Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4165|Oklahoma

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

This negress is not smart. Not smart at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jUTzivZNO8
Can't wait for this fat tub of lard to go away.
also what's the deal with you getting all emo at me and saying "it's never acceptable to call someone a nigger", but then you'll use the term 'negress' just because you want to put a woman down? your intention here is clearly to belittle the woman based as a representative of her race. don't act like your shit doesn't stink.
She was portrayed as exactly that.  A representative for her race.

Dem jurers just dinit get it, dey old scool, know what im sayin, we in da new school.

*Applause*

So brave.
Roc18
`
+655|5760|PROLLLY PROLLLY PROLLLY
I saw rule 34 of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. God help us all.
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4165|Oklahoma

Roc18 wrote:

I saw rule 34 of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. God help us all.
Links or it didn't happen.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6686
roc looks like trayvon
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4165|Oklahoma
Better watch out, all us creepy ass cracka's comin fo yo life fool!  Better start mail ordering them skittles and watermelon juices.
Roc18
`
+655|5760|PROLLLY PROLLLY PROLLLY

Cybargs wrote:

roc looks like trayvon
lol
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,053|6592|Little Bentcock
so many dumb people in dis fred.
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4165|Oklahoma
1 fewer when you leave.
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4165|Oklahoma
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/07/1 … n-verdict/

They call him SIR Charles for a reason.  Finally a celebrity capable of reasoning.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

he didn't even go to university. he is no one in the uk class system. i'm sure he plays into the 'posh brit' stereotype though.
Gotta be honest. Had no fucking clue who Pierce Morgan was and had to wiki him.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4224

Extra Medium wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/07/19/charles-barkley-said-agrees-with-george-zimmerman-verdict/

They call him SIR Charles for a reason.  Finally a celebrity capable of reasoning.
sir? lol you must be kidding.

as long as the NBA star gives his verdict though that's okay. please see my earlier comment about america being a failed empire. this is what happens when a culture is in serious decline. you start acting as if the opinion of a person whose sole raison d'etre is to put a ball into a hoop is a legal expert. the same culture that lets real lawyer's children get famous because of their dodgy verdicts (kardashians). your culture is sick.
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6444|Foothills of S. Carolina

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/07/19/charles-barkley-said-agrees-with-george-zimmerman-verdict/

They call him SIR Charles for a reason.  Finally a celebrity capable of reasoning.
sir? lol you must be kidding.

as long as the NBA star gives his verdict though that's okay. please see my earlier comment about america being a failed empire. this is what happens when a culture is in serious decline. you start acting as if the opinion of a person whose sole raison d'etre is to put a ball into a hoop is a legal expert. the same culture that lets real lawyer's children get famous because of their dodgy verdicts (kardashians). your culture is sick.
I may not agree with you on much, Uzique, but I do agree that American culture is sick. Too many people turn to rockstars, movie stars, and sports stars for life advice, and none of those stars should be looked to for advice.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

Canin wrote:

and none of those stars should be looked to for advice.
Unless it's getting started with an acting/music/sports career, right?
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6444|Foothills of S. Carolina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Canin wrote:

and none of those stars should be looked to for advice.
Unless it's getting started with an acting/music/sports career, right?
I don't know that I would even go that far with most stars today, but sure, what ever floats your boat.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4224

Canin wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/07/19/charles-barkley-said-agrees-with-george-zimmerman-verdict/

They call him SIR Charles for a reason.  Finally a celebrity capable of reasoning.
sir? lol you must be kidding.

as long as the NBA star gives his verdict though that's okay. please see my earlier comment about america being a failed empire. this is what happens when a culture is in serious decline. you start acting as if the opinion of a person whose sole raison d'etre is to put a ball into a hoop is a legal expert. the same culture that lets real lawyer's children get famous because of their dodgy verdicts (kardashians). your culture is sick.
I may not agree with you on much, Uzique, but I do agree that American culture is sick. Too many people turn to rockstars, movie stars, and sports stars for life advice, and none of those stars should be looked to for advice.
people should look to writers, philosophers, and intellectuals for advice. or great scientists and mathematicians. but that requires effort and work. people want wikipedia knowledge and sound-bite quotations. they only want the science that is cool on reddit memes, the maths that can be taught in a facebook 'please share!' image. books are long. intellectuals, authors, poets, dramatists, no longer cool.

