Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
_refugee_'s comments

So honestly I don’t know. I have an idea or two but no idea how workable they’d be. Again honestly tho- not my problem. Not my issue that I’ve chosen to tackle.

Mostly my point is: if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise

OftenBen  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise

I still think that Lissa did the right thing.

I support her and everyone like her.

_refugee_  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: In honor of Valentine's Day, tell everybody your tale of heartache and woe

...in, like, an opiate of the masses sort of way? Keep them chasing an unattainable dream over reality?

Or really like how?

Odder  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Nah, Marx is dumb.

It's because single people, or at least those who are single but don't want to be, don't have a choice except to observe Valentine's day. If you're in a relationship, you can make the choice on whether or not you and your significant other want to celebrate it, or if you just want to do what you always do. If you are single, you have to confront all the potential lives you could have led with all the people you could have been celebrating Valentine's day with, or you have to act stubborn and defiant and declare that you don't care about the stupid holiday and pig out on chocolate, which is really the same thing.

I mean, ultimately what I just said in that last paragraph is completely wrong, and you don't have to do anything or feel anything that you don't want to. Humans have free will and all. But you live in a society that tells you that you need to be in a relationship to be happy, and, whether or not you agree with that, if you also happen to want to be in a relationship, then Valentine's day is just a reminder letter from society that you aren't the living up to the life that you want to live.

tacocat  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The only time anything like what you described happened to me was when I had to walk by the greeting card display in the main aisle of the grocery store

_refugee_  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: In honor of Valentine's Day, tell everybody your tale of heartache and woe

It’s impossible to represent any facet of any person’s reality, no matter how you try to detail and explain and contexualize it, posting online.

_refugee_  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: In honor of Valentine's Day, tell everybody your tale of heartache and woe

I deleted my earlier posts because they were super much. I don't mind if you read them but I minded keeping them up.

That being said, when I'm not being that, I'm busy being fucking hilarious

_refugee_  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: In honor of Valentine's Day, tell everybody your tale of heartache and woe

How bout just everything that happened before 94 etc etc

Because the amount of time wasted in argument over the semantics of what qualifies or not as a personal attack would be at least as detailing as those initial attacks, if not prone to political manipulation a la a filibuster. What determines if I am personally attacked? How your comments about me make me feel? Well. If I don’t want something to be discussed I can be offended by any word, every word, all day.

OftenBen  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Tell me the 'should' here, in your mind. Genuinely curious.

Was the hearing about oil and gas projects the right venue to discuss the corruption of the officials responsible for the project? If not, what would be?

_refugee_  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

So honestly I don’t know. I have an idea or two but no idea how workable they’d be. Again honestly tho- not my problem. Not my issue that I’ve chosen to tackle.

Mostly my point is: if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise

OftenBen  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise

I still think that Lissa did the right thing.

I support her and everyone like her.

I’m not trying to argue responsibility

Simply, I feel there is probably fair reason for that rule besides this situation, aka in the instance of attempting to defame or shame a committee member inappropriately (as opposed to here where it would ? Be appropriate ?) Basically, personal attacks are generally destructive and derailing to discussion. I feel confident this rule of order wasn’t established to avoid culpability in a situation like the one above. That’s a side effect.

Feeling as I do, that it is probably better that personal statements are prohibited from government/legal sessions, because of good reasons (cmon, think a little) - i first cant get too outraged by what happened and second cant advocate that personal statements be allowed. So in this scenario where I find myself, the answer is to find an answer - another path to the same or a similar end - rather than just get mad that someone trying to do something informative and whistle-blow-er-y got in trouble because while so doing, they also ran roughshod over the established rules of governance.

This ain’t calvinball here son and even if it were? Your name ain’t Calvin.

OftenBen  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Basically, personal attacks are generally destructive and derailing to discussion.

Why is it considered a personal attack to state facts about who sponsors a given political candidate?

I don't disagree about personal attacks being derailing. This woman wasn't issuing ad hominems, calling people pedophiles, or saying that they smell. The session she attended was convened for the purpose of discussing oil and gas legislation. She brought up the very valid and germane point that the people responsible for these decisions are taking MASSIVE sums of money from the people who benefit from this legislation being passed. This is a problem, and the nature of this problem is such that it resists any and all solutions because the means and methods by which this kind of problem are addressed have been compromised. In this instance, there is blatantly no difference between lobbying and bribery.

_refugee_  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Because the amount of time wasted in argument over the semantics of what qualifies or not as a personal attack would be at least as detailing as those initial attacks, if not prone to political manipulation a la a filibuster. What determines if I am personally attacked? How your comments about me make me feel? Well. If I don’t want something to be discussed I can be offended by any word, every word, all day.

OftenBen  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Tell me the 'should' here, in your mind. Genuinely curious.

