|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
It's a joke Rebs. I'd like to still get those in before I'm arrested for appropriating another persons culture for the use of humour regardless of how ignorant, nonsensical or unpleasant it is.
Threw it out of court because clearly false testimony. You're not allowed to accuse a man of rape after he gets rough with you sexually, but then you text him, "I love the way you kicked my ass last night."
I agree, the guy is scum. But they were very clearly into it, and came off as vengeful scorned lovers and not actual victims. It's 'victims' like those that do a disservice to real victims. The fact that they will receive no punishment despite clearly colluding to falsify a case and waste tax payer money is pretty telling.
Jian's lawyer was top notch though. That's the woman the other women in Canada should have looked up to in the case. Instead they attacked her and called her a traitor. Anyway, it's things like mattress girl, 'rape culture' myth, and cases like these that do the biggest disservice to women. And instead of giving the correct response, the left says, "omg but we were right to believe them!" No. You should shame them for making false claims and tell the people that these women are bad examples of abuse.
On June 05 2016 13:40 JW_DTLA wrote:
There is no equivalence.
You're right. There is no equivalence. One group behaves like civilized people and can gather peacefully and would shame any violent offenders in their group. And I wish they were just 70s eras professors. I think all eras are complicit sadly.
|
On June 05 2016 13:43 SK.Testie wrote:It's a joke Rebs. I'd like to still get those in before I'm arrested for appropriating another persons culture for the use of humour regardless of how ignorant, nonsensical or unpleasant it is. Threw it out of court because clearly false testimony. You're not allowed to accuse a man of rape after he gets rough with you sexually, but then you text him, "I love the way you kicked my ass last night." I agree, the guy is scum. But they were very clearly into it, and came off as vengeful scorned lovers and not actual victims. It's 'victims' like those that do a disservice to real victims. The fact that they will receive no punishment despite clearly colluding to falsify a case and waste tax payer money is pretty telling. Jian's lawyer was top notch though. That's the woman the other women in Canada should have looked up to in the case. Instead they attacked her and called her a traitor. Anyway, it's things like mattress girl, 'rape culture' myth, and cases like these that do the biggest disservice to women. And instead of giving the correct response, the left says, "omg but we were right to believe them!" No. You should shame them for making false claims and tell the people that these women are bad examples of abuse. You're right. There is no equivalence. One group behaves like civilized people and can gather peacefully and would shame any violent offenders in their group. And I wish they were just 70s eras professors. I think all eras are complicit sadly.
Trump offered to pay the legal bills of the Trumpkin who sucker punched the protester.
HRC/Bernie condemned all violent protesters within hours.
There is no equivalence.
|
On June 05 2016 14:02 JW_DTLA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 13:43 SK.Testie wrote:It's a joke Rebs. I'd like to still get those in before I'm arrested for appropriating another persons culture for the use of humour regardless of how ignorant, nonsensical or unpleasant it is. Threw it out of court because clearly false testimony. You're not allowed to accuse a man of rape after he gets rough with you sexually, but then you text him, "I love the way you kicked my ass last night." I agree, the guy is scum. But they were very clearly into it, and came off as vengeful scorned lovers and not actual victims. It's 'victims' like those that do a disservice to real victims. The fact that they will receive no punishment despite clearly colluding to falsify a case and waste tax payer money is pretty telling. Jian's lawyer was top notch though. That's the woman the other women in Canada should have looked up to in the case. Instead they attacked her and called her a traitor. Anyway, it's things like mattress girl, 'rape culture' myth, and cases like these that do the biggest disservice to women. And instead of giving the correct response, the left says, "omg but we were right to believe them!" No. You should shame them for making false claims and tell the people that these women are bad examples of abuse. On June 05 2016 13:40 JW_DTLA wrote:
There is no equivalence. You're right. There is no equivalence. One group behaves like civilized people and can gather peacefully and would shame any violent offenders in their group. And I wish they were just 70s eras professors. I think all eras are complicit sadly. Trump offered to pay the legal bills of the Trumpkin who sucker punched the protester. HRC/Bernie condemned all violent protesters within hours. There is no equivalence.
Sure they said that and them blamed trump for it.
|
On June 05 2016 13:43 SK.Testie wrote:
It's a joke Rebs. I'd like to still get those in before I'm arrested for appropriating another persons culture for the use of humour regardless of how ignorant, nonsensical or unpleasant it is.
Threw it out of court because clearly false testimony. You're not allowed to accuse a man of rape after he gets rough with you sexually, but then you text him, "I love the way you kicked my ass last night."
I agree, the guy is scum. But they were very clearly into it, and came off as vengeful scorned lovers and not actual victims. It's 'victims' like those that do a disservice to real victims. The fact that they will receive no punishment despite clearly colluding to falsify a case and waste tax payer money is pretty telling.
