He talks and talks. Really, what on earth can be done to make her look any worse? She could kill a guy and it wouldn't matter.
Because the mechanism to have someone dealt with for them is an innocuous remark of "I don't like this guy".
Always bent me the wrong way how Monica Lewinsky's career was destroyed, while absolutely nothing happened to Bill. That's how the Clintons treat someone who gives them a free dick massage. God help the souls of the poor fucks who actually do anything to bother them, let alone hurt them.
Ed Oscuro wrote:Completely ignoring context, accusing people of things they never said or did out of thin air, refusing to acknowledge any evidence that goes against his narrative, and spreading misinformation only to backpedal on it later.
Every Ed Oscuro post ever, my friends.
I'm sure more brilliant and original posts like this will make you highly respected.
p.s. what I wrote is still true and you haven't even bothered to argue against it. Again, every quash post ever.
In the same breath he's pointed out you can't indict someone, unless you have a prosecutor who wants to indict. It doesn't matter if the subject in question is a crooked cop, a crooked banker, or a crooked Hillary. You have to have someone in a position of power to hold the will to hold power accountable. Someone who was put there by someone in power to do exactly the opposite of that.
So he's a very silly man. "Police departments/governments are totally gonna investigate themselves and hold their own feet to the fire if they're in the wrong." Yeah. Suuuuure.
Yeah, sometimes an insignificant fall guy like Abramoff or Schock get slapped to make the filthy masses feel like it's not a complete farce. No one significant is exposed to any risk of this happening to them.
Nah man, what are you talking about? I can stroll in to work, plug a flash drive into a computer with unfettered access to state secrets, copy a bunch of information and post it in this thread; and as long as I say I didn't have any malicious intent in doing so, I'm fine!
That is, I'm fine now that we have the Clinton Defense. All these years, I thought all those forms I signed telling me that this stuff was illegal actually mattered. Now, I know better.
Once again, Hillary has Corrected The Record. Who knew that all it took to get out of espionage charges was to play dumb and never admit to any wrongdoing?
Seriously people, it's up to you (and the voting machines, but let's keep up appearances for the sake of argument).
On one hand, we have a guy who's partook in some dodgy business practices and bamboozles his way out of everything. On the other hand, we have a woman whose rap sheet looks more like it belongs to the dictator of a banana republic than a First Lady and Secretary of State.
Choose wisely. If you're a social issue type of voter, keep in mind America is the only nation that gives a shit about most of the shit it does. If you seriously think a nation like China or Russia would even give movements like BLM a soapbox to stand on, you should probably do some research. Go watch Empire of Dust if you want a hard reality check on what would happen if the US disappeared from the globe tomorrow.
quash wrote:Maybe one day you'll learn that ad hominem isn't always a fallacy.
You make the case best why you're the worst poster on the forum now - and indeed I've also noted you have "secret" detractors.
If ad hominems are the only thing you bring to the discussion then maybe you need to GTFO back to the alt-right cadres you seem to be posting for.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think you've posted a single link to external "evidence" since your embarrassing foray into British SJW antics got laughed out of the forum.
We're up to four pages in which quash hasn't posted a single link to anything, and even that was a sad attempt to catch me up with an online dictionary - makes me laugh every time.
p.s. Since you're apparently two years old, quash, "go Midwest Senators" does not change that you are wrong - Congressional Democrats (meaning ALL of Congress) voted against the Iraq Resolution. Picking up that I noticed some Midwest/Independent Senators voted against it has nothing to do with this at all. So, I mean, this is another example why you are the worst poster on the forum. It's as if we have some apples and oranges, and you try to apply a comment about apples to the oranges.
Congressional democrats voted against it by a moderate margin. Which was symbolic since they didn't have control of the house.
Senate democrats voted for it, in a place they could have stopped it dead if they had united against it.
You're right in that there are about 40 to 80 human beings in the House. He's right that nearly the entirety of the senate needs to put to the guillotine. Can we please get back to Assange's fanfiction, my dick, and what specific fantasies we should retreat into to cope with the ongoing slow motion extinction of our species.
It is pretty disturbing how subjective reality has proven to be outside of academia.
