theone86's forum posts

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

54

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#1 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@leicam6 said:
@jeezers said:

Nationalists and Globalists are words for 2 different ideologies, It doesn't make someone a white supremacist. come on, your jumping the shark

It would be like me saying anyone who calls someone a nationalist.... is a communist/marxist. lets not do that

"Globalist" isn't an ideology that anyone practises in the US government or elsewhere. Rather, the phrase "globalist" is a dog whistle phrase to mean Jew used by antisemitic groups. It's why you'll only ever see the term "globalist" these days said by the alt-right and other far-right movements. It's a term that is meant to signal the old far-right myth about a global Jewish conspiracy and world order.

"Many of these early uses of the term "globalist" in American English were pejorative uses by marginal political groups like the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis, and in related anti-Semitic works like Henry Ford's The International Jew."

It has now been brought back because of the global prevalence of far-right ideologies and white supremacy, particularly in the US and Europe. Learning the history of words is important to understanding their present uses.

It's actually starting to work its way into the rhetoric of the mainstream Republican party, which is immensely frightening all on its own. Trump, Mick Mulvaney, Ann Coulter, and Tucker Carlson have all used the word in a derogatory manner, and the Republican Party doesn't seem to be pushing back much. Even though many of them have voiced support for international cooperation in the past, most of them seem to be lining up to defend Trump rather than calling him out on things like these.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

54

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@AFBrat77 said:
@theone86 said:

@jeezers: The kids give me hope for the future. Honestly, when I get really depressed from fighting with Boomers I usually think to myself: at least the next generation is turning out alright.

@AFBrat77 said:

@theone86:

You need to learn to count....none of the microgenerations are 4 years, each is 5 as I stated. None are eleven. My point is, you aren't born on the last day of say Baby Boomers and those born next day are Generation X, that's ridiculous. They are way too different. Same goes between X and Millennials and Millennials and Z.....there are real generations between. I can easily be called Gen X also, as 1961 is also used as an X starting point. But Generation Jones is a real thing and we know it. Even the Boomers know we aren't part of their hippie/Vietnam/I love JFK crowd, we came of age in the late 70's and yeah we were the generation at the vanguard of the PC movement. We had nothing to do with those born late 40's.

Ditto for Xennials, grew up with analog until high school and things went digital.

Generations caught between.

I think you need to learn to count. 1959-1946=13 years; 1964-1960=4 years; 1976-1965=11 years.

I think most people realize that not every person born in a given year will exactly fit into that generation. In fact, most people realize that at the years closest to a generational border people are less likely to fit into one generation or the other. Most people say that President Obama is Gen X in spirit, even though he's technically a Boomer. That doesn't mean that we can invent these nonsensical and inconsistent categories to try to shoehorn people into, it doesn't solve the problem.

In fact, there are plenty of people who don't fit into your categories. I was born in 86, but I grew up with mostly analog technology. And as for the emergence of the PC, Wozniak was born in 1950, Jobs and Gates in 55. You weren't the vanguard of anything, you just happened to be around when companies started selling PCs as consumer products.

I believe you need to count, shall we do it together? Do I have to spell it out for you?

1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964

How many years is that? Its inclusive. You made similar mistakes each time. Thats 5 years.

You are discrediting yourself if you don't know basic math.

We were the first group to reach adulthood with mass-produced personal computers and we bought many of them. And you are right in one respect we happened to be the first ones with hands on personal computers. Thats a generation marker and an important break. First for videogames and arcades en masse.....generation marker leads into X. First rock music fans to break from traditional classic rock (punk, new-wave, post-punk, hardcore, and a new wave of hard rock led by groups like VanHalen, AC/DC, Boston, and Rush which had no tie-ins to psychedelia [Rush could get out there but not psychedia] or vietnam)......generation marker. Who do you think bought albums from those different music genres when they came out? Thats right, we did. The first wave of Classic Rock is defining to Baby Boomers but not us.

Boomers grew up with stove top ovens, corded phones, 8-track tapes, mostly black and white TV with a few stations.....we grew up with microwaves, cord-less phones, cassette players, VCR's, Pong, and colored TV's with MTV, HBO, ESPN, and CNN on cable. A whole different world. Vietnam, LBJ, JFK, The Beatles, Charles Manson, and Woodstock were way back in the rear view window. We were just entering our teens when Watergate happened and its probably why we are so cynical about politics. We came of age in the late 70's.

