SirAnonymous

So I'm working this out. If we mislynch here, Supa turns scum, and it's 4v3 next DP. Then we lynch Supa to turn him town and it's 4v2. That would be MYLO. Thus, we functionally have two mislynches, presuming the NKs go through.

So if we mislynch this DP, we lynch you next DP to turn you town. Good to know.

If the method he uses accurately replicates a 25% chance, then you will only have one successful ability every four NPs. Unless you're lucky, that won't be very useful.

That role is borderline useless with only a 25% chance of success.

What do you think of GP's statement that there's a 50% chance his role is fake?

The mod is talking in the DP. Well, whoopee.

What does that mean?

I hope that wasn't supposed to be a PM.

That sounds more like Noone to me.

Happy anniversary!

What prior experience do you have playing mafia?

That ain't none o' yer business. I got muh rights not to tell you. 'Murica!

We're in trouble.

Let the games begin!

Well, on a serious note, that's actually legal in the US so long as it isn't libelous.

Don't bother me with details. Facts have nothing to do with this.

Oh, you thought I was going to share my ideas with my competition? Heh heh. You wish.

Well, I guess that rules out Trump and Biden. Well done, you just ruined our election.

Wait a minute, ruling out Trump and Biden? That's a great idea! When do we start?

More seriously, I had a few laughs reading your work, even though I wasn't sure what was going on a lot of the time. In the back of my mind, though, I'm seething that you just gave me yet another thing to write about in an already news-filled month. On the plus side, now I've got some ideas...

Competition? Ha! No peasant can compete with me! Thou shalt rue the day you chose to challenge SirAnonymous and the DART Bard!

Sorry, no thanks. My duties as the Editor of the DART Bard are keeping me busy day in and day out. I don't have time for fun any more.

Ok, not really, but I am actually writing the next edition right now.

What's jackbox?

Sorry, live mafia's not my thing.

You got me there.

Yes, context is very important. Let's examine the context of your initial comparison:

There isn't a lot of context provided here. Yes, you could say that you technically didn't compare them beyond spewing lies and having cult-like followers. However, Trump is often directly compared to Hitler, and comparisons with Hitler are inherently charged to begin with. You didn't provide a lot of context, and it would be really easy to misunderstand what you meant. At the very least, you should be more careful with your words if you choose to compare them. Godwinning a thread is generally looked down on for a reason. There's almost always a better way to communicate your meaning without invoking Hitler, which serves little purpose beyond triggering people.

Does that mean that the existence of the first camera is just a hypothesis, since it couldn't take a photo of itself?

Why is the world crazy now? That question assumes that the world was ever sane.

Absolutely. It's too easy to blame the other side rather than take responsibility yourself. We won't make much progress if we're too busy hating each other.

Yeah, there are similarities. There are also similarities between kleptomaniacs and mass murderers. Both are criminals, neither care about how their crimes affect other people or even take some pleasure in it, both have mental problems, etc. However, it would be grossly inappropriate to compare the two. The kleptomaniac may share some negative qualities with the mass murderer, but the incredible differences in scale make such a comparison rather inappropriate. The same is true of Trump and Hitler.

I'm going to agree and disagree with both of you. Hitler was definitely incompetent at a great number of things, but he had a political savviness that Trump lacks. He read the French and English leaders excellently and was able to annex multiple countries while they sat on their hands. True, those guys weren't exactly hard to hoodwink, but it still required some ability to do it that easily. On the flip side, the comparisons between Trump and Hitler are ludicrous. Yes, there are a few superficial similarities, but it really diminishes the evil of Hitler and the crimes he perpetrated to compare him to Trump or Trump to him. Trump is narcissistic blowhard who's figured out how to trigger the media, to the glee of his fans. He seems to be in it for the attention and adulation he receives. Hitler was a genocidal maniac with delusions of conquering a European empire designed for the promotion of the "Aryan race". One is responsible for the Holocaust and for starting the European front of the bloodiest war in the history of humanity, and the other is not. Comparisons between the two are hyperbolic, hyperpartisan, and totally irresponsible.

When is this going to start?

After rereading my initial post, I realized that it looked like I was asking people to applaud you for the missing apostrophe. That was not my intent when I wrote the post. The round of applause was meant to be for the entire post and not the missing apostrophe, but I wrote it poorly. I apologize if I caused any offense.

I 100% agree. Minor errors like that shouldn't detract from what people say. Generally, I try to ignore them. For some reason, that one tickled my funny bone. I don't know why.

I hadn't thought of Trum Porter that way before, but you're not far off.

Simply amazing. I don't know why, but the missing apostrophe in the last sentence is the cherry on top. This is just incredible. Let's give the Brother a round of applause. 

That's funny, accurate, and sad all at the same time.

I don't think ethnic discrimination is ever justified. Cultural discrimination is situational. In most cases, it's wrong. However, there are times when it is not only permissible but also morally necessary to discriminate based on culture. This would happen in circumstances such as the Aztecs. I'm not going to tolerate human sacrifice just because it's their culture. Other examples would be India's treatment of the untouchables or Saudi Arabia's laws restricting women. That may be their culture, but it is still wrong. In most cases, though, I don't think cultural discrimination is justified. In my opinion, most aspects of culture don't have any moral dimension. It doesn't make a difference if burping is considered rude or polite. Taste in food, music, arts, and such things is subjective. Discriminating against someone based on cultural things like that is wrong. However, when culture leads people to do things that are clearly morally wrong, such as human sacrifice, then cultural discrimination is a moral imperative.

I should probably qualify that by saying that people are individuals. While Aztec culture promoted human sacrifice, that doesn't mean that all Aztecs participated in it or agreed with it. Thus, it would be wrong to discriminate against someone because the culture they are part of promotes morally wrong behavior. It would only be justified to discriminate against that individual if they participate in that behavior.

Of course, there are plenty of exceptions and qualifications I could add, but that would be unnecessary.

I'm pretty sure you tagged the wrong person there.

I do you one better: why is Ayyantu?

This is cruel and unusual punishment for grammar nerds! There is so much wrong with that sentence.

No thanks.

Umm...If you don't know, you're not missing out on anything.

That sounds good.

I like that skittlez likes knights.

I like Lemming's ability to see an issue from both sides. I like that he doesn't condemn people for disagreeing with him.

Lincoln-Douglas, I think.

I think nihilism is the best fit for purely naturalistic atheism, although I can see how it could be used to justify other forms of existentialism. If the natural realm is all there is, any meaning we try to give our lives is ultimately illusory. Nothing has any value in the end. We live, and we die.

Have you played before?

That's a good verse.

Calvinism sighting!