Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > I am not welcome in New York.

I am not welcome in New York. (Page 3)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2014, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I believe this is called being thoughtless.
No, it's called being open to a fault.

Most of us re-evaluate stuff from time to time (some more than others), but many keep their cards close to their chest, so to speak. Me, I use you guys (and the internet in general) as a way to "beta test" my latest musings.

Do you prefer this, or the Abe-like ramming an unwavering ideology down people's throats? You'll certainly find both on the internet, it is what it is, and you can't change this and must accept this for your own sanity and the civility of the communities you are a part of.

Political discussions certainly do better (well, if you're looking for constructive discussion). I may not enjoy having logical faults pointed out, but it does give me pause to evaluate why I hold one situation in different regard from another.
Would you like it if I started questioning your qualifications to be a referee, and putting your internet career under a microscope? Of course not, that would be as annoying as ****.

It's best to have that short memory.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2014, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Most of us re-evaluate stuff from time to time (some more than others), but many keep their cards close to their chest, so to speak. Me, I use you guys (and the internet in general) as a way to "beta test" my latest musings.
I've seen you re-evaluate things. Completely changing stances without acknowledging the about-face in not that.


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Do you prefer this, or the Abe-like ramming an unwavering ideology down people's throats?
If only there was some kind of middle-ground! Damn you, binary existence!


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
you can't change this and must accept this for your own sanity and the civility of the communities you are a part of.
Ahem... doesn't this go both ways on this situation?


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Would you like it if I started questioning your qualifications to be a referee, and putting your internet career under a microscope? Of course not, that would be as annoying as ****.
My qualifications are sterling, so it'd read like a lifetime tribute. But really, I'm not saying I'm perfect, just, uh, far less flawed (or biased or clueless or some combination therein – in this particular endeavor).


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It's best to have that short memory.
If that's your philosophy, then that explains a lot, and this has been far from in vain. That explains how when multiple threads on a subject turn-up, you will sometimes ask the same questions, sometimes to the same very people. It also explains why you don't seem to learn from your mistakes.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2014, 05:53 PM
 
It's like Memento, but with tattoos of poop.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2014, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
If that's your philosophy, then that explains a lot, and this has been far from in vain. That explains how when multiple threads on a subject turn-up, you will sometimes ask the same questions, sometimes to the same very people. It also explains why you don't seem to learn from your mistakes.


FWIW besson, its hard for me to put alot of effort into explaining anything to you anymore, since your "short memory" precludes any progress on our discourse. Quite frankly, it seems as if you completely ignore the content of my posts. In our last interaction, you didn't even read the cited source yet still had plenty to say about the article's contents. That kind of stuff makes it pointless to address you in the first place, as there's no meaningful impact to having any discourse with you.

Dakar and i haven't always seen eye to eye on a great many things, but I definitely respect his viewpoints since we are usually able to get past each other's snark and contribute to a lasting discourse on issues of today.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2014, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I've seen you re-evaluate things. Completely changing stances without acknowledging the about-face in not that.
If I were to always acknowledge my about-faces this would require making my posts far more longer winded than they usually are, which is usually long winded to begin with, and this content would be of no value to those that aren't aware of my history. I generally only do this when I feel it is useful to provide some context to my present perspective.

I will try to do better to acknowledge my past stances though, if I decide to post more in this forum.

If only there was some kind of middle-ground! Damn you, binary existence!
I would say that over 90% of us are one way or the other. Why is it that you don't seem to call out the posters that fit my Abe-like profile, do they bother you less?

If that's your philosophy, then that explains a lot, and this has been far from in vain. That explains how when multiple threads on a subject turn-up, you will sometimes ask the same questions, sometimes to the same very people. It also explains why you don't seem to learn from your mistakes.
Since I have decided to change something about me, I suggest you changing something too: not assuming that everybody is like you in being as conscious about their history, and making a point to articulate it. I would also suggest finding ways to get to where we are now without being a dick, like you were.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2014, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post


FWIW besson, its hard for me to put alot of effort into explaining anything to you anymore, since your "short memory" precludes any progress on our discourse. Quite frankly, it seems as if you completely ignore the content of my posts. In our last interaction, you didn't even read the cited source yet still had plenty to say about the article's contents. That kind of stuff makes it pointless to address you in the first place, as there's no meaningful impact to having any discourse with you.