Last edited by BryanM on Sat Aug 27, 2016 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ed Oscuro wrote:
You make the case best why you're the worst poster on the forum now
What's next? Telling me to delete my account?
If ad hominems are the only thing you bring to the discussion then maybe you need to GTFO back to the alt-right cadres you seem to be posting for.
It's not the only thing I bring to the discussion, it's the only thing anyone responds to.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think you've posted a single link to external "evidence" since your embarrassing foray into British SJW antics got laughed out of the forum.
You still haven't answered my question about whether or not certain social issues warrant trials without juries. That was the context in which I posted it, and I even later directly posited this to you.
This is nice though. You are succinct and to the point, for a change.
fisking isn't the appropriate response to every post, as the format can easily distract you from paying attention to an underlying argument in favor of coming up with some supposed witticisms for every line
but yeah, delete your account
Do I think certain social issues warrant trials without juries? Putting aside that this looks like a desperate attempt to force an anti-liberal "gotcha" moment which (again) has no place in this thread, this is already going on and I wonder if you realize that. Many people go through diversionary programs, and there's also specialized courts (traffic court, but especially drug, mental, probate and family courts are relevant). To assuage your concerns, those accused of serious crimes should be allowed a day in front of a jury if they choose that over other options. But money talks - who is going to pay to put traffic tickets before a jury? Or people who don't matter to voters? This judge offers defendants in his court optional alternative sentences. But if you appeared in bond court in Broward, Florida before Judge Hurley you had better hope you have money (of course, Hurley was working in a broken system).
Things are happening today worth being upset over: Mothers and families often have their children taken away from them without any trial process - either by a domestic issues court, or even through administrative procedure by child protection agencies. (That's normal, and doesn't even qualify as a horror story - like a mother being molested right in family court, or a daughter being given over to a father who was a child molester.) Then there's the homeless getting "warehoused" as the PD said to Judge Hurley, and many times we throw people in jail instead of finding an appropriate diversionary program.
Please tell me your goal wasn't to set up a strawman version of liberalism where liberals don't care about people getting representation in court.
Ed Oscuro wrote:fisking isn't the appropriate response to every post, as the format can easily distract you from paying attention to an underlying argument in favor of coming up with some supposed witticisms for every line
You're right. Sometimes it's best to ignore the worst aspects of people's posts. Like I have done numerous times.
Please tell me your goal wasn't to set up a strawman version of liberalism where liberals don't care about people getting representation in court.
My goal was to see how outrageous the notion is to the same group that is actively calling for limitations on free speech and gun ownership (and don't try to tell me that's a strawman).
At this point everyone can agree that the US justice system is in dire need of reform, but this is exactly the kind of sentiment that leaves the country vulnerable to less than favorable solutions.
quash wrote:My goal was to see how outrageous the notion is to the same group that is actively calling for limitations on free speech and gun ownership (and don't try to tell me that's a strawman).
I'm here, I'm a liberal, why are you trying to tell me about what my group membership portends for my views? Or am I not *really* a liberal? What is this supposed to do?
This has been the core of my displeasure with your argument since you first made it. You're talking about people who aren't here, and who aren't really anywhere in numbers. They're out there, but they're no OWS or Tea Party (and how much influence, at the end of the day, did those movements have?). I wouldn't equate Black Lives Matter with these views either. (My somewhat non-mainstream liberal gun views aside, I'm willing also to state that being in favor of methods to restrict gun ownership from the mentally incompetent is not apparently the same thing as wanting to dismantle the peer jury tradition.)
There are some crazy people out there, and there are crazy people hanging on to any ideological identity you can care to name, and you linked to one of them. This caused hearty laughter; "somewhere, there's a crazy person" is quite different from showing that these people are the most pressing threat to democracy. Anything can be threatening without being important; risk = severity * probability.
But more to the point I don't get what this is supposed to make me do. Change my vote on the basis of a not-there link between Clinton and extremists?
I also don't get what this allows the Alt-Right or any other movement to do, other than wallow in futility and claim to be victims. BLM showed the way forward by being serious about the campaign and showing up. A lot of pressure campaigning on small-ish video game forums isn't going to move the dial.
At this point everyone can agree that the US justice system is in dire need of reform, but this is exactly the kind of sentiment that leaves the country vulnerable to less than favorable solutions.
