Place to put my Nonsense Thread.
- Thread starter lurkeraspect84
- Start date
The 8th grade fight made me worry less about physical confrontation. It let me know that I could handle myself if push came to shove. That was the lasting impact for me.
Now, at 30yo with a family, I could not see myself getting in any physical fights outside of extreme circumstances (family in danger or something like that). The consequences when adults fight are obviously higher than 8th graders punching each other in the head. Pride just isn’t worth potentially dying over when you have kids.
My smart mouth still haunts me today. It's been a while, but I've came close directly due to not letting a joke (on them) go.
"Well, the world needs ditch diggers." was the last one that dude was ready to throw down.
I'm super nice, but when a guy is a dick, i'm like "look, it's a dick only smaller".
*I take that back, I told a guy he looked like Snap from Rice Krispies. To my credit, it was spot on and the entire salesforce within ear shot got it and laughed.
"Well, the world needs ditch diggers." was the last one that dude was ready to throw down.
I'm super nice, but when a guy is a dick, i'm like "look, it's a dick only smaller".
*I take that back, I told a guy he looked like Snap from Rice Krispies. To my credit, it was spot on and the entire salesforce within ear shot got it and laughed.
"Tensions are high right now with the recent wave of police brutality" How about recent wave of assassinations' of police officers?
The 8th grade fight came about because of my mouth. It was a kid who had been messing with my best friend. The kid was just an asshole in general and liked to walk around with his chest puffed out. Anyway, I decided to start shit with him one day playing basketball. Called him a pussy, which got his attention. Then when I decided I needed to get him to swing at me first, I said something about him being on welfare. That worked.
Not proud of it, obviously. It was his 3rd fight of the year so he was expelled for the remaining few months of school. I got 2 nights of detention.
Touching on your kids....errr. wait...Things change with family. My wife settled me down. Up until her, I'd love to fight. Just for the sport of it. I liked getting hit in a sense. Prior to us getting married, she picked me up once from jail after a fight and told me she'd never date a guy like me....if that happened again. We gave the guy I fought a ride home that morning (he rode in the bed of her Toyota). Drunk tank isn't the best place to make friends but it's better than fighting.
I think it teaches you that there is a time and place for everything, knowing when to and not to is pretty important. I would rather avoid physical confrontations at this point in my life, bc like you said, you never know what could happen. (even when you win you can lose). I still wouldnt flinch if somebody was acting like an idiot to my wife or kids. Any other altercation I could probably let go or wait until they initiate the first contact. That being said, some people absolutely run their GD mouth bc they have no fear of someone holding them accountable for their words. The world might be a little better place if some people ate a few punches.
Last true fight I was in was during college, knocked a dude out, fell into a car door......long story short I got a call the next morning from someone that knew both of us and we had to split a 1K repair bill for the guys door that got dented in or the cops would be called. I actually helped the guy up as the cops rolled around the corner and we both ran off. Not knowing if I was going to be in legal trouble b/c the guy had a good cut and a tooth missing, owing some random stranger 500 bucks, and then having it in the back of your mind that some dude and his buddies are probably watering at the mouth to come get payback isnt really the best feeling in the world
I probably didn't need to say there was a huge liberal bias, but a bias nonetheless. Take Trump out of the picture, here are the numbers for negative press coverage from some of the prior elections this century.
If you take the ratio of negative to positive press coverage, here's what you get. All of these numbers came from the Pew Research Center.
'08 McCain: 4.07
'12 Romney: 2.06
'00 Bush: 2.04
'08 Obama: 0.81
'04 Kerry: 0.74
'12 Obama: 0.66
Probably just a coincidence that all three Republicans have more than a 2 to 1 negative ratio. And the three DNC nominees all have a ratio below 1. Yes, that is significant.
I like NPR. They do a good job at presenting information. They don't demonize conservatives like MSNBC or the NYT. But, their demographics are comparable to that of the NYT. Thus, the stories and perspectives tilt significantly towards the left. It's not so much that they speak negatively about conservatives, it's more that they don't cover conservative perspectives as much.
Comparing Trump to a ruthless dictator that invaded ten separate countries? That's an excellent way to get your point across.
I don’t come across this way on here, but IRL I’m considered quite friendly. I spent more time talking friends down from fights in college (over sluts, usually) than talking shit or fighting. Good mediator.
Both fights of mine were probably net positives. The 8th grade fight garnered me enough of a reputation to dissuade kids from picking fights with me, not that that was ever really a consistent concern in the first place. The friends I was with when the bouncer punched my face admired that I was willing to shove a bouncer for my buddy, as misguided and dumb as that was.
