Unpopular opinions V8 Flat IS NOTHING - General

Got another one,I actually like the gibus and stock weapons in TF2 a lot.Pyrovision can go to Hell though,way distracting.

I really hate the whole trend of "fact-checking" that's come about these days, especially by those websites claiming to be "fact-checkers" or "unbiased" when they themselves typically have an agenda of their own to follow, but since they see themselves as the benchmark for objectivity people will trust them. Websites like [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/[/url] (used for facepunch polidiks) and politifact are particularly loathesome. Virtually all of these "fact-checkers" are self-appointed journo hacks who do things like cherrypick stuff (typically low-hanging fruit) to show as an example of bias or falsehood. They are also incredibly inconsistent in who they check, what they check, and how they also check it. One of the ways these frauds get away with things is they'll take literally true statements and reframe it so that the context is given importance, but will also take contextually true (but not literally true) statements and will ignore the context and focus on the literality. It's completely inconsistent. Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? I don't trust them to do fact-checking, especially when they're arrogant enough fucks to go around "fact-checking" articles and speeches with the actual intent of doing the opposite.

[QUOTE=gk99;52367593]Could just elect people who actually do their jobs and re-implement the fairness doctrine to crack down on the media's spread of misinformation. But I'm sure you'd prefer just breaking shit and getting violent instead, otherwise you wouldn't be using the word "necessary."[/QUOTE] Lmao elect people who actually do their jobs? Like who? The same congressmen that have been holding seats for decades? What do you even mean? Have you not pay attention to politics? I dont even know how to respond to this. I mean do you think everybody who ever voted for somebody chosed someone that they think was going to do their jobs badly and not take care of their rights? [editline]16th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52367636]Civil disobedience isn't shooting people. It's breaking laws like trespassing, not paying your taxes, etc. peacefully in order to resist. Also your policy prescriptions to fix America are so simplistic and idealistic it's hilarious. Just flip a switch and "nationalize" (it already is ay lmao) high education, free healthcare, ban people who buy things, ban something that's essential for democracy, etc..[/QUOTE] Yeah homie those exxcon execs, private prision lobbyists and marlboro buying our politicians is essential for democracy. You are the simplistic one here. Just sit back and not doing shit is the reason why this country is how it is today. College is nationalized? Lmfao bullshit, last I checked college isnt free. All you liberals never ever want to get up and make a stand. Just sit on your asses thinking shit will change by it self. We would still be a colony if people didnt throw shit into the harbor. I never said to shoot anybody either but if it ever gets as bad as venezuela. Then yeah, your life, kids and family are in danger. Its the self defense of the common people. Its survival, your delicate moral system isnt bulletproof and cant feed you. Luckily history of mankind gets written by people who get up and do things for themselves, while people like you uaually juat end up as an statistic of the famine page. But go on and tell your grandkids how violence isnt bad when climate change takes it toll and they have to breath through gasmasks.

People misuse the word "legitimately" far too much. Most of the time they mean "genuinely", as in "I genuinely don't like the food here". Another oft-misused word is "momentarily", which means "for a moment". Many people (typically Americans) use it to mean "in a moment".

[QUOTE=Sky King;52369488] All you liberals never ever want to get up and make a stand. Just sit on your asses thinking shit will change by it self. We would still be a colony if people didnt throw shit into the harbor. [/QUOTE] Oh right, that explains the countless protests and marches we've been seeing the past few months. You are so up your own ass, it's kind of hilarious.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52370469]Many people (typically Americans) use it to mean "in a moment".[/QUOTE] Could you give an example of this? Not saying it doesn't happen. I just don't recall seeing it used that way before (knowing me I very well could have and subconsciously corrected it and never noticed it, lol) and I'm having trouble figuring out how someone could even use it to mean that. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sky King;52369488]But go on and tell your grandkids how violence isnt bad when climate change takes it toll and they have to breath through gasmasks.[/QUOTE] Joke's on you. I'm not going to have grandkids.

