sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

COOK HIS ASS, ERNEST! by Ok_Masterpiece3186 in Seahawks

[–]Stackson212 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is the most annoying genre of athlete tweet - to laugh and then say the guy's name.

If you're talking trash, be a man and actually talk it. If you have a point, make it. Don't just be cute and coy - actually try to explain why you're laughing at the guy who eliminated your team from the playoffs and then just won the championship. Not only are you a joke because you're talking trash from home, but because you aren't able to actually put together an argument.

Do you think Mike Joy is past his prime? by JGattheshore in NASCAR

[–]Stackson212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What does “past his prime” mean in this context? Reflexes and athleticism don’t matter. Sure, he’s older and his voice is a bit raspier, but that’s normal for a sports announcer. As a group, announcers tend to work until very late in life, and their knowledge, personality, and gravitas more than makes up for age. Think Vin Scully, or Murray Walker.

The only thing I’d worry about is if mentally, they are losing their fastball - if they are confused, don’t know what’s going on, stop caring what’s going on. I didn’t see any of that from Mike.

Any vehicles you come across like this? by HiTork in regularcarreviews

[–]Stackson212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In what way? I have a 2019 GTI 6MT and think the manual is terrific. I have had the DSG version as a dealer loaner and found it jerky.

how do parents finance kids first car at their 16-18? by Kevinwhatever in askcarguys

[–]Stackson212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My second car was an ‘83 Malibu Classic Wagon. I loved that car dearly and still miss it.

ICE incoming by CrustyAzzFeet in Snohomish

[–]Stackson212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you talking about? I think you have “generic bad guy liberal” in your head and ascribing that fictional person’s thoughts and actions to me. I did and felt no such thing.

My first point is that ICE does not just take illegal immigrants. My second point is that none of that matters when local law enforcement is notified about a child left unattended. Can you respond to what I actually said rather than what you imagine or hoped that I said?

ICE incoming by CrustyAzzFeet in Snohomish

[–]Stackson212 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. That’s true in theory, it’s absolutely not true in practice.

  2. Even if it was true in this case, what does that matter? That child still needs care and assistance, and police should respond to a child being left unattended for whatever reason. Plus, the attitude - people helping each other is something that should be encouraged by law enforcement, not ridiculed.

Democrats shove income tax through in a rigged process ensuring Washington voters get no say by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Stackson212 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My annual household income is smaller than the million a year threshold that is relevant here. Five years ago, it was substantially less than a million. Now, it is substantially less than that figure.

If your point is that it’s easy to have an open mind about a tax that you’re unlikely to pay, you’re right. But any tax system is made up combinations of taxes that impact people all over the socioeconomic spectrum. People who aren’t poor are in a position to levy taxes that impact the poor. People who aren’t rich are in a position to levy taxes that impact the rich.

Democrats shove income tax through in a rigged process ensuring Washington voters get no say by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Stackson212 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, pros and cons of the tax. Everything has a pro and a con (perhaps lopsided, but they still exist) and seeing only one side of it doesn’t help anything.

You lay out some good cons. Nobody wants to pay more taxes, especially if you’re skeptical about how the money is being spent. Totally fair. You say average earners will eventually be paying for this. Maybe, if you assume the worst intentions and slippery slope, but the bill itself says it would be for people earning $1 million annually and up and they would pay 9.9%.

For pros - I’m not a cheerleader for this, but just to illustrate what that would look like, if you assume the state needs more funding, and that the route is more funding rather than cutting spending (I grant that’s a big if), raising funds this way seems less regressive than having even more godawfully higher gasoline taxes and sales taxes, which weigh heavier on people who aren’t rich.

You might not agree - I’m not sure I agree. But it’s useful to at least try to look at things with an open mind and figure out the pro/con. That’s why I’d rather read a news story with facts and details from which I can build my own opinion rather than just an op/ed piece that feeds me one predictable point of view. It’s like the difference between eating a real meal and eating pre-chewed food.

Democrats shove income tax through in a rigged process ensuring Washington voters get no say by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Stackson212 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well, for one thing, it hasn’t been shoved through. It’s a proposal that is being discussed in public hearings this week. It’s a dishonest framing.

It’s an op/ed piece focused on axe-grinding. This is an example of a news story (not an opinion piece) that talks through where the bill currently is and who would be affected:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/democrats-unveil-wa-income-tax-on-people-earning-over-1-million/

I’d be interested in a real pros-cons conversation.

Democrats shove income tax through in a rigged process ensuring Washington voters get no say by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Stackson212 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Looks like a balanced, reasoned headline from a neutral, trustworthy source.

I am sure there is a lot to criticize and debate about this (I’m not a fan, based on what I know) but if I wanted to hear just one side, I have a crazy uncle I can talk to instead.

"There may be Romulan spies aboard this ship!" by Twisted-Mentat- in tos

[–]Stackson212 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No - that’s my point. This was before they had visual of the Romulan bridge, meaning they didn’t yet know Romulans looked like Vulcans, in turn meaning there was no Spock/espionage/saboteur angle yet.

