I’m always amazed how few people know about Gamergate. It’s not only the key to understanding so many violent harassment campaigns going on today, it’s lots of the same people angry about the same stuff using the same playbook.
Let's put it this epic way: She wants to ban gaymers from using their toilets, both in real life and in vidya games to force them into milk container submission. This is true discrimination of the most oppressed minority. We must RISE UP against the society we live in, which we most certainly do.
Boomers don’t understand the internet and they don’t have gullibility filters. I guarantee at least 80% of the people who retweeted that did so unironically.
I have an idea to MAGA in 2020. Let AOC and Trumpador Rex alternate for presidency each week. The fluctuating blood pressure should kill off a fair amount of easily triggered retards on both sides.
Probably she needs to say that the rest of it was fake, too, now that all Democrats are on record supporting a plan that would destroy the economy and double your electric bill.
I like the part that compares finite industrial projects (e.g. going to the moon, building roads, building planes) to her plan which mandates huge changes to the way the country works. Does the author of that FAQ really think "making way more of a thing we already make" is the same as completely upending the infrastructure of the whole nation?
Not that she'd give us any actual numbers, but it's plainly stated that her plan would involve total mobilization in the same way as fighting a major war. So imagine if we had to fight World War 2, forever. I'd say that's a pretty upending change to the status quo.
Total mobilization is a far cry from this conceptually. I would say its conceptually closer to the actual "new deal" in terms of sectors/intentions/intent to destroy the supreme court if they get in the way.
Wartime is temporary and involves more re-allocating money and resources than changing anything about how the economy works.
You mean he was directly responsible for the dismantling of many of the systems that lead to the golden age of US prosperity from the late 1940s - 1980s.
It's fully intended. "We should stop global warming" leads to "Your plan is terrible and expensive" which leads to "Ok, how you want to do it?" at which point the discussion is where the left wanted it all along. It's the same shit the right thought they were doing on immigration with the wall, but it turned out Trump wasn't pretending to be retarded.
That sounds nice and stuff, but when we look at what you're saying and flip it to if trump put it forward then it instead comes across like you're one of those "They are just pretending to make retarded plans! it's actually 74D chess!!".
What's next? America will implement AOCs full green plan and make Mexico pay for it?
I mean, it's not that hard to determine who is pretending to be retarded and who is actually retarded.
If Trump had compromised for like 10 billion in border security money but no wall he would have been pretending to be retarded and he would have done a lot to prevent illegal immigration.
If AOC refuses to accept anything that doesn't include cow fart mediation she will have not have been pretending to be retarded and she will accomplish nothing useful.
A well-known cognitive bias in negotiation and in other contexts, the anchoring bias describes the common tendency to give too much weight to the first number put forth in a discussion and then inadequately adjust from that starting point, or the “anchor.” We even fixate on anchors when we know they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Economists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman first documented the anchoring bias in an experiment involving a roulette wheel marked with integers ranging from 0 to 100. Each participant witnessed a spin of the roulette wheel. They were then asked whether they thought that the percentage of United Nations member countries that was from Africa was greater or smaller than the number spun on the wheel. Next, they were asked to make an estimation of the true percentage.
Participants who saw the wheel stop on the number 10 guessed, on average, that the actual percentage of African countries belonging to the United Nations was 25%. By contrast, those who saw the wheel stop on the number 65 guessed, on average, that the percentage from Africa was 45%. In the experiment, a clearly random number nonetheless had a dramatic impact on people’s judgments.
Even experts, such as real estate agents, can be powerfully affected by anchors in negotiation, research shows. Why are anchors so effective? When conditions are uncertain, high anchors draw our attention to the positive qualities of the item or individual (as in the case of a salary negotiation) being discussed, and low anchors draw attention to flaws, according to Columbia Business School professor Adam Galinsky.
Research on the anchoring bias has shown that negotiators may be able to gain an edge by making the first offer and anchoring the discussion in their favor. The decision of whether to make the first offer generally should be based on two factors: your knowledge of the zone of possible agreement, or ZOPA—that is, the range of options that should be acceptable to both sides—and your assessment of the other side’s knowledge of the ZOPA.
When you believe the other party likely knows more than you do about the size of the ZOPA, you will have difficulty anchoring effectively. Before dropping an anchor in such situations, arm yourself with as much information as possible.
If both sides have a strong sense of the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA), as in the case of a longtime relationship between a supplier and customer with open books, anchors are unlikely to have a strong impact.
If neither side knows much about the size of the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA), you may be able to effectively drop an anchor, though you could risk being too concessionary or too demanding.