Jian's lawyer was top notch though. That's the woman the other women in Canada should have looked up to in the case. Instead they attacked her and called her a traitor. Anyway, it's things like mattress girl, 'rape culture' myth, and cases like these that do the biggest disservice to women. And instead of giving the correct response, the left says, "omg but we were right to believe them!" No. You should shame them for making false claims and tell the people that these women are bad examples of abuse.
Threw it out because he found their behavior "inconsistent with victims of sexual assault." The judge never said he decided the testimony was false. Otherwise there is plenty of recourse.
The more you say things the more i see why those people unfriended you or whatever, it is after all anyones right to do that so I dont see why there is any negative connotation to such behavior there is nothing to learn from your line of thinking and I come from a place where your sort of thinking is common place.
That place dont do so well right now.
There is a clear movement towards a breakdown of basic respect for other people and cultures in the Trump rise that you seem to agree with. Its quite disappointing.
Jokes are jokes, I make them all the time, but I use them in a context where I know people wont be uncomfortable. Not because I dont have the right, but because I dont want to respect them. I dont care personally about being disrespected, I will ignore it. But thats not a world i want to live in where it is socially acceptable to disparage people just because "jokes" and "fuck pc culture." I agree PC culture is stupid but so is pretending that the need to be a bit PC doesnt exist either.
What you dont seem to understand is that regardless of how right or wrong someones views are defending the sort of behavior Trump comes up with is inexcusable. Even if you do say something he did doesnt seem right, its never a full acknowledgement, its always comes with a "but I get why he did it" sort of qualifer. Well then the same arguments can be made for the "regressive left". I can give you a 100 reasons why I get that the turned violent. Why the double standard?
And fuck whatever the "regressive left" is doing. I couldnt care less, they dont matter. not in the world I have moved to. They are a footnote that gets attention by virtue of how the media works now.
What does matter is that the regressive right is in control of the right.
And obviously when people get pushed extremes on the opposite side will lash out. Its obviously wrong and that is why either extreme is bad.
|
its nice that you have to say regressive left, which implies that unlike the right the left is not inherently regressive 
|
On June 05 2016 14:16 ticklishmusic wrote:its nice that you have to say regressive left, which implies that unlike the right the left is not inherently regressive
Maybe we should disembark from the fruitless slinging of mud at each others fringes? That is like 90% of this thread.
|
On June 05 2016 14:08 Rebs wrote:
Jokes are jokes, I make them all the time, but I use them in a context where I know people wont be uncomfortable. Not because I dont have the right, but because I dont want to respect them. I dont care personally about being disrespected, I will ignore it. But thats not a world i want to live in where it is socially acceptable to disparage people just because "jokes" and "fuck pc culture." I agree PC culture is stupid but so is pretending that the need to be a bit PC doesnt exist either.
No. You are saying fuck PC culture it's stupid, but also please let's not offend anyone because it may make them feel uncomfortable. Life isn't comfortable, and in political discussions especially is where discomfort should come into play. This isn't a workplace or group project. There's no reason to be overly sensitive here because we're probably not going to ruin social cohesion, community, or work productivity. That doesn't mean I intend to directly attack anyone here though. I don't think I've done it. I've attacked multiple beliefs which in turn can be an attack on a person, but they're very capable of defending themselves. And this is the place to attack beliefs, ideologies, and ideas of how or what government should do. Right now there's a large underlying cultural fight going on in America so PC is very relevant in this election.
Which is how this mess got started. It literally makes us unable to talk about real problems with each others culture or perceived problems so that someone more knowledgeable can correct our perceived differences. And that's very important if you ever truly want to reach true solutions. Otherwise you'll dance around the issue like the politicians themselves.
It neuters political debate. PC has no place in political discussions among peoples especially in an arena specifically designed for discussing politics. It may be a necessity for politicians, but for the public and the men behind closed doors they should definitely debate everything and anything that comes to mind.
It also helps to ease feelings of extremity and prejudice if the other side can muster a good argument to quell their own thoughts, fears, or feelings. If a guy comes in here and says the most un-PC shit you can imagine, do you think we're going to do the world any better by silencing him? Or by engaging him? I think the first option will provide serious resentment and hate that will fester. The engaging may calm down a potential extremist if we can beat his un-PC stance. Or, we may have to face the unacceptable reality that he may win because his un-PC stance had better arguments than we had on hand. So if that British Imam that everyone hates Alex Choudry comes in saying, "Your women are whores and need to cover up" we'd probably do better by engaging him at first. Though he's quite the spectacular cunt so he'd eventually be ignored. But at least we tried.
