River Stark Triggered

[IHEARTKALENA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqZF3hQJko

[SanDiegoPervySage]

Every person in that video was fucking annoying

[Ben in LA]

One thing I love about River...she knows her shit. I love following her on Twitter.

[GroobySteven]

One thing I love about River...she knows her shit. I love following her on Twitter.

She does, but if she spent more time actually listening and then giving a measured response, then she might actually get a point across that would sink home. She comes across as annoying as those fools, to take seriously.

[christianxxx]

I agree with Steven 100 percent

[femboyluna]

One thing I love about River...she knows her shit. I love following her on Twitter.

Yes, she's awesome. :-)

[Nikka]

not even with whiskey I can talk at that speed

[trish]

I think we already heard the old worn out pedofile argument that transgender persons should be kept from using the public restroom of their choice. Alluding to it is sufficient. Neither the audience, nor River Stark needed to hear it all the way through again. So I'm with her on that one.

The only other opposing voice repeatedly expressed the desire that River Stark not identify as a transgender women and simply be a woman. This confusion is based on gender identity versus identity with a community (a community that currently is under attack by numerous conservative state legislatures throughout the nation that won't allow transwomen to simply be women). So I'm with River Stark on that one too.

Her style is not my style; but I gotta admire her.

[TheRatKing]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqZF3hQJko

When someone starts spouting off about "we are all the same" I have to instantly dismiss them as idealists fantasizing about a Utopia. The cold hard reality is that we're not all the same and these differences directly relate to how people are viewed and treated by society as a whole. Denying this reality means I don't have time for a discussion with said person. Also I'm not sure how someone can complain about people asking for healthcare. The Army was just audited and fudged their accounts by trillions of dollars. The F-35 fighter jet that the military spent 1.5 trillion on doesn't even work. I'm pretty sure that amount of money could cover all the desired medical costs of any citizen of the United States and all education as well. So in my opinion these individuals arguing against her are either unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture.

[Ben in LA]

One thing I love about River...she knows her shit. I love following her on Twitter.

dreamon hates that I love following her on Twitter. Trump lovers in general hate that. Tough shit.

[DeezNuts515]

dreamon hates that I love following her on Twitter. Trump lovers in general hate that. Tough shit.



Is it really necessary to broadcast who downvoted you?

[trish]

Is it really necessary to broadcast who downvoted you?Actually I think it should be a general feature of the board. Down thumbing someone without even taking part in the discussion is akin to drive-by cat-calling: legal, but rude and uncouth. I should know: I've done it myself, although I don't think I'd mind if someone called me on it.

[MrFanti]

Actually I think it should be a general feature of the board. Down thumbing someone without even taking part in the discussion .

There is such a thing (as Steven Grooby correctly pointed out) called "listening"......Or in the case of forums, "reading"....

[EZWind]

..... The F-35 fighter jet that the military spent 1.5 trillion on doesn't even work. ....

....the military doesn't spend the money, the taxpayers do....and it's the weasels in Congress that appropriate the funding. My memory is a bit hazy on this, but I recall hearing something about how, not only does it not work, but the Pentagon doesn't even want them and won't use them. May have been some other kind of military hardware instead of a fighter jet....either way, it's just plain Wrong. The reason they don't cut the funding is b/c it creates jobs in their gerrymandered districts for the constituents who keep voting to send them to Washington to do nothing. What a country, eh?

[trish]

There is such a thing (as Steven Grooby correctly pointed out) called "listening"......Or in the case of forums, "reading"....I agree, and I have no problem with lurkers. But should a listener express a negative judgment - in the form of a thumbs down - I'd like them to own up to it and let us know who they are. Like I said, I'm sometimes guilty of this myself, though I try not to do it often. If they don't, there's nothing wrong with the poster letting us know who delivered the drive-by judgment.

[TheRatKing]

....the military doesn't spend the money, the taxpayers do....and it's the weasels in Congress that appropriate the funding. My memory is a bit hazy on this, but I recall hearing something about how, not only does it not work, but the Pentagon doesn't even want them and won't use them. May have been some other kind of military hardware instead of a fighter jet....either way, it's just plain Wrong. The reason they don't cut the funding is b/c it creates jobs in their gerrymandered districts for the constituents who keep voting to send them to Washington to do nothing. What a country, eh?

