Speak Your Political Mind: Because God Knows We Need This Thread
All the political discussion goes here. Try not to get too pissed off at each other.
>there are people here who seriously think the verdict
I'm sure you're not here anymore for throwing a fit over "SJW-chan" but there was no verdict. There wasn't even a trial. Educate yourself.
>Speak Your Political Mind
Yeah, no. I'm opting out of this one. I'm to moderate or wishy-washing on anything political.
But if you cut scientific funding, I'll cut you mate
Same here. All of my biologyfriends are already depressed enough with the current state of the NIH. Even some of the ones who lean conservative/libertarian are absolutely terrified by the change in House and Senate.
I'm really hoping that Congress stays do-nothing for the next two years. Even another shutdown would be better than the kind of "strategies" I fear the top brass wants to put in place.
They don't have a veto-proof majority nor even a filibuster-proof majority. The only thing they're going to be able to do for the next two years is budget stuff and shutting down the government. Which they've already been doing anyway. And if anything, shutting down the government while they're in power is going to look even worse for them than it did when they were not in power.
Unfortunately, the Democrats have shown they are more willing to vote alongside Republicans than the other way around, so even without the two -proofs they may still put some nasty work in place.
While that's true, I think they've burned their bridges with Obama enough that he might be entirely willing to veto them out of spite.
Everything is fucked and I've given up all hope of things ever getting better.
Wait, pot is becoming more and more legal. That's getting better.
Things tend to get worse before they get better. If anything, I think things are coming to a head, and that means the chance for healing is not far off.
Or that you're being actively brainwashed. Kind of hard to tell, but if you're not trapped in a basement that's a good sign.
I just learned there's an anti-vaccination movement. What in the fucking fuck?!
Do you not live in America? I ask because if you do I have no idea how you've gone this long without knowing about that.
I kind of wonder how these people survive.
The adults probably had their vaccinations already. The kids survive by sheer dumb luck of not contracting the diseases they're not vaccinated against.
>The kids survive by sheer dumb luck of not contracting the diseases they're not vaccinated against.
It helps that a lot of those diseases have become fairly rare because of, you know, vaccination.
That also leads to the lovely problem of just one infected individual entering the group of non-vaccinated and having it spread like wildfire.
A surprisingly large portion of the anti-vaxxer movement are well off. Even if they don't trust their doctor's advice to get vaccinated, they'll still take the kid to the doctor when s/he gets sick. And, as Stone said, most of the adults probably had their major vaccines as kids, so they're less likely to suffer.
While many of them are large anti-science "conservatives", they're not an overwhelming majority. You get a lot of the tree-hugger, anti-nuclear "liberals" in the group, as well.
Ah, but you're missing part of the problem: it is often not they themselves who will pay the price for their idiocy, but the rest of us. Vaccines only have like a 45% efficacy rate or something like that. The reason they work as well as they do is because of herd immunity--because half the population is immune, the diseases can't spread, so even those of us who got vaccinated but didn't become immune avoid getting sick.
That's gone now. Which is why diseases like Whooping Cough have been coming back with a vengeance now that the anti-vax crowd is sabotaging the health of the rest of us.
Okay, good, because it's a major issue over here (it really shouldn't be) and I'd be worried if you didn't know about it.
Why? Repubs have a good track record for funding science. its the dems re-purposing funding money for useless programs that's scary.
Bush tripled the NIH, get educated.
The old-school ones and neocons, perhaps maybe. But the newer wave of Tea Partiers, libertarians, and hardcore anti-science Christians? They fucking hate the NIH.
…um, I think some people are getting this confused with the actual SYM threads. This one’s just for politics so we keep the actual SYM threads free of political banter.
You see what happens? You see what happens when you do this shit? I protested, but no, this is a great idea you guys.
Well, I'm sure that /pol/ is going ape-shit, what with no captcha during the revelation of the CIA torture investigation.
Doesn't matter, regardless of how reasonable or chaotic the discussino gets it's all going to be buried under mountains of furry porn anyway.
>Well, I'm sure that /pol/ is going ape-shit, what with no captcha during the revelation of the CIA torture investigation.
I thought we knew this from the witchcraft trials.
Any chance of humanity actually remembering history this time around or not?
>Any chance of humanity actually remembering history this time around or not?
So is there a new SOPA thing or is it just scuttlebutt?
There's a guy trying to do a new SOPA thing, yeah. He's apparently gone forward with the false claim that the first hit on Google for "pirate movie" is a link to the Pirate Bay, and that that's why they need SOPA, even though actually Google doesn't link to the Pirate Bay, the Pirate Bay actually got taken down recently and wasn't back up by the time he had said that, and the actual first few pages of links Google gives back for "pirate movie" are links to Wikipedia and IMDB articles about a movie actually called "The Pirate Movie," as well as links to Amazon and such to purchase it legally.
