Toggle sidebar

OT: Nats, Wiz, O's, Ravens, Terps, Navy, Gtown, Mystics, Golf, Summer 2024 (Paris Olympics 2024 as well)

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Cush said:
73-39 with 2:45 left in the 2nd

Click to expand...

They rolled over before the game started it was pretty obvious. With Gaf out I think they just checked out even trying.

Having not really watched Poole I'm not sure what I'm seeing. He has some good suddenness but doesn't even end up driving and then turns it over.
 
usiel said:
They rolled over before the game started it was pretty obvious. With Gaf out I think they just checked out even trying.

Having not really watched Poole I'm not sure what I'm seeing. He has some good suddenness but doesn't even end up driving and then turns it over.
Click to expand...
Poole sucks.

Doesn’t play defense. Doesn’t pass well. He’s a volume shooter who can get really hot. Not the best teammate (Draymond dropped his ass for a reason), but not an awful teammate either.

So…… pretty easy to see, I’m not a fan. At all.

This coming from a guy that was forced to watch far too many Warriors game bc I live in the Bay Area. So I know me some Poole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usiel and Ovechkins Wodka
dgaf, I can't root for yet another TX team winning the WS (like 5 times in 7 yrs)
 
Screenshot_20231103-111230.png
 
  • Haha
Reactions: g00n
Ajax1995 said:
Yeah but the Rangers had never won it before so I have no issues with it. Good for them and their fans.
Click to expand...
The Rangers make obstinate PR decisions I can't get behind. I'll leave it at that but their failure to play ball, as it were, makes it hard to feel any goodwill towards them.
 
HTFN said:
The Rangers make obstinate PR decisions I can't get behind. I'll leave it at that but their failure to play ball, as it were, makes it hard to feel any goodwill towards them.
Click to expand...
Yet I’m sure you supported Snyder’s Redskins for God knows how long despite the PR nightmares that came out of that organization on a regular basis.

Whatever. It is a team that has never won it before and that I don’t give 2 shits about either way. Good for them.
 
Ajax1995 said:
Yet I’m sure you supported Snyder’s Redskins for God knows how long despite the PR nightmares that came out of that organization on a regular basis.

Whatever. It is a team that has never won it before and that I don’t give 2 shits about either way. Good for them.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Redskins fan, didn't support them for any of what they did, and stopped watching Packers games after Rodgers outed himself as a virus nut for the same basic reasons.

Nice, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CapitalsCupReality
HTFN said:
I'm not a Redskins fan, didn't support them for any of what they did, and stopped watching Packers games after Rodgers outed himself as a virus nut for the same basic reasons.

Nice, though.
Click to expand...
So, you can't appreciate anyone who doesn't agree with you on topics outside of the actual thing you are watching. Hmmm, I wonder if there's a term for that? Good thing you won't tolerate anyone else's differing opinions... you wouldn't want to humanize people you don't agree with, would you...
 
Eirikrautha said:
So, you can't appreciate anyone who doesn't agree with you on topics outside of the actual thing you are watching. Hmmm, I wonder if there's a term for that? Good thing you won't tolerate anyone else's differing opinions... you wouldn't want to humanize people you don't agree with, would you...
Click to expand...
Fun fact: that’s the thing I’m most against. Texas being the only team that won’t even put out an accepting Pride related tweet and stubbornly refusing to tolerate others is why I don’t have respect for the franchise.

Open mindedness is not equal time and consideration for all opinions. If I feel like yours are actively damaging society you don’t have my support. Is this complicated to some people? You want me to throw a little cheer for the Rangers because they, what, spent money on a baseball team and won an entertainment tournament when they can’t do the basics to include people I know and respect in real life for real reasons?

Nah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: g00n
HTFN said:
Fun fact: that’s the thing I’m most against. Texas being the only team that won’t even put out an accepting Pride related tweet and stubbornly refusing to tolerate others is why I don’t have respect for the franchise.

Open mindedness is not equal time and consideration for all opinions. If I feel like yours are actively damaging society you don’t have my support. Is this complicated to some people? You want me to throw a little cheer for the Rangers because they, what, spent money on a baseball team and won an entertainment tournament when they can’t do the basics to include people I know and respect in real life for real reasons?

Nah.
Click to expand...
Well, you do you and all, but I refuse to tolerate your intolerance (isn't that how it goes?)...

Open mindedness is not equal time and consideration for all opinions.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's exactly what it means. You are welcome to judge any ideas you want, after giving them a fair listen. And once you've heard and judged them, you don't have to listen any more. But that doesn't make anyone who has judged differently wrong. As a Caps fan, I can appreciate a team winning it's first title after so many years of failure, regardless of off-field considerations. You can't. I'll let others decide which way they want to go.

tol.er.ance (noun)

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.​
​
Oh, but I forgot, the ideas you support are right and deserve to be tolerated by those who disagree with you, and any ideas you disagree with are wrong and must be stamped out. Glad I know the one person incapable of being wrong about things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajax1995
Eirikrautha said:
Well, you do you and all, but I refuse to tolerate your intolerance (isn't that how it goes?)...



Actually, that's exactly what it means. You are welcome to judge any ideas you want, after giving them a fair listen. And once you've heard and judged them, you don't have to listen any more. But that doesn't make anyone who has judged differently wrong. As a Caps fan, I can appreciate a team winning it's first title after so many years of failure, regardless of off-field considerations. You can't. I'll let others decide which way they want to go.

tol.er.ance (noun)

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.​
​
Oh, but I forgot, the ideas you support are right and deserve to be tolerated by those who disagree with you, and any ideas you disagree with are wrong and must be stamped out. Glad I know the one person incapable of being wrong about things.
Click to expand...
You need to learn what the paradox of tolerance is, there are things you can afford to be tolerant about and other things you can’t. I don’t drop friends who eat pickles or are vegan, for example. Doesn’t matter to me, doesn’t change the lives of the people I know. You’re assuming I haven’t taken the initial evaluation step for some reason instead of hearing and deciding already.

