RonMexicosPitbull posted:

a long think

Iamblikhos posted:

I was going to address your concern, but then I saw your red title. Dodged a bullet there...

Iamblikhos posted:

Fact: 98% of people who bitch about "the hivemind" do so because their objectively false and morally reprehensible views received deserved mockery.

Sapper posted:

That's the hivemind mentality I'm talking about, right there. Sorry, just because a bunch of people believe something, doesn't make it 'Objective' truth, even if it's the opposite of what the Tea Party believes (though that is usually a safe bet.) Christ, for a bunch of people who complain about how the Right marches in lockstepped ignorance, I see a lot of similar behavior in folks here who really should know better. Especially when people are on their side but trying to tell them that they're making really dumb generalizations that are going to push away people who agree with their cause but are familiar enough with the situation to know that they're spewing bullshit.

I'm thinking of the time a bunch of folks were circle-jerking about the Sadler study of rape in the military and screamed at the posters who pointed out that her study had massive sampling bias (she only interviewed a handful female Vietnam -> pre-Gulf War I vets who were being treated for PTSD...think about it for a second, this was prior to women being engaged in active combat, so what other sorts of life events are likely to induce PTSD in women besides combat?) and other studies with a much, much larger sample pool across more varied respondents concluded that the sexual assault rates were actually quite a bit lower than their civilian counterparts. Nonetheless, anyone who dared to challenge the *only* study that came up with that ludicrous statistic--that 1-in-3 women in ]the military are raped--were denounced as "rape apologists". Fact: the actual number is closer to 1-in-9, significantly better than the 1-in-6 rate among college coeds. And still completely unacceptable--but no one was arguing that it was, just that Sadler's study was sensational bullshit with really bad sampling bias, and thankfully, the real statistic was less horrifying.

And no, that thread couldn't have been the source of my BRCT because it was 3 or 4 years before it appeared. Unless someone really harbored a grudge for a long time and finally got $10 scraped together.

Sapper posted:

That's the hivemind mentality I'm talking about, right there. Sorry, just because a bunch of people believe something, doesn't make it 'Objective' truth, even if it's the opposite of what the Tea Party believes (though that is usually a safe bet.) Christ, for a bunch of people who complain about how the Right marches in lockstepped ignorance, I see a lot of similar behavior in folks here who really should know better. Especially when people are on their side but trying to tell them that they're making really dumb generalizations that are going to push away people who agree with their cause but are familiar enough with the situation to know that they're spewing bullshit.

I'm thinking of the time a bunch of folks were circle-jerking about the Sadler study of rape in the military and screamed at the posters who pointed out that her study had massive sampling bias (she only interviewed a handful female Vietnam -> pre-Gulf War I vets who were being treated for PTSD...think about it for a second, this was prior to women being engaged in active combat, so what other sorts of life events are likely to induce PTSD in women besides combat?) and other studies with a much, much larger sample pool across more varied respondents concluded that the sexual assault rates were actually quite a bit lower than their civilian counterparts. Nonetheless, anyone who dared to challenge the *only* study that came up with that ludicrous statistic--that 1-in-3 women in ]the military are raped--were denounced as "rape apologists". Fact: the actual number is closer to 1-in-9, significantly better than the 1-in-6 rate among college coeds. And still completely unacceptable--but no one was arguing that it was, just that Sadler's study was sensational bullshit with really bad sampling bias, and thankfully, the real statistic was less horrifying.

And no, that thread couldn't have been the source of my BRCT because it was 3 or 4 years before it appeared. Unless someone really harbored a grudge for a long time and finally got $10 scraped together.

krampster2 posted:

What if someone said "anime is bad" and then you bought them a cute anime avatar? That'd be funny.

Al Cowens posted:

Al Cowens posted:

I like mine tho

scalded schlong posted:

i was given a custom title by Brother Jonathan when he was a mod, referencing bill cosby, pudding and sodomy, because i posted a picture of bill cosby a lot

then he was demodded for being severely autistic, and i received my old title back. good times.

Erethizon_dorsatum posted:

What's the deal with Cardiovorax? his is

Faux-rear end Nonsense posted:

he's the dude (?) who repeatedly and selflessly stopped his pedophile neighbour from loving his own sons, when he was a teen, in Germany.using his own rear end.

think they're transitioning now, and likes to let their pet rats nibble on their nail polish.

e: i love this website

notZaar posted:

It's the awful app for iPad. Actually it doesn't show any text in the custom title. The android one shows black text.

Furnok Dorn posted:

vile rat gave me mine because i called him a fag or something

scalded schlong posted:

guess we know who won that one huh

TEAYCHES posted:

i recently got mine because i owned some sheeple and made them think so hard they spent 10 dollars

Noyemi K posted:

actually you got it because I was INTENSELY drunk, hth

Erethizon_dorsatum posted:

What's the deal with Cardiovorax? his is

TEAYCHES posted:

im kind of growing fond of it so thanks

krampster2 posted:

What if someone said "anime is bad" and then you bought them a cute anime avatar? That'd be funny.