Kansas Crimson

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:20 pm this thread has become a cesspool

Yeah, but "Dudes like hot chicks", and since AOC is taking up so much space in so many heads, why not 11 pages and counting, about her?

Seems the majority of the 11 (now 12) pages of this thread are NOT about her.
Go figure - right?

Because people mostly don't want to admit that Michhawk is correct, Dudes like hot chicks, which is why AOC is on TV a bunch. I've watched AOC on camera as she swings that mane of hair around and it's pretty obvious what the male interviewers are thinking.

To be fair, it's the same thing you can see Princess Anne thinking as she bobs her head and laughs at Justin Trudeau.

I don't think AOC gets extra coverage because of her looks. She gets extra coverage because of her ideas and following.

Gross

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:58 pm I think what we have here, with Lobster and Chikn, is a perfect example of the reason why our political discourse has degenerated so rapidly and so thoroughly in the digital/message board/social media age.

There is a significant difference between one party to a digital conversation being unable to understand nuance and the other party being unable to express nuance.

In some cases, it may be Chikn's fault for not understanding what Lobster is trying to say, while in other cases, it may be Lobster's fault for not making it understandable.

It's easier on this board, where knowledge of a small group makes it easier to discern which is which and who is to blame for any confusion. In the broader digital-political world, however, it's far more difficult.

I'd agree with you, DC, but you left out a key element in certain board participants - the troll.

Lobby and Psych are both trolls. Their thrills come at the expense of frustrating others. It's fine. It's what they are.

What I'm guilty of is attempting to rationalize with people, from time to time, who couldn't care less about rational discussion.

Does Psych really believe all women are whores? I don't know, but I don't think so. But it's clearly important for him to get attention around here. Same with Lobby, though clearly not to Psych's extreme.

chiknbut wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:52 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:58 pm I think what we have here, with Lobster and Chikn, is a perfect example of the reason why our political discourse has degenerated so rapidly and so thoroughly in the digital/message board/social media age.

There is a significant difference between one party to a digital conversation being unable to understand nuance and the other party being unable to express nuance.

In some cases, it may be Chikn's fault for not understanding what Lobster is trying to say, while in other cases, it may be Lobster's fault for not making it understandable.

It's easier on this board, where knowledge of a small group makes it easier to discern which is which and who is to blame for any confusion. In the broader digital-political world, however, it's far more difficult.

I'd agree with you, DC, but you left out a key element in certain board participants - the troll.

What I'm guilty of is attempting to rationalize with people, from time to time, who couldn't care less about rational discussion.

This is true beyond just the two referenced.

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:56 am

chiknbut wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:52 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:58 pm I think what we have here, with Lobster and Chikn, is a perfect example of the reason why our political discourse has degenerated so rapidly and so thoroughly in the digital/message board/social media age.

There is a significant difference between one party to a digital conversation being unable to understand nuance and the other party being unable to express nuance.

In some cases, it may be Chikn's fault for not understanding what Lobster is trying to say, while in other cases, it may be Lobster's fault for not making it understandable.

It's easier on this board, where knowledge of a small group makes it easier to discern which is which and who is to blame for any confusion. In the broader digital-political world, however, it's far more difficult.

I'd agree with you, DC, but you left out a key element in certain board participants - the troll.

What I'm guilty of is attempting to rationalize with people, from time to time, who couldn't care less about rational discussion.

This is true beyond just the two referenced.

I admit it. Guilty as charged.

chiknbut wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:58 am

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:56 am

chiknbut wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:52 am

I'd agree with you, DC, but you left out a key element in certain board participants - the troll.

What I'm guilty of is attempting to rationalize with people, from time to time, who couldn't care less about rational discussion.

This is true beyond just the two referenced.

I admit it. Guilty as charged.

Eh, wasnt talking about you. I dont agree with you often, and i dont always agree with your approach but i dont think youre a troll. I think thats just you. Which is fine.

I can't help if someone feels I'm a troll on here. Nothing I can do to change what you want to believe. However, there are a few on here that know me personally on some level, and they know I'm not a troll. DChawk for example, a decent guy who helped me with various things in the past.