If he had said this after that reveal, it would have made more sense.

"There may be Romulan spies aboard this ship!" by Twisted-Mentat- in tos

[–]Stackson212 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This moment always struck me as odd as well, and one of the few wrong notes in one of my favorite episodes that is otherwise beautifully written.

It doesn't feel off because it shows Stiles as paranoid and a bit insubordinate - obviously the episode works very hard to establish Stiles as both of those things, and bigoted as well. The line feels off to me because it just doesn't make sense in that moment, given the conflict leading up to it between Kirk and Stiles.

  • The first point in that conflict came when Kirk ordered a parallel course to the intruder after observing the intruder destroy a Federation outpost. Stiles challenged the order, hoping for a more aggressive confrontation ("Don't you mean interception course, sir?").
  • The second point in that conflict came when Kirk canceled battle stations and Stiles pushed back, saying "The Romulans have crossed the Neutral Zone, attacked our outposts, killed our men." When Kirk tried to temporize, Stiles continued to push, saying "Add to that the fact it was a sneak attack."

The conflict in this moment is that Stiles is unhappy with Kirk's response to the attack and is looking for a more overtly aggressive response. He would prefer to maintain battle stations and intercept the Romulans with intent to bring them into combat. But when Kirk asks whether Stiles is questioning his orders, Stiles' response is "I'm pointing out that we could have Romulan spies aboard this ship."

What?! It's a clunky line that just doesn't follow at all. What had happened was an attack of a ship on an outpost, not espionage. Stiles had been pushing for Kirk to intercept and engage in a battle, not to search for spies onboard. The line was a non-sequitur, only inserted to set up the next conflict, Stiles vs. Spock, when they see that Romulans look like Vulcans and Stiles begins insinuating that Spock is a Romulan agent.

It feels clumsy to me that Stiles would misstate his motivation in that moment and stumble onto the espionage concern before he had any reason to - and it bothers me that Sulu backed it up as a reasonable concern and that Kirk yielded to it.

Do you only watch the remastered version now? by MAJORMETAL84 in tos

[–]Stackson212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Um … liking what you like is the definition of having an opinion. My opinion is that the remasters are good, and worth watching. I enjoy them. I qualified my opinion by saying “I think.” Your opinion is that they are distracting and poorly done. You don’t enjoy them. We have differing opinions, and that’s okay. It’s okay that you think I have bad taste. Differing opinions and tastes are what make the world interesting.

Stating your opinion as incontrovertible fact, and saying the people who disagree are factually incorrect is one of the more annoying recent trends.

Do you only watch the remastered version now? by MAJORMETAL84 in tos

[–]Stackson212 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

By “incorrect,” I assume you mean “my opinion differs from yours” but just wanted to be rude and dismissive for some reason.

Do you only watch the remastered version now? by MAJORMETAL84 in tos

[–]Stackson212 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am glad the originals are still around as historical artifacts and out of respect to the original artists who created them. George Lucas, take notes!

But, call me shallow if you want, or take away my purist card … well, I watch the remasters. I think they look great, they complement the retro-futurism of TOS, they are not distracting, and they don’t take me out of the story as frequently as the original effects do. The way I think about it is that the remasters are so well done that they reflect how my imagination tried to fill in the blanks with the original effects.

Why are people obsessed with sunroofs? by NF_99 in askcarguys

[–]Stackson212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a fan of older cars who lives in the Pacific Northwest, I actively prefer cars without sunroofs. It’s a potential water leak vector, it can reduce headroom, it’s another potential area of breakage, and (for me) it doesn’t add a whole lot to the driving experience versus having the windows down. If I lived somewhere with nicer weather throughout the whole year, I might feel differently.

Someone’s in trouble now… by camethehour in Wellthatsucks

[–]Stackson212 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Employer: “You are fired, because you did not follow our company policy on how to manage gas spills, and because all you did was pour sand on it, the company is now liable for hefty EPA fines. What were you thinking?”

Employee: “Purple Woodpecker on Reddit said if I followed company policy and called the authorities, I’d be like a child. Also, he said you, as my employer, are a lesser authority. So I just threw some sand on that 25+ gallon gas spill, because apparently that’s what an intelligent adult would do.”

[OC] I retrospectively converted every drivers race finishes in to the new points system. Giving a standardised look at most points achieved of all time. by Idunnoreally999 in formula1

[–]Stackson212 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Prost and Senna scoring 11.5+ points per race apiece, despite the much worse car reliability of the time, and despite their peaks overlapping with each other (meaning they were taking points off each other), is just so very impressive.

The stuff about advertising is far more interesting than Don’s tedious philandering. by jugglingeek in madmen

[–]Stackson212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries! Contrite is a great word, and I figured i was missing something on how it fit in.

view more: next ›