sycasey said:

---

aaaaaand back to my usual policy of not responding to iwantwinners posts.

---

I would too, everything you post gets b*tchslapped. When you can't retort, you virtue signal about being "above it all".

What a clown.

BearNIt said:

---

Back in the old days they called 'virtue signaling", "the right thing to do" and people weren't attacked for doing it. My how times have changed.

---

you're intentionally pleading ignorance to the meaning of virtue signaling. It's feigning and/or espousing moral superiority to drown out opposing points of view without actually making an argument against the opposition. Feigning moral outrage over "sh*thole" and "p*ssy grabbing" as a means to dismiss political points of view (and the people that represent those views) is virtue signaling.

Not sound cliche, but you just did it in that post. By asserting the idea (that you know is untrue) that the use of virtue signaling is inherently a label for people doing the right thing is virtue signaling. You don't need to engage ideas you disagree with, you need not have to make arguments. You already have made clear that you and those like you are inherently correct by way of your "virtue".

You know virtue signaling doesn't mean "doing the right thing" but you asserted so anyways. That's dishonest.

iwantwinners said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

Back in the old days they called 'virtue signaling", "the right thing to do" and people weren't attacked for doing it. My how times have changed.

---

you're intentionally pleading ignorance to the meaning of virtue signaling. It's feigning and/or espousing moral superiority to drown out opposing points of view without actually making an argument against the opposition. Feigning moral outrage over "sh*thole" and "p*ssy grabbing" as a means to dismiss political points of view (and the people that represent those views) is virtue signaling.

Not sound cliche, but you just did it in that post. By asserting the idea (that you know is untrue) that the use of virtue signaling is inherently a label for people doing the right thing is virtue signaling. You don't need to engage ideas you disagree with, you need not have to make arguments. You already have made clear that you and those like you are inherently correct by way of your "virtue".

You know virtue signaling doesn't mean "doing the right thing" but you asserted so anyways. That's dishonest.

---

No my outrage is real over sh*thole and p-grabbing because I think it's wrong and and wouldn't do it. Nothing more and nothing less. I wouldn't like any of the women in my life to have to contend with filth that would attempt such a thing and would make such an attempt the first and last time something like that would happen. It's not hard and doesn't take much thought, but that's the men in my family. I also don't think you should refer to another country as a sh*thole country, but you do what you want to do.

BearNIt said:

---

Back in the old days they called 'virtue signaling", "the right thing to do" and people weren't attacked for doing it. My how times have changed.

---

They still mostly aren't. The Parkland kids have said in interviews that the trolls are like 10% of the responses they get and everyone else is very positive.

So it really is a loud minority of jerks who are doing this. Unfortunately they are also often given voice by the man in the White House.

sycasey said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

Back in the old days they called 'virtue signaling", "the right thing to do" and people weren't attacked for doing it. My how times have changed.

---

They still mostly aren't. The Parkland kids have said in interviews that the trolls are like 10% of the responses they get and everyone else is very positive.

So it really is a loud minority of jerks who are doing this. Unfortunately they are also often given voice by the man in the White House.

---

you're virtue signaling right now, yet you want people to stop calling you out for it. The immediate presupposition that those that disagree with you or your teammates are "trolling" and "loud jerks" lol.

Who occupies the WH doesn't give or take away voice from anybody. Everyone has a right to their voice. The only one wanting voices to be silenced are...well they were at Berkeley not long ago.

BearNIt said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

Back in the old days they called 'virtue signaling", "the right thing to do" and people weren't attacked for doing it. My how times have changed.

---

you're intentionally pleading ignorance to the meaning of virtue signaling. It's feigning and/or espousing moral superiority to drown out opposing points of view without actually making an argument against the opposition. Feigning moral outrage over "sh*thole" and "p*ssy grabbing" as a means to dismiss political points of view (and the people that represent those views) is virtue signaling.

Not sound cliche, but you just did it in that post. By asserting the idea (that you know is untrue) that the use of virtue signaling is inherently a label for people doing the right thing is virtue signaling. You don't need to engage ideas you disagree with, you need not have to make arguments. You already have made clear that you and those like you are inherently correct by way of your "virtue".

You know virtue signaling doesn't mean "doing the right thing" but you asserted so anyways. That's dishonest.

---

No my outrage is real over sh*thole and p-grabbing because I think it's wrong and and wouldn't do it. Nothing more and nothing less. I wouldn't like any of the women in my life to have to contend with filth that would attempt such a thing and would make such an attempt the first and last time something like that would happen. It's not hard and doesn't take much thought, but that's the men in my family. I also don't think you should refer to another country as a sh*thole country, but you do what you want to do.

---

You know he wasn't actually grabbing strange women by their genitals? He was talking like a frat boy among other men. Tasteless sure, but not exactly a political argument.

And yes I don't think sh*thole is a big deal, in fact it was refreshing. Countries aren't equal. Why is half of Mexico coming to America but no Americans are going to Mexico (unless fleeing the law lol). Mexicans are leaving Mexico because Mexico is a sh*thole, or at least more of one than America. Hence why they ought to assimilate to this place, and not the sh*thole they came from. If they wanted this place to be more like the sh*thole they came from, that's an inherent problem. Unless the goal is to turn America into a sh*thole so that Americans migrate to better sh*tholes.

iwantwinners said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

Back in the old days they called 'virtue signaling", "the right thing to do" and people weren't attacked for doing it. My how times have changed.

---

you're intentionally pleading ignorance to the meaning of virtue signaling. It's feigning and/or espousing moral superiority to drown out opposing points of view without actually making an argument against the opposition. Feigning moral outrage over "sh*thole" and "p*ssy grabbing" as a means to dismiss political points of view (and the people that represent those views) is virtue signaling.

Not sound cliche, but you just did it in that post. By asserting the idea (that you know is untrue) that the use of virtue signaling is inherently a label for people doing the right thing is virtue signaling. You don't need to engage ideas you disagree with, you need not have to make arguments. You already have made clear that you and those like you are inherently correct by way of your "virtue".

You know virtue signaling doesn't mean "doing the right thing" but you asserted so anyways. That's dishonest.

---

No my outrage is real over sh*thole and p-grabbing because I think it's wrong and and wouldn't do it. Nothing more and nothing less. I wouldn't like any of the women in my life to have to contend with filth that would attempt such a thing and would make such an attempt the first and last time something like that would happen. It's not hard and doesn't take much thought, but that's the men in my family. I also don't think you should refer to another country as a sh*thole country, but you do what you want to do.

---

You know he wasn't actually grabbing strange women by their genitals? He was talking like a frat boy among other men. Tasteless sure, but not exactly a political argument.

And yes I don't think sh*thole is a big deal, in fact it was refreshing. Countries aren't equal. Why is half of Mexico coming to America but no Americans are going to Mexico (unless fleeing the law lol). Mexicans are leaving Mexico because Mexico is a sh*thole, or at least more of one than America. Hence why they ought to assimilate to this place, and not the sh*thole they came from. If they wanted this place to be more like the sh*thole they came from, that's an inherent problem. Unless the goal is to turn America into a sh*thole so that Americans migrate to better sh*tholes.

---

Really, have you heard some of the reports from the women that he allegedly grabbed in elevators or on planes? I'm pretty sure they said he grabbed them by the p*ssy.

I've lived outside the country for extended periods and I don't think I have ever heard another foreign leader refer to another country as a sh*thole. Probably not a great thing to do when Africa has vast amounts of minerals which are needed for the high tech industries that we use to maintain our position in the world. China is kicking the cr*ap out of the U.S. in Africa currently. His comments couldn't have helped our position and then there is the fight against terrorism currently going on in Africa. The US needs willing partners to continue that effort.

I have noticed how many of the kids from Parkland High School sport the huge horn rimmed glasses that my parent's generation wore and that we made fun of. Can someone explain the logic behind this fashion trend (especially in the case where it obstructs the features of nice looking young women):

I believe it's considered "hipster fashion".

iwantwinners said:

---

I believe it's considered "hipster fashion".

---

So when taken to its logical extension, this must be super hip:

bearister said:

---

I have noticed how many of the kids from Parkland High School sport the huge horn rimmed glasses that my parent's generation wore and that we made fun of. Can someone explain the logic behind this fashion trend (especially in the case where it obstructs the features of nice looking young women):

---

I can't believe young people don't want to wear what middle-aged men find fashionable.

bearister said:

---

I have noticed how many of the kids from Parkland High School sport the huge horn rimmed glasses that my parent's generation wore and that we made fun of. Can someone explain the logic behind this fashion trend (especially in the case where it obstructs the features of nice looking young women):

---

Anyway, to attempt to answer your question seriously, I think the "big glasses" trend is mostly about young people making a bold statement that sets them apart from their parents' generation. Same as tie-dye or beatnik wear or punk-rock piercings and leather. I don't know if there's a particular "logic" to any new fashion trend, as these things tend to arrive organically without any specific planning. You're not young anymore, so the fact that you don't "get" it is kind of part of the point, right? Sort of like how your parents didn't "get" rock n' roll.

If I had to psychoanalyze a bit, I'd say that Millennials and other modern young people don't carry the same stigma against bookishness that previous generations did. They grew up in a world where being a "computer nerd" wasn't something that set you apart; it was the norm, something to aspire to (Bill Gates and Steve Jobs became titans of industry). Technology has advanced to the point where most people can wear contact lenses or have laser surgery if they really want to. That makes the wearing of glasses less a necessity than an active statement about your identity, the bigger the better.

(Personally I don't mind it at all, but I've always kind of had a thing for women in glasses. Sexy librarian and all that.)

The big dark rimmed glasses things is simply fashion being recycled and kids taking formerly ironic and weird symbols and fashion from the past and re-purposing. Also the fact that old folks don't get it and think it's weird because we were made to wear that crap...only fuels the reason to do so. If it doesn't bewilder or peeve mom and dad, it ain't working. Yeah it's that...and nerd chic.

You guys are all wrong. Rick Perry started the big glasses thing after studies by the DOE proved it made you look 37% smarter.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You guys are all wrong. Rick Perry started the big glasses thing after studies by the DOE proved it made you look 37% smarter.

---

Oops.

sycasey said:

---

I can't believe young people don't want to wear what middle-aged men find fashionable.

---

This isn't the first time you have busted my balls. I kind of have to respect that. I guess I should take the term "middle aged" as a compliment but it will require that I live North of a 120 years for it to be applicable. Oh, and maybe men wearing yoga pants is fashionable too but they are still meow meows (there, take that obscenity sniffing software) on any objective scale.

bearister said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I can't believe young people don't want to wear what middle-aged men find fashionable.

---

This isn't the first time you have busted my balls. I kind of have to respect that. I guess I should take the term "middle aged" as a compliment but it will require that I live North of a 120 years for it to be applicable.

---

60 is the new 40!

That's quite a bit of "followers," huh? At lease more than the followers of pizzagate.

I sense momentum gaining and a shift. I think these student got this..and they're going to carry on. The NRA executive board, guys like LaPierre, will be dead in 10 years. Biggest protest participation of student since the 60s.

Another Bear said:

---

I sense momentum gaining and a shift. I think these student got this..and they're going to carry on. The NRA executive board, guys like LaPierre, will be dead in 10 years. Biggest protest participation of student since the 60s.

---

No doubt. And a lot more orderly than the 60s protests. Pure civic engagement.

...Go Patriots?

Another Bear said:

---

Santorum: Instead of calling for gun laws, kids should take CPR classes

Someone should really kick this guy in the nut sack as hard as humanly possible.

---

That region is probably deader than a slab of petrified wood.

The oversized glasses need to go the way of the skinny jean/pant fad for men.

I think it has something to do with millennial culture's feminization of men/destruction of masculinity to the point where young men fail to realize they look like effeminate clowns in skinny pants.

As far as the oversized glasses on women, I think it's partly women who don't subscribe to the modern, western norms of feminine hygiene like showering daily and shaving their legs and armpits and genital region. The glasses are like an F U to these norms, and sort of an efficient mating signal that alerts men that they're behind the hygiene curve. And lots of men will bang a hole in the ground, and the men that wouldn't wouldn't be in to the feminist chic look anyways.

Wow. Just. Wow. You are truly special. Bless your heart...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/nikolas-cruz-shooting-florida.html#click=https://t.co/XoThpnrwDU

Retired Justice Stevens argues for repeal of Second Amendment

Quote:

---

Washington (CNN)Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens believes the students and demonstrators who protested this past weekend for gun control should seek a repeal of the Second Amendment.

"A concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment," Stevens wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times Tuesday, adding, "today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."

A lifelong Republican but considered liberal in his judicial rulings, Stevens pointed to his dissent in the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense within his home.

---

Another Bear said:

---

Retired Justice Stevens argues for repeal of Second Amendment

Quote:

---

Washington (CNN)Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens believes the students and demonstrators who protested this past weekend for gun control should seek a repeal of the Second Amendment.

"A concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment," Stevens wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times Tuesday, adding, "today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."

A lifelong Republican but considered liberal in his judicial rulings, Stevens pointed to his dissent in the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense within his home.

---

---

I would have no problem with that, but it will be a cold day in hell before you get 3/4's of the states to pass it.

The current situation is far preferable. Repealing the anmendment wouldn't ban guns. There would be 50 different gun laws.