chyron8472

I dislike how many liberally minded people whom I have seen, claim to proudly carry the banner of tolerance but have a hypocritically sanctimonious attitude. As though their self-righteousness is somehow superior to the opposing self-righteousness that they rail against. It’s bigoted on both sides, but I feel the banner of “tolerance” some carry to be disingenuous and it’s bothered me more and more lately. Speaking for myself, of course.

In fact, I’m feeling more and more like people just in general are often bigoted. People who disagree with each other, on moral, philosophical or even political views are often extremely bigoted and closed-minded, thinking themselves somehow superior because they hold their views to be correct. And it’s compounded by the echo chambers we allow ourselves to live in with the availablity of social media that allows more like-minded bigoted people to congregate and validate each other.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

It’s the best source to hear about new Blu-ray releases.

Stop it.

I don’t get why this is either funny or offensive.

What?

You told him to stop it. I don’t understand why. I assume you were annoyed or something, but I don’t see why. I also don’t even really understand why he said it. I assume he said it to be witty, but I don’t get the joke.

So the whole thing confuses me.

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

It’s the best source to hear about new Blu-ray releases.

Stop it.

I don’t get why this is either funny or offensive.

But I also don’t get why one would have a Facebook account with no facebook friends, considering the point is really to know what generally is going on with people. Otherwise your News Feed is only full of posts from Liked pages like Adywan’s SW Revisited group. To only have posts from groups would seem to me much more superficial than including posts from people you know.

That, but also Christianity is not about religion. Religion is the adherence to following rules—God says do this, so you must do it. Christianity is not about that. It’s about having a relationship with God Himself. If you actually do desire a relationship with Him and you told Him so, He will not abandon you. That doesn’t mean you can generally do whatever you please, but it does mean that you’re His child and He will not disown you simply for loving someone of the same gender, regardless of whether or not it’s perceived as wrong.

Jesus himself berated and chastized the Pharisees for making up societal rules that caused a “religious” relationship with God to become moot. Because it’s not simply about following the rules.

Or perhaps it’s a new model of smartphone. The OnePlus One69Chev.

Mrebo said:

Collipso said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

+1 one69chev

So…two69chev? 1169chev?

Maybe one70chev.

But then he wouldn’t be the same model.

Which would then also be zero69chev?

LuckyGungan2001 said:

Don’t Join

Yes, but I still don’t get it. He doesn’t like the Resistance or the First Order… so his nickname is “Don’t Join”?

oojason said:

Give your head a wobble, soft lad.

wat.

TV’s Frink said:

^Unclear gif is unclear.

I think I catch your meaning based on your enjoyment of TLJ…just saying though.

Dom was being sarcastic. His post made me smirk because I agree (with his underlying meaning) and thought it was clever.

DominicCobb said:

Star Wars movie is like other Star Wars movie in superficial ways… tricky RJ thought he could get away with it, but he was sorely mistaken! True Fans know that the only way to judge a movie is on a scale of perceived originality.

suspiciouscoffee said:

In other news, I’ve suddenly fallen pretty hard for a guy. He’s probably straight, but even if he isn’t, any relationship I pursue with him would result in my execution and subsequent trip to hell. I continue to daydream nonetheless, and hope God has mercy on my soul whenever I do die.

What?

Okay, as a Christian myself, I don’t see having such feelings for, or a relationship with, a guy means you’re going to hell. Seriously. Many conservatives or evangelicals are really judgy about that, but they need to check themselves because the Bible says plenty about loving each other and not being quick to judge. Certainly it does say homosexuality is wrong, but it says a truckload of things are wrong—things that people do wrong all the time every single day. Which is why we need a Savior because we can’t fix it ourselves.

Sorry for my soapbox. But really, I don’t see you going to hell for that.

TV’s Frink said:

So your problem isn’t the speech itself, it’s people’s reaction to it.

Yes. And maybe not “people”, but more the media I guess.

Would help next time if you say that right away.

Well okay then. Point taken.

I would be more interested in her speech if people actually talked about the content of her speech and what we can do to improve ourselves and the country. What I’m not interested in is people drooling about her for days and being all “Oprah for President!” Eh. That’s not what I got from hearing her speech.

It was an uplifting and hopeful speech, but people don’t talk about it or what it means or what to do about it. They talk about her being President?

You classify accusing him of being unable to put himself in the shoes of anyone who is not white and not male, because he wasn’t hot on her speech, as discussion?

ray_afraid said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?

Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?

Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes who does not share your opinion and not be critical of them?

When the plain truth is spoken loud n’ clear to an audience of that size it should be applauded no matter how well you thought it was delivered.

Sure. It was good. Really good. Cue applause. No sarcasm.
And move on down the road.

It was a nice speech, but I feel it’s generated all this hype in the news in recent days about Oprah herself, with people talking about her at length, and I’m just not feeling it.

dahmage said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?

Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?

Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in the shoes of someone else who does not share your opinion and to not be critical of them?

if you are going to get upset every time you reply to frink, maybe try not replying.

I’m not upset. Just let Warbler have his opinion, is what I’m saying.

TV’s Frink said:

Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?

Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?

Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in the shoes of someone else who does not share your opinion?

Warbler said:

I don’t know. I just didn’t find it all that great and powerful a speech. Sorry.

Nor did I. It was good, but nothing to get all excited about. You don’t have to apologize for that.

dahmage said:

TV’s Frink said:

rainbow battle kid said:

Black Angel

I don’t what this is but I highly doubt it.

its a very strange little film that was released in the UK before ESB (from my recollection, i am not checking wikipedia to be sure right now, yhwx or chyron can do that)

Will do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Angel_(1980_film)

Black Angel is a 1980 British short film that was shown before the theatrical release of The Empire Strikes Back in certain locales. It was the directorial debut of Star Wars art director Roger Christian. […] In June 2015, it was announced that Christian was working on a feature film adaptation of Black Angel, which would be in part funded on crowd-funding site, Indiegogo.

TV’s Frink said:

Here’s an old one from last September.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-way-too-early-2020-democratic-primary-draft/

TV’s Frink said:

I give up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6xI8w-x0S8&t=11s

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Oprah stands way more of a chance than Lincoln Chaffee.

Perhaps.

If Oprah stands zero chance, how could she stand more chance than Lincoln Chaffee?

You don’t see the problem with your arguments here?

The problem is you equate the use of of the phrase “no chance” in common conversation as equal to “zero probability” in practical statistics. You assume a hyperbolic statement is not hyperbolic, and so you refute it as though it isn’t, and in a way that rudely belittles my opinions in general.

But Trump was able to get the support of the white working class voter, and I can’t see Oprah doing that.

yhwx said:

Oprah stands way more of a chance than Lincoln Chaffee.

Perhaps.

But seriously, discussion about Oprah’s chances annoys me somewhat because I really don’t see how the voter base could be interested in her becoming President.