I was going to go with Hitler but that pushes buttons. Feel free to instead insert whichever leader you’d like who was so bad at their job that governmental officials tried to get rid of them twice for breaking laws, only to be saved by their party sticking to party lines for the sake of survival.
I feel good knowing that the media and certain Democratic members of congress didn't have ulterior motives from the get-go.
I feel good knowing that the media and certain Democratic members of congress didn't have ulterior motives from the get-go.
Maybe he should have tried to do a good job instead of whatever the hell he was trying to do the whole time.
This doesn't need to be a story covered by the MSM or anyone, but if Trump had slurred a couple of words together to make it sound like the N-word, you bet your Dalai Lama that the media would have been all over it. Just like the were with the fake Charlottesville story.
He had lots of good policies. Media just doesn't highlight that. Negative coverage gets more views. He merits criticism, for sure. But, to pretend like he was given fair coverage is not in any way reflective of reality.
Also, this is deviating from the point. Is the media biased towards conservatives? You have shown nothing to dismiss that.
Well, when you decide to pick a fight with the media from the jump and delegitimize valid news sources as a part of your platform, while pushing disinformation, you get what you give.
Just leave it down and piss all over the seat, then see what they say. 😆
Trump has ruined so many brains. You cannot have a discussion about policies or those who cover politics without it turning into, muh... Trump. @dukedevilz even went as far as removing Trump from the argument, yet here we are.
dukedevilz had referenced him. I didn’t bring up Trump until dukedevilz included a tweet citing the negative coverage of Trump.
Try again
Right. Like the media doesn't try to spin stories. People used to be much, much more trusting of news sources. Trump has helped to expose that. People see him as someone who spreads disinformation, which undoubtedly happened, but he also helped people to pause - and to not be so accepting of whatever the media spits out. Once we recognize that news outlets aren't really in the business of news, but are the equivalent of political parties pandering to their bases, everything else makes sense. The reason why there is so much fuss about these "news sources" is because they play it off as though they're objective reporters.
To be replaced with George Floyd statues. A true hero.
Also, the party that says listen to science won't acknowledge that it has been a long time since covid could statistically be considered a pandemic and yet we're still governing as if it is. End the federal unemployment benefits, stop with the selective mask wearing and start a real investigation into its origins. Fire Fauci and lock him up.
Trump didn’t expose anything. He prayed on ignorance and knew legitimate news sources would call him on his bullshit so he went on the offensive to invalidate any news that didn’t paint him in glowing light. He was never going to become a dictator, but he did pull that straight from the dictator playbook. In every country ever, at least in semi-modern times, that allowed authoritarian dictators to take over, manipulating media coverage was among the first steps. Again, not that he was going to become a dictator.
Disagree.
But again, you're deviating from the point. The numbers I presented showed more than a 2:1 ratio of negative coverage for Bush, McCain and Romney. Obama and Kerry both had a negative coverage ratio of less than 1. Counter that, not useless rhetoric that we're clearly not going to agree on.
- There is an ongoing investigation into the source of COVID
- The Federal unemployment benefits expire in September or October. They are part of legislation that was passed by Congress. They would need to pass additional legislation to pull the funding which would take time and effort away from more important things. It wouldn’t pass until the end of July if it was fast tracked. Not worth it to end the benefits a couple months early. As the deadline approaches, more and more people will get back to work.
- Fauci hasn’t broken any laws. Lock him up for what? Following the consensus of medical professionals and virologists?
Idk. Did you hear what his brother said the other day? All lives matter? WTH? This is problematic. Guilt by association.
What were the methodologies for deciding what counted as negative coverage? How was airtime counted? For example, MSNBC and CNN running concurrent 1 hour reports about McCain being dumb or something should count as 1 hour, not 2. If online articles were counted, how did they decide which outlets to study?
For the party that screams about science being important, they sure don't act like it when it comes to trans people.
For a story to be considered anything but neutral, the positive or negative statements within it must outnumber each other by at least two-to-one.
I don't know the ins and outs of their methodology, but we're talking about the Pew Research Center, not an ideological group that already has the answer - and is simply looking for numbers to support the conclusion.
Pew does good work. When I have time to look into how they arrived at those results, I will respond. My first suspicion is that the scope of sources they looked at was too narrow.
If they're trying to represent their constituents with like-minded behavior, they nailed it.
Political science is an actual thing, but I’m guessing you meant that in a different way.
Similar threads