I'm not sure how you inferred from my statement that tax payers aren't the ones footing the bill. The military gets a budget, and then they spend the money. Hence the military spent their money on the F-35, which doesn't work. My statement is valid when stating that the military spent the money on the F-35. Congress simply appropriates a budget, they do not tell the pentagon how to spend the money. The issue is the lack of control congress and the president have over how the pentagon spends their money. Remember that whole 9/11 tragedy? 9/10 Rumsfeld made a statement that the pentagon misplaced 2.3 trillion dollars. The records were in the accounting office which was to be investigated. Guess what got blown up the very next day? The accounting office at the pentagon with all the evidence. The level of corruption on all fronts is beyond the comprehension of the average citizen. If the average citizen understood what really goes on they would revolt against the government.

[MrFanti]

I agree, and I have no problem with lurkers. But should a listener express a negative judgment - in the form of a thumbs down - I'd like them to own up to it and let us know who they are. Like I said, I'm sometimes guilty of this myself, though I try not to do it often. If they don't, there's nothing wrong with the poster letting us know who delivered the drive-by judgment.

From your perspective, why doesn't a "thumbs up" require explanation?

[RadiusDark]

Is it really necessary to broadcast who downvoted you?

LOL. I downvoted him too.

He needs to get off HA and get ready for his debut in TS porn I'm about to film.

[nymtnbiker]

Not that it matters, but the govt has not spent 1.5 trillion dollars in the F-35.....itis projected to spend that much over the nearly 60 year projected life of the airframe. But dont let facts get in the way of a good rant.

[trish]

From your perspective, why doesn't a "thumbs up" require explanation?I presume that if someone gives you a thumbs up, they agree with your argument. I don't require them to provide provide an independent route to the same conclusions I've drawn. If someone gives you a thumbs down, I presume they believe there is at least one flaw in your argument and I would think it would be in everyone's interest to disabuse us of that flaw.

[MrFanti]

I presume that if someone gives you a thumbs up, they agree with your argument. I don't require them to provide provide an independent route to the same conclusions I've drawn. If someone gives you a thumbs down, I presume they believe there is at least one flaw in your argument and I would think it would be in everyone's interest to disabuse us of that flaw.

You going to ask Radius Dark why he voted down then?

[trish]

You going to ask Radius Dark why he voted down then?No. It hadn't even occurred to me, after two pages of discussion, to ask. I'm not that curious about it, nor is it the issue I thought you and I were addressing.

My position is that there is nothing wrong in saying 'so and so down-thumbed this post of mine,' nor is there anything wrong in asking them to join the conversation to clarify their position. My position doesn't demand that you do either of these two things; the choice is yours. So if you're curious go ahead and ask him. It be nice to know why anyone so objects to Ben's post they feel compelled to down-thumb it. Do they not think that River Stark "knows her shit." If not why not? Do they not like the fact the Ben thinks she knows her shit? Do they not like the fact the he follows her on twitter. Maybe Ben just gets on their nerves. So sure, if you're curious, ask.

[Ben in LA]

I'm triggered.

[trish]

As an example: Lordworm, having taken no part in this conversation so far, simply down-thumbed post #15 in this thread. Normally I’d ask what it is he disagrees with in that post; but since there’s nothing there that any reasonable person could possibly disagree with, I’ll assume he’s just having some fun.

[Laphroaig]

As an example: Lordworm, having taken no part in this conversation so far, simply down-thumbed post #15 in this thread. Normally I’d ask what it is he disagrees with in that post; but since there’s nothing there that any reasonable person could possibly disagree with, I’ll assume he’s just having some fun.

Trish, the same thing happened to me in a recent thread. I posted a simple statement of fact, which bluebottle downvoted and I called him out on it. After a sarky reply from him, I asked why he'd voted the way he did. His only response was to downvote another of my posts, proving that he was either trolling, or as I suspected in the first place, a complete idiot.

The voting system on here isn't anonymous and I see no reason not to remind people of that occasionally. If you downvote, be prepared to have a reason why or be prepared to look like a prat.:shrug

[Ben in LA]

The voting system on here isn't anonymous and I see no reason not to remind people of that occasionally. If you downvote, be prepared to have a reason why or be prepared to look like a prat.:shrug
I upvoted you because I agree with your statement above.