Dakar and i haven't always seen eye to eye on a great many things, but I definitely respect his viewpoints since we are usually able to get past each other's snark and contribute to a lasting discourse on issues of today.

I can't deal with many of your posts because I find many of them overly emotional, but instead of being in the now and cherry picking things I want to address, I'll just ignore these sorts of posts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2014, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Thanks ebuddy!

Also, do you and your fellow Republicans meet at Applebees to focus your ire on evil Democrats? What is the right-wing equivalent to Starbucks?
Applebees

I had to think on that though, I guess it'd be Village Inn. Applebees is suitably "manly" however, the GOP may consider a move if Applebees puts more work into their coffee.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2014, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Uh, besson doesn't have custom stars. He, subego, and Shaddim all have the same stars.
I thought the Clinically Insane multi-colored stars were custom. What does it take to be deemed clinically insane around here and how on earth does my post-count not meet that criteria at this point?

Why is it surprising? (I don't think I'm going to like the answer)
PS: Its been like this for years, and I would figure in multiple threads you've participated in.
Usually, folks who are generally aligned politically often display some solidarity from time to time. Or even those who are diabolically opposed to one another may blow up on this point or that and it burns out. You seem to carry this around and this point in the thread just seemed a good time to bring up my curiosity.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2014, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@ebuddy

Thank you for the kind words about my old relationship. It was for the best, she's psycho. To her credit, she dumped me because she realized she's psycho and how far she was dragging me down. Not a bad person at all. She's a shrink for domestic abuse victims, you need to be a good person to want to do that, just craaaaazy and self-loathing.

She lives a block away. We're still close friends.
Well then, I'm glad y'all went your separate ways if only a block between you.

Here is where I take issue with what you said in your last post. You accuse me of trying to force something which isn't there when what's happening is up until this point you've refused to provide it.

What I had been looking for, and dearly wanted to assume was true, was there was a reason why the legal aspect of marriage didn't matter to your straight self, even though you participated in it anyway.

You completely provided it in the last post. For one thing, you got married after you had kids. That's not exactly doing it in the traditional way.

The problem is it would be extraordinarily presumptuous of me to assume something like that. Without a direct statement to the contrary, the reader is stuck assuming you got married first because that's the default.

Seriously, if you had responded to my joke "Mrs. ebuddy doesn't care either, we had kids and a house before we got married" my only response there could have been "whoops, he did eat his own dog food, point withdrawn".

So I will respond in such a manner now. Point withdrawn.


tl;dr The fact you didn't get legally married until after you had a family lends enormous weight to your argument. I would go so far as to say it's vital information if the audience knows you're married, lest they be forced to put something else there (the societal default) in its absence.
I appreciate that, but why did you not simply take my word for it when you asked me how I'd regard marriage? Everything I explained was what I had been explaining the entire time, only without the personal anecdote. I explained that I didn't appreciate what people had made of marriage. I explained that it's not the marriage itself or a certificate or license and why it's entirely dependent upon the two people in the relationship. I explained why the important matter from the government perspective was equal protections. I mean, I'd generally avoid personal details if nothing more than to spare folks the boredom of it and would only use it if I thought it was entirely germane. It's not like a straight guy interested in the protections I mentioned earlier would seek a civil union or a domestic partnership, they'd get married. That's what they'd do regardless of what brought them to that point. It just seemed odd that I'd need my bio to bolster the point.
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2014, 01:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I thought the Clinically Insane multi-colored stars were custom. What does it take to be deemed clinically insane around here and how on earth does my post-count not meet that criteria at this point?
You need another 4,260 posts to be Clinically Insane.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2014, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You need another 4,260 posts to be Clinically Insane.
Thanks Shaddim, but 4,260?!? DOH!

Screw 'em, I feel clinically insane even if I can't be validated by forum officials.

Although... it is an election year and I'm now down to 4,259.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2014, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I thought the Clinically Insane multi-colored stars were custom. What does it take to be deemed clinically insane around here and how on earth does my post-count not meet that criteria at this point?
15k.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Usually, folks who are generally aligned politically often display some solidarity from time to time.
I consider that intellectually dishonest.

It's just as important to challenge those who agree with you for the wrong reasons. Further, when they use idiotic arguments they make it harder to drive your point home. I think you'll find in my post history a long line of ripping into this forums idiotic and drive-by sniping liberals.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Thanks Shaddim, but 4,260?!? DOH!

