I thought they made up and agreed to go their separate ways and wish each other no ill will. What did I miss? Dwai is the voice of reason here. Todd kept up his side of the agreement.
Printable View
I thought they made up and agreed to go their separate ways and wish each other no ill will. What did I miss? Dwai is the voice of reason here. Todd kept up his side of the agreement.
can someone cliff notes this since i just clicked page 4 todge do you owe this woman an edible arrangement are they a pod sponsor
Too long and too dumb to summarize any real detail.
Chick googled herself, found old post where someone other than druff called her a slut, druff got hammered by a mob of poker nobodies on Twitter.
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Damn Nihilists. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Jesus christ, are you now required to apologize and return money won for triggering hurt feelings?
Far left poker needs to be detonated.
Brothers we've survived the PR crisis, with Woke Poker now going after much bigger names.
We took some body blows but none bigger than this which effectively encapsulates the crux of PFA ethos like no other:
:knife
:shinebox
please stop the Jewish hateQuote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
https://youtube.com/shorts/ZX_sCdYv1sg?feature=share
Fuck them Druff; fwiw I fully endorse the Nicky Pipes message in this thread.
That Jaffe fuck has the sorta face you’d never tire of smacking. Who the fuck is he anyhow, pathetic little virtue signalling slob that he is
You are fully entitled to have an opinion on what people put out there; everyone judges all the time. That said, as a public (non-anonymous) figure I can see why you apologised.
However probably wise to learn from this one; better stay away from publicly posting on anything to do with people’s sexual preferences. Etc. though you absolutely did nothing wrong especially in the Jami Lafey case
It saddens me as it brings entertainment to the show and forum, and I despise this form of cancel culture bullying, but I can see why you might want to tread a bit more carefully in this area henceforth.
Lastly, I believe Veronica Brill has shown her true colours that’s for sure.
Notwithstanding the fact that I still think Veronica Brill is a sanctimonious and virtue signaling opportunist, your post was pretty thoughtless and I consider it a credit to you that you own that fact and apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
People simply don't appreciate having their lifestyles discussed in a way that could be perceived as judgmental or negative; that's all. Even if someone, purportedly, opens up the floor to discussion of their lifestyle by bringing it up themselves, I don't know that the floor is opened for anything that could be taken as criticism.*
I will say that the part where you academically compared swinging to polyamory, as if you were discussing a call vs. shove decision on a poker hand, was both clueless and unintentionally hilarious. Not clueless in the sense that what you said was right or wrong, but clueless in the sense of...just, why?
Honestly, this is why non-religious people, such as myself, generally can't tolerate religious people. Of course, by that standard, yours was a minor infraction, at worst.
Religious people seem to be very judgmental when it comes to the lifestyles of the non religious, but let me ask you this: Would it be better to be a religious person who commits infidelity upon his spouse, but outwardly presents as morally virtuous, as so many do...or be open with the fact that you are polyamorous? Myself, I would have no interest in sexually associating with a polyamorous person, or with swingers, so that they make themselves known is a favor to me.
But, the judgment? Naughty, naughty.
You know and I know that your own faith considers you an idler, as a result of your chosen occupation, so why judge others for anything? PFA and yourself, as a sort of self-appointed watchdog in your community, should be here to ensure that there is honor amongst us thieves...not to question whether or not we should be thieves or to judge based on unrelated personal choices.
But, it seems you have taken this lesson, which again, is a credit to you.
*Yes, yes, I know, but only Evangelicals and only because I'm fighting them on their own chosen field using their own chosen weapons. I just happen to be better at it than they are, which is an asset that comes from being functionally intelligent, an attribute that most of them do not enjoy.