There's plenty of situations where a country has no good solution but has to choose one. i.e. dropping the bomb on Japan. Something that I'm of the opinion was good for ending the war faster. (Arguable on the second bomb apparently but it definitely sent the message to fuck off and end it on the hour or else). Does that mean I'm pro bombing civilians? Of course not. But pro ending the war faster to prevent more civilian death? Most certainly. There's no PC culture decision for that kind of choice. Actually there is, the PC choice would be capitulation or to do nothing and pretend everything's fine. And that's a big thing on why Trump is surging. People have said illegal immigration is a problem for decades. Hillary and Bill both promised to build a barrier. They did not. (Hillary never having the power to do so at the time, but she did advocate for it). The people who wanted the barrier were ignored. Trump comes in and says 'build the wall' and it was the spark catching the dryest tinder that's been waiting for the fire to start for what they consider long decades.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:35 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 10:32 Plansix wrote:
"Trump isn't a lier, watch this YouTube video by some random jobber to see why media lies."
Edit: sry guy, some of us are not going to wade through every random video you find. Everything you guys have tried to discredit me on with a youtube vid, I've backed up in spades with legitimate sources like "cnn, NYT, .gov websites" etc.
One hour long videos are difficult to deal with in discussion because it takes two seconds to link and an hour for the person who is supposed to respond. Top that with someone that has a propensity to link lots and lots of videos, and you are going to get apathy towards wanting to put in a disproportionate amount effort (1 hour of their time for two seconds of yours). This has nothing to do with discrediting sources. It would be helpful if you linked the video, but then actually gave cliff notes or analyze the part of the 1.5 hour video that you want to really highlight and/or give time stamps for the really relevant parts. Or not. But then you'll get an apathetic response.
|
On June 05 2016 15:21 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 14:08 Rebs wrote:
Jokes are jokes, I make them all the time, but I use them in a context where I know people wont be uncomfortable. Not because I dont have the right, but because I dont want to respect them. I dont care personally about being disrespected, I will ignore it. But thats not a world i want to live in where it is socially acceptable to disparage people just because "jokes" and "fuck pc culture." I agree PC culture is stupid but so is pretending that the need to be a bit PC doesnt exist either. No. You are saying fuck PC culture it's stupid, but also please let's not offend anyone because it may make them feel uncomfortable. Life isn't comfortable, and in political discussions especially is where discomfort should come into play. This isn't a workplace or group project. There's no reason to be overly sensitive here because we're probably not going to ruin social cohesion, community, or work productivity. That doesn't mean I intend to directly attack anyone here though. I don't think I've done it. I've attacked multiple beliefs which in turn can be an attack on a person, but they're very capable of defending themselves. And this is the place to attack beliefs, ideologies, and ideas of how or what government should do. Right now there's a large underlying cultural fight going on in America so PC is very relevant in this election. Which is how this mess got started. It literally makes us unable to talk about real problems with each others culture or perceived problems so that someone more knowledgeable can correct our perceived differences. And that's very important if you ever truly want to reach true solutions. Otherwise you'll dance around the issue like the politicians themselves. It neuters political debate. PC has no place in political discussions among peoples especially in an arena specifically designed for discussing politics. It may be a necessity for politicians, but for the public and the men behind closed doors they should definitely debate everything and anything that comes to mind. It also helps to ease feelings of extremity and prejudice if the other side can muster a good argument to quell their own thoughts, fears, or feelings. If a guy comes in here and says the most un-PC shit you can imagine, do you think we're going to do the world any better by silencing him? Or by engaging him? I think the first option will provide serious resentment and hate that will fester. The engaging may calm down a potential extremist if we can beat his un-PC stance. Or, we may have to face the unacceptable reality that he may win because his un-PC stance had better arguments than we had on hand. So if that British Imam that everyone hates Alex Choudry comes in saying, "Your women are whores and need to cover up" we'd probably do better by engaging him at first. Though he's quite the spectacular cunt so he'd eventually be ignored. But at least we tried. There's plenty of situations where a country has no good solution but has to choose one. i.e. dropping the bomb on Japan. Something that I'm of the opinion was good for ending the war faster. (Arguable on the second bomb apparently but it definitely sent the message to fuck off and end it on the hour or else). Does that mean I'm pro bombing civilians? Of course not. But pro ending the war faster to prevent more civilian death? Most certainly. There's no PC culture decision for that kind of choice. Actually there is, the PC choice would be capitulation or to do nothing and pretend everything's fine. And that's a big thing on why Trump is surging. People have said illegal immigration is a problem for decades. Hillary and Bill both promised to build a barrier. They did not. (Hillary never having the power to do so at the time, but she did advocate for it). The people who wanted the barrier were ignored. Trump comes in and says 'build the wall' and it was the spark catching the dryest tinder that's been waiting for the fire to start for what they consider long decades.
Your going on a tangent. If people were going to muzzle dumb shit they wouldve done it to you ages ago.
There is no engaging lies and rhetoric that is toxic period. Because it isnt based on any sort of understanding, it is based on conviction and then the logic follows the conviction. There is a strong difference.
Alex Choudary takes a belief and then runs his arguments with it. There is no engaging an Alex Choudary. Do you know how much engaging people have tried to do with bullshit extremist thinking? It only offers them the oppurtunity to purchase more social capital from people that are left marginalized or think they are being marginalized. It is naive to think you are going to beat someone at a game they arent even playing with you.