I'm mostly in agreement with these words, but what sentiment do you mean? I don't agree that reforming obvious issues with the justice system needs to be dangerous; a lot of the issues are simply down to underfunding.
Ed Oscuro wrote:I'm here, I'm a liberal, why are you trying to tell me about what my group membership portends for my views?
Because you are, for better or worse, judged by the company you keep. Until you vocally buck the trend of your ideology, you're guilty until proven innocent. It's the same reason I've been drawn as a comically evil conservative, even though I'm for things like social safety nets, controlled immigration, etc.
This has been the core of my displeasure with your argument since you first made it. You're talking about people who aren't here, and who aren't really anywhere in numbers.
You're focusing on established presence, I'm focusing on the spreading of ideas. Maybe nobody here is AIDS Skrillex incarnate, but enough of you subscribe to the core tenets of modern liberal ideology that it isn't far fetched that you may find yourselves advocating for things that just a few years ago you found abhorrent.
A lot of the mechanism through which crazy ideas become normalized is confirmation bias, and the media has been on a roll with this for the past three years or so, though it seems they've been caught fooling the public enough times now that the establishment of trust necessary to utilize this is no longer there.
But more to the point I don't get what this is supposed to make me do. Change my vote on the basis of a not-there link between Clinton and extremists?
Again, it was an open question. I already stated my reasons as to why I asked it.
I also don't get what this allows the Alt-Right or any other movement to do, other than wallow in futility and claim to be victims. BLM showed the way forward by being serious about the campaign and showing up. A lot of pressure campaigning on small-ish video game forums isn't going to move the dial.
Hillary Clinton just gave an entire speech that acknowledged the rising threat of the alt-right, which has primarily campaigned through Twitter. On the other hand, BLM has lost some of its biggest donors and is likely about to turn into another zombie movement as a result (about half a year later than it would have happened naturally, by my estimation).
I think you underestimate just how many eyes come across the smallest corners of the internet, even if only by proxy (ie: 4chan memes being posted on social media outlets).
I'm mostly in agreement with these words, but what sentiment do you mean? I don't agree that reforming obvious issues with the justice system needs to be dangerous; a lot of the issues are simply down to underfunding.
It doesn't need to be dangerous, but if you aren't putting together a picture of how very easily it can be given the current political climate, I have to question how much you're really observing what's going on right now. And this goes for the other side of the aisle, as well.
I was under the impression that the exact opposite is true, unless we've suddenly time-leaped to the old days of oppressive monarchy.
BryanM wrote:You're trapped in a haunted house. There's a ghost. It wants to eat your friends and have sex with your cat. When forced to decide between the lives of your friends and the chastity of your kitty, you choose the cat.
quash wrote:Because you are, for better or worse, judged by the company you keep.
You wouldn't have written this garbage line if you had first read the part of my post where I point out that every group has a wide range of people in it. Again your unwillingness to grapple with ideas bigger than one line - and your inability to stop with the fisking - destroys any chance the discussion will be sensible, when you have this line-by-line ant's-eye view of the discussion.
You've already asked me to lay out a belief, and now you pretend as if I haven't done so with your response. How the hell does the discussion move when you keep getting hung up on your fantasies? Oh, by the way, your super entitled "you have to prove it" nonsense is exactly the same kind of tactic that people lambaste SJWs for. I don't see the point of trying to talk to you when at every juncture you can just deny that real people don't agree with your preconceived notions of a spreading red menace. So yeah, put me down for putting more weight to "established presence," i.e. things which actually matter, before I give in to being a complete paranoid. But I think that would be too kind; I think we know the real point of all this is to be able to dismiss things that don't excite the alt-right movement, like ensuring justice for women, blacks, and the poor, because those "established" things apparently count for less than going on some goofball chase against something which is dealt with effectively by telling somebody your name is Hugh Mungus. YGBSM.
It's great that we have blinkered fanatics running around taking care of the fringe, but I don't trust them with the entire national agenda. And in any case, if you think the system is rotten, you'd do better to follow BLM's lead and find a way back into the political arena. In their case it involved looking for the probable winner and getting access. Good luck doing that when your list of demands seems to involve not having anything to do with the political powers that be.