[trish]

And as GroobySteven down-thumbed post#24, I'm thinking there are times when you just shouldn't feed the troll :)

[DeezNuts515]

I downvote Holzz quite often, because nearly everything he posts is drivel. I don't feel it's necessary to explain every time I disagree with the nonsense he posts.

[trish]

Excellent strategy, 'cause if you don't post an explanation he can neither counter it nor down-thumb it. Double win.

[DeezNuts515]

I don't give a shit who votes me up or down, I don't know any of you in real life. It's REALLY not that serious.

[trish]

So why did you just take the time to reply? i agree it's not serious, but still you do seem to give a shit (maybe just a wet fart) about what we think of you, even though you're using an alias; nothing to be defensive about, it's just human nature.

[DeezNuts515]

I think you are misreading my tone, I'm certainly not upset or trying to argue with you. As I said, I don't know you, so it's not like I can place your opinion of any of my posts in any context. You can like me or not, I just think calling people out for down votes is silly and narcissistic. This is the last comment I'll be needing to make on this subject, it's pretty cut and dry.

[trish]

Again, I agree it's not all that serious. No big deal. So why do you do it? Why do you feel compelled to leave little anonymous droppings of your opinions on a discussion as you read it? It must matter to you REALLY, albeit in some very small way. Why are we having this conversation at all, if it doesn't matter in the slightest what we say and how we express ourselves to anonymous folks we never met?

[GroobySteven]

And as GroobySteven down-thumbed post#24, I'm thinking there are times when you just shouldn't feed the troll :)
Actually I believe it's you that's trolling here.
The up/down vote is intended as a way to 'nod agreement' or 'shake a disagreement'. It doesn't need explanation, apart from in a very few exceptions. I use it when I don't want to leave a response, or explanation but just don't like a vote - or if during a thread I see someone say something I agree with.
If you want to get in deeper asking why someone didn't like something, then by all means go for it but complaining that there wasn't an explanation given, well look at your post and wonder why some people may not like it - or don't.

[IHEARTKALENA]

Arguing over internet points FFS Reddit is that way >>>>>>>>


959049

[trish]

Actually I believe it's you that's trolling here.
The up/down vote is intended as a way to 'nod agreement' or 'shake a disagreement'. It doesn't need explanation, apart from in a very few exceptions. I use it when I don't want to leave a response, or explanation but just don't like a vote - or if during a thread I see someone say something I agree with.
If you want to get in deeper asking why someone didn't like something, then by all means go for it but complaining that there wasn't an explanation given, well look at your post and wonder why some people may not like it - or don't.
Ten of my ten posts (in this thread) are reasoned responses to other posts.
Post#8 addressed the OP’s posted video.
Post#12 was an unsolicited response to post#11, which I made because the issue does indeed concern me.
Post#15 responds to an objection.
Posts #20, 22 answer direct questions.
Okay, maybe I was trolling a little in post #24 and 27, though they were responses to negative, albeit anonymous one-bit (in the sense of being binary; i.e. 0/1) opinions.
Post #29, 31 and 33 are responses to the ongoing discussion, which admittedly has diverged away from the original topic of the thread. Sorry for the hijack. I shall cease and desist.

(Thumbs up for the polite and reasonable presentation of a different point of view.)

[dreamon]

dreamon hates that I love following her on Twitter. Trump lovers in general hate that. Tough shit.

I don't like Trump, he's an idiot

[TheRatKing]

Actually I believe it's you that's trolling here.
The up/down vote is intended as a way to 'nod agreement' or 'shake a disagreement'. It doesn't need explanation, apart from in a very few exceptions. I use it when I don't want to leave a response, or explanation but just don't like a vote - or if during a thread I see someone say something I agree with.
If you want to get in deeper asking why someone didn't like something, then by all means go for it but complaining that there wasn't an explanation given, well look at your post and wonder why some people may not like it - or don't.

Of course it needs an explanation. If we were all sitting at a table having a discussion and one person was just shaking their head in disagreement the whole time you would be asked why you're shaking your head. Up/down voting is one of the worst ideas to come to the internet since CAPTCHA. Utilizing up and down votes is simply another mechanism for passive-aggressive people to take advantage of on the internet. It may not be what you use it for but it truly serves zero purpose. Instead of actually having to voice an opinion you can go around up voting and down voting without being challenged on your ideas. Especially when anonymous up/down voting is allowed. The idea of simply saying you agree with something or disagree with something without providing the why is paramount to poor communication and facilitates lackluster discussions.

