boops_popmarket

It's now for sale on Amazon for $18.
Third Eye Blind - We Are Drugs EP

I will gladly pay taxes for projects that make the community and world around me better, even if I don't personally directly benefit from the projects (for example, I'd pay taxes to support better education even if I don't have kids who are in the public school system).  Wasteful spending is the correct target to me.

I will gladly pay taxes for projects that make the community and world around me better, even if I don't personally directly benefit from the projects (for example, I'd pay taxes to support better education even if I don't have kids who are in the public school system).  Wasteful spending is the correct target to me.

The other wrinkle to dialogue these days...what do we mean by "prove it"?
 
Do we mean "prove it in a way that most critical thinking adults would understand" or "prove it to me"?  
 
If it's the former, the 'strength' or 'weakness' of someone's argument is independent of whether the other party accepts/acknowledges/understands it as strong or weak. You can argue that XYZ is a racist and the person you are arguing with can say "That's a weak argument/you didn't successfully prove it" and it would not alter the strength or weakness of your argument; it would ultimately be up to the other person to respond with a counter-argument.  
 
If it's the latter, there becomes an unspoken agreement that your argument is only as strong or weak as the opposing party says it is. Your argument's strength or weakness is determined not by the evidence or support you provide but by the reaction that the other party gives your argument. In my opinion, A LOT of recent Trump-related arguing falls into this latter category. Instead of actually counter-arguing, we can now outright dismiss arguments with a flippant eye-roll, a copy-and-paste meme, or by ramping up the extremity of tone/opinion to the point of distraction (a good example would be calling another poster a rapist to make a point and garner a strong reaction). I think this is true for both sides, however, I believe one side does it out of laziness and lack of controlling our emotions and one side uses this argument style as a deliberate offensive playbook.

The other wrinkle to dialogue these days...what do we mean by "prove it"?
 
Do we mean "prove it in a way that most critical thinking adults would understand" or "prove it to me"?  
 
If it's the former, the 'strength' or 'weakness' of someone's argument is independent of whether the other party accepts/acknowledges/understands it as strong or weak. You can argue that XYZ is a racist and the person you are arguing with can say "That's a weak argument/you didn't successfully prove it" and it would not alter the strength or weakness of your argument; it would ultimately be up to the other person to respond with a counter-argument.  
 
If it's the latter, there becomes an unspoken agreement that your argument is only as strong or weak as the opposing party says it is. Your argument's strength or weakness is determined not by the evidence or support you provide but by the reaction that the other party gives your argument. In my opinion, A LOT of recent Trump-related arguing falls into this latter category. Instead of actually counter-arguing, we can now outright dismiss arguments with a flippant eye-roll, a copy-and-paste meme, or by ramping up the extremity of tone/opinion to the point of distraction (a good example would be calling another poster a rapist to make a point and garner a strong reaction). I think this is true for both sides, however, I believe one side does it out of laziness and lack of controlling our emotions and one side uses this argument style as a deliberate offensive playbook.

It will be very hard to make a case on anything that isn't aligned with the alt-right movement's worldview if any information from mainstream propaganda is suppressed/dismissed and "mainstream propaganda" is defined as literally anything that disagrees with the alt-right movement's worldview.

The other wrinkle to dialogue these days...what do we mean by "prove it"?
 
Do we mean "prove it in a way that most critical thinking adults would understand" or "prove it to me"?  
 
If it's the former, the 'strength' or 'weakness' of someone's argument is independent of whether the other party accepts/acknowledges/understands it as strong or weak. You can argue that XYZ is a racist and the person you are arguing with can say "That's a weak argument/you didn't successfully prove it" and it would not alter the strength or weakness of your argument; it would ultimately be up to the other person to respond with a counter-argument.  
 
If it's the latter, there becomes an unspoken agreement that your argument is only as strong or weak as the opposing party says it is. Your argument's strength or weakness is determined not by the evidence or support you provide but by the reaction that the other party gives your argument. In my opinion, A LOT of recent Trump-related arguing falls into this latter category. Instead of actually counter-arguing, we can now outright dismiss arguments with a flippant eye-roll, a copy-and-paste meme, or by ramping up the extremity of tone/opinion to the point of distraction (a good example would be calling another poster a rapist to make a point and garner a strong reaction). I think this is true for both sides, however, I believe one side does it out of laziness and lack of controlling our emotions and one side uses this argument style as a deliberate offensive playbook.

