Previous incarnations of Cleveland/P&C/D&D have had an image thread, to handle political cartoons and other image-based stuff that doesn't belong in the general post-a-picture threads.
If any of them spawn an extended discussion, please spawn it off into its own thread. Replies to non-picture replies should take the form of a link pointing to a post on a different discussion thread.
And I shouldn't have to say it, but the images still need to abide by the rules.
I know this is the "Post a D&D Picture Thread" and not "Post a Website" one, but this is pertinent to Pat Robertson's death: If you haven't read Wil Wheaton's short story about it, I suggest you do it now: Worth the Wait
Well that was dark, horrific and well done.
This one made me smile too
What I think it is interesting to note is how up in arms people are about it. Somehow golf a largely white, rich, luxury game is what people are choosing to be angry about? Not the slaves used for the World Cup construction, not the butchering of journalists, but rich folks walking around ecological horror parks.
No. It’s the Saudis buying their way into polite society that sucks.
I think that is the fear:
First PGA, then NHL, then how long until its the NBA, MLB and NFL?
farley3k wrote:What I think it is interesting to note is how up in arms people are about it. Somehow golf a largely white, rich, luxury game is what people are choosing to be angry about? Not the slaves used for the World Cup construction, not the butchering of journalists, but rich folks walking around ecological horror parks.
No. It’s the Saudis buying their way into polite society that sucks.
That's how all members of "polite society" get there.
DSGamer wrote:farley3k wrote:What I think it is interesting to note is how up in arms people are about it. Somehow golf a largely white, rich, luxury game is what people are choosing to be angry about? Not the slaves used for the World Cup construction, not the butchering of journalists, but rich folks walking around ecological horror parks.
No. It’s the Saudis buying their way into polite society that sucks.
That's how all members of "polite society" get there.
Correct. In this case we happen to be around to watch it happen and it feels like we should be able to stop it. That’s what’s different.
There's a line from Terry Pratchett, about how the upper classes are "the cream of society, or at least, that part which is found floating on top, and which it is therefore polite to call cream."
The US Constitution is just ordinary, inexpensive paper with various words printed on it.
And Trump doesn't mention him being recorded asking for his lawyer to commit crimes... (hide documents, lie that there aren't anymore, or destroy them)
Another from the land of duh.
I see this meme maker has been spending time in the Ukraine / Russia war thread here on GWJ.
Not to be too pedantic, but the text should have been "Babe, wake up. Ukraine took back 15 towns with names I don't know how to pronounce."
Not sure why this annoyed me so much. FTFY.
*puts down drink* "I'm heading out the patio, see if they got enough chips"
haha. I'll defer to the philosopher here since I know that profession uses words differently than laypeople, but I think the internal incoherence to which Bruenig is referring depends on a person's point of view:
1) explicit exploitation of cultural biases to both protect and empower the most privileged caste = beneficial to men
2) indignant denial of the existence of aforementioned cultural biases to both protect and empower the most privileged caste = beneficial to men
That doesn't seem like incoherence, it seems like a honeypot to the very people libertarianism attracts. Sort of like the divine right of kings attracts descendants of royalty. Now, are men stupid for choosing an ideology that exclusively empowers them while also giving them cover to deny that's what it's doing? Of course. They're also morally weak and ruled by their emotions, chiefly selfishness and fear, the latter of which is usually expressed as anger by men in our culture.
But I don't know if I'd call their ideology "internally incoherent."
Really, that big paragraph is all this Matt Breunig has? It's certainly got it's own incoherence nailed to the door of the discussion.
First, no cite for the claim that women are better at logic than men. A simple google shows, in the first page, that the jury is definitely not settled on this. The articles there cite different studies to favor one claim or the other.
Second, Ayn Rand, the founder of modern libertarianism (the kind that took over the Republican Party and defined the moral principles; Hayek and others based their arguments largely on economics rather than morality, she was the inverse) was, incontrovertibly, female. So if the premise is that libertarianism is more logical but attracts men because they are "morally weak and ruled by their emotions", well, that idea is a serious mangling of Breunig's logic. (Although anecdotally I would argue that it's *Breunig* who needs a refresher in logic.)
Further, Rand based large swathes of her moral philosophy on her interviews with and study of William Hickman, who kidnapped and killed a 12 year old girl, then after receiving the ransom, left her dismembered body for her father to find by the side of the road. He was caught, and his case became famous - and Rand wrote gushingly of his extreme self-centered philosophy. "Hickman proclaimed that "I am like the state—what is good for me is right," which Rand called "the best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I ever heard."" (Wikipedia)
I will, however, heartily agree (and have argued here) that Rand was not any kind of capable philosopher (she claimed to be the greatest) and that Randian libertarianism is internally incoherent and morally anti-social (at a minimum), which leads to the ethical barbarities we see from many Republicans today (and even Clarence Thomas, who strongly admires the behavior of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead; Roark puts his own self and judgements ahead of all others, to an extreme, and thus never changes, nor acknowledges any other person's thinking as relevant to his, ever. What he knows, he knows, forever, and nothing can change his mind - to Rand, that is "moral behavior" and always acting on just what he believes is "integrity" - sound familiar?) Randian libertarianism is at the core of our abusive Capitalism and the immoral social stances put forth by modern Republicans. It is a scourge on the American political landscape and deserves to be pulled out root and branch from the body politic.
First, no cite for the claim that women are better at logic than men. A simple google shows, in the first page, that the jury is definitely not settled on this. The articles there cite different studies to favor one claim or the other.
I'm pretty sure that's taking the piss out of the kind of asshole who claims men are more logical than women (which incidentally have a large overlap with libertarians).
I disagree. I think he misread a recent study that argued that women are better at *combining* logical and intuitive thinking, and I responded accordingly.
I think it's meant to be mostly tongue-in-cheek and a little silly. But like all humor, there is a kernel of truth inside.
How long until pacifism is a heresy moves from the Russian Orthodox Church to the US churches?
How long until pacifism is a heresy moves from the Russian Orthodox Church to the US churches?
Ollie North beat the Russians to that by decades
So spot on it made me lol in the office
Pages