Let's take a step back and look at what you wrote above. I assume you're a naturalist, therefore you believe we are nothing but relatively advanced primates. So according to your world view, there are no objective moral values and duties. If you're consistent with atheism, morality is either subjective and/or relative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146Notwithstanding the fact that I still think Veronica Brill is a sanctimonious and virtue signaling opportunist, your post was pretty thoughtless and I consider it a credit to you that you own that fact and apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
People simply don't appreciate having their lifestyles discussed in a way that could be perceived as judgmental or negative; that's all. Even if someone, purportedly, opens up the floor to discussion of their lifestyle by bringing it up themselves, I don't know that the floor is opened for anything that could be taken as criticism.*
I will say that the part where you academically compared swinging to polyamory, as if you were discussing a call vs. shove decision on a poker hand, was both clueless and unintentionally hilarious. Not clueless in the sense that what you said was right or wrong, but clueless in the sense of...just, why?
Honestly, this is why non-religious people, such as myself, generally can't tolerate religious people. Of course, by that standard, yours was a minor infraction, at worst.
Religious people seem to be very judgmental when it comes to the lifestyles of the non religious, but let me ask you this: Would it be better to be a religious person who commits infidelity upon his spouse, but outwardly presents as morally virtuous, as so many do...or be open with the fact that you are polyamorous? Myself, I would have no interest in sexually associating with a polyamorous person, or with swingers, so that they make themselves known is a favor to me.
But, the judgment? Naughty, naughty.
You know and I know that your own faith considers you an idler, as a result of your chosen occupation, so why judge others for anything? PFA and yourself, as a sort of self-appointed watchdog in your community, should be here to ensure that there is honor amongst us thieves...not to question whether or not we should be thieves or to judge based on unrelated personal choices.
But, it seems you have taken this lesson, which again, is a credit to you.
*Yes, yes, I know, but only Evangelicals and only because I'm fighting them on their own chosen field using their own chosen weapons. I just happen to be better at it than they are, which is an asset that comes from being functionally intelligent, an attribute that most of them do not enjoy.
Who's to say what Todd did was objectively wrong? At best, you can say in your opinion, what he did was subjectively frowned upon. You come across as very arrogant saying you're "better at debating Christians concerning morality because you're functionally intelligent." That is an insult to believers everywhere.
Honestly, you do seem intelligent, and are probably a lot more "book smart" than I am. I'm being sincere when I say you have a well articulated writing style. Having said that, there is no chance you would even step on the same platform as William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, or John Lennox. There is a reason why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig, and everybody (including atheist) know it. Can we both at least agree that science is not the only way to the truth?
Damn; I like you already!Quote:
Originally Posted by Online Veteran
I honestly have to say that there aren't any philosophical labels I would apply to myself as relates morality, or even any ethos to which I even loosely adhere. If nothing else, I could probably be called a pragmatist more than anything.
I consider myself an Agnostic, which comes largely by way of being a pragmatist. For me to call myself an Atheist, at least as the word is normally used, would be just as much a statement of faith in something that I cannot know as its opposite-theism. My lack of ability to prove the absence of something requires that I merely point to the fact that no sufficient evidence has been provided that would prove the thing in question, rather than simply saying the thing does not exist.
You are correct that I don't believe in any objective morality. There is something to social contract theory and whether or not, should a moral position be agreed to by a sufficient number of people, whether or not it is almost just as good as that position being a moral objective fact. I think that there can be some value in that, and there must be, because that's what laws (useful ones that actually protect against bad actors, anyway) are based on and laws give our society order.
With that, the questions become: How much order is needed? Where should this order come from? Does the order have to come from anything? If the order does come from something, does the something it comes from have to be valid in order for the order itself to be valid?
My answers, at present, and in brief:
How much order is needed? As little as possible.
Where should this order come from? Social contract. Preferably a supermajority, if you will---especially if the moral question isn't one where there would be a clear victim if such an action were allowed.