[QUOTE=Sky King;52367435]it's incredible how strong the anti-violence sentiment is. all the late night shows are tearing up about it, hell one of the top comments in the massive reddit thread was gilded for saying 'nothing good has ever come of political violence.' the US was fucking BORN of political violence, the whole damn world is a product of political violence. Ofcourse I'm not saying to go kill a bunch of congressmen or anything. But civil disobedience is needed when the future of this planet is in danger. The government is getting more oppressive and are ruled by rich elites. It will only get worse. Liberals think they can just sit on their asses smoking weed and whining on the internet is going to change things. The biggest threats to mankind are purposely being ignored in order for the upperclasses to keep their pocket fat. Soon climate change and automation will change everything. There will be no more jobs for our increasing population, not everybody can become a nuclear lawyer astronaut doctor. Universial income is inevitable. The US has already spent trillions on proxy wars in the middle east over the petrodollar. Worshipping a nonrenewable resource that will run out of supply within a century. Our entire economy depends on the petrodollar and instead of becoming independent from it we sell billion dollar arms deal with tyranical countries that fund terrorism in order to disstablized middle eastern countries. We have millions in prision over things like weed and other victimless "crimes" just so the private prision complex can keep its cell full. The war on drugs is a joke, a war on citizens and does nothing but prop up pyschopathic drug cartels that make enough money to be featured on the stock market. What I'm saying is that , disobedience and rioting is necessary in order to keep the upper class in check. Not now, but eventually there is going to reach a point. Tensions are high and to prevent huge civil unrest we need to kick these politicans out, jailed any slimy rich fuck that tries to bribe or buy out OUR property, ban lobbyism, renew worker rights, bitch slap the president, free every non violent drug offender, nationalize high education, basic healthcare for all.[/QUOTE] There is truth in that much of the world is a product of [political] violence, but I think most people (including myself) just hope that we've outgrown that necessity as a more advanced society and believe in the powers of other non-violent means of change. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52370526]Oh right, that explains the countless protests and marches we've been seeing the past few months. [/QUOTE] Honestly I think that this is a point that only reinforces his mindset. As many protests as there have been over the past few months (and I've participated in), how many of those actually produced any positive change? I think that politicians are really getting into the mindset that they can just ignore them, which they sort of can. That's not all that I believe about protests (I actually think that OWS is one of the more influential movements of the past 10 years) but that's how it usually feels in the short-term.

Places shouldn't serve exclusively breakfast past 9 AM. I'm currently waiting for the clock to tick over to 10:30 so I can buy a fucking burger instead of a sausage biscuit and fries instead of hashbrowns. But I mean they serve Coke at all times of the day so good for them.

Adding to that, they should be able to sell breakfast all times they are open.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52370723]There is truth in that much of the world is a product of [political] violence, but I think most people (including myself) just hope that we've outgrown that necessity as a more advanced society and believe in the powers of other non-violent means of change. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] Honestly I think that this is a point that only reinforces his mindset. As many protests as there have been over the past few months (and I've participated in), how many of those actually produced any positive change? I think that politicians are really getting into the mindset that they can just ignore them, which they sort of can. That's not all that I believe about protests (I actually think that OWS is one of the more influential movements of the past 10 years) but that's how it usually feels in the short-term.[/QUOTE] And that's how it is. Politicians ignore protests because they don't fear them. I wish sitting in a circle singing "this is my land, this is your land" would do something. But it won't. You have to remind them that they are not untouchable.