Like I said, most of the world especially in under developed countries operates on the sort of discourse you are advising. Where anyone says anything they feel like no matter how true, ridiculous or disparaging. Im not worried about you hurting anyones feelings. Honestly that doesnt matter to me at all. The problem is that respect is a fundamental building block of society. If you start ignoring that because "fuck yeah free speech" then it cancerously grows into a society where people dont respect anything, because, you know ... fuck you.
And I can assure you that on the progress spectrum they are well behind.
Also really shame on you dude. That you can sit there and say that oh well we dropped the bomb but atleast we saved more lives. What a load of shit. You made no sacrifice, you havent suffered. You dont get to say that.
They didnt drop the bomb because they had "no option". They dropped the bomb because they though it was a good idea.
Edit: also watch the video yourself before actually suggesting people watch it lol. "its probably relevant" is why no one takes your shit seriously. Unless of course they have already made up their minds.
Youtube is not a source. Wikipedia is not a source. There is a reason that shit dont work in college.
|
In all fairness, I didn't link that one and most of mine were 30 seconds to 6 minutes long-ish and were used to enforce the posts subject matter not just a video dump with no explanation. But yes, an hour and 30 minutes is a bit to sit through. But then again, casting a vote in the most powerful country in the world can probably spare some time. Unless people have already chosen a side and there's no point in the discussion in the first place except to fling shit at one another's side in an attempt we can effect some change.
Considering the entire video posted was about debunking myths about Trump, likely most of it is quite relevant.
On June 05 2016 15:47 Rebs wrote:
Also really shame on you dude. That you can sit there and say that oh well we dropped the bomb but atleast we saved more lives. What a load of shit. You made no sacrifice, you havent suffered. You dont get to say that.
They didnt drop the bomb because they had "no option". They dropped the bomb because they though it was a good idea
And it was? If your option is to likely have 300,000+ people killed or 100,000 people killed, no matter how cruel you sound you have to make a decision. Kill or not. I don't know if the second bomb was necessary. The first one certainly seemed so and probably saved lives. It's horrible, tragic, and an atrocity. But that's literally what war is. An atrocity of man. What do you mean that I made no sacrifice or haven't suffered? First off that's an assumption. No I haven't had my town explode. That doesn't mean you can't make this choice? It's not some flippant remark to make the choice, the choice needs to be made though.
If you know 1million are to die in likely slower and more agonizing ways, would you kill 100,000? You mourn the choice, but there's only one solution to me. You make the call.
Edit: also watch the video yourself before actually suggesting people watch it lol. "its probably relevant" is why no one takes your shit seriously. Unless of course they have already made up their minds.
Of course I've watched it. I'm the one who linked the site, that has bullet points and sources to each and every point he makes in the video. It's sectioned with time stamps in the site. I did that for clarity. It exposes what it says, "untruths" about Donald Trump and sources them.
Again, everything I've linked has had other sources to back it up every time it gets called out. "I don't believe that X amount of people coming to America are getting raped." "Oh shit they are". "I don't believe the Mexican government is handing out pamphlets to their people" "oh shit they are". If I start with a youtube video, you can be sure there's a .gov source behind it somewhere. But then again since I followed it up with CNN, NYT, Huffpo, and .gov I guess that's not credible enough? Even the suspect breitbart article I linked was littered with credible sources despite its alarmist title.
And I'm pretty sure exposing Alex Choudry actually showcases his thoughts so that more people are horrified by him and want to deport his ass and others who think like him. Which is a good thing. Get that shit out of Britain. If you hate the country you're in, fuck off to one you like. We'll even pay for it!
PC culture tolerates shit it has no reason to tolerate. But instead chastises the things that won't get them in trouble. You do not need to tolerate the intolerant once they've been exposed. Personally I think Choudary should be shot from a cannon into the ocean. But since do-nothing PC people will let him leach off tax bucks I guess he gets to stay. We'll have to settle for deportation. Do I think that way of the left in this current political climate? Oddly enough no. I still want to engage them despite their rioting, calls for assassination, and actual assassination attempts. Reminder how F'd up this election is. A man rushed the stage of a political candidate and was given a platform to speak.. AS A VICTIM. This should not be allowed in our election and is clear evidence of what is blatantly wrong in our media right now.
You're not giving enough credit to the west. Free speech was paramount to its success throughout its history.
|
Canada11279 Posts
I wanted to make some general comments about attitudes that shut down discourse, but I don't even know where to start.