If you know a great deal about the asset up for discussion, you can make an aggressive first offer with confidence and expect that your offer will anchor the discussion to your advantage.
What should you do if your counterpart drops the first anchor? The first and perhaps most important step is to recognize the move, according to Subramanian.
A common mistake is to respond with a counter¬offer before defusing the other side’s anchor in negotiation. If someone opens with $100, and you want to counter with $50, before presenting your number you need to make clear that $100 is simply unacceptable.
Defuse the anchor clearly and forcefully: “I’m not trying to play games with you, but we are miles apart on price.” If you don’t defuse the anchor first, you are suggesting that $100 is well within the bargaining zone.
After defusing the anchor, move quickly to your counterproposal, with the caveat that mentioning the anchor explicitly and repeatedly might validate it. Then, when making a counteroffer, be sure to explain why it is fair and justifiable.
It's the best plan. There's about a 0% chance of any of it passing, but there's about 100% chance it will cause an insane amount of Drama and Republicans won't be able to shut up about it for the next few weeks. This is good for drama coin.
The plan is “we’re gonna like stop global warming guys”.
There is 0 chance all existing buildings in the US will be renewable in 10 years. Same thing is true for 100% renewable energy and net 0 carbon footprint.
The only legit way to stop global warming is to learn to manipulate climate in the "right way". Otherwise it's just trying to stop the dam from breaking by sticking finger in the crack.
Guaranteed jobs is also stupid.
It's within the realms of possibility, if you start straight up start opressing businesses that outsource, but the situation is so far up the ass, that the more logical point would be "making jobs not treat anyone but top-management as expendable cattle"
What was your favorite part, eliminating almost all forms of transportation? Or where we abandon nuclear energy? Or was it the forced gender reassignments?
Excuse you, but I love this plan. I'd love to have bullet train type rail service across this country. Railroads helped build America and we should respect that more
AoCs plan is to bring back Chinese slave labor? Nice.
"When your #GreenNewDeal legislation is so strong that the GOP has to resort to circulating false versions, but the real one nets 70 House cosponsors on Day 1 and all Dem presidential candidates sign on anyway"
Jesus fucking christ is there a coherent thought here?
107 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-02-10
I’m always amazed how few people know about Gamergate. It’s not only the key to understanding so many violent harassment campaigns going on today, it’s lots of the same people angry about the same stuff using the same playbook.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Ultrashitposter 2019-02-10
Invest in pissjug companies now
1 MacAndShits 2019-02-10
This is good for pisscoin
1 wwyzzerdd 2019-02-10
Way of the road, buddy!
1 Matthew94 2019-02-10
Fuckin' way she goes.
1 FakeHelicopterPilot 2019-02-10
"Gaming Pissjug"
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2019-02-10
Let's put it this epic way: She wants to ban gaymers from using their toilets, both in real life and in vidya games to force them into milk container submission. This is true discrimination of the most oppressed minority. We must RISE UP against the society we live in, which we most certainly do.
They targeted gaymers. Gaymers.
1 FratboyGenius 2019-02-10
REAL gamers already exclusively piss in plastic bottles.
This is just a cynical attempt by mommy to appeal to gamergate.
1 80BAIT08 2019-02-10
Real Green Gamers keep the 💩 bottles and recycle it into Jenkem. Compress that bad boy into an asthma inhaler and you have Jet from Fallout.
1 MacAndShits 2019-02-10
It's all to get back at racist white milk drinkers. She's literally telling mayos to drink pee.
1 GuillotinesNOW 2019-02-10
This isn't 1990. If you want to piss of gaymers in current year, you tell them to use a toilet.
1 JurijFedorov 2019-02-10
This joke offended me.
1 Turtle_shell_wok 2019-02-10
Your skull is filled with cow farts!
1 bearshark713 2019-02-10
A reliable and self propagating fuel source! Our prayers are answered!
1 Storgrim 2019-02-10
Boomer roasts are so low energy
1 Mamalgam 2019-02-10
Literally fake news. Can we delete rightoids?
1 umar4812 2019-02-10
It was spread as a joke and commie mummy took it seriously.
1 SkaterMan 2019-02-10
Spreading fake versions of real bills with real consequences as a joke
I thought rightoids liked to take the government seriously?
Whatever gnd is gonna suck anyway
1 recriminology 2019-02-10
Boomers don’t understand the internet and they don’t have gullibility filters. I guarantee at least 80% of the people who retweeted that did so unironically.
1 OniTan 2019-02-10
They're still claiming she was evicted twice and has a low credit score.