Our only tie-ins with Boomers are a big birthrate, which as I said earlier, is not a marker, that could happen for 40 years, would that then make Boomers a 40 year generation? Really? Oh, and we both loved Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, but then who doesn't? GenJones parents were almost always from the Silent Generation, Baby Boomers parents were mostly from the more militant "Greatest Generation" (Shadow Boomers could be either). Big difference in parenting. Its not surprising Baby Boomers tended to rebel.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Obama was Generation Jones he said it himself. Most of my generation (1960-1964) knew we weren't a part of Boomers years ago but most gave up on that and moved on. Cultural experts have always tried to figure out where to put us, Xennials are in the same boat between the next 2 generations. Generation X, I might add also often is stated as starting in 1961 but I don't feel we fit there either. None of us there do. A partial fit with X but we were more optimistic and less "latch-key". I do like people from X though, as I do shadow boomers. I can relate to both of them. The 1946-1964 Boomer designation is an old outdated concept constructed by people in Greatest Generation and Silent Generation to lump kids together as big population targets for future advertising.

Birthrate alone is not a generation marker. That doesn't tie people together. I will agree with you that not every person per year will necessarily fit my generation description but I did my best with the Poll to make sense of it all. There is no shoe-horning, I'm basically giving an assessment on where dividing lines probably should be. If you have a different vision well feel free to make your poll if you wish.

The only generations I constructed were Rock and Roll generation and Millenials 2 and to me they both make sense. Rock and Roll generation enters into high school with Rock and Roll and thats a major generation break with the concept of the teenager as a separate entity. Interestingly, nearly all the great 60's Rock music icons were born in the Rock and Roll micro-generation. M2 is about where the '92-'96 group enters high school with social media making an impact, again, I think thats a major development and probably a big reason why your generation feels different from the 90's Millenials. The 1992-1996 Millenials (Zennials?) seem caught between 2 generations like any other micro-generation. Again, many sources have the major generations starting where I have them placed. But you don't switch major generations overnight!

Generation Jones

Generation Jones 2

But probably the best article I've seen on Generation Jones is called "Not MYGeneration" by The Chronicle of Higher Education, it explains the division. Couldn't link it.

Links above are a more liberal view of Generation Jones than mine (2nd one even includes 8-track tapes that the Shadow Boomers had), it includes the Shadow Boomers (1955-1959), I've always felt Shadow boomers were a bit of a break off from classic Boomers (1945-1954) because they were too young for 'Nam and Woodstock, but they remember the late 60's well and they always worshipped original classic Rock, many Shadow Boomers seemed to embrace Disco like Boomers, but we didn't and we were too young for the clubs then anyways....so I think the 1955-1959 group are still Boomers. They did not grow up with technology like we did.

Basically put, Generation Jones knows the 1980's like Xennials (or Oregon Trail Generation) knew the 1990's......inside and out. Those from Generation Jones never reached their 30's until 1990.

OK, boomer. Wall of text much?

You're nit-picking on the years. There's still no consistency in your labelling of "micro-generations." One is, fourteen, one is five, and one is twelve. Your categorization is completely arbitrary and based completely on your own subjective perception of what milestones defined a generation and what ages were aware enough to have experienced them. It's a complete mess.

A large birthrate is extremely significant as it has long-reaching effects on economic trends, the health of various industries, distribution of goods, and our political system. That one generation had such a significant explosion of births in those years has shaped our society in the decades since, and will in the decades to come. I was reading a Fantastic Four comic from the sixties a while back where Reed Richards makes a comment about there being around three billion people on earth, now there's close to seven. Do you know how goddamned huge a spike like that is? Four billion people in about fifty years? It's extremely important to understand the baby boom generation in terms of the sheer numbers of Boomers who were born during that period. And they're not lumping Boomers together based on birthrate, they delineate generations in about a 20-25 year period. It's a fairly consistent metric, far more consistent than your "well, I think x cultural change happened here, so I'm going to start my new "micro-generation" here" metric.

There's no such thing as Generation Jones. I don't care if you read it in some obscure article you found somewhere that you can't even find now, it's not recognized by demographers.

