coal

I do what I can. 

I am told one of the mods is going to hack your CPU fan to make it super loud tonight. 

RM -

You are behaving like a child that wet his pants, and is now blaming everyone for the fact that you wet yourself.  Cease this conduct.  It is unbecoming. 

I told you that you would be angry, and you are.  Seems like I know you better than you think, RM.  

Further attempts to stoke conflict between you and I will fall flat though.  I simply don't care.  Rage all you like.  I have more important concerns, like when I'm going to take a shower.  Or whether I'll make earl gray, or green tea before I go to sleep.

Tooteloo. 

Good, that is as it should be.  No one should be scared of anyone, except of course the DDO Elite.  Those of us who remain do not like how things have changed here.

Drafterman and I have some ideas of how to set things in order. 

It seems you have forgotten your place in this arrangement.  

You report to me, when and to the degree I permit it.  Otherwise, you keep clear.

Calm your tits, kiddo.   I know RM has been bullying you and shit but I odn't really care what he says aboyut me.

I have no idea who you are, and have no need to reach into the resources of my cabal to find out.  

One of the moderators was making fun of RM for having "noodle arms" or whatever the hell that means.  

I am the one who knocks. 

So yes, there is a cabal of secret influence here just like on DDO.  The DDO elite are alive and well. 

If you question the scope of our influence, realize that we were able to get a meme that was circulated among certain users (one of whom is a moderator) after the HOF results.

I could post the meme... you would be offended though.  It's quite outrageous.

Even still, if you didn't see what I am talking about, you would be less inclined to believe I am not kidding when I say:  we are everywhere. 

I cannot reveal the sources or methods we used.  Our influence was all-encompassing.  It continues. 

Good because it wasn't offered.

7th is just my slave.  There is nothing about him that would imply he didn't volunteer for the position. 

The real truth is that we all tried to figure out who the moderators' pics for the HOF.  None of us actually cares who got in or not, but we profiled people based on their psychological characteristics.  Then, we sorted them into groups of people who could be influenced and who couldn't.  Then, we deployed operatives to get our preferred candidates in.

I think every member who has a facebook account was contacted off site in one or more ways.  We also accomplished our objective.  

Wylted will lead DART Brexit next. 

lol

It was every one of the inductees.  All of their votes were influenced by my coordination.

I am the puppet master.

RM had no involvement. 

Over the course of the past week or so, a group chat of old DDO users has been created on Facebook dot com. Through this group chat, I launched a campaign to get RM into the hall of fame. We got the ball rolling very early, pushing most of his early nomination votes. As things progressed we eased off and let the momentum we caused inspire other users to vote him of their own accord. I will say that he got enough nomination and final votes from non-malicious users to justify his placement in the HOF, but I cannot say what effect our early trolling had on giving him the momentum necessary. I apologize to bsh, RM, Mike, Supa, and all others impacted by our interference. I truly am sorry I was not able to let an election go by without meddling.

rofl

Glad we have sorted that out. 

He is a demon-possessed satan-elf? 

Oh stop your bitching.  Remember, this is YYW. 

There are THIS MANY SECRETARIES?

What the cinnamon toast fuck... absolute mental illness. 

Who even are you? 

This site like certain eras of leadership on DDO seems to have way too many bullshit titles and entirely too many seemingly eager but short-lived volunteers to fill them.  Looks like mental illness to me, love. 

What even are you talking about? 

What are you supposed to be?  A demon-possessed satan-elf? 

I legitimately do not care, I think that apologies like this are not needed in any circumstance, and there should be nothing wrong with discussing this site off-site as literally every member here does.

I would rather be beaten.

Not even interested in that.  I have enough drama in my life as it is.  That is why I read Russian literature.... to put my own life's drama in perspective. 

That's rough.

How much longer do you have before you graduate?

Have you thought about colleges yet?  If so, where are you wanting to apply?

That's rough.

How much longer do you have until you graduate?

have you taken the SAT/ACT yet?

what colleges are you thinking about?

lol

If you read my post, and you understood it... that should have clued you into the notion that safe spaces isn't what I'm interested in.  Ignorant child.

This has got to be the most idiotic thread I have ever seen, anywhere on the internet.  Even low grade shitposting on 8chan or on pol is less intellectually vacuous than this.

If you're going to insult liberals, at least TRY to put effort into it.  You instead may have just copied and pasted garbage from /r/the_donald's dimmest Luddites to populate this thread with content.  Absolute garbage. 

Everything about the drama on this site is weird and it disinclines me from participating.  

Have you graduated from high school yet? 

List of sexual fetishes? 

You can answer on Facebook if you don't want to answer here. 

>If you could advise Warren, what would you tell her she needs to do to beat Trump?

