Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Welcome to Tyranny; population... youFollow

#27 Oct 29 2013 at 6:10 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
If you gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough I guess


You must be, like, Hulk strong.


lol, not true, but still funny.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#28 Oct 29 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Dumb and weak? That sucks man, I'm sorry.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#29 Oct 29 2013 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Belkira wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And in this case, it was amusing in the sense that as I was reading the page I was thinking "This feels like I've come in half way into the story and I'm missing something"


I feel that way whenever I bother to read an angrymnk post.
Just TL;DR it to "the government is out to get us!! Smiley: tinfoilhat", and then make up the rest in your head, maybe add in a little song and dance or something to spice it up. I recommend the Peg + Cat intro. sequence.


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#30 Oct 29 2013 at 11:26 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Hey. Next time you're going to link to some conspiracy revealing article. Could you link to the first page of the damn article. I seriously read that, thought the whole time "this is the worst article I've ever read. I have no clue what they're talking about", then realized I was reading page 2 of 3. Was kind of amusing really.

I was amused when I saw "dailycaller" in the status bar of Firefox. I started laughing immediately, remembering seeing Tucker Carlson get hit in the leg during a softball game and wail like a small child for what seemed like hours. Oh, days before camera phones, how quaint you were. I didn't read the article, the memory was enough entertainment for me.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#31 Oct 31 2013 at 4:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
What I always find interesting whenever someone tries to dismiss something as conspiracy theory. It is such a perfect combination of words. Naturally, these days, it came to mean "you can ignore this". I would like you think about it for a little bit Gbaji, and then tell me who programmed you to ignore things that are in plain sight for everyone to see.


Life experience has taught me to have this filter in my brain that allows me to dismiss things that are absurd as things that are absurd. This allows me to spend time thinking about things that actually matter are relevant and are fixable. Because of this, I'm able to read a story that really is about a relatively normal set of events and instead of imagining a ridiculous series of sinister events in order to justify assuming there must be a sinister motive behind it all, I can just say "yeah. that looks like a normal sequence of events" and then move on.


See. In order for me to buy a conspiracy in this case, someone would have to at least make an effort to explain to me that the raid was unjustified in some way (which the article completely fails to do). Because absent such a lack of justification, then this become just some papers that were seized along with a bunch of other stuff during a legitimate/legal raid. I have no real issue with that at all. Perhaps, if she didn't want her super secret journalist data to be obtained by the government, she should not have been keeping them in a home she shared with someone who apparently was violating some gun laws. It would be like me complaining that the police took possession of my address book when they raided my home because my roommate was selling meth.

If there was no roommate selling meth out of my home, and the raid was obviously complete BS, then maybe I could sell the story that they faked the raid just to get their hands on my valuable address book. But if I fail to make that claim, it's hard to make that story convincing, isn't it? Same deal here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Oct 31 2013 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Life experience has taught me

Any word or series of words that follows this and doesn't consist solely of "poorly" is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.

Edited, Oct 31st 2013 6:47pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#33 Oct 31 2013 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
I hope you didn't bother reading further than that.
#34 Oct 31 2013 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Something about a roommate selling meth and guns?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#35 Oct 31 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
He loves to shoot up?
#36 Oct 31 2013 at 5:16 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
What I always find interesting whenever someone tries to dismiss something as conspiracy theory. It is such a perfect combination of words. Naturally, these days, it came to mean "you can ignore this". I would like you think about it for a little bit Gbaji, and then tell me who programmed you to ignore things that are in plain sight for everyone to see.


Life experience has taught me to have this filter in my brain that allows me to dismiss things that are absurd as things that are absurd. This allows me to spend time thinking about things that actually matter are relevant and are fixable. Because of this, I'm able to read a story that really is about a relatively normal set of events and instead of imagining a ridiculous series of sinister events in order to justify assuming there must be a sinister motive behind it all, I can just say "yeah. that looks like a normal sequence of events" and then move on.