Screw 'em, I feel clinically insane even if I can't be validated by forum officials.

Although... it is an election year and I'm now down to 4,259.
You should be able to achieve 4,259 more posts by having three more discussions with subego.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2014, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
15k.
Got it, thank you.

I consider that intellectually dishonest.
Even if I can demonstrate where you've done so? To be clear, I don't think it's intellectually dishonest, I think it's perfectly natural. By this I do not mean going out of your way to compliment their hair or writing styles.

It's just as important to challenge those who agree with you for the wrong reasons. Further, when they use idiotic arguments they make it harder to drive your point home. I think you'll find in my post history a long line of ripping into this forums idiotic and drive-by sniping liberals.
While idiotic and drive-by sniping liberals were once plentiful in this forum, besson had always gotten what I'd consider a disproportionately high amount of critique from you. Though I do agree that one should be willing to challenge stupidity regardless of where it comes from.

You should be able to achieve 4,259 more posts by having three more discussions with subego.
Or certifiable, clinical insanity. Whichever comes first.

*Teasing subego, just teasing!
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2014, 08:12 PM
 
We'll get it yanked from the DSM for you.

P.S. Been super busy, and am now sick. Haven't left the thread.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2014, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Even if I can demonstrate where you've done so?
I didn't claim I've never done it, though.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
To be clear, I don't think it's intellectually dishonest, I think it's perfectly natural.
I didn't say it wasn't perfectly natural. It makes natural sense to reflexively defend someone you usually agree with.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
While idiotic and drive-by sniping liberals were once plentiful in this forum, besson had always gotten what I'd consider a disproportionately high amount of critique from you.
Besson makes up a disproportionately large amount of the thoughtless liberal posts in this forum.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2014, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Besson makes up a disproportionately large amount of the thoughtless liberal posts in this forum.


Is there some sort of scorecard for this or something? Can't I just be a thoughtless person rather than a thoughtless liberal? We wouldn't want these threads to be... thoughtless?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2014, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well then, I'm glad y'all went your separate ways if only a block between you.


I appreciate that, but why did you not simply take my word for it when you asked me how I'd regard marriage? Everything I explained was what I had been explaining the entire time, only without the personal anecdote. I explained that I didn't appreciate what people had made of marriage. I explained that it's not the marriage itself or a certificate or license and why it's entirely dependent upon the two people in the relationship. I explained why the important matter from the government perspective was equal protections. I mean, I'd generally avoid personal details if nothing more than to spare folks the boredom of it and would only use it if I thought it was entirely germane. It's not like a straight guy interested in the protections I mentioned earlier would seek a civil union or a domestic partnership, they'd get married. That's what they'd do regardless of what brought them to that point. It just seemed odd that I'd need my bio to bolster the point.
Sorry again this took so long.

You are way undervaluing the story about the circumstances in which you got legally married, especially in the context of a civil union discussion. Few people are in the position where they can say legal marriage is tertiary and directly demonstrate how it was treated in their relationship as tertiary.

Maybe it's not the big deal to you because you lived it, but for purposes of the discussion here, you buried the lead. The rub against married people calling for civil unions is the argument could be made they're pulling up the ladder after they've climbed it. This puts an obligation on them to explain how that's not the case. Maybe it's something as simple as "we didn't know any better", or "one of the people in the relationship cared".

Or "neither of us cared, and here's proof".


On top of that, it's like a totally adorable reason. You're totally mistaken we don't want to know stuff like that. I feel like I know the IRL ebuddy better now.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2014, 09:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I didn't claim I've never done it, though.
I appreciate your humility.

I didn't say it wasn't perfectly natural. It makes natural sense to reflexively defend someone you usually agree with.
I didn't say reflexively-defensive. I said solidarity.

Besson makes up a disproportionately large amount of the thoughtless liberal posts in this forum.
If nothing else, I hope this has been therapeutic for you and besson.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2014, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sorry again this took so long.

You are way undervaluing the story about the circumstances in which you got legally married, especially in the context of a civil union discussion. Few people are in the position where they can say legal marriage is tertiary and directly demonstrate how it was treated in their relationship as tertiary.
Assuming I fully understand what your last sentence meant; do you have something to substantiate the claim? The only way my personal experience would've been useful to you is if you had somehow convinced yourself that my scenario didn't exist. To continue questioning it seemed argumentative. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not asking for an apology as you've been very graceful and engaged in this discussion, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. Otherwise, one's hesitance to compound their commitment does not mean they ever considered the civil aspect of the commitment tertiary or ever treated that aspect as tertiary. If you care at all, you might seek betterment in one area or another before engaging the civil commitment piece.