1 Storgrim 2019-02-10
This
1 SmugPostingAccount 2019-02-10
>Thinking Mark Dice wouldn't actually believe this
1 umar4812 2019-02-10
He literally made the pictures
1 leva549 2019-02-10
Poe effect.
1 wow___justwow 2019-02-10
"""news"""
1 CordialCalamity 2019-02-10
""""""Literally""""""
1 aqouta 2019-02-10
Yes the onion, that notorious fake news site should be shut down.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2019-02-10
Holy shit, it turns out I'm already sustainable 😮😇
1 Bombingofdresden 2019-02-10
What is this stupid shit? The title is just a dumb lie.
Dumb fuckers on the right tried desperately to get a fake version circulated.
1 JurijFedorov 2019-02-10
It's a joke. No one believes it.
1 AlveolarPressure 2019-02-10
As if the average MAGAtard wouldnt take the edit 100% seriously
1 point_shaver 2019-02-10
I have an idea to MAGA in 2020. Let AOC and Trumpador Rex alternate for presidency each week. The fluctuating blood pressure should kill off a fair amount of easily triggered retards on both sides.
1 ShitTornadoToOz 2019-02-10
Radical centrism wins again.
1 WhitePhoenix777 2019-02-10
Oof owies my two party political system
1 2938_throwd 2019-02-10
Once again, Romans were the true chads.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_consul
1 Nerdlinger 2019-02-10
Like you degenerates don’t already piss in milk jugs.
1 Nerdlinger 2019-02-10
He was only pretending to be retarded.
1 imajustgo 2019-02-10
Eh. I believe he actually was kidding and the other guy wasn't
1 Puntagon 2019-02-10
He may have been kidding, but that doesn't change the fact that a non-trivial percentage ot magatards would believe in the "joke"
1 TreLoon 2019-02-10
Fair tbh
But only by expecting/appealing to the humor of "smart" (at this level it basically just means non boomer) people can you attract them
1 blazeca86 2019-02-10
I'd pee on her milk containers
1 MG87 2019-02-10
Swallowed the fake news
1 Chukril 2019-02-10
Are they trying to have two terms of daddy?
1 Metatron58 2019-02-10
yes
yes they are
1 UmmahSultan 2019-02-10
Probably she needs to say that the rest of it was fake, too, now that all Democrats are on record supporting a plan that would destroy the economy and double your electric bill.
1 none_to_remain 2019-02-10
This is kinda what's going on.
The non-binding resolution to be voted on is an emptiness devoid of any details.
But the Ocasio-Cortez office put up this FAQ on their website and sent this other FAQ to journalists, which have details, and they're idiotic.
So now they are talking about leaked drafts, doctored documents, fake documents, to try and hide this.
1 SuperObviousShill 2019-02-10
I like the part that compares finite industrial projects (e.g. going to the moon, building roads, building planes) to her plan which mandates huge changes to the way the country works. Does the author of that FAQ really think "making way more of a thing we already make" is the same as completely upending the infrastructure of the whole nation?
1 UmmahSultan 2019-02-10
Not that she'd give us any actual numbers, but it's plainly stated that her plan would involve total mobilization in the same way as fighting a major war. So imagine if we had to fight World War 2, forever. I'd say that's a pretty upending change to the status quo.
1 SuperObviousShill 2019-02-10
Total mobilization is a far cry from this conceptually. I would say its conceptually closer to the actual "new deal" in terms of sectors/intentions/intent to destroy the supreme court if they get in the way.
Wartime is temporary and involves more re-allocating money and resources than changing anything about how the economy works.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2019-02-10
That's a pretty conservative estimate considering what's inside of that batshit crazy document.
1 Clark_Savage_Jr 2019-02-10
Can't have an electric bill if you don't have electricity.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2019-02-10
That's the most likely outcome.
1 MikeHuntIsAnAsshole 2019-02-10
Realize the same people saying Daddy's wall is a waste of money are praising Mommy for pissing it into a jug and throwing it in their faces.
1 MrWalrusKing 2019-02-10
Reagan already destroyed the economy in the 80s.
1 Anus_of_Aeneas 2019-02-10
Raegan began a period of unprecedented prosperity worldwide.
1 MrWalrusKing 2019-02-10
You mean he was directly responsible for the dismantling of many of the systems that lead to the golden age of US prosperity from the late 1940s - 1980s.
1 Van-Diemen 2019-02-10
>golden age of US prosperity
>including the 70s
Wow.
