Remy has challenged me to convince you that women should choose encountering a man they don't know over encountering a bear in the forest. If you actually believe women should choose the bear and aren't just trolling Remy, then I'm open to giving it my best shot.
Savant wrote:
Remy has challenged me to convince you that women should choose encountering a man they don't know over encountering a bear in the forest. If you actually believe women should choose the bear and aren't just trolling Remy, then I'm open to giving it my best shot.
I'd rather you explain how some stupid little internet questionnaire about women and bears can explode into such an all-consuming obsession, it's so incomprehensive weird, can you help me understand that part of the Remy freak show.
That, or explain this: Every single one of Remy's posts is an attempt at trolling somebody, usually an embarrassingly bad effort, but never the less, his intent is always to troll some group to upset people, Liberals, women, Jews, you name it, and when he gets the kind of response he is looking for, he cries like a teenage girl with a pimple on her nose prom night. Why does he try to make people mad and then cry like a little whiney baby when they get mad. I'm thinking it's because he wanted us to get mad at women, or Jews, or Democrats, and doesn't want them to be mad at him.
Does he just want attention, sympathy, victimhood, or what?
Is he just trying to satisfy his appetite for violence by trying to radicalize people into hatred, does he just want to try to contribute to the violence in the real world, or is he just unhinged.
It's not like we have the option of having a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with him, I'm better off have a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with my dog.
Be honest, if the on the news tonight you caw his home was raided and they found a dozen severed heads in his freezer and a suit made out of women's skin, would you be surprised? Or would you say, "I saw that coming".
In other words, let's see if you can give me a reason to take him seriously.
In other words, let's see if you can give me a reason to take him seriously.
You're under no obligation to take him seriously, but I'm not trying to convince you of that. I'm asking if you actually believe women should choose the bear or if you're just being hyperbolic to annoy Remy.
It's not like we have the option of having a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with him
Perhaps, but I think I can have a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with you.
Savant wrote:
In other words, let's see if you can give me a reason to take him seriously.
You're under no obligation to take him seriously, but I'm not trying to convince you of that. I'm asking if you actually believe women should choose the bear or if you're just being hyperbolic to annoy Remy.
Hey, it's just a stupid internet question, it's not the real world, and I do in fact think it is reasonable for women to use it to express how they feel about men. Fact is, thousands more women are killed by men than are killed by bears so their fears are rational. It's not like somebody is holding a tied-up woman over a bear pit and making her choose (except maybe Remy), it's a questionaire inquiring about people's feelings, experiences, attitudes, and it's not like people don't use exaggeration and metaphore on line to express themselves and make a point. So yes, I actually believe women should choose the bear if that is a metaphorical way of expressing their feelings, fears, disgust, or whatever. The more Remy goes creepily ballistic over this nothing question, the more I understand what kind of concern women are expressing, I'm not the only one that wouldn't be surprised to find severed heads in his freezer.
I'm just not unhinged enough to take that stupid little internet question any more seriously than that, and the more creepy boy pushes it, the more I'm going to have fun with it.
It's not like we have the option of having a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with him
Perhaps, but I think I can have a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with you.
Thanks, I guess I do have my moments, but there isn't a lot presented here that merits rational discussion lately, and the trend tells me it's going further down inane street.
If the site isn't going to be interesting, then at least it can be fun while I wait for interesting to pop up..
Seeing as Sidewalker doesn't think women should literally choose the bear, I'm not sure there's anything for me to convince him of.
I don’t think bears are an equal playing field for women, they can easily overcome women which would limit the benefits.
But all political disagreements are Rage Bait whether it's intended or not.
If it's not intended, then it's not rage bait by definition.
You're pretending as if rage bait is merely a product of how someone reacts to a post when that's not at all what's being evaluated. It's an indicator, not what determines it.
I don't intend for my opinions to be Rage Bait, I just accept that they are.
It's not your opinions that matter, it's how you're presenting them.
Assume every political opinion is literal.
You are the last person who should want people to take your opinions at face value, dude. I have to dig pretty hard to find your actual opinion, because you often present it in an unflattering way up front. "I talk in generalizations" is basically your way of not being literal.
