New Testingstan

I don't care what Edi says about anything because he's proved to be a worthless cunt that takes out his frustrations from work on the board and certain board members he dislikes in particular.

I think that, for my own sanity, I will ignore everything Zentei posts in the feminism thread from hereon out.

adr wrote:edi is a bit quick to flame especially when it comes to america

there was one thread where it was like "the average american uses 4 gallons of water to wash dishes" or something like that

and edi immediately jumped in and was all like "u americans are water fat in finland we use like 4 milliliters"


and maybe it's true but he didn't have stats or anything and that's a really common pattern. not just with him too.


but virtually every time any fact about the united states and sometimes even canada comes up

someone has to come in and be all smug about european superiority


now finland sounds like a pretty decent country

but come on

I take comfort that I'm Canadian and not on the wrong end of decades of disasterous attempts to unite Europe in a failing economic zone.

Fucking Thanas

Oh, how I wish that I could go in and post this in the Iran drone thread:

"Denial of the ability of secondary powers like Iran to confront the hegemonic USA on their own ground while expressing fears about the potential of a nuclear arsenal reveals a great deal about how American propaganda works. We are meant to be the absolute best at anything, so obviously it is supremely unlikely that Iran could have downed one of the pieces of our nascent panopticon with their crude/primitive, that is, inferior abilities, yet we must also have enemies and so they become a threat with the potential of pursuing a nuclear arsenal which they would, it is inevitably implied, use to destroy the delicate balance of power (why we should support the balance of American-supported dictators is never addressed) in the Middle East and, further implied, commit a second Holocaust. Thus, we have an "enemy nation" that is too weak to challenge our ego directly, and yet challenges us through their supposed WMDs, further creating a sense of cowardice and inferiority on the behalf of our foes, the easier to induce our soldiers into atrocities if we go to war to crush yet another dissenter."

or something like it.

it reminds me of the ur-fascism thing somebody mentioned in a stuart review thread (not sure which one, i read a new and an old one in the last week)

adr wrote:it reminds me of the ur-fascism thing somebody mentioned in a stuart review thread (not sure which one, i read a new and an old one in the last week)

That was me, but even in my wishes it's too much to hope that I could point out that Simon is using the logic of ur-fascists (and anyways, though that's the most applicable, the other signifiers in conjunction with it are what's really important) when he and Kanastrous declare that it is probably the case (free from their all-devouring pedantry, I can actually say this) that Iran had to have faked it, that those savages couldn't have downed an American plane.

rather than do that, I decided to spit in SCRawl's face with a post in the Hitchens thread saying that he was disrespecting the guy with his insistence on revering him now that he was dead.

hai guiz plz don't say bad things about dead people

unless their names are osama and ghadafi

guy makes a living off of being confrontational

when he dies, demand that people not be confrontational in "honor" of him

me: i think ima troll the hitchens thread on sdn too.
letia: nice


it's her fault

hahaha i haven't even posted my troll post yet and the illustrious moderator comes in to dismiss it


i love how they'll jump into certain things immediately but let others go for 30 pages

Chocula doesn't know what moral codes many atheists employ? Jesus.

Knubfuck wrote:Chocula doesn't know what moral codes many atheists employ? Jesus.

as it turns out chockles may be an idiot

who knew

Knubfuck wrote:Chocula doesn't know what moral codes many atheists employ? Jesus.

maybe this is why people are confused?

artemas wrote:

Knubfuck wrote:Chocula doesn't know what moral codes many atheists employ? Jesus.

maybe this is why people are confused?

the problem is a lot of religious types have a tendency of intentionally misrepresenting atheism as a system of morality, even though it's really not

it doesn't help that people have been brainwashed into thinking that you can't have morality without god

i wonder if thanas seriously is as stupid as he looks or if he's just blinded by his desire to show off his awesome power

Hey, adr, are you doing a bait and switch here?

Talking about how you are totally going to troll the shit out of some thread.

And then effortposting in the actual thread to see if anyone who reads this board bites?

Because that would be some high concept avant garde trolling.