1 Anus_of_Aeneas 2019-02-10
Have you ever heard of "stagflation"? The 60s and 70s were absolutely not a "golden age of US prosperity".
1 MrWalrusKing 2019-02-10
I'm sorry bussy bro, but I've reached my serious post limit for the day.
1 Storgrim 2019-02-10
Except in the US
Thank God for globalist hero Reagan!
1 Death_Trolley 2019-02-10
Why even fake it when the real thing is already cuckoo bananas?
1 DistortedLines 2019-02-10
Mommy's plan, although retarded in some areas, is actually good at its core.
1 calciu 2019-02-10
Taking from the rich white and giving it to the poor other colors is advancing the mayocide, this is good for /r/drama
1 mamadrama3 2019-02-10
Pretty sure AOC is the Muslim from Kenya about to see Trump on the TRAIL.
1 aelfwine_widlast 2019-02-10
It's a plan in the same way that saying "we should cure cancer, you guys" is a plan.
1 MtheDowner 2019-02-10
That's the unintended brilliance of it.
AOC: Imma cure cancer
Sane people: Uh your cancer curing plan is shit and hardly even a plan
Wokes: YIKES you don't think cancer is real? You don't care about curing cancer? That sounds like something a Republican would say!
1 JamesRobotoMD 2019-02-10
It's fully intended. "We should stop global warming" leads to "Your plan is terrible and expensive" which leads to "Ok, how you want to do it?" at which point the discussion is where the left wanted it all along. It's the same shit the right thought they were doing on immigration with the wall, but it turned out Trump wasn't pretending to be retarded.
1 elboydo 2019-02-10
That sounds nice and stuff, but when we look at what you're saying and flip it to if trump put it forward then it instead comes across like you're one of those "They are just pretending to make retarded plans! it's actually 74D chess!!".
What's next? America will implement AOCs full green plan and make Mexico pay for it?
1 JamesRobotoMD 2019-02-10
I mean, it's not that hard to determine who is pretending to be retarded and who is actually retarded.
If Trump had compromised for like 10 billion in border security money but no wall he would have been pretending to be retarded and he would have done a lot to prevent illegal immigration.
If AOC refuses to accept anything that doesn't include cow fart mediation she will have not have been pretending to be retarded and she will accomplish nothing useful.
1 shitpersonality 2019-02-10
A well-known cognitive bias in negotiation and in other contexts, the anchoring bias describes the common tendency to give too much weight to the first number put forth in a discussion and then inadequately adjust from that starting point, or the “anchor.” We even fixate on anchors when we know they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Economists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman first documented the anchoring bias in an experiment involving a roulette wheel marked with integers ranging from 0 to 100. Each participant witnessed a spin of the roulette wheel. They were then asked whether they thought that the percentage of United Nations member countries that was from Africa was greater or smaller than the number spun on the wheel. Next, they were asked to make an estimation of the true percentage.
Participants who saw the wheel stop on the number 10 guessed, on average, that the actual percentage of African countries belonging to the United Nations was 25%. By contrast, those who saw the wheel stop on the number 65 guessed, on average, that the percentage from Africa was 45%. In the experiment, a clearly random number nonetheless had a dramatic impact on people’s judgments.
Even experts, such as real estate agents, can be powerfully affected by anchors in negotiation, research shows. Why are anchors so effective? When conditions are uncertain, high anchors draw our attention to the positive qualities of the item or individual (as in the case of a salary negotiation) being discussed, and low anchors draw attention to flaws, according to Columbia Business School professor Adam Galinsky.
Research on the anchoring bias has shown that negotiators may be able to gain an edge by making the first offer and anchoring the discussion in their favor. The decision of whether to make the first offer generally should be based on two factors: your knowledge of the zone of possible agreement, or ZOPA—that is, the range of options that should be acceptable to both sides—and your assessment of the other side’s knowledge of the ZOPA.
When you believe the other party likely knows more than you do about the size of the ZOPA, you will have difficulty anchoring effectively. Before dropping an anchor in such situations, arm yourself with as much information as possible.
If both sides have a strong sense of the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA), as in the case of a longtime relationship between a supplier and customer with open books, anchors are unlikely to have a strong impact.
If neither side knows much about the size of the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA), you may be able to effectively drop an anchor, though you could risk being too concessionary or too demanding.
If you know a great deal about the asset up for discussion, you can make an aggressive first offer with confidence and expect that your offer will anchor the discussion to your advantage.
What should you do if your counterpart drops the first anchor? The first and perhaps most important step is to recognize the move, according to Subramanian.