See. In order for me to buy a conspiracy in this case, someone would have to at least make an effort to explain to me that the raid was unjustified in some way (which the article completely fails to do). Because absent such a lack of justification, then this become just some papers that were seized along with a bunch of other stuff during a legitimate/legal raid. I have no real issue with that at all. Perhaps, if she didn't want her super secret journalist data to be obtained by the government, she should not have been keeping them in a home she shared with someone who apparently was violating some gun laws. It would be like me complaining that the police took possession of my address book when they raided my home because my roommate was selling meth.

If there was no roommate selling meth out of my home, and the raid was obviously complete BS, then maybe I could sell the story that they faked the raid just to get their hands on my valuable address book. But if I fail to make that claim, it's hard to make that story convincing, isn't it? Same deal here.


So what you are saying is... everything has to be spelled out for you; good to know. You can't, for example, look at event A and event B, and jump to conclusion based on available information?

And if you can, why is meth more likely?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#37 Oct 31 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

So what you are saying is... everything has to be spelled out for you; good to know. You can't, for example, look at event A and event B, and jump to conclusion based on available information?


Not only can he, the "information" part is completely extraneous.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#38 Oct 31 2013 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
So what you are saying is... everything has to be spelled out for you; good to know. You can't, for example, look at event A and event B, and jump to conclusion based on available information?


Of course I *can*. Anyone can. The issue is whether you should in any given situation. In this particular one, I don't assume that when the police conduct a raid on a home and collect a bunch of documents from that home, that the fact that some of those documents happen to include notes which include source names for a journalist living at the home, that the entire raid (event A in this case) was staged in order to obtain those notes so as to discover that journalists sources and thus protect a completely unrelated government agency from being outted for some so far unnamed (but implied) wrongdoing.

Follow me? My first assumption is: "They grabbed every computer and document in the home, just like they do for any sort of raid". Want to know why? Because that's the most obvious and logical explanation for the events which happened. Leaping to a conspiratorial explanation when a much more likely and reasonable one exists isn't terribly productive. Now, as I said earlier, if there were some indication that the weapons raid wasn't legitimate for some reason, then I might *maybe* allow for the possibility that there was an ulterior motive here besides "we screwed up", but the article never makes that claim. It ignores whether the raid was legitimate and instead focuses on the fact that the papers seized didn't have anything to do with weapons, also ignoring the fact that those taking the documents can't know what they contain until after they take them.

It's backwards logic, starting with the assumed conclusion and then listing only the facts that support it, while ignoring all the ones that don't. That's why it's a bunk conspiracy theory.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Oct 31 2013 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's backwards logic, starting with the assumed conclusion and then listing only the facts that support it, while ignoring all the ones that don't. That's why it's a bunk conspiracy theory.
You're talking about Benghazi, right?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#40 Nov 01 2013 at 6:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:

Life experience has taught me to have this filter in my brain ...

Have you checked the calibration lately?




____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#41 Nov 01 2013 at 6:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If you don't clean it regularly, it can catch fire.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Nov 01 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Fire requires an adequate amount of oxygen.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Nov 01 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
So what you are saying is... everything has to be spelled out for you; good to know. You can't, for example, look at event A and event B, and jump to conclusion based on available information?



... it's a bunk conspiracy theory.


Ok, slowly, but surely we are getting somewhere. There are non-bunk conspiracy theories?

Care to list them for my future reference?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#44 Nov 01 2013 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Anything the current administration does or says that might be deemed good for the country is clearly a real conspiracy cuz democrats don't love america in the right way.



Edited, Nov 1st 2013 5:12pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#45 Nov 01 2013 at 9:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
angrymnk wrote:
So what you are saying is... everything has to be spelled out for you; good to know. You can't, for example, look at event A and event B, and jump to conclusion based on available information?
You should be careful not to jump to conclusions, it's a long swim back. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#46 Nov 01 2013 at 10:33 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
Anything the current administration does or says that might be deemed good for the country is clearly a real conspiracy cuz democrats don't love america in the right way.