I just want this election to be over- I normally like talking about politics, hashing out different ideas, etc but this election cycle I straight up hate this thread. Just hate it. US politics are so polarized and the mediator in me is going crazy like hamster on crack because I don't see the common points of agreement that I usually can find. The amount of offline screaming and fighting in the real world is depressing. I don't care if it's Left or Right, Bernie supporters, Trump supporters, Clinton supporters, or false flag hooligans. I hate it. And I don't see a good outcome at the end of the tunnel, because whoever gets in will be the focal point for more polarization.
|
then switch over to the Canadian politics thread?
|
Canada11279 Posts
As a mod, I kinda have to read more than one thread, and US General is definitely the most trafficked and the most likely to have problems. But the interesting political discussions were here and this year it's more depressing than interesting.
|
On June 05 2016 15:47 SK.Testie wrote:In all fairness, I didn't link that one and most of mine were 30 seconds to 6 minutes long-ish and were used to enforce the posts subject matter not just a video dump with no explanation. But yes, an hour and 30 minutes is a bit to sit through. But then again, casting a vote in the most powerful country in the world can probably spare some time. Unless people have already chosen a side and there's no point in the discussion in the first place except to fling shit at one another's side in an attempt we can effect some change. Considering the entire video posted was about debunking myths about Trump, likely most of it is quite relevant. Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 15:47 Rebs wrote:
Also really shame on you dude. That you can sit there and say that oh well we dropped the bomb but atleast we saved more lives. What a load of shit. You made no sacrifice, you havent suffered. You dont get to say that.
They didnt drop the bomb because they had "no option". They dropped the bomb because they though it was a good idea And it was? If your option is to likely have 300,000+ people killed or 100,000 people killed, no matter how cruel you sound you have to make a decision. Kill or not. I don't know if the second bomb was necessary. The first one certainly seemed so and probably saved lives. It's horrible, tragic, and an atrocity. But that's literally what war is. An atrocity of man. What do you mean that I made no sacrifice or haven't suffered? First off that's an assumption. No I haven't had my town explode. That doesn't mean you can't make this choice? It's not some flippant remark to make the choice, the choice needs to be made though. If you know 1million are to die in likely slower and more agonizing ways, would you kill 100,000? You mourn the choice, but there's only one solution to me. You make the call. Show nested quote +Edit: also watch the video yourself before actually suggesting people watch it lol. "its probably relevant" is why no one takes your shit seriously. Unless of course they have already made up their minds. Of course I've watched it. I'm the one who linked the site, that has bullet points and sources to each and every point he makes in the video. It's sectioned with time stamps in the site. I did that for clarity. It exposes what it says, "untruths" about Donald Trump and sources them. Again, everything I've linked has had other sources to back it up every time it gets called out. "I don't believe that X amount of people coming to America are getting raped." "Oh shit they are". "I don't believe the Mexican government is handing out pamphlets to their people" "oh shit they are". If I start with a youtube video, you can be sure there's a .gov source behind it somewhere. But then again since I followed it up with CNN, NYT, Huffpo, and .gov I guess that's not credible enough? Even the suspect breitbart article I linked was littered with credible sources despite its alarmist title. And I'm pretty sure exposing Alex Choudry actually showcases his thoughts so that more people are horrified by him and want to deport his ass and others who think like him. Which is a good thing. Get that shit out of Britain. If you hate the country you're in, fuck off to one you like. We'll even pay for it! PC culture tolerates shit it has no reason to tolerate. You do not need to tolerate the intolerant once they've been exposed. Personally I think Choudary should be shot from a cannon into the ocean. But since do-nothing PC people will let him leach off tax bucks I guess he gets to stay. We'll have to settle for deportation. Do I think that way of the left in this current political climate? Oddly enough no. I still want to engage them despite their rioting, calls for assassination, and actual assassination attempts. Reminder how F'd up this election is. A man rushed the stage of a political candidate and was given a platform to speak.. AS A VICTIM. This should not be allowed in our election and is clear evidence of what is blatantly wrong in our media right now. You're not giving enough credit to the west. Free speech was paramount to its success throughout its history.
When you talk about the death of people and the atrocity or whatever and then just turn it into a shitty math equation. Then you dont appreciate the unbearable weight or catch 22 of a choice like this. Oh its just for the greater good. The fact that you cant talk about it like its just a matter of rational thinking is pretty depressing. Oh its just war. people die. That is why its not an assumption. No one who has seen these things first hand can just say, Well "id just do this". No you dont know, you need to know suffering to know these things. When you sit there and see the person you are choosing to kill to save 3 others. Whats the worst ever happened to you? Someone in your family passed away? Seriously I hate it when people who havent seen what war does say shit like this. What if it was your town that was being sacrificed for the greater good eh ?
"Ahh well shucks.. guess ill just be collateral then. Short straw it is"
Also you are super inconsistent and contradictory. You accuse PC culture of tolerating shit it shouldn't but give xenophobia a pass because, youtube and here are my agenda twisted "facts" to prove it.
The same culture that tolerates Choudary, tolerates Trump.