[filghy2]

Its just a simple way to provide feedback for those who don't want to, or don't need to, provide a more detailed comment, and helps prevent the forum being cluttered up by short responses like 'thanks' or 'I agree'. Sure, there are people who use thumbs down for immature and/or spiteful reasons. It's a bit annoying, but it has no real consequence and is just the superficial judgement of someone you don't know and will never know. The only way it can really hurt you is if you waste time stewing about it.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Its just a simple way to provide feedback for those who don't want to, or don't need to, provide a more detailed comment, and helps prevent the forum being cluttered up by short responses like 'thanks' or 'I agree'. Sure, there are people who use thumbs down for immature and/or spiteful reasons. It's a bit annoying, but it has no real consequence and is just the superficial judgement of someone you don't know and will never know. The only way it can really hurt you is if you waste time stewing about it.

I gave you a thumbs down simply for humor (I'm a little drunk).

[MrFanti]

As Steven first said, the root problem is that no one wants to listen and instead are thinking how to "crush" their opponent without actually hearing what he/she has to say.

So one can give an explanation for a "thumbs down" but will the recipient really "hear" it - or are they thinking of their response while glancing at the explanation?

[RiverStark]

The problem with both of those responses is that Infowars sows the last 20 minutes of a 1 1.2 hour discussion. I spent a hour trying to have a reasoned discussion with the jackasses involved, whom had zero intention on listening to logical fact based though. What infowar decided to show was the point I started shouting them down.

[dakota87]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqZF3hQJko

Probably heavily edited but she wouldn't let him get a word in edgewise. Still it was interesting.

Its ts not necessary to point out this is an old post. I know that.

[dc_guy_75]

This last US election has made me realize our country is irrevocably fractured.

I'm in amazement that so many of my fellow citizens could vote for such an authoritarian buffoon. Not only do I hate Donald Trump, I hate the ignorant imbeciles who voted for him. When our country inevitably breaks apart (its miraculous it hasn't happened already), the Donald Trump supporters (and their decedents) have no one to blame but themselves and their own willful ignorance.

[alpha2117]

From the outside it's actually easier to see the whys for the current situation in America especially with it's politics.

If you look at the 4 main world power players going back 100 years you can see how each has evolved and in what direction they have headed.

EU: 100 years ago it was heavily divided in the midst of what was called the War to end all wars, after that the divides remained up until WWII when some semblance of unity occurred with the fall of Fascism. Since then it's become relatively unified and the threat of internal war between the major areas has receded to almost nothing. Whatever government is in whatever area tends to have an eye on internal prosperity and it's peoples wellbeing rather than expansion.

Russia: In WW1 and then a Communist revolution. Up until ww2 heavily into Communist restructuring. Post ww2 their was the Cold War which began to fade after the Cuban Missile crisis made everyone realise that any war was a war that everyone was going to lose. Then in the 80's the changes started and we got the new Russian version of democracy which again is more concerned with internal prosperity and wellbeing than expansion.

China: Slower to hit the reforms than the others - it's not till post ww2 that the major shift occurs. They were always fairly insular an that continued under Communism. Then in the 90's they began to loosen up both internally and externally. Whilst their govt is run by something that calls itself the communist party they have embraced capitalism and again seem more concerned with prosperity and general wellbeing than expansion.

Which brings us to the US - they were insular until the end of WW1, then had a depression which brought some reforms but didn't really change much till Pearl Harbour. Then they flexed their muscles and became a major world player. The 50's saw a boom and a cold war up until the Cuban Missile crisis and JFK then rerouted that cold war energy into something constructive with the space race which ended with Man landing on the Moon. Both sides of politics largely acted as friends with disagreements rather than bitter enemies.