The other wrinkle to dialogue these days...what do we mean by "prove it"?
 
Do we mean "prove it in a way that most critical thinking adults would understand" or "prove it to me"?  
 
If it's the former, the 'strength' or 'weakness' of someone's argument is independent of whether the other party accepts/acknowledges/understands it as strong or weak. You can argue that XYZ is a racist and the person you are arguing with can say "That's a weak argument/you didn't successfully prove it" and it would not alter the strength or weakness of your argument; it would ultimately be up to the other person to respond with a counter-argument.  
 
If it's the latter, there becomes an unspoken agreement that your argument is only as strong or weak as the opposing party says it is. Your argument's strength or weakness is determined not by the evidence or support you provide but by the reaction that the other party gives your argument. In my opinion, A LOT of recent Trump-related arguing falls into this latter category. Instead of actually counter-arguing, we can now outright dismiss arguments with a flippant eye-roll, a copy-and-paste meme, or by ramping up the extremity of tone/opinion to the point of distraction (a good example would be calling another poster a rapist to make a point and garner a strong reaction). I think this is true for both sides, however, I believe one side does it out of laziness and lack of controlling our emotions and one side uses this argument style as a deliberate offensive playbook.

It will be very hard to make a case on anything that isn't aligned with the alt-right movement's worldview if any information from mainstream propaganda is suppressed/dismissed and "mainstream propaganda" is defined as literally anything that disagrees with the alt-right movement's worldview.

It will be very hard to make a case on anything that isn't aligned with the alt-right movement's worldview if any information from mainstream propaganda is suppressed/dismissed and "mainstream propaganda" is defined as literally anything that disagrees with the alt-right movement's worldview.

Sometimes, there's no saving face.  You just gotta do your best Martin Shkreli and annoyingly embrace the role of villain.

Just got a new custom cabinet for my 7" records.

Whether or not you agree with the issues/goals, you should be able to acknowledge that they don't exist for only a few months every 4 years.  People can protest year round, the day before, the day after, in the evening, in the morning. Politics is an on-going discussion and there is no obligation to "shut up" for 4 years because your candidate lost.

Whether or not you agree with the issues/goals, you should be able to acknowledge that they don't exist for only a few months every 4 years.  People can protest year round, the day before, the day after, in the evening, in the morning. Politics is an on-going discussion and there is no obligation to "shut up" for 4 years because your candidate lost.

Technically, Obama supporters were also emboldened by his rhetoric. Dn't you remember when, after the election in 2008, minorities felt more comfortable doing shocking and extreme things like engaging in society as equals? 

That blows. On Discogs, I usually go with listings that are VG+ or NM with a description over the vague Mint/Mint with no additional info ones.

I just bought an original press off Discogs. Can't wait to get it.  Thanks!

I voted for Bush when I was 18 and it's embarrassing now.  I imagine there will be a generation of young dudes who, in 10-15 years, who feel the same about this vote. We were wrong that something this ridiculous wouldn't happen. We lost!

I voted for Bush when I was 18 and it's embarrassing now.  I imagine there will be a generation of young dudes who, in 10-15 years, who feel the same about this vote. We were wrong that something this ridiculous wouldn't happen. We lost!

Sorry. WAXXX was having internet issues so he texted me and asked if I could post that for him.

There is no proof that Clinton did not pay people in the 1950s to commit racist attacks.  Open your mind.

This auditory phenomenon you call music is intriguing, especially the sounds named My Name is Jonas.  Take me to your human Rivers Cuomo.

This auditory phenomenon you call music is intriguing, especially the sounds named My Name is Jonas.  Take me to your human Rivers Cuomo.

^ Imagine you are playing a fantasy role play/card game and the only cards in your deck were "infinite and non-discriminate shifting between temporarily convenient perspectives",  "cognitive dissonance numbing shield", and "permanent opposition to anything Hillary Clinton".  Now, imagine the cards faded away and the game was just how you chose to think in your actual life.

^ Those independents who are turned off by the insane conspiracy theories are actually Clinton actors who were paid to pose as independent and be turned off by the insane conspiracy theories.