[QUOTE=Sky King;52369488]Lmao elect people who actually do their jobs? Like who? The same congressmen that have been holding seats for decades? What do you even mean? Have you not pay attention to politics? I dont even know how to respond to this. I mean do you think everybody who ever voted for somebody chosed someone that they think was going to do their jobs badly and not take care of their rights?[/QUOTE] that means people keep voting for them btw. The voting system is shit but that's a different issue and not always applicable. and have YOU paid attention? Progress DOES get made. Go back 10 years and tell people that we'd have gay marriage and much stronger rights at the end of Obama's term and you'll get a lot of "what the fuck?" and "I guess im voting mccain now." [quote]Yeah homie those exxcon execs, private prision lobbyists and marlboro buying our politicians is essential for democracy.[/quote] Have you ever signed a government petition, written to your representative, etc.? If so you're a fucking lobbyist scumfuck and I hope you at least get pleasure from dragging our democracy into hell. It's actually more than just marlboro and exxon as businesses themselves. A lot of people really agree with those companies too. Go to North Carolina and visit communities that depend on Tobacco and ask them what they think about it. You'll get a lot of scientific illiteracy if you get what I mean. Exxon is obvious, people depend on cars and what gasoline to be cheap. And what about when a road construction company meets with the mayor to talk about what materials etc. should be purchased? That's lobbying too. This side of lobbying is stupidly important, because politicians don't know shit about most areas, so when something about pesticides or something comes up, they have to bring people in to talk. That's what I mean about lobbying being necessary for a democracy. And I mean sure, we do need some tighter restrictions on corporate lobbying. They have an incredibly high ability to kiss ass that should be curtailed. One example is how many politicians get great jobs lined up at those firms for after they leave office, that should be scrapped (we could even give the politicians a compensatory salary after they quit to make up for that.) [quote]You are the simplistic one here. Just sit back and not doing shit is the reason why this country is how it is today. College is nationalized? Lmfao bullshit, last I checked college isnt free. [/quote] I have a challenge for you. 1. Go to a city with decent public transit (this being america, this will be the hardest step.) 2. Step on the public transit. Just walk past the machine asking for money because that's for donations or something. 3. oh no what you're being dragged off the light rail by the officers why did this happen [quote]All you liberals never ever want to get up and make a stand. Just sit on your asses thinking shit will change by it self. We would still be a colony if people didnt throw shit into the harbor. I never said to shoot anybody either but if it ever gets as bad as venezuela. Then yeah, your life, kids and family are in danger. Its the self defense of the common people. Its survival, your delicate moral system isnt bulletproof and cant feed you.[/quote] i never said violence was never permissible my dude lol. I'll even defend shit that'd make most facepunchers mad at me such as the black panthers' self-defense units. [quote]Luckily history of mankind gets written by people who get up and do things for themselves, while people like you usually juat end up as an statistic of the famine page. But go on and tell your grandkids how violence isnt bad when climate change takes it toll and they have to breath through gasmasks.[/quote] I mean if you get a good spot in the vanguard I guess you don't have to be the famine statistic. If the famine doesn't get me I at least hope the work camp has good soup.

Considering that remasters are the hot trend, a part of me can't help but think that game developers should reach out to Croteam in regards to making new graphics for old games.

twenty one pilots may not make great music but they put on a fucking great live show

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52370469]People misuse the word "legitimately" far too much. Most of the time they mean "genuinely", as in "I genuinely don't like the food here". Another oft-misused word is "momentarily", which means "for a moment". Many people (typically Americans) use it to mean "in a moment".[/QUOTE] its almost like language is fluid and changes with use

Question: If there are more women than men on earth, does that mean that men are a minority group? Discuss.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;52373482]Question: If there are more women than men on earth, does that mean that men are a minority group? Discuss.[/QUOTE] Technically yes.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52373504]Technically yes.[/QUOTE] No. Minority is not defined by population but by power in this context. In apartheid South Africa Africans were still a minority group, in Norman England the Anglo-saxons were, etc.. If I had to class them I'd designate men as being the majority and women as the minority simply because of political and economic power (politicians and ceos/etc.)

Snip because I am dumb

I don't like music videos

[QUOTE=Clovis;52371058]this fucking kills me. 4am and night menu is over. who the fuck wants a bacon and egg muffin at 4am? i want a cheeseburger after my nightshift please[/QUOTE] Agreed. I get off work at about 5:30am and all they serve is breakfast food. I just want my chicken mcnuggies :(