+ Show Spoiler +
I will say it again. Youtube is not a source. If you have an argument use the legit thing as a source not as a backup. You dont link wikipedia lines and say "oh well its wikipedia but he heres what backs it up, now do you?"
Also dont be so smug with this whole "im just trying to engage people here" bs. You are trying to occupy a higher moral ground while spewing toxic logic instead of the shameless way a guy like Trump does it. Either way you are the same thing.
Again you keep pointing out fringe elements to make your case. X people on the left did this.
But then the majority of Trump supporters want people like me to be registered or worse not even be allowed to enter the US, and thats ok. I should get a collar because of a religion that I hardly follow but do identify with,
But hey deadly weapons ? You can hold onto em as long as you get em informally np. I wonder who has killed more Americans in the past decade + Show Spoiler +(and lets exclude gang violence from that number so you can pretend that doesnt count.)
Assasination attempts. Just lol
I dont see why the double standards you ignore dont slap you in the face after all this "engaging" you have been doing. And its like chalk full of them
|
Again, you say my youtube agenda. Again, I reiterate I've sourced everything I've linked with other proper sources. Giving a youtube link to showcase, highlight, or enforce a point isn't blindly pointing to a youtube cult. Again, we can attack peoples sources all day if we want. CNN is Clintons. NYT, Clintons. Economist? Clearly democrat/liberal overall but may have the most cross-readership. Should I read only AP? Businessinsider? What?! I think I read pretty much every outlet though I have stayed off buzzfeed. Don't mind the occasional vox. And completely loathe the false narratives of Salon.
Sadly, that appeal of emotion doesn't work. On the bomb, it truly is a math equation. "Us or them." That's what war is. Survival. Though in today's case it's imperialism, control and the petrodollar. And Americans tolerate it because deep down they think their values are better, and they think it's worth it. That's why the horrifying images of their bombs aren't shown, or the people would never support the war effort or Obama's increase of the drone program. Because it's enough to bring anyone to tears. Do you listen to the people who say, "hey fuckface stop droning innocent people in the ME" or do you say, "this protects Americas greedy interests and may save more lives because while there's collateral damage (weddings, hospitals, children, people) with each drone strike they still are targeting fundamentalist groups".
And no, the same culture that tolerates Choudary isn't the same one that tolerates Trump. Because again, Trumps people if you've followed respect the law. They thank law enforcement. Choudary's people hate their country and want a whole new set of laws. They want to subvert the law. Your posts come out of a source of legitimate fear for your own safety and concern. This isn't the old religious right. This is a new movement. But anti-Muslim sentiment is growing, and it's not going to stop growing. The more the PC crowd fights it, the stronger it gets. Hilariously enough, if the PC people gave ground on it, it would at least frustrate the right far less and subdue a good portion of their anger. The fact that it's compounded with that they feel they're being lied to by their own countrymen is the real kicker that pisses them off.
And while this goes against the religious values I genuinely feel it is in the best interests of Muslims everywhere to start assimilating better to their host country. Because the Wests anger towards Islam is actually building. And as anti-Islam as I am, I'd rather save their lives and see this resolved peacefully. And the next terrorist attack might not set it off, but 3-5 more? The men are waking up and growing angrier. However they may be too impotent and distracted by the internet and their phones anyway. so np. I'm probably the most hate filled anti-Islamist you'd meet. (Okay maybe not). But I'm definitely more 'xenophobic' deport side. And I don't hate you despite you being a 'mudslime'. And I won't hate any man who is reasonable and kind. It's that simple.
I'm not trying to occupy a moral high ground. I'm stating my view. It's unpopular and hard to stomach sometimes. I'm well aware of how confrontational and abrasive it can come off. But it's going to be very necessary in this election. Because the other way is cowardice, it's kicking the can down the road for future generations. And that's a horrible thing to do to people. Leave them with the tough choices we don't want to make. And I fear that's going to be what the next generation sees this generation as. The generation of no choices and half measures. The generation that tried to have it all and bankrupt their fucking country (20 trill debt hello). And they'll resent us just like many resent the last generation that said, "you need a college degree and 3 years work experience. Oh you don't have it? Tough shit. Also house prices, LAWL. GL competing with foreign millionaires."
Also, it was Cruz who said he wanted to register you. Trump won't do that. He may try to implement a ban on new Muslims coming in during a time where we're still bombing the ME with drones and while ISIS is causing threats. So long as you've assimilated into American culture, you're fine. If you want to be a Pakistani Muslim before an American, you're making your own problems. And a Hillary Clinton win will make it worse not better. Trumps been very anti-interventionist with the exception of "knocking the hell out of ISIS". But he's been fairly clear he wants the hell out of the mess. This however may send America itself into disarray knocking down plans that have been laid out for decades.