As an aside, I find your fixation on perceived generational differences to be quite unhealthy. You seem to have an obsessive need to classify people based on your own subjective perceptions and then go into extremely minute detail about these subjective classifications. What bands each "micro-generation" liked, what video games, it's all bordering on the pathological. I'd honestly think about talking to someone about it if I were you.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

54

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@AFBrat77 said:
@theone86 said:

@jeezers: The kids give me hope for the future. Honestly, when I get really depressed from fighting with Boomers I usually think to myself: at least the next generation is turning out alright.

@AFBrat77 said:

@theone86:

You need to learn to count....none of the microgenerations are 4 years, each is 5 as I stated. None are eleven. My point is, you aren't born on the last day of say Baby Boomers and those born next day are Generation X, that's ridiculous. They are way too different. Same goes between X and Millennials and Millennials and Z.....there are real generations between. I can easily be called Gen X also, as 1961 is also used as an X starting point. But Generation Jones is a real thing and we know it. Even the Boomers know we aren't part of their hippie/Vietnam/I love JFK crowd, we came of age in the late 70's and yeah we were the generation at the vanguard of the PC movement. We had nothing to do with those born late 40's.

Ditto for Xennials, grew up with analog until high school and things went digital.

Generations caught between.

I think you need to learn to count. 1959-1946=13 years; 1964-1960=4 years; 1976-1965=11 years.

I think most people realize that not every person born in a given year will exactly fit into that generation. In fact, most people realize that at the years closest to a generational border people are less likely to fit into one generation or the other. Most people say that President Obama is Gen X in spirit, even though he's technically a Boomer. That doesn't mean that we can invent these nonsensical and inconsistent categories to try to shoehorn people into, it doesn't solve the problem.

In fact, there are plenty of people who don't fit into your categories. I was born in 86, but I grew up with mostly analog technology. And as for the emergence of the PC, Wozniak was born in 1950, Jobs and Gates in 55. You weren't the vanguard of anything, you just happened to be around when companies started selling PCs as consumer products.

I believe you need to count, shall we do it together? Do I have to spell it out for you?

1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964

How many years is that? Its inclusive. You made similar mistakes each time. Thats 5 years.

You are discrediting yourself if you don't know basic math.

We were the first group to reach adulthood with mass-produced personal computers and we bought many of them. And you are right in one respect we happened to be the first ones with hands on personal computers. Thats a generation marker and an important break. First for videogames and arcades en masse.....generation marker leads into X. First rock music fans to break from traditional classic rock (punk, new-wave, post-punk, hardcore, and a new wave of hard rock led by groups like VanHalen, AC/DC, Boston, and Rush which had no tie-ins to psychedelia [Rush could get out there but not psychedia] or vietnam)......generation marker. Who do you think bought albums from those different music genres when they came out? Thats right, we did. The first wave of Classic Rock is defining to Baby Boomers but not us.

Boomers grew up with stove top ovens, corded phones, 8-track tapes, mostly black and white TV with a few stations.....we grew up with microwaves, cord-less phones, cassette players, VCR's, Pong, and colored TV's with MTV, HBO, ESPN, and CNN on cable. A whole different world. Vietnam, LBJ, JFK, The Beatles, Charles Manson, and Woodstock were way back in the rear view window. We were just entering our teens when Watergate happened and its probably why we are so cynical about politics. We came of age in the late 70's.

Our only tie-ins with Boomers are a big birthrate, which as I said earlier, is not a marker, that could happen for 40 years, would that then make Boomers a 40 year generation? Really? Oh, and we both loved Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, but then who doesn't? GenJones parents were almost always from the Silent Generation, Baby Boomers parents were mostly from the more militant "Greatest Generation" (Shadow Boomers could be either). Big difference in parenting. Its not surprising Baby Boomers tended to rebel.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Obama was Generation Jones he said it himself. Most of my generation (1960-1964) knew we weren't a part of Boomers years ago but most gave up on that and moved on. Cultural experts have always tried to figure out where to put us, Xennials are in the same boat between the next 2 generations. Generation X, I might add also often is stated as starting in 1961 but I don't feel we fit there either. None of us there do. A partial fit with X but we were more optimistic and less "latch-key". I do like people from X though, as I do shadow boomers. I can relate to both of them. The 1946-1964 Boomer designation is an old outdated concept constructed by people in Greatest Generation and Silent Generation to lump kids together as big population targets for future advertising.