I did like the part of your post where you admitted you're just weighing paranoia and discounting rationality; at least we have some kind of honesty here.
Good night then. Don't forget to delete your account.
I've been "frisking" your posts because there are a great deal of things you assume (about me, the alt-right, etc.) that are flat out wrong.
In any case, you fail to see why a movement such as the alt-right has to resort to the tactics it does: because nobody in the court of public opinion, where you are guilty until proven innocent, will even listen to them when their ideas are presented through the mouthpiece of conventional media.
There's no international banker that's willing to back a movement to give white people political agency, nor would such a movement get a free pass from both the public and in some cases even the government to riot through the streets of major cities. The media would label them neo-Nazis before they could even get started (which, when you consider that even Libertarians are being tossed under the same umbrella as so-called reactionaries, is pretty dishonest on its face), and the police would in all likelihood arrest most of them in the event they became violent.
For reference, you know the KKK the media has been making a Boogeyman out of since Trump announced his campaign? It's one of the most infiltrated organizations in the world. Same goes for basically every white nationalist group in the US. They may as well stop being coy about it and make them an official branch of the FBI. I mean, why do you think people stopped actually joining these groups forever ago?
And as far as whatever assumptions you're making about me goes (because nobody ever assumes that someone belongs to a certain group until it's been made clear that they aren't), all I want is for social safety nets of all types to not discriminate on basis of race. Which, in the current day, actually disproportionately affects poor whites more than anyone. Maybe a tired example, but there is no such thing as a scholarship for poor white people, a job program for poor white people, etc.
Now, it is worth pointing out that for many of these types of programs that are out there, there are so few applicants that they actually will take just about anyone that's interested regardless of whether or not they meet the surface criterion for the organization. But the problem here is that we're telling poor white people (who are still the majority of poor people in the US) that there's only room for them if nobody else is interested in bettering themselves. Which is wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start with it.
Regardless of any past injustices, perceived or substantiated, that you may think serves as a precedent for this, keep in mind that the white working class is still the largest in the US, and that national prosperity lies primarily in their productivity. To begin to close off opportunities for them is a sure way to stagnate the economy and will eventually lead to another collapse.
But when was the last time you heard a conversation about any of this on the news? As far as the media's concerned, America is an apartheid state where every white person is born with the original sin of being racist, and no matter how much you try to absolve yourself, you still owe the world something for it.
Which brings me to why traditional activism won't work for the alt-right: because nobody wants to give them the air time. Their ideas completely destroy the narrative on virtually every lie the media has been promoting for the past few years on crime, poverty, etc. No politician seeking office today (besides Trump) can afford being labeled a racist, even erroneously. As the label becomes misused and overused, this is slowly starting to change, but someone had to be the sacrificial lamb for this to happen.
In the meantime, who's going to think much of a picture of a smiling frog in an SS uniform? It's clearly a joke, right? But this is how the embers of curiosity are blown, which is going back to what I was saying about established presence of ideas vs how they're spread: the latter has to lead to the former somehow, and in the case of the alt-right, they control their own narrative because they don't rely on any external forces to do these things for them. Which is exactly why you should fear that they may have more sway in the court of public opinion than you think.
Now if anyone needed any further confirmation; it's all there.
It's really a split between the people who will buy that absolute dishonest, deceptive, manipulative horror of an extreme far-right rhetoric, and those who still have enough brains and lucidity to reject that stinking bullshit, understanding the obvious menace it represents.
I do find it quite telling that you can say with a straight face that others have given in to dishonest right wing rhetoric when your own country censors news regarding terrorist attacks.
Side ? Yes, you're the one stating there's 'sides'. Okay let's play the game. Mahahaha you're so transparent. In your fantasy you're certainly convinced your shit is actually effective on people, that you weigh in the balance. I pity you.
It's indeed fair to compare you to bozos like objectivists, or nazis, or commies or any form of perversion of the concept of a free society ever, in their feverish attempts to convince people by any means that it's not unethical to destroy other human being's individual freedom to preserve yours/their own.
The whole alt-right shit is a laughably poor attempt at blurring the lines and convince people it's not the barely recycled nazi ideology it actualy is. Hip/soft nazism ? My ass.
