|
DynamicSloth posted:All true, but it needs to be emphasized Brooks inhabited a world that universally hailed him as a hero until his dying breath. He was re-elected in an explicit endorsement of the Senate beating. No one in the South gave a poo poo about him dodging a northern duel any more then they were bothered by him beating a defenseless man, they had a different concept of honour. On the plus side, he choked to death in horrifying spasms of terror and pain, trying to claw open his own throat to get air.
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Phenotype posted:So I don't know where else to bitch about this, but it seems like Elon finally managed to gently caress Twitter into an unusable state a couple days ago. I think it was just Thursday my feed started getting inundated with no-name right-wingers, mostly bluechecks, and I've spent a day or two going through and hitting "Not interested > Show less posts from this user" on every third tweet. And they still keep coming. I gotta think this is just what he intended all along, for every couple posts to be like "*retweets any black person doing anything wrong* and that's why DEI doesn't work" or "im gonna piss a lot of people off but Jan 6 was a huge hoax." It's just such a distinct change that it's hard to believe that it isn't intentional. That's weird; my feed, as usual, is showing me all the lefties I follow like Ken Klippenstein, Rania Khalek & Max Blumenthal. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
There’s a thread for the enshittification of social media in general and Twitter in particular somewhere in D&D
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:
No idea. The time to get out was def spring ‘22 when he announced the buy. Blissfully unaware of the how X is going.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
That said, people existing in 2024 that are somehow just now discovering that Twitter is run by Elon Musk, explicitly to serve Nazis, seems like it belongs here because I imagine these are the exact people responding to all the polls in here that raise peoples' blood pressures.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
My twitter is just art from all the art accounts I follow.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 19:05
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Brooks sucks and all, but not going to a duel is the right move because duels are dumb as poo poo. Not traveling to a different country so some guy can try and shoot him to death is probably the only smart thing Brooks ever did. He initiated the duel and then backed out when he realized he was going to get owned in it, which makes him an honorless coward. Your construction makes it sound like he declined the duel instead of proposing it and then backing out when he realized he was actually going to have to duel, this is a weird argument/position.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:So I don't know where else to bitch about this, There's the Tech Nightmare thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3763277&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 It could be you've just found yourself in an /ab test, or just the slow collapse reaching you before others.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Brooks sucks and all, but not going to a duel is the right move because duels are dumb as poo poo. Not traveling to a different country so some guy can try and shoot him to death is probably the only smart thing Brooks ever did. Brooks demanded it of Burlingame, not the other way around. Brooks could just as easily have responded to Burlingame through his own media pieces, but instead he said "I demand you come to a place where I am legally allowed to kill you." Brooks was perfectly happy to participate in duels, as long they were duels he was guaranteed to win, and if the terms of the duel had Brooks at an advantage, Brooks would've gleefully killed Burlingame. That's not intelligence for functioning in society, that's being a piece of poo poo and he deserved to be publically shot in the face for it. eta: I don't disagree with you on principle for dueling. It's illegal for good reasons. And if someone shittalks you in a newspaper, the right thing to do is handling it through the many nonviolent means that exist to resolve or defuse the situation. My issue in this situation is if someone's going to take that stance they can't also go around challenging people to duels, then weigh their odds and decide to only go through with it if they think they'll win. DynamicSloth posted:All true, but it needs to be emphasized Brooks inhabited a world that universally hailed him as a hero until his dying breath. He was re-elected in an explicit endorsement of the Senate beating. No one in the South gave a poo poo about him dodging a northern duel any more then they were bothered by him beating a defenseless man, they had a different concept of honour. That's a fair point and sucks. Dopilsya fucked around with this message at 20:14 on May 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
TaintedBalance posted:He initiated the duel and then backed out when he realized he was going to get owned in it, which makes him an honorless coward. Your construction makes it sound like he declined the duel instead of proposing it and then backing out when he realized he was actually going to have to duel, this is a weird argument/position. I just hate duels as a concept so much that it prevents me from thinking rationally. They're not honorable! They're dumb!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 20:49
|
|