Birthrate alone is not a generation marker. That doesn't tie people together. I will agree with you that not every person per year will necessarily fit my generation description but I did my best with the Poll to make sense of it all. There is no shoe-horning, I'm basically giving an assessment on where dividing lines probably should be. If you have a different vision well feel free to make your poll if you wish.

The only generations I constructed were Rock and Roll generation and Millenials 2 and to me they both make sense. Rock and Roll generation enters into high school with Rock and Roll and thats a major generation break with the concept of the teenager as a separate entity. Interestingly, nearly all the great 60's Rock music icons were born in the Rock and Roll micro-generation. M2 is about where the '92-'96 group enters high school with social media making an impact, again, I think thats a major development and probably a big reason why your generation feels different from the 90's Millenials. The 1992-1996 Millenials (Zennials?) seem caught between 2 generations like any other micro-generation. Again, many sources have the major generations starting where I have them placed. But you don't switch major generations overnight!

Generation Jones

Generation Jones 2

But probably the best article I've seen on Generation Jones is called "Not MYGeneration" by The Chronicle of Higher Education, it explains the division. Couldn't link it.

Links above are a more liberal view of Generation Jones than mine (2nd one even includes 8-track tapes that the Shadow Boomers had), it includes the Shadow Boomers (1955-1959), I've always felt Shadow boomers were a bit of a break off from classic Boomers (1945-1954) because they were too young for 'Nam and Woodstock, but they remember the late 60's well and they always worshipped original classic Rock, many Shadow Boomers seemed to embrace Disco like Boomers, but we didn't and we were too young for the clubs then anyways....so I think the 1955-1959 group are still Boomers. They did not grow up with technology like we did.

Basically put, Generation Jones knows the 1980's like Xennials (or Oregon Trail Generation) knew the 1990's......inside and out. Those from Generation Jones never reached their 30's until 1990.

OK, boomer. Wall of text much?

You're nit-picking on the years. There's still no consistency in your labelling of "micro-generations." One is, fourteen, one is five, and one is twelve. Your categorization is completely arbitrary and based completely on your own subjective perception of what milestones defined a generation and what ages were aware enough to have experienced them. It's a complete mess.

A large birthrate is extremely significant as it has long-reaching effects on economic trends, the health of various industries, distribution of goods, and our political system. That one generation had such a significant explosion of births in those years has shaped our society in the decades since, and will in the decades to come. I was reading a Fantastic Four comic from the sixties a while back where Reed Richards makes a comment about there being around three billion people on earth, now there's close to seven. Do you know how goddamned huge a spike like that is? Four billion people in about fifty years? It's extremely important to understand the baby boom generation in terms of the sheer numbers of Boomers who were born during that period. And they're not lumping Boomers together based on birthrate, they delineate generations in about a 20-25 year period. It's a fairly consistent metric, far more consistent than your "well, I think x cultural change happened here, so I'm going to start my new "micro-generation" here" metric.

There's no such thing as Generation Jones. I don't care if you read it in some obscure article you found somewhere that you can't even find now, it's not recognized by demographers.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

54

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@jeezers said:
@theone86 said:
@leicam6 said:

@burntbyhellfire: lmao, the NY Times “discredited”. Really poor attempt at deflection. If you don’t believe it there’s a lot more reporting out there on the same exact topic. Heck, they even broke the Clinton email server news first... were they discredite d then?

But yeah, people like you are way too far gone to take seriously.

How to spot a white supremacist 101: They use the word "globalist" as a slur.

Nationalists and Globalists are words for 2 different ideologies, It doesn't make someone a white supremacist. come on, your jumping the shark

It would be like me saying anyone who calls someone a nationalist.... is a communist/marxist. lets not do that

Nope. People who decry globalism are part of a toxic cesspool that attempts to mix real economic insecurity with fear of the other and, surprise surprise, often turn that angst against minorities. It is hauntingly familiar to the way early fascist movements operated and I am having none of it. And communists were not nationalists. The USSR, in fact, was attempting to perpetuate a brand of global communism that emphasized cooperation, solidarity, and a common cause between disparate nations. Fascism specifically labelled itself NATIONAL socialism to distinguish it from communism, which it saw as, among other things, inadequately dedicated to the "national character" of a given country. Both nationalism and opposition to globalism are markers of a return to a toxic ideology that should've stayed buried in the last century.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

54

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#5 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@burntbyhellfire said:
@theone86 said:
@burntbyhellfire said:
@theone86 said:

Ah, so might makes right? Jawohl, dude.

