Re: Biden's Economy?
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:14 pm
I like it.
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
I like it.
Exactly. The meme is ambiguous, which means the person who posts it can declare what means after someone reacts. That’s the beauty of posting ambiguous things.Binger wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:26 pmThat is not it. Let's continue this discussion. What other reasons could there be in posting a meme, rather than engaging in dialogues with words, thoughts and ideas? For example, could a meme be used to portray a person as having the same ideas and insights? What if I wanted to be your buddy, and your buddy's buddy, and your buddy's buddy's buddy and your buddies' buddy? If that was my ambition, could I use a meme to make me look cool, like you, your buddies, and your buddies' buddies? What about a meme that would make me look submissive to them so they would like me? What about a meme that would make me look like I was the alpha asshole and was smashing the people that you and your buddies want smashed?Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:11 pm
I get my entertainment mostly from fiction podcasts. I get the game. No matter what substantive comment makes about your meme, you will respond in whatever way you think portrays you as a being with superior insight. It's easy with memes. Much harder when one simply states one's opinions or views.
The “or” continues the ambiguity."This" is information from Biden that would contradict a suggestion made in a previous post or generate a different response.
Gotchya, I cleaned up the subject in my post that you brought over. Makes sense now. Thanks man.
If'n you don't mind. I may tackle this in parts. But, let me start with some serious and sincere snark as an example of what I am thinking.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:47 amExactly. The meme is ambiguous, which means the person who posts it can declare what means after someone reacts. That’s the beauty of posting ambiguous things.Binger wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:26 pm
That is not it. Let's continue this discussion. What other reasons could there be in posting a meme, rather than engaging in dialogues with words, thoughts and ideas? For example, could a meme be used to portray a person as having the same ideas and insights? What if I wanted to be your buddy, and your buddy's buddy, and your buddy's buddy's buddy and your buddies' buddy? If that was my ambition, could I use a meme to make me look cool, like you, your buddies, and your buddies' buddies? What about a meme that would make me look submissive to them so they would like me? What about a meme that would make me look like I was the alpha asshole and was smashing the people that you and your buddies want smashed?
When I asked for clarification, you said this:
The “or” continues the ambiguity."This" is information from Biden that would contradict a suggestion made in a previous post or generate a different response.
Now, I’ll admit that I can’t tell what you intended when you posted the meme. Just because the ambiguity would allow you to choose an interpretation after I responded doesn’t mean that you actually intended to do that. But, but from my side of the conversation, nothing tells me whether you had an internet at the time you posted or whether how I react to the meme will determine how you will interpret the meme.
So, at the time you posted the meme, what, if anything, did you intend to communicate to readers of the thread[?] And if you think I’m asking the wrong question, please tell me the question you think I should be asking.
by the way, the digs in this new forum are pretty fancy. The grand piano is a nice touch. Pity about the name.
Your post is set up, intentionally or not, for me to play with and comment on. I could do something passively aggressive, like add an emphasis and highlight your typo/autocorrect with a [sic], or I could just add a [sic] as a courtesy, or I could just be civil and honor the intent of your post which I believe was to have some connection or dialogue about a topic that interests you, or I could get literal and lambast over the absurdity of you not being told whether I had an internet, or I could just call you stupid or obtuse for pointing out something so blatantly obvious, or I could just go bananas and question whether ever I owed you any information about whether I had an internet [sic] or an [intent].
Res Ipsa's question in this threadBinger wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:05 pmWell, there is also this.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:43 am
Gunnar, I don't think the federal government can do anything Constitutionally about that particular issue. I think the Constitution specifically gives state legislators the power to decide how a state's electors are appointed in a Presidential election. I think a state legislature could pass a law saying that the electors are chosen by the state legislature and skip voting by the citizens entirely. That's a situation that the citizens of those states will have to address with their state legislatures.
In fact, the bill that the Republicans want to pass will make sure that the federal government can do nothing by clarifying that the VP does not have the power to do what the coup plotters wanted him to do: reject the certified electors of a state. While I agree that the VP does not constitutionally have the power to refuse to accept the certified electors, I don't think the congressional republicans care much about the what the constitution requires -- they want this legislation in place so that Harris can't do what the coup plotters wanted to do if any state legislatures choose to override the choice of the people in their state. It's purely tactical. If we had a republican President and VP, they wouldn't vote for any reform.
What federal legislation could do is prohibit voter suppression. But the Rs don't want that, because their suppression legislation is aimed at the folks who tend to vote for Dems. So, it's either break the filibuster or suppression is the order of the day in states controlled by Rs.
This too is coming in parts.... It is early, you have to suffer, even in Spirit Paradise Paradise, with my disorganization.
That right there explains the most.
All this sounds reasonable to me, but with an asterisk that I’ll address once I’ve read your next posts.Binger wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:19 pmIf'n you don't mind. I may tackle this in parts. But, let me start with some serious and sincere snark as an example of what I am thinking.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:47 am
Exactly. The meme is ambiguous, which means the person who posts it can declare what means after someone reacts. That’s the beauty of posting ambiguous things.
When I asked for clarification, you said this:
The “or” continues the ambiguity.
Now, I’ll admit that I can’t tell what you intended when you posted the meme. Just because the ambiguity would allow you to choose an interpretation after I responded doesn’t mean that you actually intended to do that. But, but from my side of the conversation, nothing tells me whether you had an internet at the time you posted or whether how I react to the meme will determine how you will interpret the meme.
So, at the time you posted the meme, what, if anything, did you intend to communicate to readers of the thread[?] And if you think I’m asking the wrong question, please tell me the question you think I should be asking.
by the way, the digs in this new forum are pretty fancy. The grand piano is a nice touch. Pity about the name.
Check this out.Your post is set up, intentionally or not, for me to play with and comment on. I could do something passively aggressive, like add an emphasis and highlight your typo/autocorrect with a [sic], or I could just add a [sic] as a courtesy, or I could just be civil and honor the intent of your post which I believe was to have some connection or dialogue about a topic that interests you, or I could get literal and lambast over the absurdity of you not being told whether I had an internet, or I could just call you stupid or obtuse for pointing out something so blatantly obvious, or I could just go bananas and question whether ever I owed you any information about whether I had an internet [sic] or an [intent].
The point I am making is that I will choose how to interpret your post. I choose what to do with the previous post. I will choose whether to be aggressive (you ***** ****** ***** useless ***** ***** **** can't even spellcheck your own posts) or civil, or accommodating. I will choose whether to provoke a reaction, or seek some kind of connection or understanding, or to continue the dialogue. I could even choose to have some clarification before I do anything. I will make my move, and you will make yours. Your move will include your reaction or interpretation of what I do.
My move or choice will also be determined by my experience with you, with the topic, with the group, with the forum, with the other moderators and whatever else is going on in my life or my experience here. (The conditions topic is one we have hashed out in the past.)
Next up.... the answer.
Part 2 or 3, but who is counting?