She needs to draw a direct line of contrast between herself and the rest of the DNC crowd.  She will do this both by affirmative doings, and things to avoid doing. 

What she needs to do is: (1) relentlessly stay on message that this election is about the future of America; (2) showcase the extent to which Trump has lied to and deceived the American people while failing to deliver results; (3) clearly and non-condescendingly meet Americans where they are (state their problems so that the American people know that she understands them, without patronizing them or blaming them); (4) control the news cycles and lead polls, not by waiting around to see where the polls say she should be in terms of policies, but lead the polls by defining why what her policies (foreign and domestic) are SHOULD be where Americans are; and (5) prove that she is the sole viable alternative to Trump and other Democrats by (a) having clear ideas that directly impact the majority of Americans, (b) being able to clearly articulate how her plans solve Americans' problems, and (c) relentlessly draw contrast between the future of America where she is in office, and where Trump is re-elected.

What she must not do, or she will lose is: (1) absolutely refrain from engaging in any form of identity politics, competitions of "wokeness", or any mention of sex, gender, sexuality, and above all race; (2) refrain from allowing Trump from making this election about immigration or "wokeness" because if that happens, he wins re-election; (3) refrain from losing control of the narrative either because of the absolutely disgusting #FakeNews media or Trump who lives in that media shithole. 

People are encouraged to ask me more questions.  I'll answer the others in time. 

With the field looking like this, Trump's got a damn good chance of being re-elected.  And, just like in 2016, the democrats will be too caught up in their own bullshit to see what is happening around them.  

John DeLaney is the candidate who I wish would return to whatever corporate shithole from which he emerged, so that the air he sucks from people who matter could be returned to them.  Literally no one in America cares about him, except the debate hosts who use him as a tool of attack against candidates who out-perform the astroturfed "super-woke" dream team of yesterday's-news-token-blacks Booker and Harris (who actual black voters correctly see through with absolutely no difficulty).

Jay Inslee and John Hicken--whateverthefuckhisnameis occupies the exact same role that John DeLaney does.

Beto is Holden Caulfield all grown up.  Please excuse me while I go vomit. 

Tim Ryan is the kind of shit that would have deserved to be bullied and have his lunch money taken from him in middle school.  So was Eric Salwell.

Bill DeBlasio's black child should be and shall remain a meme of political stupidity.  I remember the days when John McCain's purportedly "illegitimate black child" cost him a nomination against George Bush.  It says something that now, parading your non-white adopted offspring as a token of wokeness is something that has become acceptable in this DNC.  Disgraceful.

Neither I nor anyone else who matters has even heard of Steven Bullock.  We called Montanans, and they haven't heard of him either.  Irrelevant nothing of a candidate.

The so called "Mayor Pete" is, while all cute with his husband and what I presume are a pair of french bulldogs (you know what they say about dogs and their owners, and the tendency to resemble?) is probably the least offensive person on the stage to someone like me.   He is absolutely right that the Democrats need to actually reach out to middle America and they need to focus on taking back the religious right from the right wing.  But no one seems to listen to him.  The media's blatant attacks on him for being insufficiently woke while they astroturf Harris and Booker make me want to vomit.  

Julian Castro is worse than irrelevant; he is one of the most destructive forces on the stage.  Every word he utters makes Trump's re-election more likely, whether he is discussing the "abortion rights of transgender men" or LITERALLY anything else.  Castro will be remembered as the Ted Cruz of the DNC.  He was wholly un-woke before he decided to run, now I expect him to post Instigram pics of his Avacado Toast and Quinoa and Kale breakfast while whining about how the deplorables are destroying America.

 

I just want to weigh in and state that I hate all of the main contenders except Warren, and to a lesser degree, Sanders.  They are the only non-pathetic candidates on the stage.

Joe Biden is, while probably the least radical on the stage, out of touch and his age is showing worse than Bernie's.

I hate the disgraceful performance that NBC put on for the first debate.  I hate CNN's performance too, but NBC's so called debate takes the win for worst debate in the history of the Democratic party, both in terms of its content and substance; and in terms of the degree to which it is likely to get Trump re-elected.

I hate the pathetic, fake, cheap, fraudulent wokeness that has defined the narrative theme of the primaries so far.

It is beyond obvious that Kamila Harris's reference to Biden's record on "bussing" is fake, dishonest, and as cheap attack that no one buys at all; as is evidenced by the fact that Harris is polling among blacks lower than anyone else who should be winning with them, except of course Booker.

I think Booker's bullshit on guns is offensive and absurd.  

Kirsten Gillibrand blood curdlingly disgusting; a lying, pathetic hypocrite who embodies each and every one of Hillary Clinton's worst faults to the (n)th degree.  Her absolutely fraudulent attacks on Biden are beneath contempt. 

Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy is weak and she lacks the sophistication to even understand most of the more challenging foreign policy issues we face, but she was absolutely right that Harris's "social justice" new-found wokeness is a complete fraud on the country in light of her prosecutorial record. 

Yang's idea of giving $1000/month to every American is, while better than the current welfare infrastructure we have now, little more than pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

Michael Bennett is offensively pathetic, and that has nothing to do with the fact that he looks like a Keebler Elf.  Rather, it is because he has all the charisma of a failed parent who can't even get their child to eat broccoli after bribing him with access to an iPad... which is to say, he is even more pathetic than Chuck Schumer.  Worse, he needs to focus on remaining in the Senate, given that he is from a swing state and we cannot afford to lose more senators.  He adds nothing to the race other than sucking out oxygen from the people who matter, in whose ranks he certainly does not fall.

YYW is an irrelevant DDO user. 

Sam, to answer your other question, though, as to why I believe what I believe:

The reason I act as if people have free will is because that is good enough, and the alternative to doing so leads to catastrophic results.  For example, if we begin from the proposition that no one has any free will then all human choice is something wholly divested from intent.  Like, in that world intent is not even a cognizable concept.  That means that if I can intend to do anything; whether to lift my arm, or to engage in deliberate and premeditated murder, it can't be true that I am unable to form intent, and therefore it can't be true that I lack free will.  

A sort of late-adolescent rejoinder to that might go something to the tune of "well what about psychopaths, or people who are biologically predisposed towards violence?"

So we have I guess to draw the distinction between biological predisposition and the absence of free will.  Suppose it is hypothetically true that some people do have some form of biological predisposition towards anything, in this case, violence in general and maybe even murder in particular for whatever reason.  In order for the will's freedom to be obviated, it must be true that that biological predisposition is of sufficient force to make it so that this hypothetically predisposed person CANNOT resist the impulse to murder.  So, if he can chose NOT to murder, then he's exercising his will's freedom OVER the biological predisposition and whatever force it may have.  As a result, it turns out that you can't really sensibly speak of biological predispositions in terms of their overbearing any individual's free will.  To do so is an absurdity.

Maybe a stronger and more sophisticated argument that we lack free will would be more nuanced, and it would begin from the proposition that, for example, our will's ability to avail itself of its freedom is limited to at least some extent by epigenetic markers the nature of which we do not fully understand but which nevertheless seem to illustrate that in at least some cases some responses are biologically innate.  That's a less stupid objection, because we can establish that proposition's conceptual validity -- to some extent at least.  For example, if you take a rat that has never seen, heard, smelled, or otherwise experienced a cat; AND you put cat smells in the presence of that rat, the rat is going to freeze in terror.  So, the rat lacks the experience to learn fear of cats, so there's something about the rat which makes it afraid of cats "by nature" (or so it seems).  In that instance, the rat's reaction is not one it chose.  To the degree that you could do something similar with a person, that's at least proof of concept.  The problem is that all that establishes is perhaps one more constraint on the bounds of choice, even if it applies to people, which it may.  So, you're not proving the absence of free will by epigenetic markers; rather, you're just saying "hey, here's another example of how choice is constrained."  For the reasons we've already said, boundaries of choice are not arguments against free will.

From this, I don't know what you think about free will.  It seems like you think that there is some degree of free will but you don't quite know to what degree human beings' wills are "free" in any sense.  I don't mean that to be insulting, so much as I cannot understand what you're saying.  Like, it's obvious that human beings exist in the context of this earth, and that there are finite constraints on human choice.  So, choice is free within a set of bounds and those bounds define the range of possible choices. 

But, choice and will aren't the same thing.  In a deterministic world, the choice you made was predetermined by forces external to you; such that there is no "will" involved in your making the choice.  You rather made the choice you were fated to make.  On the other hand, given those same constraints, if you accept that the will is something that people have and that external forces (such as fate) do not preordain choice, but that you make the choice you make by and through the exercise of your will, you're still operating within the same set of finite constraints as you would under a deterministic theory.  So, you're not really making a point about free will to the degree that you're talking about externally constrained choice.  

Who were your "enemies" on DDO?

The workforce in 20 years is going to be primarily based on intellectual capital, which means that rather than just the bottom 20% of human beings in terms of their intellectual capability being unemployable (which means the labor they can produce has no marketable value), that figure is going to look more like the bottom 40% of 50%. 

Add to that the fact that we have basically been stratifying society in terms of levels of intellectual capacity since the adoption of the SAT means that there will be far less inter-class mobility.  That is a bad thing.  

I'd say you hit the nail on the head there.  Any other similarities that stand out to you?

>Have you tried bourbon?

Many different kinds. 

>Accents