I think some are using the word "troll" to define someone who says something that is offensive to them, or that goes against what they were taught to believe. Again, stop using language inappropriately. The better thing to do would be to ask why something is offensive or makes them uncomfortable.

I think the real problem with society by and large, is that we've been progressive to the point that we've lost our sense of reality. People on the extreme left or right are trying to create a world that they want to exist, rather than what actually exists. I feel a responsibility to speak what I believe is true, as I see false narratives here and all over the place. In a time of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act -- we are there, folks. People cannot even say men and woman are different without being called a misogynist or a racist.

chiknbut wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:52 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:58 pm I think what we have here, with Lobster and Chikn, is a perfect example of the reason why our political discourse has degenerated so rapidly and so thoroughly in the digital/message board/social media age.

There is a significant difference between one party to a digital conversation being unable to understand nuance and the other party being unable to express nuance.

In some cases, it may be Chikn's fault for not understanding what Lobster is trying to say, while in other cases, it may be Lobster's fault for not making it understandable.

It's easier on this board, where knowledge of a small group makes it easier to discern which is which and who is to blame for any confusion. In the broader digital-political world, however, it's far more difficult.

I'd agree with you, DC, but you left out a key element in certain board participants - the troll.

Lobby and Psych are both trolls. Their thrills come at the expense of frustrating others. It's fine. It's what they are.

What I'm guilty of is attempting to rationalize with people, from time to time, who couldn't care less about rational discussion.

Does Psych really believe all women are whores? I don't know, but I don't think so. But it's clearly important for him to get attention around here. Same with Lobby, though clearly not to Psych's extreme.

What’s funny about your assessment is that it doesn’t take into account the bidirectional dynamic. I troll people who are regularly disrespectful to me; I am courteous with those who approach me with respect. If you want to come correct when addressing me, you will see a different response. If you can’t manage that, feel free not to respond to my posts. Whether you choose to believe it or not, you have control.

This thread is worthless without pictures. From this point forward, if you are going to contribute to this thread, please include a picture of the gal in question. Preferably with her hair up and glasses on.

So, what I'd take from this thread is that Lobster and Psych are upset with AOC because they've explained it in their assertion of hypergamy, she's a woman they could never hope to attract, because she's looking at men way above their intellect, education and social status.

But, Michhawk doesn't care, he just likes to look at her. Good for you, Michhawk.

Speaking of trolls...

lobster wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:23 pm Speaking of trolls...

Trolls are at least clever. Crayzee pissed off misandry is never clever.

Bless your heart, son, crazy? That's letting everyone on a forum where many people, (even the conservatives) don't like you, know the level of contempt you have for their cherished alma mater. As I said earlier, I'm not an AOC fan, but that she could lead you to enlightening us about how you feel about KU, god love her.

No matter what you say, you'll always be a Troll from now on.

seahawk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:17 pm So, what I'd take from this thread is that Lobster and Psych are upset with AOC because they've explained it in their assertion of hypergamy, she's a woman they could never hope to attract, because she's looking at men way above their intellect, education and social status.

But, Michhawk doesn't care, he just likes to look at her. Good for you, Michhawk.

I understand your need to fight fire with fire and attack Lob and HD but....
Let me guess, without looking after you read this post - you have no clue who she is currently dating nor who she has dated in the past. Amiright?

She'll require a man with over 200K a year in his bank account, but no man who makes that kind of money will want to be with someone so ignorant or intellectually dishonest. There's a good chance she'll end up alone, or end up with a male feminist (while being extremely frustrated in him the whole time). You can't win with women like her.

lobster wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:19 pm She'll require a man with over 200K a year in his bank account, but no man who makes that kind of money will want to be with someone so ignorant or intellectually dishonest. There's a good chance she'll end up alone, or end up with a male feminist (while being extremely frustrated in him the whole time). You can't win with women like her.

Define "win".

It's going to be very hard for a man to measure up to her demands. She's essentially priced herself out of the market with most good men. Her best bet might be to marry another democrat in Congress. It's the same thing that happens to women doctors -- they often marry men doctors.