Which is the point everything goes to hell. Nixon became President - he was already bitter about how JFK beat him at the beginning of the 60's, the Dems were bitter about the assassinations of two Kennedy's an civil rights activist MLK. Nixon was stuck in Vietnam a war that had started to stop the expansion of communism which had already largely stopped with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nixon was stuck with a war nobody really wanted or understood - it wasn't like ww2 where it was clear who was in the right. His paranoia led to increasing bad decisions and the Dems were more than willing to go low and dirty as well to get rid of him. By the end America had lost a Prez & Vice Prez in disgrace, lost a war that effected it's self image for decades and the Republicans blamed the Dems and visa versa. Ever since that administration the US has stopped evolving and moving forward politically - instead it's become heavily partisan with the two sides more interested in scoring points on each other than wellbeing and prosperity. When Obama was in power the Republicans were more interested in blocking most anything rather than actually trying to fix things that had gone astray with things like the GFC and that's typical of both sides for about 40 years now.

The US started in front of the other major players 100 years back and for a long while were still in front of the curve in terms of how they did things but right at the moment they are in a period of stagnation.

Ironically Trump might fix that. A lot of Republicans don't like him and neither do Democrats. There is a chance that the more he annoys the centre right the more they may start to work better with the centre left Democrats. Long term the moderate Republicans and the Dems may actually end up being better able to work together once they realise they have a lot more in common than the moderate Republicans have with the extreme right of their own party. There's a chance that the Trump presidency is the nadir of that more bitter partisan politics. It's the old "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" situation.

[dc_guy_75]

For me, my visceral animosity for Trump (and his supporters) is something I've never felt in my lifetime. On a scale of disgust, I consider Trump supporters to be on the level of child molesters, rapists, members of the Klan etc.

While it might be wrong to fault Trump voters for their ignorance, I suppose its similar to the way many Northerners felt about slave-holders during the American Civil War or seeing neighbors support Mussolini in Italy (or any other dictator).

When the US eventually breaks apart (as it inevitably will), we'll look back at this era as being the Fort Sumter, and the day can't come fast enough where I'm not fellow citizens with (the majority) of Trump voters. Fuck them, their families and their ignorance. I'd rather the United States not exist, than giving my tax dollars to Red States.

I want to see Trump voters suffer, and it seems I'll get my wish. They can't die soon enough.

[Murmdrum]

For me, my visceral animosity for Trump (and his supporters) is something I've never felt in my lifetime. On a scale of disgust, I consider Trump supporters to be on the level of child molesters, rapists, members of the Klan etc.

While it might be wrong to fault Trump voters for their ignorance, I suppose its similar to the way many Northerners felt about slave-holders during the American Civil War or seeing neighbors support Mussolini in Italy (or any other dictator).

When the US eventually breaks apart (as it inevitably will), we'll look back at this era as being the Fort Sumter, and the day can't come fast enough where I'm not fellow citizens with (the majority) of Trump voters. Fuck them, their families and their ignorance. I'd rather the United States not exist, than giving my tax dollars to Red States.

I want to see Trump voters suffer, and it seems I'll get my wish. They can't die soon enough.

you sound like a typical left wing liberal cry baby snowflake melting down......wishing voters to suffer..real class act

[joesocalif]

Deleted

[Ben in LA]

you sound like a typical left wing liberal cry baby snowflake melting down......wishing voters to suffer..real class act
Off-topic, but it sure seems as if the right wing are the ones who are "wishing voters to suffer", especially with all of the cuts and guts to policies and other items that help the little guy.

And please cut it with the snowflake remark...trump is the biggest snowflake of them all.

Back to the topic at hand...

[Murmdrum]

Off-topic, but it sure seems as if the right wing are the ones who are "wishing voters to suffer", especially with all of the cuts and guts to policies and other items that help the little guy.

And please cut it with the snowflake remark...trump is the biggest snowflake of them all.

Back to the topic at hand...

you cut it with trying to surpress my first amendment rights...thanks

[SanDiegoPervySage]

you cut it with trying to surpress my first amendment rights...thanks

How?

[Ben in LA]

you cut it with trying to surpress my first amendment rights...thanks

Haha your "first amendment rights" have no power on a private forum...just like mine don't. If Steven wants to delete the whole thread he has that power, and no government has the power from stopping him from doing so.

It's also nice to see the usual suspects and their ratings. Carry on; hit that thumbs down for me speaking the truth. 👎🏾

[GroobySteven]

you cut it with trying to surpress my first amendment rights...thanks

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck off.

[adude444]

A decision made by emotion is a decision that can not be changed by logic. If people understood more about human behavior I think we would waste less time. Of course I am breaking my own rule because the people that think their view is right and all they have to do is prove the other person wrong will keep doing what they do and I am just typing to amuse myself....lol