thesparksbro

[thesparksbro]

Daisy learns how to float, sorta – My brother pointed out that it looks like Daisy is kicking her feet like Luigi would to help keep herself floating, and now I kinda hope that one day Nintendo gives her a jump that’s a mix of Luigi’s scuttle jump and Peach’s float, just cause it'd be cute.

[thesparksbro]

[thesparksbro]

The worst part of his second term, in my opinion, is the sheer amount of annoying responses from people on the left. Of course, that was a constant thing during his first term, but it feels even more grating now. Maybe it's because you know for a fact now that these people hold absolutely zero convictions or have any intelligent opinions on the matter, but the more "[insert fictional character] hates nazis!!!!" posts or posts saying that they'd shelter illegal immigrants from ICE or, even dumber, attack federal agents I see, the more annoying it's getting.

You're not changing anything when you make art of a fictional person punching a nazi when you can't even define what a nazi is. I don't believe you when you say you would stand up and fight for illegal immigrants because I know the moment ICE even shows up in your area, you'd break and either cooperate or not help.

You contribute absolutely nothing of significance to causes you say you support aside from the most bareboned and superficial "support" possible.

[thesparksbro]

[thesparksbro]

Those damn Muslims

[thesparksbro]

(by Josh Hild)

[thesparksbro]

The wikipedia article for dead internet theory is one of the best examples I've seen of just how retarded wikipedia has become. The entire article was created just to dismiss the concept as a conspiracy theory. This is the opening sentence:

The dead Internet theory is an online conspiracy theory that asserts, due to a coordinated and intentional effort, the Internet now consists mainly of bot activity and automatically generated content manipulated by algorithmic curation to control the population and minimize organic human activity.[1][2][3][4][5] 

And you might think to yourself, wait, there's nothing about this phenomenon that requires a conspiracy. That bots would eventually outnumber humans is the inevitable product of 30+ years of bot and AI development, helped by the fact that just one person can run 100+ bots. We all know bot farms exist and that states have their hand in AI development, but just as many bots are run by normal people, and no amount of this is actually coordinated for some larger explicitly stated end: it's actually complete chaos with no end goal, with individual actors working for fun, for research, or for whatever other benefit, with no real concern for how their botting affects other networks or "civilians".

And the talk page thought of all these points. The editors responded to the above objection with "we have reliable sources that call it a conspiracy theory. Check those citations".

The more obvious position, the one actually used by the people who came up with the term to begin with, wouldn't have ever stated itself as "not a conspiracy", because no conspiracy was even being alleged, thus no "reliable sources" can be cited now proving that it's not a conspiracy theory.

The kicker is that you click the reliable sources they quote, and the first one never alleges a conspiracy to begin with, it posits that it is a "speculation about the future of the internet". The second article calls it a "conspiracy theory", but in the colloquial sense of a "out there idea", which is a usage I have always hated. For instance, people call "bigfoot" a conspiracy theory - a conspiracy theory is a secret coordinated plan to commit a crime - that some big humanoid animal lives in the woods is not a plan to commit a crime. The "conspiracy theory" that "the moon isn't real" isn't a plan to commit a crime. These are just memes.

But, a "reliable source" written by a millennial woman used the term as a meme and now wikipedia cites it as an actual conspiracy and you're not allowed to change that framing unless you join a wikipedia council and vote to completely overhaul the editorial framing of this article.

There are much worse instances of this, but this is a good example of how retarded this all is because you don't really need a position on the article to understand that you don't need to frame it in that way for any of the information in the article to make sense.

[thesparksbro]

Boomercons explaining why they can talk to me however they want and say whatever they want but I have to be respectful and use only facts, reason, and sources they approve of:

Me:

[thesparksbro]

You can tell that a lot of “libertarians” are just recently converted conservatives/republicans who think libertarianism is just smaller scale conservatism.

They found out about Ron Paul at some point in the last 4-8 years, their entire understanding of libertarian philosophy comes from memes made by Republican boomers, and they probably at some point posted that “Donald Trump is the most libertarian president ever!”

These are the fuckin dorks that will criticize socialism but defend state run services, taxes, social security etc., or they say shit like “strong but small government” like that’s not a blatant contradiction.

They’ll talk all day about gun rights, everyone should own a gun blah blah blah but also no one can do anything to defend themselves or their property without the State. No, the only solution is cops who don’t show up to stop those immigrants from raping and robbing you anyway.

They’ll try oh so hard to parse libertarianism from anarchism because holy fuck it might kill them to read what actual libertarian philosophers believe.

They think libertarianism eschews ALL community, which is why they think these “individuals can never win against ______!” arguments are gotchas.

They wear libertarianism like a coat they can take on and off depending on the issue.

No, the fucking state enforcing “libertarianism” is not libertarianism.

Anyway gatekeep libertarianism, because this is how you get the Libertarian Party that’s basically just a mishmash of progressive socialists and “conservatives” who still want to vote for democrats and republicans, but want to feel radical while doing it.

[thesparksbro]

"The Government" fills the same sort of purpose for conservatives as "The Rich" does for progressives. A vague, amorphous concept that has no real connection to the actuality of the thing. It's meant to serve as a sort of scapegoat that prevents them from focusing on the genuine problems.

Just like progressives will blame everything on "The Rich" but then start throwing themselves worshipfully at the feet of every single rich person who states the right political opinions or ticks the right demographic checkboxes and defending them from even the merest criticism, conservatives will go on and on about how they hate "The Government" but call you a terrorist if you actually suggest diminishing its power or scope in any meaningful way.

[thesparksbro]

[thesparksbro]

Ross Ulbricht is FREE!!!!!!!

[thesparksbro]

[thesparksbro]

[thesparksbro]

u used to be able to put a dvd in your computer. and then u could watch it