A common mistake is to respond with a counter¬offer before defusing the other side’s anchor in negotiation. If someone opens with $100, and you want to counter with $50, before presenting your number you need to make clear that $100 is simply unacceptable.
Defuse the anchor clearly and forcefully: “I’m not trying to play games with you, but we are miles apart on price.” If you don’t defuse the anchor first, you are suggesting that $100 is well within the bargaining zone.
After defusing the anchor, move quickly to your counterproposal, with the caveat that mentioning the anchor explicitly and repeatedly might validate it. Then, when making a counteroffer, be sure to explain why it is fair and justifiable.
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-10
K
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 hyperchimpchallenger 2019-02-10
Tl;dr
1 DeliciousExit 2019-02-10
You wish.
1 Alpha100f 2019-02-10
To be fair, repubs plans of "just stop being poor and become rich, you lazy entitled fucks" are not much better.
1 KingWayneX 2019-02-10
Worked for me
1 seshfan2 2019-02-10
It's the best plan. There's about a 0% chance of any of it passing, but there's about 100% chance it will cause an insane amount of Drama and Republicans won't be able to shut up about it for the next few weeks. This is good for drama coin.
1 totalrandomperson 2019-02-10
Take the C O P E glasses off.
1 BasicallyADoctor 2019-02-10
Actually it fucking sucks
1 DistortedLines 2019-02-10
Why
1 CordialCalamity 2019-02-10
because you like it
1 chunk_o 2019-02-10
The plan is “we’re gonna like stop global warming guys”.
There is 0 chance all existing buildings in the US will be renewable in 10 years. Same thing is true for 100% renewable energy and net 0 carbon footprint.
Guaranteed jobs is also stupid.
1 Alpha100f 2019-02-10
The only legit way to stop global warming is to learn to manipulate climate in the "right way". Otherwise it's just trying to stop the dam from breaking by sticking finger in the crack.
It's within the realms of possibility, if you start straight up start opressing businesses that outsource, but the situation is so far up the ass, that the more logical point would be "making jobs not treat anyone but top-management as expendable cattle"
1 werewolf_bar_mitzva 2019-02-10
Top kek, do you have a job besides being a Taylor Swift fanboy?
1 DistortedLines 2019-02-10
I'm just an attention whore at heart
1 CordialCalamity 2019-02-10
no you're just a whore
1 CordialCalamity 2019-02-10
nah
1 MikeHuntIsAnAsshole 2019-02-10
What was your favorite part, eliminating almost all forms of transportation? Or where we abandon nuclear energy? Or was it the forced gender reassignments?
1 DistortedLines 2019-02-10
All 3
1 MikeHuntIsAnAsshole 2019-02-10
Based af tbh
1 aPocketofResistance 2019-02-10
Banning cow farts, forcing us to eat vegeburgers.
1 aqouta 2019-02-10
I would support forced gender reassignment for all incels tbh.
1 ValeryIrinei 2019-02-10
Are you seriousposting???
1 DistortedLines 2019-02-10
Me? Never
1 CordialCalamity 2019-02-10
you're still a slut
1 BenaGD 2019-02-10
I dont expect any less stupidity from a mod
1 SkaterMan 2019-02-10
specifically this mod
1 Ranilen 2019-02-10
[My culture is not your GND joke![https://www.duffelblog.com/2015/09/gatorade-awarded-1-billion-piss-bottle-contract/]
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2019-02-10
Commie Mommy's plan has some moments of brilliance in it!
1 MrGoodieMob 2019-02-10
mark dice and bumble jack pubesack
why do people fall for these dipshits?
1 MikeHuntIsAnAsshole 2019-02-10
AoCs plan is to bring back Chinese slave labor? Nice.
1 loli_esports 2019-02-10
Hasnt she already deleted this off her website?
1 OniTan 2019-02-10
OP deleted their account in shame.
1 aqouta 2019-02-10
Lol at implying the new green deal isn't a massive dump that might single handedly give trump another term.
1 strathmeyer 2019-02-10
"When your
#GreenNewDeal legislation is so strong that the GOP has to resort to circulating false versions, but the real one nets 70 House cosponsors on Day 1 and all Dem presidential candidates sign on anyway"Jesus fucking christ is there a coherent thought here?
1 nitendo-nibberswitch 2019-02-10
She never sees to suprise me
1 SHUTTHEFUCKUPWEEBS 2019-02-10
Normies appropriating my pissjugs REEEE
1 Storgrim 2019-02-10
When did this sub become a place for virgins to furiously masturbate over AOC