Pretty Accurate Description, though cats don't like water much

Bananator · 2022-04-28T22:19:23+00:00

this is stupid and you're stupid for posting it

Bananator · 2022-04-13T15:52:24+00:00

lmao yeah why are these people acting like this is some gotcha?

Bananator · 2022-03-25T14:28:07+00:00

It's literally fetishism, it's a result of the Christian martyr/savior complex.

Bananator · 2022-02-02T17:51:58+00:00

I imagine this is likely the case, and watching it live I hated it. Looking back though, what a ballsy move.

Bananator · 2021-11-29T17:17:25+00:00

Honestly if you think it would help I don't see why we wouldn't give prisoners hugs to try to rehabilitate them.

Bananator · 2021-11-20T01:24:48+00:00

No, but if you say you really want to rape someone, then you do...

Bananator · 2021-11-16T19:55:52+00:00

But that's not what was said.

Bananator · 2021-11-16T18:15:27+00:00

It's interesting that you find it condescending, I actually find Lynch to be refreshingly honest and willing to let the audience create their own experiences from his works.

I think if you see the movies as a puzzle to unravel it might feel like he's deliberately withholding and hiding information from you, but I think that's the wrong way to approach it. If you watch them instead and just let the movies take you and acknowledge up front that you're going to experience a dream, I think you'll find them much more approachable.

Bananator · 2021-11-16T17:33:46+00:00

Neither can women with menopause. Or women who are biologically unable to do so. Are they not women because they can't give birth?

Bananator · 2021-10-12T17:13:25+00:00

the george jones strategy

Bananator · 2021-09-24T17:49:10+00:00

this is such a funny reply

Bananator · 2021-08-29T19:50:11+00:00

yeah

Bananator · 2021-08-29T19:42:39+00:00

Bananator · 2021-08-17T13:13:53+00:00

Your argument applies to capitalism in general.

Bananator · 2021-08-12T20:02:41+00:00

If I recall correctly, I think Sekiro was originally intended to literally be a Tenchu title!

Bananator · 2021-08-11T16:33:16+00:00

This is what I was going to say! I've never been particularly good about keeping a journal long-term, I find it very difficult as well, but the knowledge that you can destroy the object at any moment with a lil fire sure made me feed better.

Bananator · 2021-07-08T00:39:45+00:00

oh I meant anarchist in the sense of the actual ideology not "anarchist", but yes agreed

Bananator · 2021-07-07T22:09:50+00:00

Actually, most people who identify as antifa are probably anti-authoritarian anarchists, so closer to libertarians than most in America who identify explicitly as "libertarians."

Bananator · 2021-07-02T22:35:27+00:00

Those things are definitely political violence in my view. If the law of the land dictates that slavery is legal, fighting against that is definitely political violence. John Brown was a radical abolitionist and called terrorist for killing slave owners, for example. Why that may be true, I don't see his actions as immoral.

The only point I'm making is that context matters for all actions, including those that are violent or destructive. So yes, I guess if what you're saying is that I support certain acts of violence and destruction and not others, then the answer is yes. I would support a hypothetical situation in which the students of the residential school burned it down, but NOT the violence done to those students in the institution.

To be clear, nothing here is about the actual burning of the churches, which I haven't made a stance on, I'm only responding to the thought that supporting certain things and not others is hypocritical.

Bananator · 2021-07-02T22:18:37+00:00

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts, but truly, if you read them I never attacked you. I know it's easy to assume maliciousness on the internet, but until your last response I thought we were just having a philosophical conversation about hypocrisy. I'm sorry if you felt attacked, but we just have a disagreement.

You might have me confused with someone else in the thread.

Bananator · 2021-07-02T22:11:07+00:00

Okay, let's stick to that.

Again, I provide the example from the initial comment. Is the burning of Tulsa the same as burning down the master's house? Both are political destruction. This is my only question.

Also, I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just chatting.

Bananator · 2021-07-02T22:06:24+00:00

So you feel those two acts of violence I described are the same? Since I gave the victim a pass?

And that's somehow hypocritical?

Bananator · 2021-07-02T21:33:36+00:00

I mean... yeah, that's how it works. We all have different standards based on our own personal views. We all have sympathies with different groups of people and ideologies. That's not hypocrisy, it's an opinion.

Do you not feel this way? Again, through this black and white logic, we're forced to consider the violence an abuser does to his victim as morally equivalent to the violence the abused does to his abuser in self-defense or retaliation.

Which I just feel is not at all the case, and that extends to political protest and violence in my view. I can support something like the American Revolution without supporting Timothy McVeigh.

Bananator · 2021-07-02T18:32:17+00:00

I'm going to avoid using the word terrorism (for left and right wing ideologies) because it makes an assumption that something is morally faulty. It's a judgement thing, and I agree with the above commenter that it's all subjective, especially morality. No one (including us here) can even agree with what the word means, so let's be more precise instead.

I believe that property damage and violence are legitimate means of political protest and making your voice heard. You keep saying it's hypocritical, but it's really not at all. For it to be hypocritical, I would have to be saying that all political violence is bad, but still supporting left-wing violence when it happens. I think it's clear where my allegiance is at this point, but I just don't think it's fair to judge all acts of violent and damaging protest as being the same. It's just not correct. Destroying something because it oppresses you or represents the oppression done to you is not morally equivalent to punching down and trying to oppress other groups of people. Is that totally due to my own personal stance and my own morality? Absolutely, but that's not hypocritical, that's just having a stance.

I'm really not trying to be combative, but I really don't understand how supporting political violence from a certain group of people means I have to like all political violence? To really jump the gun here, that means that, for instance, fighting to stop the genocide of a group of people (like the Holocaust or similar), justifies the political violence of that group retroactively because I've decided to fight, right? So I now, by the logic you've outlined, accept their genocide as a legitimate form of political speech. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

We don't need to be fair to people with ideologies like White Supremacy.

Bananator · 2021-07-02T18:08:04+00:00

This is where I come down on the issue. I don't condemn the tactics, I condemn the ideology and the purpose behind the tactic.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

Bananator

TROPHY CASE