Does the order have to come from anything? By definition, yes. The order can even be informed by other things, as various things inform people of their morals, and there is room for religion in that. Religion, for some, might even be necessary for that. I don't think there's anyone more concerning, to me, than a religious person who asks, "How can you have morality without a God?" Wait. Hold on a minute. Are you really suggesting your belief in God is the only thing keeping you from just running around raping and murdering whomever you wish, at least, from a moral standpoint? That's a bit frightening. Anyway, for certain people, I think it's necessary for them that they believe in something greater than ourselves and, perhaps, greater than this planet and Universe; I can't prove that, of course, but it certainly seems as if this belief positively informs some values.
Does the thing the order comes from have to be valid? No.
I don't think what Druff did was objectively wrong because I don't believe that morals are objective, or should be construed as such, and I think social contract agreements are the closest we can ever get to moral objectivity. Functionally, it can be just as good as them being objective.
For example, most (if not all) non-murderers would agree that murder is generally an affront to morality. However, many of us non-murderers could conceive of a hypothetical situation in which cold-blooded murder might be justifiable, but still wouldn't be legal. Of course, the laws kind of have to be as black-and-white as possible on something like that, otherwise murderers would get off on the grounds of the jury agreeing with them that the murdered deserved it. Really, a jury could actually do that now; they just couldn't say that is the reason for the acquittal.
I'm not suggesting that I am better at debating morality than Christians, or any other theists. I am suggesting that I go on the attack against Evangelicals much in the way that they morally attack/critique/judge people who are not them and am playing by their own rules and using their own weapons in so doing. I also want to make it clear that I don't literally mean every single Evangelical; many of them are very good people who are not judgmental and would not use laws to restrict the actions of others when, in my view, there's not enough of a supermajority for those laws to be justified by social contract.
That said, I am a pragmatist. Dan Druff's actions have yielded a consequence, and as a result of that consequences, he apologized. He acknowledged why that consequence happened and he also acknowledged how others might feel about his words. If Dan Druff had made those posts and nobody had expressed discontentment with them, then there would likely not have been an apology. Why would there have been?
I'm also as close to a Free Speech absolutist as it gets, so I don't think Druff did a moral wrong in any context. I don't think that religious people (openly and vocally) judging the lifestyles of non-religious people is morally wrong; I think that it is unproductive, hypocritical, fosters resentment and drives some people away from the very lifestyles that the religious people would prefer they be leading.
That is what I question. If I wanted you to try out a particular restaurant, and I know this isn't a great metaphor, would you be more likely to do so if I told you how delicious the food at the restaurant I wanted you to try is, and how happy I am eating there, or if I asked you what your favorite restaurant is and spent the better part of an hour shitting on everything about it?
To be clear: I wasn't judging what I perceived as Druff's judgment when I said, "Naughty, naughty," I just said that because I thought it was funny. It also seemed appropriate given the fact that he, figuratively, took a little smack on the hand for that one.
I briefly commented on Druff's faith just by way of pointing out that he is imperfect by the standard he should try to uphold, according to himself, or...at least...according to many of them. Voltaire is instructive in that we must cultivate our own gardens. You could also look to Matthew 7, if you prefer the Bible as a source. As far as the Jewish faith; I am not well-versed enough to point specifically to something there.
Of course, it would seem impossible to totally avoid judgment. After all, even non-vocalized thoughts about one thing or another still constitute a form of judgment. That's not what Matthew 7 suggests, though. What it suggests is that we should not condemn the actions of others...which I think, while subjective, would be a positive moral value for people to uphold.
"Condemnation," and what constitutes it, is obviously going to be extremely subjective. Methodists, for example, tend to be more hesitant to condemn, based on my observations, than do the Evangelicals.
Anyway, that's why I would stay away from negatively remarking on lifestyle choices that are not our own, and have no victims, if those remarks could even be construed as negative. Any such remarks are simply not, as far as I can tell, going to lead to any sort of desired outcome and have the most likely result of fostering resentment for the speaker and/or backlash. Rather than condemn, one should simply ignore; if one cannot ignore, then one can make positive comments about their own lifestyle and why they see it as preferable.