Was the hearing about oil and gas projects the right venue to discuss the corruption of the officials responsible for the project? If not, what would be?

_refugee_  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

So honestly I don’t know. I have an idea or two but no idea how workable they’d be. Again honestly tho- not my problem. Not my issue that I’ve chosen to tackle.

Mostly my point is: if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise

OftenBen  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise

I still think that Lissa did the right thing.

I support her and everyone like her.

Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.

So I think it was hard for the constituent speaking to serve her message on the spot given she had 1m45 limitation, but going forward, my suggestion as a workaround would be to list accrued amounts of money the committee members had collectively received from oil groups and interests. Just my immediate thought

OftenBen  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yes, a statement could be made about how much money the committee has taken from corporate masters in aggregate. But the committee didn't decide to take corporate money in aggregate. Each corrupt person decides for themselves to allow their policy to be dictated by their corporate masters. I don't believe that there is such a thing as collective guilt. Individuals are ALWAYS responsible. To again quote Heinlein because I don't do that enough

    blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.

This can't be externalized. Individuals make these choices. Individuals need to be held accountable.

_refugee_  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I’m not trying to argue responsibility

Simply, I feel there is probably fair reason for that rule besides this situation, aka in the instance of attempting to defame or shame a committee member inappropriately (as opposed to here where it would ? Be appropriate ?) Basically, personal attacks are generally destructive and derailing to discussion. I feel confident this rule of order wasn’t established to avoid culpability in a situation like the one above. That’s a side effect.

Feeling as I do, that it is probably better that personal statements are prohibited from government/legal sessions, because of good reasons (cmon, think a little) - i first cant get too outraged by what happened and second cant advocate that personal statements be allowed. So in this scenario where I find myself, the answer is to find an answer - another path to the same or a similar end - rather than just get mad that someone trying to do something informative and whistle-blow-er-y got in trouble because while so doing, they also ran roughshod over the established rules of governance.

This ain’t calvinball here son and even if it were? Your name ain’t Calvin.

OftenBen  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Basically, personal attacks are generally destructive and derailing to discussion.

Why is it considered a personal attack to state facts about who sponsors a given political candidate?

I don't disagree about personal attacks being derailing. This woman wasn't issuing ad hominems, calling people pedophiles, or saying that they smell. The session she attended was convened for the purpose of discussing oil and gas legislation. She brought up the very valid and germane point that the people responsible for these decisions are taking MASSIVE sums of money from the people who benefit from this legislation being passed. This is a problem, and the nature of this problem is such that it resists any and all solutions because the means and methods by which this kind of problem are addressed have been compromised. In this instance, there is blatantly no difference between lobbying and bribery.

_refugee_  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Because the amount of time wasted in argument over the semantics of what qualifies or not as a personal attack would be at least as detailing as those initial attacks, if not prone to political manipulation a la a filibuster. What determines if I am personally attacked? How your comments about me make me feel? Well. If I don’t want something to be discussed I can be offended by any word, every word, all day.

OftenBen  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Tell me the 'should' here, in your mind. Genuinely curious.

Was the hearing about oil and gas projects the right venue to discuss the corruption of the officials responsible for the project? If not, what would be?

_refugee_  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

So honestly I don’t know. I have an idea or two but no idea how workable they’d be. Again honestly tho- not my problem. Not my issue that I’ve chosen to tackle.

Mostly my point is: if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise

OftenBen  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise

I still think that Lissa did the right thing.

I support her and everyone like her.

OftenBen  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.

I thought they removed her because you aren’t allowed to make personal comments about individual lawmakers on committees, and her comments (regarding $$) were covered under that umbrella. Not really sure if my perception is accurate so v open to correction here

OftenBen  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That is the excuse given.

I don't know how else to address corruption however.

_refugee_  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

So I think it was hard for the constituent speaking to serve her message on the spot given she had 1m45 limitation, but going forward, my suggestion as a workaround would be to list accrued amounts of money the committee members had collectively received from oil groups and interests. Just my immediate thought

OftenBen  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yes, a statement could be made about how much money the committee has taken from corporate masters in aggregate. But the committee didn't decide to take corporate money in aggregate. Each corrupt person decides for themselves to allow their policy to be dictated by their corporate masters. I don't believe that there is such a thing as collective guilt. Individuals are ALWAYS responsible. To again quote Heinlein because I don't do that enough

    blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.

This can't be externalized. Individuals make these choices. Individuals need to be held accountable.

_refugee_  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I’m not trying to argue responsibility

Simply, I feel there is probably fair reason for that rule besides this situation, aka in the instance of attempting to defame or shame a committee member inappropriately (as opposed to here where it would ? Be appropriate ?) Basically, personal attacks are generally destructive and derailing to discussion. I feel confident this rule of order wasn’t established to avoid culpability in a situation like the one above. That’s a side effect.

