yhwx

imperialscum said:

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

For example, Luke does not actually change much in ESB.

No.

I am glad we agree.

I am confused.

imperialscum said:

iff

No.

No!

It’s also worth noting that strong support of Donald Trump is only at 18% now (question number 148) compared to 27% (question number 13) days after his inauguration. Many people are moving into that “somewhat approve” category, which might not bode well for Trump in a primary.

DominicCobb said:

That theory falls into the “interdimensional chess” category and thus I am incredibly skeptical.

Guy’s a dumb fuck.

While he may be incompetent, that doesn’t mean he’s totally stupid. He does seem to know how to rile up a crowd (however small it may be), which is a skill, even if it’s not “academic,” per se.

TV’s Frink said:

The TPM score is very good. I don’t remember much of the other two because so much is recycled from TPM.

This closely mirrors my opinion.

Well, they’ve now took down my thread.

I disagree. PT scores mostly boring to me.

https://twitter.com/rolldiggity/status/900090074745917440

Want to feel old? This is what Eminem looks like now.

Jeebus said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I expected TFA to be higher from him, but otherwise, yeah, that seems about right.

That’s the part that tripped me up. I can’t imagine a world where it’s worse than TPM.

This confused me as well. Otherwise, it could be a pretty standard OT.com ranking.

215 posts have been made in this thread today, not including this one.

In other news:

That’s Trump near his lowest approval and disapproval ratings.

TV’s Frink said:

There’s a metaphorical toilet in the sky?

That’s what my priest told me.

No, it’s in that metaphorical can in the sky.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

yhwx said:

Sorry, but… source?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

darthrush said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

In other racial news…

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/15/espn-apology-fantasy-football-auction

Yikes. Great timing.

Is this really that big of a deal? They weren’t selling black people, they were doing a FANTASY auction of football players. It also included white players. According to the article you linked too, auctions are common in fantasy football.

"Auction drafts are a common part of fantasy football, and ESPN’s segments replicated an auction draft with a diverse slate of top professional football players. Without that context, we understand the optics could be portrayed as offensive, and we apologize,” ESPN said in a statement to USA TODAY Sports.

I’ve done Fantasy for many years now and this story proves that if someone does something as simple as taking something out of context, they’ll get offended real quick.

Just once I wish you guys could admit that maybe just maybe black people could have an issue with something that you guys don’t.

Just once I wish that you guys could admit that "maybe just maybe* just because some black people have an issue with something, doesn’t automatically make it a valid complaint.

Ok, good to know. Please be sure to let black people know each time what they are allowed to have an issue with, so they can stop making the same mistake of being offended.

*sigh*

Fact: People sometimes get offended at things that aren’t reasonable to be offended over.

Once again, thanks for clarifying that for black people. I’m sure they feel much better now.

Do disagree with the fact that I stated? Are you saying it never happens that someone gets offended at something that wasn’t reasonable to get offended at? That never happens???

If a black person says they are offended because Jack White won’t change his name to Jack Black, I wouldn’t consider that reasonable. If a black person says they are offended because an ESPN sketch includes something that is reminiscent of a slave auction, I’m not gonna argue. I get that it’s fantasy football (I play) and I get that white players were there too. It’s clear ESPN did not do it intentionally. But it looks bad and there’s no reason us white people should be lecturing black people for pointing that out.

I was not lecturing anyone. I was giving my opinion. White people are allowed to have opinions and say them.

Your opinion (and darthrush;s and mfm’s) is that black people should not be upset that something with at least tangential racial connotations happened. That’s a lecture, no matter how much you want to dress it up as opinion.

And this isn’t about what you are allowed to do, it’s about what you should (or in this case should not) do. You have the right to tell people to get over racial things. But you shouldn’t.

Well, OK, then.

I’m mostly done for now because I have other things to do. Ugh.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

yhwx said:

Sorry, but… source?

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

I hate it when I close this thread and there’s immediately a new post to read.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?

I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.

but that is exactly what Frink is suggesting.

You’re colossally missing the point.

Toilet phone is in the can. They replaced it with a newly manufactured model for $86.

chyron8472 said:

Okay. I think this horse is thoroughly dead.

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

I’m not sure why people have the idea that Frink and only Frink has the ability to declare what people should and shouldn’t be offended by.

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m saying that he can have an opinion if he wants to. Being white doesn’t make him incompetent or irrelevant when talking about non-white issues. He might not understand the full scope of the experience, but that doesn’t invalidate his opinion.

I agree with all of this, by the way. He can always have an opinion, and he can talk about non-white issues. I’m white too. I’m saying that if a bunch of black people think something is offensive, it might just be offensive despite the white dude who doesn’t think it’s offensive. If there’s any doubt, I’m going to go with the people who have the full scope of the experience.

And as I said, if it’s something ludicrous like Jack Black having to change his name to Jack White, that’s a different story because you aren’t going to find a bunch of black people complaining about that.

Let’s say hypothetically that you could, though. There is a very large contingent of black people that are mad about Jack Black’s name. Would you still say that it’s silly?

I would.