Maybe it's not the big deal to you because you lived it, but for purposes of the discussion here, you buried the lead. The rub against married people calling for civil unions is the argument could be made they're pulling up the ladder after they've climbed it. This puts an obligation on them to explain how that's not the case.
I don't think a supporter of civil unions is obligated to explain anything. I would simply ask the one with the rub against married people in their argument; what ladder have I pulled up behind me? And watch them struggle explaining themselves. Again, straight people would not seek equal protections through a civil union or domestic partnership. I'm not asking anything of anybody other than equal protections, regardless of my sexual orientation. I merely did what straight people do when seeking equal protections for their union.

Maybe it's something as simple as "we didn't know any better", or "one of the people in the relationship cared".
Or "neither of us cared, and here's proof".
Of course, none of this is anything I've offered, but I suppose.

On top of that, it's like a totally adorable reason. You're totally mistaken we don't want to know stuff like that. I feel like I know the IRL ebuddy better now.
Why do I feel mildly patronized here.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2014, 11:27 PM
 
Now it's my turn to say perhaps you are too dug in.

My statement was an expression of admiration.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Now it's my turn to say perhaps you are too dug in.
meh... probably.

My statement was an expression of admiration.
This is where I need to learn to just say "thank you". So... thank you, subego.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Is there some sort of scorecard for this or something? Can't I just be a thoughtless person rather than a thoughtless liberal? We wouldn't want these threads to be... thoughtless?
Can't you just be happy being #1 at something?
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Is there some sort of scorecard for this or something?
I use the power of observation. Insert snide remark of your power of observation being lacking.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I didn't say reflexively-defensive. I said solidarity.
In that case, that's worse. Solidarity is good for politics, but it completely undermines honest discussion or progress.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If nothing else, I hope this has been therapeutic for you and besson.
Nothing therapeutic about it. The end conclusion is this will happen again. I shouldn't complain, though, you guys get it far worse than I do.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
meh... probably.


This is where I need to learn to just say "thank you". So... thank you, subego.
You are welcome.

I honestly find the idea of "we might as well at this point" with getting legally married to be... romantic?

I'm worried I'll pick the wrong word again. Let's say the world would be a better place if it happened more the way you both did it, rather than what we have now, which as you've noted, often ends up a smoking crater.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
In that case, that's worse. Solidarity is good for politics, but it completely undermines honest discussion or progress.
Seems to me the opportunities for progress are often in identifying where there is solidarity and acting. Unless there are some signs of progress from your honest exchanges with besson that I'm just missing.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm worried I'll pick the wrong word again. Let's say the world would be a better place if it happened more the way you both did it, rather than what we have now, which as you've noted, often ends up a smoking crater.
Intriguing thought though it seemed to my wife and I as we often joke about how we had done things hopelessly backwards, that we had in fact overcome the statistical odds of failure given our circumstance. 'Twas a leap of faith I suppose and I thank God often that we are where we are today.
ebuddy
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Nothing therapeutic about it. The end conclusion is this will happen again. I shouldn't complain, though, you guys get it far worse than I do.
His response to my post was enough to make me feel like it was pointless to continue participating in the discussion. You just kinda get used to it after awhile.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 02:08 PM
 
I thought it was comical how many people were purposely avoiding going into NY during SB weekend. I heard a guy in our section saying, "We'll find something in Jersey, f*** Cuomo and New York". That brought the biggest cheer of the night from the folks around him (including me). The amount of financial damage done by those thoughtless statements has to be staggering, maybe business owners there should sue?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Seems to me the opportunities for progress are often in identifying where there is solidarity and acting.
I think you're confusing partisan solidarity with bipartisan consensus. Also, what does that have to do with people defending like-minded people on the forums?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think you're confusing partisan solidarity with bipartisan consensus. Also, what does that have to do with people defending like-minded people on the forums?
Solidarity is not contingent upon agreement in all things, it may only be one thing. Otherwise, you're the only one talking about "defending" anything. At this point however, I'm no longer interested in sticking up for besson. It was a fleeting moment in time that has passed.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,