[QUOTE=Clovis;52371058]this fucking kills me. 4am and night menu is over. who the fuck wants a bacon and egg muffin at 4am? i want a cheeseburger after my nightshift please[/QUOTE] I'm the exact opposite; last I was at McD's that late I destroyed their pancakes and bacon/egg muffins and all. Bless all day breakfast.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52373560]No. Minority is not defined by population but by power in this context. In apartheid South Africa Africans were still a minority group, in Norman England the Anglo-saxons were, etc.. If I had to class them I'd designate men as being the majority and women as the minority simply because of political and economic power (politicians and ceos/etc.)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Clovis;52373928]Rofl no. The amount of people on the planet makes the difference completely negligible. It's still 50/50. If you have 3,500,000,000 blue marbles and 3,500,000,001 red marbles in one area, you wouldnt say that the majority are red marbles[/QUOTE] "In this context" doesn't matter, the smaller number is by definition the minority. Not in a largely meaningful sense, but in a technical sense. Definition of minority plural minorities 2 : the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole ([URL]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minority[/URL]) mi·nor·i·ty1.a. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole. ([URL]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/minority[/URL]) Minority has to do with numbers and quantities, not power or social status.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52374280]"In this context" doesn't matter, the smaller number is by definition the minority. Not in a largely meaningful sense, but in a technical sense. Definition of minority plural minorities 2 : the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole Minority has to do with numbers and quantities, not power or social status.[/QUOTE] [url]https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group[/url] [QUOTE]A minority is not always a minority of numbers — it may be any group that is not normal with respect to a leading group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power and can be an object of discrimination. For example, women may be considered a minority even if there are as many women as men because they have less power than men.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=QUILTBAG;52374286][URL]https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group[/URL][/QUOTE] But yet [U]above [/U]that, it claims that [QUOTE]A minority or subordinate group is a group that does not make up most of the population of a society[/QUOTE] If numbers no longer counts as the main identifier for what a minority is, then not only has the word lost all meaning, it could also be used for any group that feels marginalized at the time, even if they constitute a huge majority. So then the word becomes pretty arbitrary imo if we don't stick to the definitions and just use "minority" in place of "disenfranchised".

I don't really know what you're trying to argue here. Words have multiple meanings.

[QUOTE=QUILTBAG;52374292]I don't really know what you're trying to argue here. Words have multiple meanings.[/QUOTE] Well my issue is that a word can not mean not only itself, but also the opposite of itself. If we accept your train of thought, then minority would mean both minority and also majority if you describe majority groups as minority which would be plain silly [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] A statistical minority is a statistical minority. A minority can not be a group with the largest numbers. So it would be incorrect to say that women are a minority. Women are however [I]disenfranchised[/I] and I don't know why people aren't using that word instead of using the word minority in place of majority. Because it is completely false to claim they are a minority. I don't know why someone would want to re purpose the word "minority" to mean its opposite... Social status or influence or power has absolutely nothing to do with majority/majority when the words are relating to straight numbers. If you want to say that someone is under-represented then say that but don't make the word minority lose it's meaning. We have many words like disenfranchised but only one word that means [QUOTE]the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number.[/QUOTE] [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] I think the issue is that having smaller numbers makes you a minority, true. And smaller numbers mean you naturally get less representation and social status. However it is wrong to say that having less representation and social status automatically makes you a minority , you can be disenfranchised and still be a majority. So sure, a word can have multiple meanings, but those meanings cannot be completely opposite concepts.

[QUOTE=Clovis;52374357]The statement 'a majority of humans on the planet are female' is true The statement 'males are a minority group because theres like 0.00000001% more females than males on the planet' is just fucking hilarious[/QUOTE] Pedantic and hilarious to point out, yes, but also [I]technically[/I] true. If the above statement is true, then the bottom statement is also true and they even go by the same logic. So if the above is true, why is it such a big deal to accept that the bottom is true?

Fuck onions why is it on everything Slimy, transparent AND crunchy, all at once? Which fucking cave man first pulled one up and thought "hmm this stinks and literally makes me cry, time to use it as a basis for every fucking recipe"

[QUOTE=ScottyWired;52374384]Fuck onions why is it on everything Slimy, transparent AND crunchy, all at once? Which fucking cave man first pulled one up and thought "hmm this stinks and literally makes me cry, time to use it as a basis for every fucking recipe"[/QUOTE] Someone had a bad experience with onions.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52374305]So sure, a word can have multiple meanings, but those meanings cannot be completely opposite concepts.[/QUOTE] Yes, they can. This is why "literally" can literally mean two things that are literally opposites. In fact, this phenomenon is documented in English as the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym] auto-antonym[/url]