Jump to content

kazooie

Members
  • Content count

    416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

390 Excellent

5 Followers

About kazooie

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

814 profile views
  1. lol Still not what I argued, nor what I concluded. You're almost there! See, I argued that, due to the close nature of the verdict (5-4), if some liberal judges ended up getting replaced with conservatives, it opened up the possibility of Obergefell being overturned, but was unlikely. With the added caveat that, even if Oblergeman was overturned, it wouldn't make gay marriage illegal. And, as we all know "possible for the courts, but unlikely, with caveats" is pretty much identical to the "TRUMP IS GOING TO REPEAL GAY MARRIAGE" position when u think about it...........................
  2. The entire conversation was a matter of a matter of "conservative supreme court justices" vs liberal. I never argued that Trump would repeal gay marriage. He fucking can't. ???? His administration has been eroding LGBT rights. I was entirely correct to be suspicious of all of the morons fawning over that image of trump_rainbow_flag.jpg. But I never argued Trump would repeal gay marriage. He can't.
  3. You do realize i never shut down the server where we had our political conversations. Your weirdly delusional re-framing of my arguments don't really work against actual logs, aha vvvv Sent you the logs of our actual discussion, re: the supreme court & the fact obergefell passed 5-4. The argument had ***nothing*** to do with Trump and everything to do with the supreme court. Trump can't fucking repeal gay marriage.
  4. lol no Say this with me: "It's O.K. for someone to be critical of something I'm sympathetic to" Just because I might have been critical of *those alt-righters carrying tiki torches & chanting "blood and soil", or *Donald Trump's idiotic candidacy, or *jontron getting in trouble for parroting white supremacist talking points, or *r/the_redpil, or *that really dumb equivalency between the gay marriage cake & neo nazis, or *the autism 'farms, or *someone getting driven to the point of near-suicide via. systematic hazing Doesn't actually mean I think any of those parties involved are inherently evil. That's not how reality works.
  5. ben garrison is an international treasure
  6. Sorry, by "the chuds" I didn't mean the entire forum, aha. Yea, I miss the old days of FAF too.
  7. o no, the chuds on this forum hate me, my dude. once one hates someone to that degree, one will basically jump through any degree of mental gymnastics in order to misrepresent said person one loathes
  8. ben garrison is so good - also, y'all are way more predictable than you believe
  9. i mean, either that, or the first page was full of the exact same band of five people who understand that the threat of the Special JeW virtue-signaling tumblrite hugboxes must be destroyed at all costs
  10. no, you can definitely have a community of intellectually insular individuals form without having a set of explicit rules spelling it out.
  11. yep tho the mechanism edgelords use for the mediation of acceptable discourse is slightly more anarchistic than traditional moderation; you usually need a critical mass of reactionaries for it to precipitate
  12. (an argument can also be made that positive signaling - "like" buttons - can also contribute to weirdly tribal behaviour on forums and the like, but that's not the focus of this thread obviously)
  13. o yea, i agree that it's more than just a single factor; an "autistic" or "downvote" button isn't alone enough - but i do believe said factors can help contribute to such an environment of perceived hostility & tribalism (through mechanisms previously illustrated)
×