Shit, did I just give away the game?

adr wrote:i wonder if thanas seriously is as stupid as he looks or if he's just blinded by his desire to show off his awesome power

so much for "stuff on other boards doesn't matter"

I'm still working on the post I intended to troll with! The rest was just stuff that came up in the mean time.

B-A-K-U-S-T-R-A wrote:I think that, for my own sanity, I will ignore everything Zentei posts in the feminism thread from hereon out.

Omg vendetta

"no atheist distrusts another atheist"

i sure have never heard of anyone distrusting commies

"for being atheist"

i for one distrust the shit out of these fatty internet atheists who think philosophical positions are like sports teams and it's all about being on the right side, with all the same tribal bullshit that brings. for stupid stuff, refer to the unquestioning acceptance of any bullshit that claims to debunk something about religion. and hey, you should congratulate yourself quite loudly for managing to "debunk" something a bronze-age person dreamt up, i'm sure it was hard work

for scary stuff, refer to how people on their own team can do no wrong, like when dawkins is a giant cock and says women are infantile morons for not wanting to be harassed in elevators while other women face larger dangers, or those that say that particular woman was stupid for being uncomfortable in the presence of another fatty atheist


these fatty atheists sicken me and bring shame upon us all and indeed they should be distrusted just like any evangelising group

and yeah they can cry about being unique snowflakes and totally the opposite of a religious group, but let's face it, they are united by their metaphysical opinions, pretty uniformly believe in a utilitarian ethics based on SCIENCE!, have read and been converted by all these evangelical texts revealing the TRUTH!, have social gatherings where they talk about how awesome but oppressed they are, and if you are hilarious maybe their internet debates count as religious rituals, and debunking your first stupid fundie a rite of initiation

they sicken me

but are fascinating to study

i posted the troll post a while ago before getting back on the road

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1#p3613371




btw, thanas, if you're still reading this, it's a troll not because i think the post is bad, but because i think the responses will be funny and/or pathetic like your posts were


and also "stop trolling" is possibly the worst thing you can say to a troll. the point is to get responses..... so by responding, you just

FED THE TROLL


and doubly so that again, i don't see the posts as bad; i have some defense in mind for them, so by dismissing it, you just provoked a second (trivially easy) post too, without making me expend any of my real ammunition. i have the confidence to do this too since my ammunition still gives at least one fairly serious post back there; if you comply with the order to answer the points, i won't be caught with my pants down


the trick is to either a) ignore the troll (if I post a reminder of it without prompting, that's bad form and might be against the board rules depending on the situation) or b) have a sufficiently smart rebuttal that my planned response isn't good enough, meaning i have to actually put thought into the next post (or concede it) which might just not be worth it anymore

(b) is the idealized sdn way. you know, win the fucking debate or get the troll to make enough fallacies and broken record shit to ban them on the grounds of debating rules.

or, you could use the green name and pull in option c) give a direct order to shut up*. As a mod, you have the power under the rules to silence somebody and then oppress anyone who questions that decision, and continue to silence anyone who questions these rules, so it's a fairly effective tool, in the short term at least.


*note that "stop trolling" and "shut up" aren't the same thing. "stop trolling" just means edit out some shit.



anywho so if you're gonna feed the troll at least feed the troll some kind of poison

y'know instead of sugar

but that thread is making me want to re-read

THE HUMANIST INHERITANCE

i had to laugh at the 'humanism' response when chocky asked what moral codes atheists follow (i'm pretty sure i'd never heard of secular humanism until a few years ago, and i've been an atheist for awhile now)

i almost kind of wish i hadn't banned myself so i could troll the shit out of that thread

then i read one of chockle's posts and quickly get over that urge

Zod wrote:i had to laugh at the 'humanism' response when chocky asked what moral codes atheists follow (i'm pretty sure i'd never heard of secular humanism until a few years ago, and i've been an atheist for awhile now)

i almost kind of wish i hadn't banned myself so i could troll the shit out of that thread

then i read one of chockle's posts and quickly get over that urge

That was my post. What's funny about it? That's what many atheists use as a moral guide. he asked what atheists use as their moral code and I answered. But he's hell bent on assuming that atheists only have morality because of the remnants of religious morality they learned about prior to changing beliefs.