Are they morally required to ignore? No. Hell, I don't even think they are morally required not to condemn; not according to me, anyway. I think ignoring, or, at least, not condemning are more likely to avoid negative outcomes than condemning people is going to do, but that's just my opinion.
Anyway, I'm not particularly arrogant on the subject of morality. Far from it. I don't even have sufficient moral conviction in anything to ever be arrogant, in that regard.
But, I do hate hypocrisy whilst admitting that I am a hypocrite in this regard.
Thank you for your post. I know what you did and you are quite correct. I should leave the Evangelicals alone unless I am confronting them directly or in defense of myself or another.
After all, what I think yields the best likely outcomes is people leaving one another the fuck alone anyway.
ADDED: I disagree with the last statement, but only because I do not believe in, "Truth," the way I think you are using the word.
Well, I had typed something out and then tried to add a smiley face. When I did that, this 1997 software put me in an alternate universe and erased everything. Anyway, I just wanted to say I appreciate your response. If you don't have a PhD in something, I would be shocked. I don't want to hijack this thread any further, so I will just say thank you for being honest and humble about your world view. A lot of non theist are not consistent with their view on objective moral values and duties. In the words of my favorite actor Bill Bixby: Take care, my friend.
There is actually a recover option here, where if you start the post again, there is a button the bottom left of the text box which you can press to auto-recover most of what you previously typed. Too late now, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Online Veteran
By the way, let's say in an alternate universe, Lindsey brings the concern to me privately and says, "This is really insulting to me, and I'd like you to take it down."
Let's further say that in this universe, Lindsey promises that either way she will not make the matter public, nor will she badmouth me to anyone, even if I refuse to do it.
Would I have taken it down and apologized?
Yes. Because the point of the post wasn't to hurt or mock Lindsey -- it was to discuss the backstory of a situation where a man at the table had acted rudely toward her. So if she told me that she felt the post was hurtful and wanted it down, I would have both removed it and apologized, even if there was no threat of a public shaming for refusing.
Now, in our universe she brought it out publicly, so there was no such discussion. That was her right to do, as my post was public in the first place, so it is reasonable to call it out in public as well.
I'm just stating that I would have also removed it and apologized even if it were just a 1-on-1 conversation between us, where she indicated it was hurtful.
I have removed or modified posts here before when people have privately messaged me and asked me to do so. I am pretty accommodating with that, unless it's about a big story or a scam. I tend to only refuse to remove posts/threads about people when it's an attempt by the person to cover up bad behavior, such as a scammer asking me to remove what looks like a credible allegation about them.
Additionally, had that guy Stan asked me to remove the thread because he looked bad for calling Lindsey names, I also wouldn't have removed it, unless he presented reasonable evidence that the claims about him weren't true. So I'll also refuse to remove posts if it's about someone's bad behavior which seems to be likely true, even if that bad behavior doesn't involve scamming.
What about that flashing Amazon banner you have asked folks to click at the bottom of the page? And the stakes you pull for the WSOP? Not saying you are getting rich here, but this whole you operate the site at a loss is just not accurate. You've done just fine here over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffLol yes, I probably mentioned it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gut
It's actually a relevant thing to mention because I don't want people unfamiliar with the site believing I was posting any of this for clicks or profit.
Here there is no profit to be had, since it's a non-monetized site, and I am not selling any product or service.
If Druff put all his efforts that he puts in here to a job, he would have made infinitely more.
It is at a loss. Druff is our Tucker.
Brothers it's time to help rebuild Druff's image now that he's been reduced to the biggest incel misogynist in the game and was cucked into apologizing to a woman by Brother Jaffe.