Unfortunately for you, it's extremely hard to hide the real motives and goals of that ideology, because to anyone on their right mind they're fundamentally fucking inhumane. Tough job making that sound 'right' heh ?
Oh it's clear you're taking people for much bigger imbeciles than what they are, there's an explanation to that; what you can't see is what fundamentally differenciates people in their perception of the others and society, of humanity, is that all kinds of extreme ideologies and fanaticisms have one thing in common: they require at leat a minimum of sociopathy.
Sadly, sadly for all the alt-right crowd, most people have a mental security net, a natural sane lucidity sociopaths lack, and even though for some periods of time large groups, entire nations led by the influence of the sickest individuals, will let themselves be deceived and controlled then fall into the anti-civilizational abyss, the greater majority will always defend itself against it, drive that madness away.
Not everyone on Earth can be weak-minded, always afraid of the unknown, a coward who despises things like universalism, social contract or even science to only name few of the things that made humanity better. Living with these values means assuming you have to face an everyday life that almost constantly calls to doubt your beliefs, reflect on differences, accept that you don't know a lot of stuff and need to keep learning, expanding your mind and understanding of the world, including the other humans everywhere around you and their flaws, otherwise everything will begin to fall apart.
The desire of the extremes, their ultimate goal whether it's in politics or religion, is beyond everything to end that cycle, to relieve themselves of the heavy responsibilities such a tiring world makes weigh on their consciousness every fucking day. It's kind of understandable, but it is laziness.
So they'll use outlets, those extremes and fanatics. They'll make all the possible excuses, picking ideal, easily identifiable enemies on their favourite scales; social class, religion, race, any social behaviour they don't like, they'll charge them of being responsible for their misery, and claim that eliminating those carefuly dehumanized 'problems' from their everyday will achieve that 'relief' they so hope for. No half-measures despite the claims, because any shades in the 'reasoning' are contradictory with the constant loud claims of superiority-inferiority statuses based on race, class etc.
Their speech, to be acceptable to even the not-yet-but-borderline sociopath candidate - and this is the novelty - absolutely needs to carry the illusion of staying within the limits of social conventions, or at least not immediately punishable by law, an actual perverse use (again) of the political correctness they so like to ridicule.
So their argumentation will be based on cherry picked tabloid-level yet cringeworthy social issues, because the emotional impact factor will be powerful and extremely difficult to denounce and debunk as populist manipulations with the weapons of rationalism.
Shock and outrance are the key elements, because they call to lower instincts, very effective on the ever-increasing masses of people who've become more fragile in times of crisis, they'll be more receptive to panic and hate speeches raher than reasoning and dialogue.
Extremists are skilled opportunists, they've always been.
They'll also argue if you oppose them that your civilizational values, the philosophies they're based on, are completely crumbling, and because it's true in specific areas and circumstances and it's shocking-irritating they'll always brandish these issues as the only ones everyone should pay attention to, the whole and only truths worth reflecting on when it comes to building an opinion about the state of the society we live in. This way the apple can only be 100% rotten.
Funnily-enough, this is exactly mimicking the process which makes public opinion and the media focus on shit like SJW, using the same fundamental force of exaggeration and outrage, only in a craftier way since most of the alt-right aramada is not in front of cameras but completely faceless, well-hidden on the internet where they work their asses off to have that incredible presence.
The worst thing that can happen to them is of course when we plainly show that the differences in goals, in values, between their line and ours they attack, make absolutely no mystery. It's when we argue with them that we make a mistake, because we're offering them the opportunity to do their dirty deception job.
There isn't anything other than a thin mist actually blurring the lines, if we just blow it away it appears in plain sight that fundamentally their 'model' is still an abomination of the type history has already many horrible records of, and ours as imperfect and weakened as it is, still immensely superior to theirs as a basis for civilization, still carrying in itself the right tools to handle even the greatest challenges and correct its mistakes, maybe changing a lot in the process, but worth saving in any case.
A good revolution is not one that destroys the things that make civilization a thing, it's one that makes it change for the better.
Your mistake quash, and all of the alt-right shit, is that you don't realize that you're not the cure; you're the poison.
You mistake my knowledge of the alt-right with my association. I like that they are acting as the catalyst to bring much needed change to the West, even if I don't agree with some of their end goals. It's hardly something I'm alone in, either.