when a civilization loses contact with its cultural tradition it is only a matter of time before imminent collapse. this is the example of decadence that has brought down every flabby and complacent nation. no one is spared, despite their hubris (every one thinks they are the exception).
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

I don't think quoting a philosopher or academic is that that much more a sign of intelligence than quoting an ESPN analyst. Anyone can parrot with enough practice. I also don't think intellectualism is inherently better than tuning out. I really hate it when people try to use the fact that they read more than others or can name some academics as proof of their superior intelligence or worth.

There was some political scientist from Yale I think that I once read who made the point that for the average person engaging the world beyond their local news at night wasn't worth the trouble. The majority of people are completely insignificant and would have no political power outside of terrorism. The time and energy cost of absorbing information about larger political movements both domestically and internationally wasn't worth it since they couldn't possibly affect it. So their time would be better spent working on their careers or doing things they enjoy before they die. I have to agree. It is why I don't begrudge someone from tuning out. I really like learning about the world around me but still find my own inability to change anything frustrating at times. Why should someone who has no interest or inclination towards civic or international engagement frustrate and anger themselves about things they couldn't possibly change? It is why low voter turnout doesn't bother me either. Stuff like that should be left to true believers and the interested rather than someone struggling to get with it just because they are told by people who claim to be their betters that they are failures otherwise.
Roc18
`
+655|5760|PROLLLY PROLLLY PROLLLY
https://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2012/12/17/trayvoning.jpg

top kek
13rin
Member
+977|6449

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Canin wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

sir? lol you must be kidding.

as long as the NBA star gives his verdict though that's okay. please see my earlier comment about america being a failed empire. this is what happens when a culture is in serious decline. you start acting as if the opinion of a person whose sole raison d'etre is to put a ball into a hoop is a legal expert. the same culture that lets real lawyer's children get famous because of their dodgy verdicts (kardashians). your culture is sick.
I may not agree with you on much, Uzique, but I do agree that American culture is sick. Too many people turn to rockstars, movie stars, and sports stars for life advice, and none of those stars should be looked to for advice.
people should look to writers, philosophers, and intellectuals for advice. or great scientists and mathematicians. but that requires effort and work. people want wikipedia knowledge and sound-bite quotations. they only want the science that is cool on reddit memes, the maths that can be taught in a facebook 'please share!' image. books are long. intellectuals, authors, poets, dramatists, no longer cool.

when a civilization loses contact with its cultural tradition it is only a matter of time before imminent collapse. this is the example of decadence that has brought down every flabby and complacent nation. no one is spared, despite their hubris (every one thinks they are the exception).
Don't get me started on this.  I find it pathetic that most Americans just aren't paying a lick of attention to anything other than their immediate shallow  existence and as a result base their political opinions to follow their indoctrinated party's stance.  It isn't just losing contact with cultural traditions but also the redefinition of said traditions.  The blame for the US cultural degradation is far from one dimensional, but  the heap of blame be placed can be placed on parenting failure.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

More blame can be put on peer pressure and the pop output of American arts than poor parenting, I think.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4224

Macbeth wrote:

I don't think quoting a philosopher or academic is that that much more a sign of intelligence than quoting an ESPN analyst. Anyone can parrot with enough practice. I also don't think intellectualism is inherently better than tuning out. I really hate it when people try to use the fact that they read more than others or can name some academics as proof of their superior intelligence or worth.