He is not a second or third string quarterback, he was a STARTING QUARTERBACK on a PLAYOFF TEAM. This is a league where second string quarterbacks are often given large contracts just based on the fact that they don't completely suck. Just this past week the Jaguars benched their starter, who used to be the quarterback of the future for a whole different team. Teams will grasp at any straw to get a good quarterback, except, like I said, one who kneels.

What happens if it starts becoming bad for business to point to the sky? Are you going to advocate for the league to shut down players' freedom of expression in the name of profits, or are you going to throw a shit fit over freedom of religion?

reality makes it right, michael vick wasnt nearly as much of a toxic distraction to the rest of the locker room as kaepernick is

kaepernick has only kaepernick to blame for the outcome of kaepernicks career

And you live in an alternate reality. Vick was a huge distraction with multiple media outlets reporting on him non-stop. GMs and scouts have outright said that Kaepernick is talented enough to start and that he was pushed out of the league due to kneeling. And again, Vick was a CRIMINAL convicted of a criminal offense, Kaepernick made a small statement with an innocuous gesture. Just the fact that you're comparing the two proves my point.

at least vick had the balls to show up for a tryout, not to cancel at the last minute then whine about it.. vick did his time in jail, rehabilitated, worked hard, and got back into the game, will kaepernick cut out on the crap that's keeping him from playing? all kaepernick has to do is grow up, stop acting like a victim, work hard, and do his job, leave the personal shit off the field, but he cant, he will bring drama with him, it will alienate fans of whichever team he goes to, and it'd be a distraction in the locker room, nobody wants to deal with that, and thats his fault alone

What we're debating is not what he could have done to get his job back, what we're debating is whether or not that's a fair expectation of him. Like I said previously, if pointing to the sky suddenly became bad business I'm sure a lot of people defending the league would all of the sudden start defending religious expression. And as I also said, there are plenty of players who are all far less talented than him that cause plenty of distractions and have been given second and third chances. We're comparing someone who made a political statement to players who have been convicted of criminal offenses, that alone proves my point.

@ad1x2 said:
@theone86 said:

Ah, so might makes right? Jawohl, dude.

He is not a second or third string quarterback, he was a STARTING QUARTERBACK on a PLAYOFF TEAM. This is a league where second string quarterbacks are often given large contracts just based on the fact that they don't completely suck. Just this past week the Jaguars benched their starter, who used to be the quarterback of the future for a whole different team. Teams will grasp at any straw to get a good quarterback, except, like I said, one who kneels.

What happens if it starts becoming bad for business to point to the sky? Are you going to advocate for the league to shut down players' freedom of expression in the name of profits, or are you going to throw a shit fit over freedom of religion?

You keep ignoring all of the other things I mentioned such as him wearing pig socks (great way to lose fans that aren’t anti-law enforcement) and keep going back to saying it’s all about the kneeling while hinting that a sprinkling of racism is involved. Like I said earlier, 200 players kneeled the day after a 2017 Trump rally when he said what he really feels about players that kneel during the National Anthem. Were 200 players fired that season for kneeling?

Face facts, team owners don’t think Kap is worth the drama he may potentially bring. And we’re supposed to feel sorry for him after his antics he pulled after he opted out of his 49ers contract? The same guy that got a multi-million dollar contract from Nike last year? Who was also invited to the grand opening of Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta and was in eyesight of such celebrities as Will Smith and Oprah, as well as former President and Secretary of State Bill and Hillary Clinton?

But we’re supposed to think of him as oppressed for not being hired in a multi-billion dollar league that is 70 percent black and just nod our heads when he compares his issues getting back on an active NFL roster to the story of a slave that was repeatedly beaten and had part of his right foot cut off for rejecting his slave name and numerous other actions.

The pig socks are a non-issue. The NFL didn't make a big deal over them and, in fact, they barely got any media coverage at all. In fact, if you want to make an argument that this is simply about kneeling then there's no better example than the pig socks. They were fine, but threaten their patriotism for hire profit model and all of the sudden he's drummed out of the league. Anyway, the NFL could have done what it always does when someone violates its uniform policy and fine him. So much for right wingers having thick skin, BTW. I guess you snowflakes need your safe spaces, too.

Those other players were warned about kneeling and stopped when their livelihoods were threatened. Again, you keep making my argument for me.

If you don't like Kaepernick getting big Nike contracts and hob-knobbing with celebrities then maybe you shouldn't be trying to turn him into a pariah. If he hadn't been on the receiving end of all this right-wing outrage and out of a job then that wouldn't be the case. Typical right winger, you stir up controversy and then get mad when the person at the center of it decides to capitalize on it.

Rich people can be oppressed too. There are plenty of NFL players who voice their opinions and advocate for causes, some of them controversial, who never have to worry about their livelihoods being threatened. The fact that a black man speaking about black issues stands out as the one person who lost his job because of it shows that oppression still exists, and it should worry us all. If your argument is that he's got it made because he actually earns an income and the NFL didn't dismember him then, again, you're making my argument for me. "Sure, you're oppressed, but at least you're not a slave!" Worst argument ever.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

54

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#6 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@leicam6 said:

@burntbyhellfire: lmao, the NY Times “discredited”. Really poor attempt at deflection. If you don’t believe it there’s a lot more reporting out there on the same exact topic. Heck, they even broke the Clinton email server news first... were they discredited then?

But yeah, people like you are way too far gone to take seriously.

How to spot a white supremacist 101: They use the word "globalist" as a slur.

Anyway, on topic, there are a few very salient facts that distinguish Biden from any Trump spawn. For one, he headed a lobbying firm that he resigned from the day his father joined President Obama's campaign just to head off any possible appearance of corruption. Compare that with "I don't have to divest" Trump, and the difference is night and day. Two, Joe Biden was actually launching investigations into Ukrainian corruption and working hard to weed it out, not the actions of someone who's part of some conspiracy. Three, the prosecutor whom Republicans are trying to paint as a victim of the Bidens is under a cloud of corruption himself. In fact, that prosecutor was forced out of office, in part, for refusing to investigate Bursima, not for zealously going after it. Biden hasn't appeared to have benefited in any way from his father's political connections, as multiple investigative bodies have said time and again.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

54

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#8 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@pook99 said:

I think there are a lot of causes, some things that I see:

1) The internet has been mentioned a lot on here, I think the internet is the greatest double edged sword in the history of the world. My life is pretty good and I owe a lot of it to the internet, I met my wife on a dating site, when I moved away for a new job(that I found on the internet) I met all my real life friends on the internet, my recreational life is enhanced an infinite amount by it as well, I love having just about every video game/song/movie/tv show ever made just a click away, it makes relaxing really fun. I can honestly say my life has been enhanced in so many ways because of the internet.

The downside is equally huge, the internet causes a divisiveness that I have never seen before in my life. People join echo chambers of like minded people and try and pat themselves and their ideas on the back while completely demonizing those who disagree with them. Imagine living your life and believing that people who are not exactly like you are actually the enemy? Pretty horrific, but that is exactly what the internet has led to.

The internet also leads people to constantly seek attention from strangers, but it is meaningless and shallow and so they never feel fulfilled. No amount of views/likes/retweets etc will ever make you feel whole, but people constantly seek these things instead of deeper personal connections that can be made when you get out there and socialize with real people. The fact is that people need people, people need love, compansionship, and many people dont have these real world connections which leads to skyrocketing amounts of depression

The internet has also caused a tremendous spike in people who are either diagnosed/self-diagnosed with anxiety. I imagine the reason is that on the internet so many people act like jerks the average person probably then begins to perceive that people will act like that in real life as well, this causes people to have a tremendous amount of social anxiety, I get it, imagine if people in real life acted the way they do on the net? They don't, people in real life are generally nice and easy to get along with but in the internet generation that is often seen as not the case.

There is more but I have to end it on that note.

What makes you think that the internet caused all this? Could it perhaps be, oh I dunno, the emergence of a widely-viewed infotainment network that tells its viewers that people who think differently than them are causing the downfall of western civilization? What I found sadly hilarious reading your post was that you pretty much described the church community I grew up in, and these are the same types of people who go around blaming the internet for the downfall of society. And when I imagine people acting in real life the way they do on the internet do you know what comes to mind? My Fox News-addicted family members, who actually are tremendous jerks to most people they encounter in real life. Maybe you should open your mind to the possibility that some people are anxious because they actually have interacted with a fair number of real-life assholes. Just because you've had a fairly amiable experience doesn't mean that's necessarily the case for everybody.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

54

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#9 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@r-gamer said:

@theone86: At least trump supporters cleaned up the shithole.

I know for a fact that Trump doesn't brush his teeth.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

54

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#10 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@burntbyhellfire said:
@theone86 said:
@ad1x2 said:
@theone86 said:

The more you talk better my argument sounds. Michael Vick didn't have the stats of Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger either, yet he was allowed back into the league. In fact, if you're saying that the bar for being signed by a team if you have even a hint of controversy is that you have to be as good as a generational talent who just might be the best player ever in the game, then I think you again made my point for me. Not to mention that there are PLENTY of players who have done far worse and gotten far less punishment. Jayron Kearse, Anthony Chickillo, Tyrel Dodson, Ryan Griffen, Mark Walton, Trevor Bates, and those are just the cases from this year. You could seriously fill an entire minor league with players less talented than Kaepernick who were given second and third chances for less. Like I said, he was a STARTING QUARTERBACK on a PLAYOFF TEAM. That would be enough to get anyone a job on an NFL roster, unless they kneeled of course. Not to mention the elephant in the room, he didn't actually do anything wrong. These people, who are less talented than him, are getting in drunken brawls and assaulting their girlfriends, and you're saying he got what he deserved because he kneeled? That makes my argument for me perfectly.

And this absolutely is about the anthem. Several GMs and other sources have said as much, and that if he hadn't have kneeled he'd still be playing. Plenty more have said that he has the talent to be a starter, but no one is going to sign him. Yes, it's 2019, which is why crap like that is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if it's 2019, it doesn't matter if he plays in San Francisco. The owners made a collective decision to shut him out of the league because they're running a faux-patriotism factory first and a sports league second.

You’re trying to make this into some huge injustice over Kap wanting to flex his First Amendment rights, but the NFL doesn’t have to let him kneel if he wants a job just like McDonald’s doesn’t have to let a cashier wear a Black Lives Matter t-shirt at the register. Kneeling was not his only action that made him a risky acquisition, I already mentioned the pig socks and there are a few other things to include a recent visit he did at Alcatraz Island. He could possibly have a job right now if he showed up to a practice at the Falcon’s facility in Atlanta. But instead of coming to the event the NFL set up for him he decides to pull out at the last minute and play at a high school several miles away while wearing a Kunta Kinte shirt.

Well the message has been heard loud and clear: he has the First Amendment right to say what he wants and the NFL has the right as an employer to not hire him. Him implying that racism is the reason he’s not in the NFL is laughable when 70 percent of the players are black, with salaries averaging in the millions for many of them. 200 players, many of whom were black, kneeled the day after a Trump rally when the president said what he really felt about players that kneeled.

I’ll partially concede to your opinion that the kneeling seems to be a bigger problem to the NFL than the ones that have criminal records. But the reason why they may see it as a bigger deal now is because he is making it a bigger deal. Those team owners don’t want all of that drama over a second or third string quarterback. On the other hand, many of the players with records don’t bring their drama to the field.

Ah, so might makes right? Jawohl, dude.

He is not a second or third string quarterback, he was a STARTING QUARTERBACK on a PLAYOFF TEAM. This is a league where second string quarterbacks are often given large contracts just based on the fact that they don't completely suck. Just this past week the Jaguars benched their starter, who used to be the quarterback of the future for a whole different team. Teams will grasp at any straw to get a good quarterback, except, like I said, one who kneels.

What happens if it starts becoming bad for business to point to the sky? Are you going to advocate for the league to shut down players' freedom of expression in the name of profits, or are you going to throw a shit fit over freedom of religion?

reality makes it right, michael vick wasnt nearly as much of a toxic distraction to the rest of the locker room as kaepernick is

kaepernick has only kaepernick to blame for the outcome of kaepernicks career

And you live in an alternate reality. Vick was a huge distraction with multiple media outlets reporting on him non-stop. GMs and scouts have outright said that Kaepernick is talented enough to start and that he was pushed out of the league due to kneeling. And again, Vick was a CRIMINAL convicted of a criminal offense, Kaepernick made a small statement with an innocuous gesture. Just the fact that you're comparing the two proves my point.