Exactly. I want the promise of hand jobs for all from my next candidate. I'm not saying he personally has to deliver.
#47 Nov 01 2013 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Anything the current administration does or says that might be deemed good for the country is clearly a real conspiracy cuz democrats don't love america in the right way.


Exactly. I want the promise of hand jobs for all from my next candidate. I'm not saying he personally has to deliver.
Close enough?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#48 Nov 05 2013 at 2:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Anything the current administration does or says that might be deemed good for the country is clearly a real conspiracy cuz democrats don't love america in the right way.
Exactly. I want the promise of hand jobs for all from my next candidate. I'm not saying he personally has to deliver.


Do you live in a swing that way state?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#49 Nov 05 2013 at 3:12 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,393 posts
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
So what you are saying is... everything has to be spelled out for you; good to know. You can't, for example, look at event A and event B, and jump to conclusion based on available information?



... it's a bunk conspiracy theory.


Ok, slowly, but surely we are getting somewhere. There are non-bunk conspiracy theories?

Care to list them for my future reference?


A quick google search yields the following:

Cracked(I know, but bear with me) with 6 insane conspiracy theories that turned out out be true.

Conspiracies proven true

I'm only linking those two, because really, if listverse and cracked can dig some up, then there are quite a few, and there really are. They're called conspiracy theories. Theories can end up being accurate and hence become facts, or in the case of conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies without the theory part tacked onto the end.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#50 Nov 05 2013 at 8:37 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Driftwood wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
So what you are saying is... everything has to be spelled out for you; good to know. You can't, for example, look at event A and event B, and jump to conclusion based on available information?



... it's a bunk conspiracy theory.


Ok, slowly, but surely we are getting somewhere. There are non-bunk conspiracy theories?

Care to list them for my future reference?


A quick google search yields the following:

Cracked(I know, but bear with me) with 6 insane conspiracy theories that turned out out be true.

Conspiracies proven true

I'm only linking those two, because really, if listverse and cracked can dig some up, then there are quite a few, and there really are. They're called conspiracy theories. Theories can end up being accurate and hence become facts, or in the case of conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies without the theory part tacked onto the end.


You are right. And also late to the party. If you read the initial posts ( who does that ), you would know that I am not disagreeing with you. I am, however, curious about what Gbaji considers non-bunk.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#51 Nov 07 2013 at 1:21 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,393 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
So what you are saying is... everything has to be spelled out for you; good to know. You can't, for example, look at event A and event B, and jump to conclusion based on available information?



... it's a bunk conspiracy theory.


Ok, slowly, but surely we are getting somewhere. There are non-bunk conspiracy theories?

Care to list them for my future reference?


A quick google search yields the following:

Cracked(I know, but bear with me) with 6 insane conspiracy theories that turned out out be true.

Conspiracies proven true

I'm only linking those two, because really, if listverse and cracked can dig some up, then there are quite a few, and there really are. They're called conspiracy theories. Theories can end up being accurate and hence become facts, or in the case of conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies without the theory part tacked onto the end.


You are right. And also late to the party. If you read the initial posts ( who does that ), you would know that I am not disagreeing with you. I am, however, curious about what Gbaji considers non-bunk.


Quite true, I didn't read every post, but I'm a man with very very limited time, and I just can't justify putting in the effort these days that I used to to have fun arguing with Varus, and I'd like to use what free time I have either doing something creative off the internet, learning about stuff(doing a lot of research on US History right now, actually), or playing EQ, rather than writing better posts in mediocre(no offense intended, sir) politically motivated threads.

That being said, I'm also kind of curious what Gbaji considers to be non-bunk as far as conspiracies go. Myself, personally, I quite like the actually non-bunk, obviously confirmed theory that Area 51 is/was a base for testing new military hardware, but get a big laugh out of the tinfoil hat people who like to insist that more was/is going on than that.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 322 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (322)