The American political establishment has become a monster, completely controlled by external forces who seek to exploit it to their own ends. The only way you can beat a monster is with an even stronger one, though you'll have to deal with the consequences of that later.
Xyga wrote:
A good revolution is not one that destroys the things that make civilization a thing, it's one that makes it change for the better.
Do tell: what about buying out the highest echelons of the US government to work in your personal interests, destabilizing nations for political gain, and actively working to destroy the nation's middle class is improving things?
Because that's what the US is facing right now: a careful dismantling of the legitimacy of the state, or a last ditch effort to try and save it.
You don't appreciate that Europe is bearing the burden of the US' militarism and instating of puppet regimes in the Middle East? Then how about you stop focusing on little things, and start looking at the big picture. For starters, you can connect the dots between the people funding these wars and the politicians making them possible. You'll hardly find anything resembling a vast right wing conspiracy.
This isn't even getting into some of the worst of the hasty assumptions and false premises you provided, but let's try to keep this focused on the current election in the US, shall we?
Trying to redirect the conversation outside of the embarrassing stuff heh ? the usual.
Again it's not because the various establishments in the whole fucking world, not just the US or Europe, are too corrupt or stupid that the models and values their countries have based their civilizations on are to be considered all wrong, obsolete, or on the verge of death.
What the alt-right - and you even though you hypocritically state that you aren't of it - are trying to make people gobble up, is that a society based on that hallucinatory rational racism, inequal rights and discriminatory rules, is alright, possible and peaceful.
But no, it's impossible, it would be an immensely more ridiculous lie of a society than the current democratic systems are, in this case it would be almost exactly the nazi utopia: nothing like that can become real without applying massive oppression to those who are excluded by its ideology, nor it is possible to avoid endless conflict with the other societies, neighboring or not, that such a system would in its very definition antagonize.
There will never be a peaceful nazism, nor any other form of peaceful extremism. Fucking never.
You're funnily trying to say there are things in the alt-right that can be saved, when everywhere you look and listen they're only bloody flooding the internet with the perfect encyclopedia of everything outrageously racist and fascist the sickest human minds have ever been able to think of.
Memes ? joking ? not serious ? who the fuck are we kidding !?
I call a spade a spade; nazis scum is nazi scum, and it's that cunt Trump who gave them monsters a chance to shine, a political force.
I'll tell you, despite of all the wrongs with that country, far from everything is so bad that it deserves to be fed to the lions. I probably hold the USA's culture and values in much higher regards than that bunch of assholes ever will would they be its very citizens, for them thinking they could lead your people to even consider accepting anything resembling a fascist and nazi culture as a legitimate system, even remotely.
That, if it ever happened, would be some fucked up treason to say the least.
And no it's not a menace limited to the US, the exact same ideas and rhetoric poison people's minds in every corners of the whole fucking world, and it's that asshole Trump who's the srongest figure to have championed it, whether it's been by calculation or conviction matters less than the fact that he did it. It's too late to forgive him now, and if he wins the election he will give fucking legitimacy to this 'movement'. *spitting*
quash wrote:I've been "frisking" your posts because there are a great deal of things you assume (about me, the alt-right, etc.) that are flat out wrong.
How can you face up to writing this hypocritical drivel after you spent so many words defending your choice to ignore what people are saying, and accuse them of supporting people and ideas they don't?
It's hard not to wonder if you're a dumb hypocrite with no ability to look inward after you complain that people are trying to slander you when they point out, rightly, that the "alt-right" membership is known for racist and chauvinist views, but you don't think anything of making lazy accusations that mainline liberalism is tantamount to offering support for those left of Andrea Dworkin.
You are so deep in the fringe that we should call it deep plush. And despite your claims that BLM is on the back foot, you seem only concerned with suppressing this political movement - as if there is no higher calling in a democracy than being in a fringe attacking another fringe. This isn't counting the dead wood of your commentaries about the system, politicians, and other peoples' opinions, which is also pretty brittle junk.