Hillary is part of the Neocon or Neoliberal plan to destabilize as many ME countries as possible. I remember an insider journalist told us about this plan close to 14-12 fucking years ago and said 'it starts with this country and goes with these others and then it ends with Iran' and asking about Iran he said that 'it's because it's the most powerful of them + it's a very mountainous region with a high population so it's very difficult to engage in warfare there'. I honestly don't know if that's still on the agenda. They beat that war drum nearly a decade ago but maybe SA/Iran won't be on the agenda ever now. The petrodollar rules all so the wars had to be. So if you're going to play the emotional appeal on who gets killed and how awful it is, I'm pretty certain Hillary's going to kill more brown people. She's always been labelled as a hawk and thinks of herself as an American warrior.
As for racists, wear an American star spangled shirt or hat, get your lady an American star spangled Hijab or bag if you're full on religious Muslim (they'll hate the hijab but at least love that your showing patriotism and thus show acceptance) and they'll become your greatest allies. A whole source of pride of Trump supporters core is that they poke fun at the other side and say, "Ha! Look at these Bernouts! At least we follow the law." Right now the west is having a hard look at globalism, patriotism/nationalism, racism, trade, and what direction it wants to go. Right now they're very certain of one thing, they want people they can call "Americans". And no, that's not just for white people. They went nuts over the black MAGA man who told off his black race baiters on the democrat side. They're going nuts for a gay dude while the more bigoted of them are still.. "yeah but he's a jew!" but they have no power over the whole movement. No one is going to kill Milo or hang black men or register Muslims.
Also, don't "lol" the assassination attempt. The man said multiple times that he wanted to die a martyr and he's a large man who rushed the stage of a near 70 year old man. The fall alone could have killed Trump if he smashed his head. Any man rushing a team of the secret service is crazy enough to die. Those people are allowed to kill people who rush the stage. Only by the grace of their quick actions was that avoided. That's something the left just glossed over in media. "oh lol, someone tried to kill Trump. Let's tell his side of the story and then forget about it".
Also I don't think there's a moral high ground in war. From what I can tell, there's only bad choices and less bad choices. Right now Obama has 6-7 "secret" smaller wars and an active drone war. What's going to cost more lives in the long run on this agenda? Boots on the ground, a larger bomb to force capitulation, or the continued drone war of forever collateral damage and a constant reminder to inflame the masses that "hey, drones are here sup."
It's very clear in this thread that I don't have a moral high ground in anything. Through this discourse, I hopefully expose others bullshit, and my own that I may not have realized or seen. Hence, the whole point of discussion! We all get our information from different sources with some overlap. We all may be privy to information the others aren't. Hence why I'm here. To yell and rail and to confront and hopefully to learn. =p
Also, I fear commies far more than I fear racists. And there's actual commie elements latched onto the the underbelly of the dems now especially thanks to Bernie. Racists will at least bitch and sit on their ass and do nothing. But maybe I should fear both equally, or one more than the other. But since I'm white in a majority white country, I have a definite bias in that so I suppose if you can convince me to fear racists more than commies I'd be all ears. It's a hard sell though.
Now, I don't assume that I couldn't be misguided, misinformed, or completely wrong. Nor do I mind being corrected if anything I've stated is false as I'd welcome it. That's just a more complete picture of how I see the election.
|
On June 05 2016 10:46 GoTuNk! wrote:
What Surth said sums it up. This type of whining makes feminism look bad (trivial, unimportant?) and liberals by extension. Would you agree on that?
nb: I did not say that and would not agree on that.
On June 05 2016 12:57 SK.Testie wrote:
Because conservatives would rather have their populace be informed on facebook once in a while about some economic problems rather than have their women folk talk about stupid shit they saw on a hollywood website. This isn't real news.
Hahaha. Yes, please show me how conservatives would rather have their populace be informed as opposed to liberals. Jesus Christ.
And incidentally, news don't educate at all. If you want to educate people, have them read books. "Real news" are a contradictio in adjecto. This is why the book thread is so much better than this sorry excuse of a thread.
At some point in time women said:
"Treat us equally!" Men said "noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo lol" for thousands of years.
Then they got equality.
Now this is equality and they're literally complaining about it. It's a minority of women (I would hope). But it's still an example of PC taken way too far.
EQUALITY HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED. Equality is missing in plenty of places. And before anyone starts going all MRA on me, there are also a select few cases where men are disadvantaged right now, and these inequalities should also be levied. And any man who thinks the inequalities males have to face are in any way comparable to those women still have to face should be shot in the head, because he is clearly an idiot. And a whiny one at that!
So despite not being a real issue (the poster) it becomes a real issue because now we have to discuss a complete non-issue instead of something far more serious like corporate welfare or illegal immigration and its effects. It leaves a populace uninformed on more important matters.