I for one am committing to kindness going forward and fully expect others to follow suit.
not reading this page of the thread except Sloppy Joe
The site has run at a loss. If you add up the brief sponsorships, the Amazon banner money, and the markup I collected from WSOP pieces (which I haven't sold for a few years now), the site has still lost by a wide margin.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgullWhat about that flashing Amazon banner you have asked folks to click at the bottom of the page? And the stakes you pull for the WSOP? Not saying you are getting rich here, but this whole you operate the site at a loss is just not accurate. You've done just fine here over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThe site has run at a loss..Quote:
Originally Posted by tgull
LMAO at online veteran averaging 5 posts/year! Keep it up champ!Quote:
Originally Posted by Online Veteran
Bill Bixby trending on PFAQuote:
Originally Posted by PROUDBOY MAGA 2024LMAO at online veteran averaging 5 posts/year! Keep it up champ!Quote:
Originally Posted by Online Veteran
Harry Nilsson just as obscure
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy JoeBrother he was getting bodied and eviscerated like William Wallace at the end of Braveheart.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyPipes
Unlike Mel Gibson yelling a guttural 'freedom' before getting beheaded, he wisely chose the route of 'mercy' via takedown and a white whale, full throated APOLOGY toward a woman, as rare a sight as any around these parts.
Brother it's personal growth that we should commend.
Yes, another victim of being cancelled by the woke mob but preserving 8th tier status requires room reading and humility, and for that brother he has won.
:popcorn
Buckle up faggots, time to hone that incel misogyny eep that Druff perfected last year.
:to
She posted a hospital pic I see
Brother 'lyin' Lafay' is a top PFA adversary whose shameless attempts at grifting led Druff to be labeled as a misogynist bully of cancer patients.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyPipes
Having cancer would suck a lot tho.
Jami seems to legitimately have cancer.
However, she's also had it for 20 years (by her own admission), and she's been milking it ever since. People on Twitter had a very hard time with this concept. The simpletons there either took the position of "the cancer is fake" or "the cancer is real and therefore you can't question her".
Relatively few landed on the correct answer of, "The cancer is real but manageable, and that doesn't justify lying about tons of shit in order to get WSOP stakes".
Not surprising that with WSOP 7 weeks away, we are seeing more and more cancer talk again.
It’s one thing to ask for $
It’s another thing to ask for poker $
You agree yes or no?
Yes, I agree. The whole thing is a grift.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyPipes
Sucks she's had to deal with cancer for 20 years, but that doesn't automatically entitle you to poker stakes. There's lots of people out there much sicker than she is, and none of them are getting staked for that reason.
My issue was that her Gofundme was full of lies and exaggerations. If it were just something like, "I've had this cancer since my early 20s, it sucks, I have to keep getting procedures and surgeries to manage it when everyone else my age is relatively healthy. If you'd like to help me out with some poker stakes, I'd really appreciate it", I'd have never brought this up.
You can ask for money all you want, just be honest about it.
Cancer fuckin' sucks. I dealt with it from '18-'22. I've been healthy more than 2 years now. I do remember distinctly that I was emotionally weak and did and said things I otherwise never would have and so to see someone acting strangely like this is not much of a surprise to me. However, there is something to be said for maintaining certain levels of personal dignity and self respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYes, I agree. The whole thing is a grift.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyPipes
Sucks she's had to deal with cancer for 20 years, but that doesn't automatically entitle you to poker stakes. There's lots of people out there much sicker than she is, and none of them are getting staked for that reason.
My issue was that her Gofundme was full of lies and exaggerations. If it were just something like, "I've had this cancer since my early 20s, it sucks, I have to keep getting procedures and surgeries to manage it when everyone else my age is relatively healthy. If you'd like to help me out with some poker stakes, I'd really appreciate it", I'd have never brought this up.
You can ask for money all you want, just be honest about it.
Publicly asking for money is something I never did or would do, cancer or no cancer. I find it to be shameless. Only my mom, brother, sister and best pal know the extent to which I suffered.