This is not what democracy is about. As I said, it's totally okay and normal that we have a fringe, also accurately known as "lobbies" or "special interests," but any extremist group is unbalanced by design and does not share a comprehensive vision with the nation's voters. Even Mr. Trump has tried to broaden his campaign beyond appealing so narrowly to issues or to voters. I certainly don't think the "alt-right" is much more than a bunch of spoiled whiners who are refusing to engage with the democratic process because they see it won't immediately cave to their every last whim.
Oh come on not this sectarian crap again. It's very boring and pointless. Even self perpetuating.
And the apocalyptic rhetoric! Oh my!
Did you know that destruction, theft, rape, torture, mass murder, starvation, and oppression are happening in the world right now, at this very moment? And Trump is not even president yet. How do you explain that?
I love how people can find the energy to preach doom and gloom about Trump based on his inflammatory WORDS. Meanwhile, the ongoing ACTIONS happening right under their noses, which bear a striking resemblence to said hypothetical scenarios of doom and gloom? Meh. That's normal. Nothing to see here, move along.
I guess WORDS trump ACTIONS? (LOLOLOLOL)
Well, that's just the status quo. Anything which challenges the status quo is "extreme" or "radical" and therefore dangerous. Whereas the status quo itself is "moderate" and "centrist" and words like that. So it must be safe and good.
Of course, since we are clever we know that the status quo is really not that great. Uh huh, we knew all along that the status quo is secretly shit. We were just too stupid and lazy to do anything about it (oops). But with that being the case, we're certainly not going to let it change. Oh, no! We can't afford to risk it, and therefore we will dutifully shout down anyone who speaks against it. After the threat is neutrallized, we will then go back to drooling in our sleep.
Ahh, delicious unintentional ironies. Next time, try following the conversation a bit before leaping in to put me in my place, because this attempt looks dumb and lazy.
I agree the world has lots of bad stuff going on. That's what I was writing to quash earlier when he wanted us all to know that if the SJWs win, tomorrow THE WORLD WILL END!
And that's why I pushed back against your latest attempt to make Clinton look worse than Hitler.
I also feel saying "democracy isn't about being a baby and throwing a tantrum for instant gratification" isn't very apocalyptic.
Xyga wrote:
Again it's not because the various establishments in the whole fucking world, not just the US or Europe, are too corrupt or stupid that the models and values their countries have based their civilizations on are to be considered all wrong, obsolete, or on the verge of death.
It may not be the brink of death, but there's no doubting that the US and Europe are both in serious shit right now. Economic output has stagnated, birth rates continue to decline below replacement levels, and the potential for multiple countries to default on their debt simultaneously cannot be ignored.
What the alt-right - and you even though you hypocritically state that you aren't of it - are trying to make people gobble up, is that a society based on that hallucinatory rational racism, inequal rights and discriminatory rules, is alright, possible and peaceful.
What you just described is the current leftist dogma in America. It should come as no surprise that there are people out there who choose to fight fire with fire, but again, I'm not one of them.
it's that asshole Trump who's the srongest figure to have championed it, whether it's been by calculation or conviction matters less than the fact that he did it. It's too late to forgive him now, and if he wins the election he will give fucking legitimacy to this 'movement'. *spitting*
You can choose to be bitter about the candidate that wants to put an end to America's interventions in the Middle East over a small but vocal block of his supporters, but it seems pretty silly from where I'm standing.
The problem is that, from what I'm seeing, you wish to maintain the status quo of modern democracy. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we've reached a breaking point where it's no longer possible. Either Hillary gets elected and the US and Europe become even more destabilized (via conflict with Russia, influx of "refugees", etc.), or Trump gets elected and we pull the curtain away from this facade and figure out how people are going to fend for themselves from now on.
Maybe the idea of no longer being able to lean on the US for defense is one that scares the shit out of you, and rightfully so, but it's not a sustainable model and we're starting to see the problems this creates for everyone.
Ed Oscuro wrote:I agree the world has lots of bad stuff going on. That's what I was writing to quash earlier when he wanted us all to know that if the SJWs win, tomorrow THE WORLD WILL END!
What I've been saying is that the world has lots of bad stuff going on, which makes the position of the SJW one of- get this- privilege. Which explains why the entire dogma surrounding it couldn't be any further removed from what could be considered pragmatic.
not this sectarian crap again. It's very boring and pointless. Even self perpetuating.