1. While I think the poster itself is not highly problematic, depiction of women in media in general absolutely remains problematic. One of the issues though is that you cannot really pin this problematique down on single events, such as this poster. The Bechdel test is a good example. It's a very crude tool. Claiming a movie fails the bechdel test is barely salient criticism. The screenwriter/director can justifiably claim, well, I just wanted to tell a story about X, and it makes no sense for this movie to even have female characters. Lord knows Moon, or 2001, or Paths of Glory are great movies despite failing the bechdel test - the stories that these movies tell just happen to not accommodate two female characters. no problem, right? But then you look at the moviescape as a whole and realize that barely anyone ever happens to make movies that accommodates two female characters who talk about anything besides men. Just about every single screenwriter/directer just *so happens* to have made a movie that has no interest in female characters. None of these filmmakers individually are necessarily at fault, and yet you clearly have a cultural landscape that is not interested in female voices. And culture has an effect on people.
Also, it actually worries me that gender studies classes are ran by some feminist professors who clearly hate men. The feminist professor at UofT I'm quite certain genuinely dislikes men and may even teach with a serious negative slant against them. Good! lets hope she smashes the patriarchy hahaha.
On June 05 2016 13:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 13:10 Nyxisto wrote:
can you please stop using the word 'regressive left' as if it actually means anything A societal shift in which Fox is expected to apologize for that poster is undeniably a regression. This is hugely due to the left relative to how much it is due to the right. I think regressive left is sensible in this case.
Undeniably a regression from what?
All this "regressive left" shit is just a vulgarization of Nietzsche's problems with the Christian legacy, by the way. Hey the 19th century called, Friedrich wants his ideas back.
And speaking of vulgarity, if you maybe really want to read a book, you can read Zizek's Violence. its not among his best works but its a good entry, and I promise he's not a liberal! I'll even throw you a pdf or an epub if you want, I'm sure Zizek wouldnt mind.
|
Racists will at least bitch and sit on their ass and do nothing. But maybe I should fear both equally, or one more than the other. But since I'm white in a majority white country, I have a definite bias in that so I suppose if you can convince me to fear racists more than commies I'd be all ears. It's a hard sell though.
One day some white guy will be serving a prison sentence for a crime he didn't commit and he'll wonder how it came to this. I wish I could show him this post and say, "when your ancestors had a chance to do something, they sat around and said, 'eh it's not that bad for me' instead of pushing their peers to be better. That's why no one fixed it before the demographics shifted out of your favor.
|
On June 05 2016 18:10 SK.Testie wrote:
Do you listen to the people who say, "hey fuckface stop droning innocent people in the ME" or do you say, "this protects Americas greedy interests and may save more lives because while there's collateral damage (weddings, hospitals, children, people) with each drone strike they still are targeting fundamentalist groups".
Drone strikes are not targeting fundamentalist groups. They are *creating* fundamentalist groups.
Because the other way is cowardice, it's kicking the can down the road for future generations. And that's a horrible thing to do to people. Leave them with the tough choices we don't want to make. And I fear that's going to be what the next generation sees this generation as.
On the topic of that: lets talk about climate change! Hands up everyone who believes it is a hoax by the chinese!
Hillary is part of the Neocon or Neoliberal plan to destabilize as many ME countries as possible. I remember an insider journalist told us about this plan close to 14-12 fucking years ago and said 'it starts with this country and goes with these others and then it ends with Iran' and asking about Iran he said that 'it's because it's the most powerful of them + it's a very mountainous region with a high population so it's very difficult to engage in warfare there'. I honestly don't know if that's still on the agenda. They beat that war drum nearly a decade ago but maybe SA/Iran won't be on the agenda ever now. The petrodollar rules all so the wars had to be. So if you're going to play the emotional appeal on who gets killed and how awful it is, I'm pretty certain Hillary's going to kill more brown people. She's always been labelled as a hawk and thinks of herself as an American warrior.
Indeed. This is why quite a few of us do not support Hillary.
Also, I fear commies far more than I fear racists. And there's actual commie elements latched onto the the underbelly of the dems now especially thanks to Bernie. Racists will at least bitch and sit on their ass and do nothing. But maybe I should fear both equally, or one more than the other. But since I'm white in a majority white country, I have a definite bias in that so I suppose if you can convince me to fear racists more than commies I'd be all ears. It's a hard sell though.
If you think racists "do nothing", you do not understand racism.
|
Also, the word problematic must have been in everyone's gender studies class. It's used rampantly by leftists. It's like their favourite fucking word. Why does this pattern repeat itself?
|
On June 05 2016 18:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Racists will at least bitch and sit on their ass and do nothing. But maybe I should fear both equally, or one more than the other. But since I'm white in a majority white country, I have a definite bias in that so I suppose if you can convince me to fear racists more than commies I'd be all ears. It's a hard sell though. One day some white guy will be serving a prison sentence for a crime he didn't commit and he'll wonder how it came to this. I wish I could show him this post and say, "when your ancestors had a chance to do something, they sat around and said, 'eh it's not that bad for me' instead of pushing their peers to be better. That's why no one fixed it before the demographics shifted out of your favor.
There's been plenty of white people who've been falsely imprisoned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
