion is always trying to adapt to new conditions, and over 2000 years they have changed steadily several times.
    However, the truth is that fanaticism is always the ultimate expression of religion. Absolutely any religion has the potential for fundamentalism - after all, by the fact that it rests on an irrational faith. Whether it's Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...


    Comrade Future said:
    An unfortunate example - that the orthodox observance of Sharia criminalizes "apostasy", atheism and free sex life.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
     
  • View discussion
    • You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top