Being a bigot or an antivaxxer is in my opinion dangerous, and I’m not willing to normalize it. Texas throwing a fit and refusing to do the bare minimum for representation in the league is pathetic and not worth respect. A lot of players and teams in the NHL lost a lot of that same respect last year.

Laws aren’t being passed to stop veganism, a lot of sexualities don’t have the same luxury right now, and until that’s different these aren’t equally considered viewpoints right now, it’s tacit support for a cause that hurts other human beings and can go f*** itself.

Paradox of Tolerance says that to create a tolerant world you have to show intolerance for intolerant ideologies, that your freedoms stop being acceptable when they infringe on the freedoms of others.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: g00n
HTFN said:
You need to learn what the paradox of tolerance is, there are things you can afford to be tolerant about and other things you can’t. I don’t drop friends who eat pickles or are vegan, for example. Doesn’t matter to me, doesn’t change the lives of the people I know. You’re assuming I haven’t taken the initial evaluation step for some reason instead of hearing and deciding already.

Being a bigot or an antivaxxer is in my opinion dangerous, and I’m not willing to normalize it. Texas throwing a fit and refusing to do the bare minimum for representation in the league is pathetic and not worth respect. A lot of players and teams in the NHL lost a lot of that same respect last year.

Laws aren’t being passed to stop veganism, a lot of sexualities don’t have the same luxury right now, and until that’s different these aren’t equally considered viewpoints right now, it’s tacit support for a cause that hurts other human beings and can go f*** itself.

Paradox of Tolerance says that to create a tolerant world you have to show intolerance for intolerant ideologies, that your freedoms stop being acceptable when they infringe on the freedoms of others.
Click to expand...
Weird how the same people who were arguing against "moral relativism" 30-40 years ago are now suddenly like "who can say what's right and what's wrong? you need to have an open mind about my very well documented bigotry."

It's all a semantic abuse of the word "tolerance", which was never meant to mean "anything goes" in the civil rights context. It was meant as a compromise first step against outright hostility since "acceptance" or other more friendly terms didn't seem possible.

Now people who belong to the largest religions in the world pretend they're somehow oppressed because their particular brand of bigotry isn't being "tolerated".

LOL

Try again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Block, usiel and HTFN
HTFN said:
You need to learn what the paradox of tolerance is, there are things you can afford to be tolerant about and other things you can’t. I don’t drop friends who eat pickles or are vegan, for example. Doesn’t matter to me, doesn’t change the lives of the people I know. You’re assuming I haven’t taken the initial evaluation step for some reason instead of hearing and deciding already.

Being a bigot or an antivaxxer is in my opinion dangerous, and I’m not willing to normalize it. Texas throwing a fit and refusing to do the bare minimum for representation in the league is pathetic and not worth respect. A lot of players and teams in the NHL lost a lot of that same respect last year.

Laws aren’t being passed to stop veganism, a lot of sexualities don’t have the same luxury right now, and until that’s different these aren’t equally considered viewpoints right now, it’s tacit support for a cause that hurts other human beings and can go f*** itself.

Paradox of Tolerance says that to create a tolerant world you have to show intolerance for intolerant ideologies, that your freedoms stop being acceptable when they infringe on the freedoms of others.
Click to expand...
You cannot include anti-Vaxxers in the same group as a bigot. That’s pretty hyperbolic, and I agree with a lot of your points.

Vaccines come in all shapes and sizes these days. They are not infallible.

Hell, I’m walking proof of the dangers of the COVID vaccine. It f***ed me up royally. Still is.

Some children’s vaccines are over the top as well.

Some vaccines are important, but that doesn’t mean all of them are. Big Pharma and all.

And…….we’ve hijacked this thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajax1995
HTFN said:
You need to learn what the paradox of tolerance is...
Click to expand...

I've read Karl Popper and understand him quite well. Most folks who appeal to the paradox of tolerance actually don't understand him at all. He was arguing against allowing some (who would restrain others from speaking and presenting ideas) from using the tolerance of others against them. The paradox of tolerance is about the intolerance of restraint. But whatever, most people only care about this because it gives them the veneer of morality to do what they've always wanted to anyway, shout down those they disagree with. You do you, but it'll never stop anyone from laughing at your hypocrisy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajax1995
g00n said:
Weird how the same people who were arguing against "moral relativism" 30-40 years ago are now suddenly like "who can say what's right and what's wrong? you need to have an open mind about my very well documented bigotry."

It's all a semantic abuse of the word "tolerance", which was never meant to mean "anything goes" in the civil rights context. It was meant as a compromise first step against outright hostility since "acceptance" or other more friendly terms didn't seem possible.

Now people who belong to the largest religions in the world pretend they're somehow oppressed because their particular brand of bigotry isn't being "tolerated".

LOL

Try again.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, you've actually bumped the market price of straw up $1.50 with that post. Until and unless you can establish that I am "the same people who were arguing against 'moral relativism' 30-40 years ago" or "people who belong to the largest religions in the world", you are arguing against a gigantic straw man of your own making. But that's what bigots do.

Whatever. Enjoy your misplaced righteousness. I'm done casting pearls before swine (I cribbed that from one of those big religions you like to denigrate, as it seemed appropriate)...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajax1995
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom