Total posts: 4,276
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
it would require more effort as scum
It requires the same amount of effort, actually less as scum since I can just make things up. I don't know why it was ever a town tell, but I wasn't going to complain. Plus if I ever planned on using it again, I would have to keep it up as scum.
Also I literally got lynched while doing the percentages thing so what do people even want??
Created:
Posted in:
I wasnt in the game, banana replaced me. Lol
Fair enough. That was more frustration aimed at the people lynching me day 1, because you're not the first person to go after me for those reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
Savant has no logic andnyet is an extremly logical town player previously in the 2 games I properly observed him in.
"Why isn't Savant acting like he did in the last game???"
You mean the game where you lynched me day 1 for acting "scummy"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
If this is 7-2.One is bullshitting
So we lynch RM, if he's town the game is solved and we lynch WyIted and Pie.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Savant. Trust.
This sounds like a campaign slogan, but you're missing the last two adjectives. "Vote Savant. Trust. Accountability. Experience."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
You both could be scum. He could be tpLess likely but possible.I think there is a pretty solid 50/50 with him or rm though
There's not a 50% chance of a WyIted/Pie team lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
@earth - is there third parties
He's not gonna answer that, and you know it. Which makes this look like it's purely done for town cred.
Created:
Posted in:
If Mikal's town I think he's gonna carry, so I'm fine sheeping him. If he's wrong twice (or maybe once), I'll be fine going after him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That makes no sense
If they lynch you, claiming your role doesn't help with POE. They're going to see it anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
you get lynched, but it helps their POE
It helps anyway after they lynch you and see your role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
If this is why you have 60% win rate that makes sense. For WR, do you include games where town loses but you don't consider it your fault? Cause if not that's kind of fudging the numbers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
exonerate yourself
And if they don't believe your claim? Also you never know if they're bluffing or if they'll actually lynch you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
if you are town, you are throwing
So if you lynch a townie it's their fault? Lol I can't even.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
No, I’m just not full claiming until I feel like it’s optimal and if you want to lynch me for it. By all means.
See, I should have come around to this attitude earlier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
No, not until I want. And I will refuse to claim it even harder under pressure. I really don’t care if I get lynched
Well, I can't blame you since I literally just decided to start using the same strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
you know I really do not give a fuck
So you never claim your role?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
I want a full claim from you next. Barely played with you, so I can't read you behaviorally.
VTL Mikal
Created:
Posted in:
Also Savant joined a bw for 0 reason yet
Cause you blocked me and then expected me to collaborate on something? Like what happens when I send an important message and you miss it?
Created:
Posted in:
That was honestly a reaction test
Hmm...reaction tests are scummy.
Unvote
Created:
Posted in:
VTL AdaptableRatman
I'm not going to blindly trust AdaptableRatman here if I can't even tag him to communicate. Gonna vote him over WyIted until AR unblocks me.
Created:
Posted in:
*won't be role claiming. I'll character claim though if need be.
Created:
Posted in:
Just gonna come out and say this now: I won't be claiming dp1 for the forseeable future. If you lynch me and I'm scum, good for you. If you lynch me and I've the doctor or the beloved princess, don't expect a warning beforehand.
I'm usually forced to claim pretty early. That often means I get lynched unless I have a power role, and claiming a power role off the bat takes the fun out of having it. So if I have a power role and people scum read me, I'd rather just be lynched and then people stop getting so comfortable lynching me day 1.
Also, I won't be doing the percentages thing, it's way too time consuming. If that means I get policy lynched, so be it.
Created:
The correct response to abusive or scummy behaviour is to be intolerant of it.
That's why we lynch people for being scummy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
FBI field offices label Catholics as radicals and an internal threat
Wasn't Biden supposedly Catholic himself?
Created:
Posted in:
This utterly vile troll is trying to frame me for something I didnt do. Give 2 week ban please.
It's a joke, hence why I didn't tag the mods...obviously the entirety of DART isn't just one user multi-accounting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
That is a bannable offense.
Fair enough. Mods, ban my alt account (AdaptableRatman).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
We're the same user, there's no need to argue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Based on profile pic and a recent unban, I think death23 evaded his ban on Owen_T and decided he cant guarantee he masks a decice/IP match between those 2.
That's because the entirety of DART is just one user multi-accounting.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This is really nothing more than an attempt to equivocate by rendering the term fascism meaningless.
I'd argue that if most politicians are as authoritarian as Trump, then using the term fascist to describe him does render the term meaningless, or at least reduces its meaning to a great extent.
a leader whose entire political identity is built around the core features of fascist ideology
You picked a few examples, but I don't think it's fair to say Trumps entire political identity is built around them. Most of these things are in response to the protests in LA. I'm sure you would say similar things about his responses to the BLM protests/riots, but Trump didn't use those to become a dictator, and his actions then are largely disconnected from his actions now. If the idea is that this is all part of a plan to become a dictator, then there's not an observable multi-step plan yet, just a potential one.
FDR authorized internment camps (a terrible abuse of power) but that was a single policy during wartime
It's also only one example. Expanding the court was stretching his power, and he broke precedent by running for more than two terms. Some would argue the draft was authoritarian. Which made him a potential fascist, since people at the time had no way of knowing how much he would try to expand his power.
building movements to dismantle democratic institutions or install themselves as unaccountable rulers
See, this is where I think Trump is held to a different standard than the other presidents mentioned. When they were in power, FDR and Lincoln would have been accused of the same thing for court packing and fighting to preserve the Union. But they never made themselves dictators, so you can't call them fascist in hindsight, and you couldn't call them actual fascists at the time. There are leaders like Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin who did authoritarian things and then became dictators, but you don't know which leader is going to become a Hitler and who's going to just be an FDR until the complete takeover happens. Trump is a potential fascist, he's not an actual fascist until he becomes a dictator. And most politicians are potential fascists to some extent.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Fascist? Sure, if you're broad with the term. Fascist doesn't just mean evil, it's a specific brand of authoritarianism. For example, was Genghis Khan a fascist, despite the fascist movement not officially forming until long after his death? He certainly did a lot of things we would call fascist today. So it's not really objectively measurable any more than you can objectively measure whether someone is secretly a Republican or a Democrat. Sometimes it's just what party they're registered as.
Trump isn't the first president to take aggressive military actions or challenge the checks and balances on his office, nor the first politician to stretch the law to attack his political opponents. Maybe it's simply the case that Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, Lincoln, Truman, and FDR are all fascists, but if one authoritarian action makes someone a fascist, then I'm not sure how useful the term is, or how consistent it is with how other political descriptors are used. Does promoting socialized medicine make someone a socialist if they support the free market in some other respects?
So in just the past week Trump has deployed the US military onto US streets
Is that fascist? An appeals court temporarily allowed this, so I think that's a stretch.
endorsed his administration arresting the governor of California, and said anyone who protests his birthday parade will be met with force, publicly pressured a news organization to fire a journalist for saying mean things about Trump
Sure, let's grant that this is authoritarian. I think the bar for fascism is probably higher than that, given that he's not the first president to make vague and likely unenforceable threats.
arrested a sitting US senator for the crime of asking a question at a press conference.
He said he wasn't arrested. But sure, let's grant that forcibly removing him from a building is authoritarian.
Are we seriously still pretending this isn't everything the left said about Trump during the campaign that you all claimed was just TDS?
Everything the left said? So Trump has banned all abortions and put all gay people in death camps?
I'd say Trump is more authoritarian than some presidents and less authoritarian than others. Arguably FDR (or any president to fight a world war) has a better claim to being fascist than Trump. If we're calling Trump fascist for what he's doing now, you definitely can't give a pass to FDR for internment camps or to Washington for owning slaves or to Abraham Lincoln for forcing Native Americans out of their land. But who knows, maybe they're all fascist. I definitely think you could make a case that they were all evil to some extent (imo, this depends a lot on whether they sincerely believed their actions were justified). For fascism, it's all a matter of where you draw the line, and we've been pretty generous to presidents up to this point.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Politicians are scared of open violence because their perceived legitimacy rests in large part on the state's promise to offer security against violence
As long as they oppose the violence sufficiently, they're fine. FDR got reelected three times, and he had to deal with WW2. Violence can cause people to rally around the flag.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
by electing Abraham Lincoln who positioned himself as someone who would appease the abolitionists while keeping the union together
Keeping the union together was about appeasing politicians and state militias, not disorganized rioters. If some group actually has a chance of overthrowing the government, that's a different situation.
Because the riots did not break the morale of the people, but in theory it is possible and it has happened before and elsewhere.
If you can overpower the government, sure. But that requires a competing state or de-facto state.
push something into political relevancy you've gained political advantage through violence
Relevancy is not an advantage if it mostly encourages people to oppose you.
Stonewall riots
Refusing to cooperate with the police and trying to rescue detainees galvanized the cause, sure. Plus the fact that the building they destroyed was owned by the Mafia, who aren't really innocent victims. But I'm not convinced that burning taxis and going after people who aren't attacking you has the same effect.
Of course they focus on their own losses and enemy attack in propaganda. That's a simple principle of propaganda and has nothing to do with the dynamic.
Propaganda is the dynamic. We're talking about how normies move to one side or the other when they see violence. If something is mainly effective propaganda for the other side, it doesn't help your cause.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Grocery businesses keep inflating their costs to ridiculously expensive prices. Perhaps people robbing and vandalising their stores might get them to drop their rates.
If you want to cause them bad press, you would have to dress up as a grocery store owner before you riot.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
People wanted to appease the abolitionist by throwing them a bone.
By trying to secede from the union?
Normies watch 5 minutes of TV or listen to 5 minutes of radio and they think they know what's going on. Those are the people who can be shifted out of apathy by riots. In 1860s they read a newspaper once a week.
You think normies see a riot and say "we should compromise with domestic terrorists"? That's certainly not how they reacted after the BLM riots, or after January 6th. The longer the violence went on, the less support that faction got.
Looks pointedly at all the pro Hamas demonstrations.
Do you think pro-Hamas violence is what made people want to compromise with Palestinians? Like, Israel invading Gaza after October 7th was Israel's way of throwing Hamas a bone? People being pro Hamas causes pro-Hamas violence, not the other way around.
When Palestinians want people to throw them a bone, do they focus on Israeli violence or Palestinian violence?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
compromise' that the south would never have agreed to if there weren't so many people tired of the constant chaos
This is always a strange take to me. People wanted to end slavery so abolitionists would stop rioting? The reasons for wanting to end slavery were partly economic and partly moral, but I'm not sure any pro-slavery people were flipped to the other side because of riots. Like, everyone expects other people to respond this way to their riots, but is there any policy you thought should be passed to appease rioters? Most people understand that appeasing terrorists invites more terrorism, so if it was a policy I was on the fence about, I'd be inclined not to appease the rioters.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Cause so much chaos that people can't take it anymore, zone out, do the #fatigue, and your side can fill the power vacuum and pretend like a compromise with the extremists is the fastest way to "calm things down"
i.e. overthrowing the government. I think we're on the same page with that not being a realistic goal (or a goal at all) of the protests.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Problem isn't you is it?If someone reads this and goes out and acts based on it, then what?Should a site brainwash the vulnerable into dangerous ideas?
Any information can be dangerous if used by the wrong person. A computer manual can be used by a hacker, for instance. Most people on this site are opposed to domestic terrorism, so them having this information probably does more harm to the domestic terrorists than good by revealing certain tactics.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Domestic terrorism propaganda
I didn't say "go be violent," I said violence can be effective in rare cases. Is that not true? Plus, the entire post is about how current violent protestors are so ineffective that they'd do better trying the exact opposite of what they're doing currently.
Created:
Some studies have found that nonviolent protests are more likely to extract government concessions than violent protests.
Critics will often suggest that to be effective, protests must at least have the threat of violence behind them. Presumably, if politicians are scared that you might riot, then they will do whatever you want. What's never explained is why any politician would care about violence that doesn't affect them. Why would a politician care if I burn down a random person's car? Usually politicians just care about votes, and violent protestors have worse optics.
However, three potential justifications for violent action instantly come to mind:
(a) Burning down cars makes other people agree with your political positions.
(b) Politicians are scared of random people's cars being burned down.
(c) The violent protestors are planning to do something that actually threatens politicians, like overthrowing the US government.
I don't see much historical support for (a) and (b). Specifically with (a), burning down cars might in some sense raise awareness, but if most people disapprove of the violence, it would be an overall political loss. In the United States, the odds of overthrowing the government seem rather slim and not even like the aim of the protests, so that justification doesn't make much sense either.
So, despite all this, why do I say violent protests can be effective? It seems rather obvious that everyone has been going about this the wrong way. Protestors would be effective if they violently protested for causes they disagree with. Perhaps some already are. Why shoot yourself in the foot when you could shoot your opponent in the foot?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The only people who love unconditionallyare men.
Mothers who die for their children don't love them unconditionally?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Fishchaser has actually improved a lot from his type1
FishChaser was Type1???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
Yeah I just found it, but I was looking at dp3 earlier. Yeah, no exclamation mark, but maybe that's me nitpicking, since she's clearly expressing surprise. The exclamation marks always come off more scripted though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Casey_Risk
Found the cc in Russian mafia, see above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
1. It wasn't a direct CC, which if scum she could have done .
Again, what makes you think she read the whole thread before then and even thought it was a cc?
2. It makes her look bad if she CC'es and mharman/you aren't lying, whats the scum strategy here?
Yeah but she still gets a mislynch at the cost of "looking bad."
3. The same thing happened in russian mafia when she was town CC'ing earth, so its more likely shes just telling the truth again here.
But that was a direct cc, here banana is saying maybe their roles are similar and also probably didn't even realize it was a cc. Her reaction doesn't indicate she realized that until someone else pointed it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Casey_Risk
you pounced on her a bit opportunistically right off of earths comment supporting you, earth who is also in my POE
Earth is my second scum read, but if we're gonna get a lynch today, we need all the votes we can get.
that game be when she felt she had a CC on Earth at the end of DP1?
Don't remember that one. Did she use an exclamation mark?
Created: