The case against f (aka b, aka booru)

  • 8 Replies
  • 398 Views
The case against f (aka b, aka booru)
« on: March 11, 2022, 11:17:14 pm »
Kakama recently re-invited b back to wetfish under the promise that they would be nice. But are they really being nice? You decide

Quote
19:46 < standard> to the trained nose, they smell different
19:46 < f> just for clarification's sake, were you passive aggressively telling me i'm not allowed to speak to any topic other than how you smell, or were you just ignoring/misunderstanding my tangent
19:47 < standard> what
19:47 < f> just for clarification's sake, were you passive aggressively telling me i'm not allowed to speak to any topic other than how you smell, or were you just ignoring/misunderstanding my tangent
19:47 < blubb> repetition is not clarification
19:47 < libfud> vegan shepherd's pie
19:47 < libfud> what do you use for the meat
19:47 < standard> lentils
19:48 < f> blubb: when I said clarification, I intended to imply I'm asking for my own sense of clarity
19:48 < f> Was that clear?
19:49 < blubb> oh sorry, i didn't see you say the word "clarification", i just saw you post the same long line twice as if the second instance was a clarification of the first
19:49 < blubb> i guess everyone is confused and aggravated now :s
19:49 < f> blubb: you had one job
19:50 < blubb> glad i failed it
19:50 < blubb> now i have zero job, that's easier
19:50 < f> blubb: i unironically don't get what your deal is
19:50 < blubb> f: there's no overarching narrative that you could call my deal
19:51 < f> blubb: other than not reading what i'm saying unless it has triggerwords in it
19:51 < f> tiktok DOWNBAD HOLD THIS L RATIO RATIO RATIO
19:52 < blubb> i think i read everything you wrote in the past hour
*spork*

Re: The case against f (aka b, aka booru)
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2022, 11:20:04 pm »
Continued arguing with blubb about pedantic bullshit

Quote
19:56 < f> There are so many other fermented vegetables out there, libfud, that trying to think in terms of "cheese but not from milk" is just wasting your time.
19:56 < blubb> f: vaguely but not exactly
19:56 < f> blubb: Eyerolling levels of pedantery.
19:57 < blubb> and to be fair, there are other liquids that act a lot like milk, such as soymilk, even when you process them further. on the side of how the materials behave, tofu is a kind of soy cheese
19:58 < blubb> f: fine, roll your eyes
19:58 < f> Soymilk isn't a "milklike" as much as you think. It's the hegemony of dairy and cowherding in general that makes you think like that.
19:58 < libfud> I reiterate - what is vegan cheddar, provolone, meunster, swiss, blue, feta
19:58 < f> I agree that it's "cheeselike" in some way, but saying that it's cheeselike puts cheese first.
19:58 < f> When you really think about it, black people are kind of like white people, but dark.
19:59 < blubb> it's murky white, and it can coagulate
19:59 < libfud> what cheese is tofu akin to, really
19:59 < libfud> flavor and scent
19:59 < f> See how that puts white people into a category that exists before black people, despite the truth being that blackie came first?
19:59 < libfud> hairy first
19:59 < blubb> different perspectives are ok
19:59 < blubb> some people see white people first in their lives
19:59 < f> The point of my entire engagement here is to help you realize that meat-first programming isn't going to be beaten by vegans putting their "substitutes" forward when we have so much to do cuisine-wise in terms of education.
20:00 < blubb> even though black people have a longer history in total
20:00 < blubb> f: i agree with your central claim
20:00 < f> I'm not convinced you understand it.
20:01 < f> The central claim is in direct opposition to your too-agreeable attitude that attempts to validate the invalid.
20:01 < blubb> substitutes reach for something complex that they can't reach (such as "meat" or "cheese"), and thus will always be inferior, as long as they keep that target
20:02 < f> And yet you say it's "okay." It's not "okay" if the point you agree with going forward is that it should improve.
20:02 < blubb> only when ingredients take their own path, not as substitutes but as worthy ingredients in their own right, can they reach their full potential
20:02 < f> The US is so far behind on that right now that most people think Chicken is a substitute for Beef. That's how strong the lobby is.
20:03 < blubb> ^ i've laid out my position on substitutes
20:03 < blubb> make of that what you will
20:03 < f> I answered your position with the contradiction you hold.
20:03 < blubb> that US and lobby stuff is irrelevant to me
20:04 < f> blubb: Ah, racism is just irrelevant to racists, right?
20:04 < blubb> no, i mean,
20:04 < blubb> this line is irrelevant to me:  <f> The US is so far behind on that right now that most people think Chicken is a substitute for Beef. That's how strong the lobby is.
20:04 < f> The point of saying the word "substitute" is to make that target, as you stated. The current motion of all things is to compete with beef.
20:05 < blubb> i don't care what the chicken lobby in the US does
20:05 < f> We are discussing the validity of strategy.
20:05 < f> Yes you do, as it's the same as the soy lobby, the almond lobby, etc.
20:05 < blubb> i don't live anywhere near the US!
20:05 < f> You care about the motion, which is why you think that reaching potential is a meaningful phrase whatsoever.
20:06 < f> blubb: Oh, yes, the US doesn't matter to you because you don't live there, as if the US's actions just stop there.
20:06 < f> Oh SHIT Paul! The atlantic! Can't go any further!
20:06 < blubb> and i don't know what you mean by "the motion"
20:06 < Anomaly> blubb, ignore f, this dude's the same asshole who always comes in and argues with people
20:06 < Anomaly> he has a brain problem
20:06 < f> If you think I started this whatsoever, I don't think you understand blubb.
20:06 < Anomaly> I understand you
20:06 < blubb> i'm gonna engage for a few more minutes, until i get bored
20:07 < f> blubb: The movement of all spectacular members.
20:07 < blubb> what are "spectacular members"?
20:07 < f> Water's hot but the room is small
20:07 < f> Members of the spectacle
20:07 < blubb> ah
20:07 < f> That's quite literally what "spectacular members" means
20:07 < blubb> i guess that's a reference to the essay "the society of the spectacle"
20:08 < f> No, it's not a reference to an essay the same way that speaking about relativistic effects isn't a reference to an essay.
20:08 < f> It's pedantically correct to call it referential, but misleading all the same.
20:09 < f> To the same level that it's more akin to saying all incantations of words are references to their very first utterance, which is where you see that it's completely meaningless to say it like that.
20:09 < blubb> now who's pedantic?
20:09 < f> blubb: The point is to kill fire with fire.
20:11 < blubb> f: your contrarian attitude, i don't appreciate it
20:11 < f> blubb: To think I'm the contrarian when you came in to be the true modern contrarian is a total wetfish move.
20:11 < f> Real contrarians are these "hypercentrist" "everything is okay" people, as you tried to be earlier.
20:11 < blubb> discussions need some cooperation, else they will fail
20:11 < f> Incorrect. Never split the difference.
20:11 < f> Compromise is the attempt to make two people unhappy.
20:12 < f> It's a puritan extension of self-flagellation that helps agreeables justify the torment of making bad decisions.
20:12 < f> The goal of a conversation is not to agree. The goal is to understand.
20:12 < blubb> when i joined in, i said some things opposing you, sure. but i don't stay noncooperative
20:12 < f> You literally stated, aloud, that you ignored everything I typed.
20:13 < blubb> i fucking said the opposite
20:13 < f> You came in to attempt to rebalance what you thought was me assaulting someone else with your own assault. You are no different.
20:13 < f> I'm not going to dignify your lack of memory with the crutch of me pasting anything else.
20:13 < blubb> standard: i hope your filled mash turns out tasty
20:13 < blubb> good night
20:13  * blubb out
20:14 < f> Friendship ended with blubb. standard is my best vegan friend now.
20:14 < f> Do vegan friends smell like friends, but like, more expensive?
*spork*

Re: The case FOR f (aka b, aka booru)
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2022, 11:48:56 pm »
I actually found this exchange hilarious, especially kate's demands

Quote
21:41 < f> interesting how zoomers found out--ah wait, typing this out i'm realizing it even more
21:41 < f> zoomers can't get pussy
21:41 < f> so they dress it up
21:42 < f> sex stops being sex and becomes a fanciful experience that everyone else isn't privy to, oh wow he hits me this time it's not just sex
21:42 < f> don't come over and fuck me, come over and DOMINATE me
21:42 < f> (but in reality it's just fucking)
21:42 < rustacean> meds, now
21:42 < f> (yes, people hit each other before they called it that)
*spork*

Re: The case against f (aka b, aka booru)
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2022, 11:39:12 pm »
Is booru just disagreeable / contrarian on purpose to be annoying? You decide

Quote
21:56 < emergence> Development on macOS vs Linux isn’t that different in most cases??
21:57 < f> yes, and many dipshits think mac's "only one way" method is somehow better
21:57 < f> "why would you ever do it any other way"
22:00 < emergence> I mean, I’m just fine using Linux but in many or even most cases it just doesn’t matter
22:00 < emergence>  hating macOS is a meme
22:00 < f> emergence: hating eating shit is a meme, too.
22:00 < emergence> hating you is a meme

Upon following up with emergence afterwards she had this to say:

Quote
01:02 <rachel> so like
01:02 <rachel> booru has been getting on people's nerves :/
01:05 <emergence> I mean he was banned before for a reason
*spork*

Re: The case against f (aka b, aka booru)
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2022, 01:01:28 am »
Quote
01:49 < medical_agent> The real reason american cities are broke is the same as every other entity that isn't a hypercapitalist machine: Because Capital is self-concentrating.
01:49 < medical_agent> Yes, rachel
01:49 < medical_agent> The entire purpose of this video is based upon one thing, rachel: They want to increase payments to the city by increasing BUSINESS REVENUE
01:50 < rachel|m> medical_agent (IRC): that's just like, one reason for it that is easy to graph
01:50 < medical_agent> It's a laughable form that has no basis in reality; the largest gains could easily be realized through a refordization, and that would still kill the economy because we're barreling toward death.
01:50 < medical_agent> But to refordize would involve taking candy from the 1% who make these graphs
01:51 < medical_agent> So of course they'll continue making graphs
01:51 < rachel|m> ummm
01:51 < medical_agent> And beating you to death with SCIENCE and LOGIC and FACTS that don't care about how you feel like THE WORLD IS WARMER
01:51 < rachel|m> have you seen his other videos? they just talk about how nice it would be to have walkable & bikeable cities like in the netherlands
01:51 < medical_agent> For him to justify it by trying to sell it, he's emboldening capital
01:52 < rachel|m> and how it makes both economic sense and environmental sense to reduce urban sprawl?
01:52 < medical_agent> It doesn't make environmental sense to increase businesses to gain revenue, rachel; what the hell are you talking about?
01:52 < rachel|m> it sounds like you're basing your entire opinion of this person after seeing one video and coming up with your own narrative
01:53 < rachel|m> medical_agent (IRC): u aren't being comfy I think you might want to head over to #freefish
01:53 < meleeman> <irc_medical_ "It's a laughable form that has n"> what about that canadian example tho
01:54 < medical_agent> rachel: I'm not judging their opinion at all, I'm relating it to real life
01:55 < medical_agent> I was criticizing their core argument with reality
01:55 < medical_agent> You thought I was personally making some "uhhhh bad guy" claim?
01:55 <&rachel> I've lived in sprawling urban & suburban areas in the western US and also old 1800s - 1900s style walkable cities in the northeast
01:55 < medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:55 <&rachel> the walkable citites are better to live in
01:55 < medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:55 <&rachel> wat
01:55 < medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:56 -!- mode/#wetfish [+b *!*@Fish-n36.5h2.205.66.IP] by rachel
01:56 < meleeman> LOL
01:56 < meleeman> medical_agent (IRC): have you considered rephrasing your questions
01:57 < meleeman> i do that
01:57 -!- medical_agent was kicked from #wetfish by rachel [stay in #freefish - violating rules 2 & 3 - https://wiki.wetfish.net/rules]

Meanwhile, in PM

Quote
01:56 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:56 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:56 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:57 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:57 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:57 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:57 <rachel> repeating yourself doesn't really get you anywhere lol
01:57 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:57 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:58 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:58 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:59 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
01:59 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:00 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
*spork*

Re: The case against f (aka b, aka booru)
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2022, 01:06:37 am »
It's still going

Quote
02:00 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:02 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:03 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:04 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:04 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:04 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:05 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:05 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:06 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:07 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:07 <rachel> let me know when you're ready to have a real conversation
*spork*

Re: The case against f (aka b, aka booru)
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2022, 09:45:22 am »
I woke up this morning and he's still sending these messages in PM 😅

Quote
02:07 <rachel> let me know when you're ready to have a real conversation
02:10 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:12 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:13 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:24 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
02:32 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
03:41 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
05:51 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
07:27 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
08:17 <medical_agent> And? You thought I was personally making the claim that this person was a bad person?
*spork*

Re: The case against f (aka b, aka booru)
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2022, 02:11:14 am »
*spork*

Re: The case against f (aka b, aka booru)
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2022, 11:17:07 pm »
It seemed like this person was pretty damn annoying every time I saw them talk. I don't know if they're doing it on purpose or if they just can't behave differently. But, if they can't explain why they're doing it, no one else can explain it or justify it either, and that reason isn't a good enough reason for why they can't or won't stop, then yea. Banned is what happens if you can't get along in a chat room.

If someone wants to charity case rehab them into a minimally non-annoying chat room participant, then they need to speak up.