Feeling as I do, that it is probably better that personal statements are prohibited from government/legal sessions, because of good reasons (cmon, think a little) - i first cant get too outraged by what happened and second cant advocate that personal statements be allowed. So in this scenario where I find myself, the answer is to find an answer - another path to the same or a similar end - rather than just get mad that someone trying to do something informative and whistle-blow-er-y got in trouble because while so doing, they also ran roughshod over the established rules of governance.

This ain’t calvinball here son and even if it were? Your name ain’t Calvin.

OftenBen  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Basically, personal attacks are generally destructive and derailing to discussion.

Why is it considered a personal attack to state facts about who sponsors a given political candidate?

I don't disagree about personal attacks being derailing. This woman wasn't issuing ad hominems, calling people pedophiles, or saying that they smell. The session she attended was convened for the purpose of discussing oil and gas legislation. She brought up the very valid and germane point that the people responsible for these decisions are taking MASSIVE sums of money from the people who benefit from this legislation being passed. This is a problem, and the nature of this problem is such that it resists any and all solutions because the means and methods by which this kind of problem are addressed have been compromised. In this instance, there is blatantly no difference between lobbying and bribery.

_refugee_  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Because the amount of time wasted in argument over the semantics of what qualifies or not as a personal attack would be at least as detailing as those initial attacks, if not prone to political manipulation a la a filibuster. What determines if I am personally attacked? How your comments about me make me feel? Well. If I don’t want something to be discussed I can be offended by any word, every word, all day.

OftenBen  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Tell me the 'should' here, in your mind. Genuinely curious.

Was the hearing about oil and gas projects the right venue to discuss the corruption of the officials responsible for the project? If not, what would be?

_refugee_  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

So honestly I don’t know. I have an idea or two but no idea how workable they’d be. Again honestly tho- not my problem. Not my issue that I’ve chosen to tackle.

Mostly my point is: if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise

OftenBen  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    if you go someplace and do something against their generic rules, yes you’re probably going to get kicked out, regardless of how idealist your porpoise

I still think that Lissa did the right thing.

I support her and everyone like her.

OftenBen  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.
_refugee_  ·  10 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: In The Game: The Game, It's You Vs. Pick-Up Artists

I mean, I’m not god, but I’d feel pretty comfortable betting on that position.

_refugee_  ·  10 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: In The Game: The Game, It's You Vs. Pick-Up Artists

It’s almost like people who’ve learned a language natively can tell you the grammatically correct phrasing for a sentence but can’t explain why because it’s so innate

_refugee_  ·  10 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: In The Game: The Game, It's You Vs. Pick-Up Artists

Pretty sure I seen his alt do it b4

tacocat  ·  10 days ago  ·  link  ·  

He's ThatFanficGuy, right?

_refugee_  ·  10 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I mean, I’m not god, but I’d feel pretty comfortable betting on that position.

_refugee_  ·  11 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: February 7, 2018

EXCUSE ME I NOW HAVE A VALENTINES DATE WITH A GUY WHOM, WHEN I ASKED HIM IF HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME WITH A FEW FIXIT HOUSE THINGS LAST NIGHT (I offered repayment via making him dinner or cash or whatever, he’s a friend but you gotta say thank you for this sort of stuff) RESPONDED BY ASKING FOR MY ADDRESS AND SHOWING UP TO HELP CLEAN GROATY STUFF LIKE MY SHOWER DRAIN WITHIN A HALF HOUR.

I fed him short rib and we asked each other what (in life) we were afraid of. Among other things

He let me pick the movie for v-day (because what I really wanted to do was have him take me shooting/teach me how to shoot - what can I say I’m quite romantic but I have a rather warped sense of what’s romance) and we finna see I Tonya which I’ve wanted to see forever and yaayyyyyyyyyy

I just figured, I mean, if I didn’t see what he was doing on the 14th I knew I’d be alone. And I don’t do the chocolates and roses thing and I don’t need the fancy dinner or etc, this is after all a second date and I’m aimkng for low pressure. So I put it out there. And I’m so pleased he’s not being weird about it being Valentine’s Day and “super meaningful” or whatever. Like, it’s just Valentine’s Day. And if we didn’t hang out we’d probably both just be alone and feel it. So why not enjoy a good time together and not overthink or buy into the “significance” of the holiday, as if to go out ok Valentine’s Day indicates a level of super serious coupledom when really...we can just have a fun time while also not pointedly spending the holiday alone?

Also, fam, attest to the wonder that was me, openly asking another person for help, and not trying to prove I can do everything on my own without you thankyouverymuch. I actually like “let a man be a man”, which is a ridiculous concept but I did it. See. Only 95% of guys can report finding me “emasculating” now, after this.

Did anyone hear a crashing sound? I think that was that chip...that used to be in my shoulder...

;) :D

Sorry, this comment is private.