There was some political scientist from Yale I think that I once read who made the point that for the average person engaging the world beyond their local news at night wasn't worth the trouble. The majority of people are completely insignificant and would have no political power outside of terrorism. The time and energy cost of absorbing information about larger political movements both domestically and internationally wasn't worth it since they couldn't possibly affect it. So their time would be better spent working on their careers or doing things they enjoy before they die. I have to agree. It is why I don't begrudge someone from tuning out. I really like learning about the world around me but still find my own inability to change anything frustrating at times. Why should someone who has no interest or inclination towards civic or international engagement frustrate and anger themselves about things they couldn't possibly change? It is why low voter turnout doesn't bother me either. Stuff like that should be left to true believers and the interested rather than someone struggling to get with it just because they are told by people who claim to be their betters that they are failures otherwise.
you only speak for yourself when you raise tokenism. you are no better than jay in that regard.

the humanistic idea for a millenia or so has been that if you read, it enriches your mind and balances your viewpoint. not a pithy surface-level ability to quote a 'wise' philosopher or apothegm. the idea is that reading great philosophy, or science, or poetry, actually tempers your mind. lengthens your attention span. deepens your mental reserves. not just gives you another pointless constellation of reference points, other than pop-cultural ones. you are an idiot. you are supposed to be at a good school. please try actually engaging with something.

oh and yes, cite some patrician prof from yale that says it's best if the little people don't bother themselves with lofty, difficult matters. that's a typical ivory tower professor. that is a repugnant attitude. the fear in established society for time immemorial has been that the lay people will get access to the culture's scripture. once you can read and consider, the orthodoxy becomes replaced with doxa. people don't like that. it complicates policy-making. trust the crusty at yale to recommend people just put up and shut up.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-20 04:02:00)

Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4224

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

More blame can be put on peer pressure and the pop output of American arts than poor parenting, I think.
people can choose to read the high-art stuff, or engage with the science journals. the potboiler novel has been as old as the novel form itself. just more of the reading public in the past read the 'high' and ambitious stuff. 'serious' film and genre-pushing stuff was all the rage in the early 20th century, before it all became hollywood, and then for a resurgent-period in the 50's and 60's, with french and german 'new waves'. the problem is that people thesedays feel 'time strapped', attention-starved, yada yada. the culture is less about seeing art and science as challenging, mind-expanding experiences, and more as accessories. film and books are there for light entertainment, or a bit of softcore porn snuff, or childish fantasy. film and television is there for sitcoms and soap operas. science programming is meant for easy-going documentaries whilst people eat their dinner. the culture has become lazy. just as the wealth concentrates in an ever-increasing minority, so does the 'proper' education and knowledge stay as the preserve of a tiny tiny elite. in europe the 'reading public' who go for 'serious' art is probably a little bigger than the US's (at least according to DFW's say-so), and our art-cinema establishment is a little better supported (in fact state-supported in places like france). but it's all been on a slow decline. the annus mirabilis for western industrial culture was 1914.
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6444|Foothills of S. Carolina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

More blame can be put on peer pressure and the pop output of American arts than poor parenting, I think.
I think its probably a mixture of the two. Pop culture spewing its crap, with a few gems shinning through, and parents who are too busy with their careers and living vicariously through the kids by pushing them through extra curricular events to properly pay attention and raise their kids.

Parents used to be more invested in their childrens learning and home life. Now, for the most part, TV, radio, and video games raise the kids.

Last edited by Canin (2013-07-20 05:24:31)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I don't think quoting a philosopher or academic is that that much more a sign of intelligence than quoting an ESPN analyst. Anyone can parrot with enough practice. I also don't think intellectualism is inherently better than tuning out. I really hate it when people try to use the fact that they read more than others or can name some academics as proof of their superior intelligence or worth.

There was some political scientist from Yale I think that I once read who made the point that for the average person engaging the world beyond their local news at night wasn't worth the trouble. The majority of people are completely insignificant and would have no political power outside of terrorism. The time and energy cost of absorbing information about larger political movements both domestically and internationally wasn't worth it since they couldn't possibly affect it. So their time would be better spent working on their careers or doing things they enjoy before they die. I have to agree. It is why I don't begrudge someone from tuning out. I really like learning about the world around me but still find my own inability to change anything frustrating at times. Why should someone who has no interest or inclination towards civic or international engagement frustrate and anger themselves about things they couldn't possibly change? It is why low voter turnout doesn't bother me either. Stuff like that should be left to true believers and the interested rather than someone struggling to get with it just because they are told by people who claim to be their betters that they are failures otherwise.
you only speak for yourself when you raise tokenism. you are no better than jay in that regard.

the humanistic idea for a millenia or so has been that if you read, it enriches your mind and balances your viewpoint. not a pithy surface-level ability to quote a 'wise' philosopher or apothegm. the idea is that reading great philosophy, or science, or poetry, actually tempers your mind. lengthens your attention span. deepens your mental reserves. not just gives you another pointless constellation of reference points, other than pop-cultural ones. you are an idiot. you are supposed to be at a good school. please try actually engaging with something.

oh and yes, cite some patrician prof from yale that says it's best if the little people don't bother themselves with lofty, difficult matters. that's a typical ivory tower professor. that is a repugnant attitude. the fear in established society for time immemorial has been that the lay people will get access to the culture's scripture. once you can read and consider, the orthodoxy becomes replaced with doxa. people don't like that. it complicates policy-making. trust the crusty at yale to recommend people just put up and shut up.
What IS the point though? The further into my career I've moved, and the further away from school, the more I've come to realize how little what I believe politically matters. I have no influence on who runs for office, and I certainly don't have the time or the desire to join a political party's machinery. I don't watch the news. I don't read a newspaper. I read snippets here and there on the internet, but I largely don't care. People in general are much happier, and much less frustrated, when they stick to caring about things they generally have some control over.

You'll write some reply saying you pity me or something, but come back and tell me how you feel in ten years after you're married with a career and a family on the way.

Edit - And what's the point of knowledge Uzi? Unless you're going to regurgitate it down on a book, or lecture in a classroom, or it applies to your job, there's really not much point to it. I've read countless military history books and then a few years ago I decided it was utterly pointless. The only person I could ever have a discussion about such things about was my father, and I loathe talking to him more than I have to. So I stopped. I switched to biographies and light history, stuff that allows me to learn more about people, and add bits of conversational knowledge here and there.

Last edited by Jay (2013-07-20 05:58:10)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

More blame can be put on peer pressure and the pop output of American arts than poor parenting, I think.
people can choose to read the high-art stuff, or engage with the science journals. the potboiler novel has been as old as the novel form itself. just more of the reading public in the past read the 'high' and ambitious stuff. 'serious' film and genre-pushing stuff was all the rage in the early 20th century, before it all became hollywood, and then for a resurgent-period in the 50's and 60's, with french and german 'new waves'. the problem is that people thesedays feel 'time strapped', attention-starved, yada yada. the culture is less about seeing art and science as challenging, mind-expanding experiences, and more as accessories. film and books are there for light entertainment, or a bit of softcore porn snuff, or childish fantasy. film and television is there for sitcoms and soap operas. science programming is meant for easy-going documentaries whilst people eat their dinner. the culture has become lazy. just as the wealth concentrates in an ever-increasing minority, so does the 'proper' education and knowledge stay as the preserve of a tiny tiny elite. in europe the 'reading public' who go for 'serious' art is probably a little bigger than the US's (at least according to DFW's say-so), and our art-cinema establishment is a little better supported (in fact state-supported in places like france). but it's all been on a slow decline. the annus mirabilis for western industrial culture was 1914.
Right around the time the Victorian Age ended and poor people suddenly had a way to amplify their cultural presence with radio... The world always sucked and was full of coarse, unintelligent people.  Before that, you could just safely ignore them, and pretend the only world that existed was the gentleman class. Very convenient that the poor couldn't read or write and sully the world of the intellectual heavyweights. Please, the world is smarter now, it's just noisier and more difficult to find the gems, but there are many, many more of them now.

Last edited by Jay (2013-07-20 06:02:52)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6686
so about zimmerman...

well the evidence is strongly in favour of self defence, only shot the kid one time, possible warning shot. it'd be more tilted towards murder if zimmerman just unloaded on him.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard