|
Look at this big old steaming turd: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-this-opinion-that-jobs-in-banking-finance-sector-are-bad-and-evil-Is-this-opinion-justified quote:Originally Answered: Is it right to regard bankers as horrible people?
|
# ? Oct 28, 2015 04:53 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 04:43 |
|
VideoTapir posted:Look at this big old steaming turd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exnaY0l4XsM
|
# ? Oct 28, 2015 07:43 |
|
quote:But not quite. Who paid for the R&D that led to the development of the cars? Who led the fundraising effort for that multi-billion dollar capital expansion project that allowed the car to be economically produced in scale? Who brokered the deal that allowed Toyota to acquire hybrid technology and develop their award-winning Prius? Most likely not Toyota. (note this example isn't real, I do not work in auto and for all I know these may have been proprietary. But I'm trying to make a point) Couldn't even be assed to find a real example. "Who did all that stuff for Toyota? I don't know, maybe they self-financed, but anyway it was actually bankers and that's why they shouldn't have to pay any taxes or follow any regulations and deserve a trillion dollars every time they gently caress up."
|
# ? Oct 28, 2015 09:23 |
|
It reads like a loving parody article, every single point is undercut by something else he says in the same article. It's loving mind blowing.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2015 09:37 |
|
I used to think Quora was interesting, but it's basically just a bunch of 20-something internet millionaires (or weird prodigies) patting each other on the back repeatedly. "What is some good career advice for someone just finishing college?" "As a 22-year-old CEO, let me just say..." "How should I save for retirement?" "As someone who just sold his third company, I've got some information..." "Where should I go to grad school?" "After going to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and MIT, I can say..." Every once in a while, there's an interesting little tidbit, but it's mostly terrible.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2015 18:33 |
|
A response to an article is close enough right?
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 16:31 |
|
VideoTapir posted:Look at this big old steaming turd: My favorite part of this is how very, very carefully he avoids actually mentioning what happened in 2008 and why.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 16:40 |
|
Geokinesis posted:A response to an article is close enough right? That's really not that unreasonable. I mean, I have no interest in that stuff, but I find the banning of any kind of art to be a really creepy thing that shouldn't happen.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 16:51 |
Pope Guilty posted:My favorite part of this is how very, very carefully he avoids actually mentioning what happened in 2008 and why. Yeah sometimes these guys are totally smelling their own farts but with articles like that you know he's aware of the fact that he's writing cover for criminals.
|
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 16:58 |
|
Sinestro posted:That's really not that unreasonable. I mean, I have no interest in that stuff, but I find the banning of any kind of art to be a really creepy thing that shouldn't happen. It's not really just art when he's arguing that there's nothing wrong with The argument against the criminalisation of underage hentai is that it's not supposed to be actually based on real things. Otherwise it's just literal child pornography which is in no way a victimless crime.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 17:01 |
|
OwlFancier posted:It's not really just art when he's arguing that there's nothing wrong with That's just his lovely rhetoric. The laws are, if I recall, just banning it in general, which is really not okay. If you want to draw, entirely made up, porn of a dog with Dick Cheney's face loving a toddler, knock yourself the gently caress out, I have somewhere very far away to be, but it shouldn't be illegal.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 17:04 |
|
I think the point is that the response is utterly terrible and far more damaging to the argument it's trying to advance and revealing of the motivations of the author than it was intended to be.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 17:06 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I think the point is that the response is utterly terrible and far more damaging to the argument it's trying to advance and revealing of the motivations of the author than it was intended to be. Ah yeah, that's true. Never mind, if true.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 17:10 |
|
Sinestro posted:That's just his lovely rhetoric. The laws are, if I recall, just banning it in general, which is really not okay. If you want to draw, entirely made up, porn of a dog with Dick Cheney's face loving a toddler, knock yourself the gently caress out, I have somewhere very far away to be, but it shouldn't be illegal. This is incidentally, why the only guy ever arrested for just drawn child porn in the US was an elementary or middle school teacher who had been logged downloading real child porn (both on his home network and on the school network, yikes) but successfully deleted it - since drawn stuff is also illegal but until that point never used for the sole conviction, they were able to grab him for that. I think the case happened in Idaho?
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 18:12 |
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is incidentally, why the only guy ever arrested for just drawn child porn in the US was an elementary or middle school teacher who had been logged downloading real child porn (both on his home network and on the school network, yikes) but successfully deleted it - since drawn stuff is also illegal but until that point never used for the sole conviction, they were able to grab him for that. I think the case happened in Idaho? In the UK and Canada, it's been used other ways though. Still, I disagree with the law all the same.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 18:14 |
|
Sinestro posted:In the UK and Canada, it's been used other ways though. Still, I disagree with the law all the same. At least for the US law, one law covers both, however courts have ruled that you really really shouldn't ever convict for just drawn stuff unless absolutely neccesary.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 18:43 |
|
Sinestro posted:That's really not that unreasonable. I mean, I have no interest in that stuff, but I find the banning of any kind of art to be a really creepy thing that shouldn't happen. Following that current mainstream porn normalises harmful attitudes/behaviours towards women/sexual relations, the same could be said for his favoured art Also uhhh (same guy):
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 19:42 |
|
I think we can all agree that people who like loli are basically the equivalent of holocaust survivors.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 19:45 |
|
Geokinesis posted:Following that current mainstream porn normalises harmful attitudes/behaviours towards women/sexual relations, the same could be said for his favoured art Well the first thing is loving retarded, second-wave feminist bullshit that treats men like children that can't tell fantasy from reality, and the second one is something that I honestly agree with, even if it is grandiose. Even if it's for something that you don't like, I don't think anyone on D&D would disagree with the idea of not following unjust laws, but I could be surprised.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 19:47 |
|
Masturbation as civil disobedience! I like the sound of it!
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 20:06 |
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:Masturbation as civil disobedience! I like the sound of it! We will overcome!
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 23:25 |
|
Sinestro posted:Well the first thing is loving retarded, second-wave feminist bullshit that treats men like children that can't tell fantasy from reality, and the second one is something that I honestly agree with, even if it is grandiose. Even if it's for something that you don't like, I don't think anyone on D&D would disagree with the idea of not following unjust laws, but I could be surprised. I'd love to hear you define second-wave feminism. Also 'law I don't like' =/= unjust law. You don't get to jerk off to kids, that's a fair law most civilized countries have.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2015 01:52 |
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I'd love to hear you define second-wave feminism. Also his definition of loving retarded bullshit. I'm pretty sure the whole problem is the facile belief that the observer is always perfectly outside of and beyond everything he sees and reads and consumes.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2015 02:04 |
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I'd love to hear you define second-wave feminism. I tried to write a post disagreeing with this on the grounds that art shouldn't be criminalized as long as no one is getting hurt because it's a dangerous free expression precident and edging really close to thoughtcrime. But then I read what I had written and was horrified. Probably since the particular subject at hand is drawn child porn. So yeah you get this point for free. Because if first they go for the lolis, I for one will be completely silent with absolutely no compunctions.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2015 12:57 |
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I'd love to hear you define second-wave feminism. Criminalizing a particular set of pixels/pencil marks that has nothing to do with anyone actually getting hurt is pretty drat bullshit. Also, second-wave feminism refers to the feminism that arose in the 1960s including theorists such as Dworkin and McKinnon that was defined by a transition from first wave feminism, a modernist movement that focused on removing legal boundaries towards gender equality to a post-modernist movement that focused on removing societal boundaries. Third-wave feminism arose in the 1980s and 1990s as a response to the anti-sexuality/anti-pornography/anti-heterosexuality positions of many second-wave theorists, as well as adding more of an emphasis on intersectionality. I admit that might not be a perfect definition and more the relevant bits of it, but it's been about a year since I've read much about this stuff, and it's just from memory. I admit it was inaccurate of me to conflate anti-pornography vs sex-positive feminism and second-wave vs third-wave feminism, potentially. Sinestro fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Nov 1, 2015 |
# ? Nov 1, 2015 13:55 |
|
Sinestro posted:Criminalizing a particular set of pixels/pencil marks that has nothing to do with anyone actually getting hurt is pretty drat bullshit. lots of symbols that don't directly harm people are criminalized. i can't threaten to harm people, for example, even though my words do not do anyone actual hurt. i will stand up and be brave enough to admit that i am someone who does not in any way consume real or fake child porn, and so i do not care if fake child porn is criminalized. i am perfectly willing to compromise freedom of speech in this fashion
|
# ? Nov 1, 2015 20:11 |
|
Breitbart.quote:The next major problem with GPS usage is that it is emasculating, and not just politically with its endless entreaties to “turn left.” Married friends of mine report that navigation system usage is just another way for their wives to symbolically kick them in the groin. If the husband expresses any confusion about how to reach their destination, the woman will slyly say, “Shall I get out the GPS?”
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 03:40 |
|
This is by far the whiniest, most pathetic thing reeking of wounded aspiration to performing masculinity I've read in months, and that includes a lot of Gamergate horseshit.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 03:54 |
|
Pope Guilty posted:This is by far the whiniest, most pathetic thing reeking of wounded aspiration to performing masculinity I've read in months, and that includes a lot of Gamergate horseshit. The author is a gay misogynist who shows up a lot in the PYF dark enlightenment thread. I think it's pretty funny, as long as you know in advance not to regard the writer as anything but a buffoon.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:10 |
|
Sounds like some healthy relationships.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:23 |
|
What an incredibly insecure person.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:28 |
|
Jack of Hearts posted:The author is a gay misogynist who shows up a lot in the PYF dark enlightenment thread. I think it's pretty funny, as long as you know in advance not to regard the writer as anything but a buffoon. It's like fanfic about how horrible it must be for straight dudes to be in a relationship. It's the weirdest thing.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:55 |
|
I'm not sure any of you are aware of this, but girls have cooties.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:58 |
|
For those wondering: the traffic-related death rate for Saudi Arabia is 24.8 fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year while the global rate is 18.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 05:06 |
|
The Dark One posted:It's like fanfic about how horrible it must be for straight dudes to be in a relationship. It's the weirdest thing. I love everything about it. I want to dig into this guys back stuff a bit.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 05:09 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:I love everything about it. I want to dig into this guys back stuff a bit. Don't do this. Seriously.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 14:20 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:I love everything about it. I want to dig into this guys back stuff a bit. He's a very angry man with a very small penis, it's really not as funny as this article usually, usually it's just "loving WHORES AND BLACKS AND FAGGOTS (i'm gay so I can say it suck it PC nazis)" for a page.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 16:47 |
|
Why would a gay reacto hate women? Shouldn't he hate good-looking men who have no interest in him?
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 00:13 |
|
He still has to find an audience among the regular crop of straight, women-hating conservatives. That and avoid being TOO gay for them, just gay enough so that his readers can invoke "Well this gay CONSERVATIVE agrees that faggots shouldn't marry" to their liberal friends.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 00:36 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 04:43 |
|
Jack Gladney posted:Why would a gay reacto hate women? Shouldn't he hate good-looking men who have no interest in him? Pretty sure Milo is only gay because he hates women, not because he actually likes men.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 00:44 |