I don't intend for my opinions to be Rage Bait, I just accept that they are.
You said you are trying to trigger emotions, so you are clearly trying to enrage people.
Expect left wingers to lie about their positions to try and persuade the moderate.
I don't think "their fears are rational" is saying the same thing as "in this specific situation, a man is more dangerous than a bear." Those are two different things, and people will fear the thing they tend to encounter more often. Especially since he called the choice "exaggeration and metaphor."
If I say, "Texans are to the right of Californians", then that is a generalization that is 100% literal.
But it has the same problem as talking in exaggerations, in that your words have multiple possible interpretations and the obvious one isn't the one you actually mean.
Right wing men didn't make it about the bear; women did. So it's not the same as the right calling themselves Nazis now.
Okay but if you call yourself a Nazi, that makes it harder to get your actual point across. Maybe your ragebaiting is justified (for the purpose of revenge, I guess?), but it's still ragebaiting.
RemyBrown wrote:
Seeing as Sidewalker doesn't think women should literally choose the bear, I'm not sure there's anything for me to convince him of.
He's being literal; all political opinions should be interpreted as literal.
The bear or man question is political LOL, you crack me up.
OK, you are right, I literally think women should choose the bear over you.
I also literally think a woman should choose lethal injection over you.
I literally think it is highly unlikely that a bear has severed heads in the freezer.
There you go, some politics for you.
PS I literally think the GOP would rather be alone with a bear than have Remy be their spokesperson.
Gimme a high five...
The bear looks cuter than most men and very playful too.
Maybe to some people. If I call myself a Nazi, then I'd expect a Jewish person to ask why and then I can say, "Because some minority groups deserve to be criticized."
No, they're going to take you at face value and you know that.
Eye for an eye revenge, there's a word for that; equality. Equal reciprocal treatment.
Eye for an eye works when the rules are clear. If eye for eye means you just confuse people as to what your point is, it doesn't work.
RemyBrown wrote:
Also, side 52 Side walker is committing defamation by accusing my of having severed heads in the freezer.
What I said was "I literally think it is highly unlikely that a bear has severed heads in the freezer."
I didn't mention you, I mentioned a bear.
Maybe you are confused because you fantasize being a bear so a woman might choose you.
The aesthetics of the water bottle is how the water is presented; I care only about the quality of my water (and that means if I focus on a good-looking bottle, then it takes energy away from where it matters; the quality of the water).
The issue is not that you don't care how the water is presented, it's that you purposefully try to make it look as unpresentable as possible. That difference between not caring vs trying to make it look bad is the difference between someone who is rough around the edges vs a rage bait troll.
If you want to stick with this analogy, ask yourself not whether the water is at even or even better quality, ask yourself whether you would trust the water enough to even check once you see that the person selling it to you went out of their way to make it look terrible.
People are not emotionless robots, they're not going to ignore the packaging because of some water quality test results. You have to get them to that latter point, the packaging is where that is accomplished.
I can already see you shaking your head, probably thinking this is all stupid, and that's exactly the problem. You think you're better than everyone else, and ultimately, that right there is the point. People do not need to be offended to recognize when someone is trying to rage bait them. And that effort you're obviously making tells people all they need to know about whether you are someone worth interacting with.
RemyBrown wrote:
PS I literally think the GOP would rather be alone with a bear than have Remy be their spokesperson.
Who do you think is the GOP's favorite spokesperson? Trump? DeSantis? Vance? Left wingers have low IQs; the GOP doesn't want AOC as their spokeperson.
I have no idea, but I know who the Democrat's favorite spokesperson is, Donald Trump, he raises more money for Democrats than anybody, he also converts voters to the Democratic Party, and gets the Democratic vote out.
I think second place goes to Remy Brown, he makes the GOP look stupid and he embarrasses the hell out of them. Exposure to Remy transforms decent people into Democrats.
He doesn't just make DebateCraft look bad, nope, he's bringing shame on a much greater scale than just DebateCraft, his negative impact is widespread.