I respect country a lot
Maybe one day I’ll be as strong of a man and as good of a dad as him
That’s a good life brother
Glad you're better.Quote:
Originally Posted by country978Cancer fuckin' sucks. I dealt with it from '18-'22. I've been healthy more than 2 years now. I do remember distinctly that I was emotionally weak and did and said things I otherwise never would have and so to see someone acting strangely like this is not much of a surprise to me. However, there is something to be said for maintaining certain levels of personal dignity and self respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Publicly asking for money is something I never did or would do, cancer or no cancer. I find it to be shameless. Only my mom, brother, sister and best pal know the extent to which I suffered.
I admire people who are able to swallow their pride and ask for help, obviously when it's sincerely needed and not for something gratuitous like card playing.
A serious health situation in America will easily bankrupt over half of the population. Jobless Druff recently mentioned he pays over $1,000 per month, no way poors can budget that
Saw a guy at an intersection today with a sign asking for funeral money for a leukemia victim.
I don't think it was Lafay.
Brothers, the point is, don't leukemia, please.
I took my mum to see my aunt in a hospice yesterday, she was awake / passing out etc ..
while she was awake she said to my uncle I wish I never married you , you’ve ruined my life !
Then fell asleep. No smoke without fire ?
It varies by state, but in most places it is not difficult to get a either an individual healthcare subsidy (Obamacare) if you're poor/semi-poor, or full health care coverage from the gubbmint if you're really poor.
Or, as they used to say prior to Obamacare, "The US healthcare system only works well if you're rich or really poor. It's the middle class who is fucked."
Since Obamacare, now the lower-middle and even the middle-class can get subsidies and not be stuck with the $1k premium I pay. I also have a higher premium due to being old. If I were 25, it wouldn't cost nearly as much.
I do know various poor/semi-poor people who don't have health insurance because they simply didn't bother to sign up and get the subsidies. That's actually a pretty big problem. It's not super easy to do, and a lot of these people kinda live for the moment and don't think much about healthcare until they get sick. They come to me and tell me about some $25k bill they got for their recent hospital stay, and ask what they can do about it. I start explaining how the insurance can cover it and how to do that, and then they interrupt and sheepishly tell me, "Actually I have no insurance." When I ask why, stating that they would qualify for it for free or extremely cheap via Obamacare, the answer is always something like, "I don't know, I just never looked into it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by YUUP
that's seriously fucked up.
hope he realizes it was the morphine mixed with ativan that caused her to speak like that.
poor guy. no one deserves that. even if true.
My grandmother on my mom's side died in 1999. She was very lucid and sharp until her final year, when a circulation issue in her leg eventually started choking off blood flow to her brain. This is eventually what killed her, but it also brought on a rapid onset of dementia. By the time she died, she was almost completely unaware of her surroundings. They amputated her leg at the end, in a vain attempt to save her. She never even realized her leg was gone.
She was the only grandparent I got to know really well, as two were gone by the time I was 4, and the other passed when I was 9. Benjamin is more fortunate, as he was born with 3 grandparents, and all 3 remain healthy, including both of my parents.
Anyway, my mom was with her about 2 days before she died. She didn't recognize my mom. She was not coherent in any of her responses. My mom tried to just keep talking to her, but she either got a blank stare or mumbling which made no sense.
About 30 minutes into this, with not a quality moment to be found, my mom continued making conversation, this time saying, "Oh, and Todd just broke up with his girlfriend."
All of a sudden my grandmother's eyes opened fully, she smiled, and said, "That's great! I never liked her! I didn't think she was good for him. He made the right decision!"
Excited to get such a lucid response, my mom tried to continue the conversation.
My grandmother just stared blankly and mumbled again. That was the last coherent statement she ever made. Two days later, she passed away.
Oddly, she had never once stated prior to that an objection to my girlfriend.
This phenomenon of dementia is weird. People will have brief moments where they can appear completely normal, and then go back into a total fog seconds later.
How do you manage to get unblocked?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Todd,
You must want to fight if you wade into that shit.
The most ironic thing is 1/3 could be "working". What's an optimistic hourly, $20?