So, you know, the usual situation. Someone either lying or completely misinformed about the facts doing the bidding of his corporate sponsors.
Not that but another thing about them sneaking a bill or something? It was attached to gamergate stuff so I don't know what the fuck.
Stop 903 or something another.
Anyone hear about it?
Think you mean Stop 309.
>I thought we knew this from the witchcraft trials.
But is America overrun with witches now, despite their efforts?
So is this scuttlebutt or should we be concerned? Cause I haven't seen anything about it except from gamergate stuff.
>I've heard people defend feminism because it fights for rights for both genders. Well ok, if that's true, why the fuck are you calling it feminism?
The focus of feminism is on women's rights, but also fights for overall gender equality because men are harmed by many of the same sexist beliefs (including gender roles) which hold women back.
I believe in abolishing gender roles just as much as the next person, I just wish feminists wouldn't ignore literal factual scientific evidence saying men are, most of the time, legitimately better at some things than women. Same is true for women being better at some things than men, of course.
>I just wish feminists
Feminists are not a goddamn monolith.
>The etymology IS an actual issue
No it isn't.
The term incites hatred because people can't be arsed to do their homework.
>If anything, feminism says "you should have the right to be feminine if you so choose".
You're missing the point. I'm saying that's what the human brain IMMEDIATELY interprets the term as. Not what it actually says or means. The suffix -ism means to denote a system, principle, or ideological movement. So the term literally, without definition, means "Feminine point of view". This is why so many Youtube comments say feminists believe women are superior. It's part of why men roll their eyes when they hear it. It's a bad term, through and through.
>I'm saying that's what the human brain IMMEDIATELY interprets the term as.
Given that our language is a man made construct...that's a personal problem. And it can be unlearned.
What is your deal? I point out a blatant flaw in how a word is constructed as opposed to what it means, and you say it's just me? That I must be alone in this?
It is just you. Not everyone hears ‘feminist’ and thinks ‘woman who thinks she is The Goddess Herself and thinks men are cis-scum who need to cut their balls off and cry’.
First off, you didn't point out a flaw. Feminism as a word still works because women are still getting the short end of the stick in a lot of areas. And also like I said, it only incites rage in people who haven't done their research.
Second off, I never said it was just you. Saying that something is a "personal problem" means that the problem you have with a situation is on you, not an inherent issue with whatever you're talking about.
Well I personally like the word because in my opinion it IS a value-neutral term. The word indicates an emphasis on women, which is exactly what feminists of all stripes, moderate and radical, do focus on. "Feminism" as I see it encompasses egalitarians who want gender equality but believe that the female perspective deserves a spotlight, as well as gender extremists who believe women are special or superior to men, or just people who prefer to write about female experiences in general. And if someone wants to say that they have the similar attitude towards men's issues they can call themselves a masculist for the same reasons. I mean, one of the first wave feminists advocated for was Men's Studies and there are people who identify simultaneously as feminists and masculists so I don't necessarily see any ideological clash here. To think that feminism intrinsically means having to prioritize women OVER men/other genders is dumb because it assumes that women's rights and men's rights are a zero-sum game when they aren't. Sort of like how being a Sinologist or Indologist means that you think those cultures are really cool, but it's presumptuous to assume you think Chinese or Indian culture is more interesting/important than other cultures, that you believe that other cultures are inferior, or anything else like that.
You're strawmanning so hard it's not even funny.
They shouldn't have to do research. If you can't sum up your ideals in a single sentence, you're gonna have a hard time.
>"Feminism means equal rights for women!"
>"Alright, I guess, but don't be so antagonistic about it"
>"Equalism means equal rights for both genders!" (Same thing in the end)
>"Oh cool, I'm down with that!"
>If you can't sum up your ideals in a single sentence, you're gonna have a hard time.
And if you think a political philosophy such as feminism can be accurately summed up in a single sentence, you’re gonna have a bad time here. Feminism has a barebones definition, yes, but it also has numerous little offshoots and sub-beliefs which a single sentence can’t thoroughly cover (unless you make it one long-as-fuck sentence). If you want laconic versions of political beliefs, go to fucking TV Tropes.
Outside of Avatar the only thing I think of when I hear "equalism" is "pretentious twat". Same as when I hear someone call themselves a "progressive", or a proponent of "social justice" or "real justice". It's a purposefully loaded term that's intended to make the identifier sound more heroic than they may actually be, unlike "libertarian" or "socialist" which come with a strictly defined ideology, or on the other hand, words like "feminist" which are purposefully vague because the important idea that needs to be conveyed is "someone who cares about women's issues, for good or ill".
Of course feminism as a whole can't be boiled down to a single sentence. But the sentence of the barebones definition should invite someone to do research and actively involve themselves in a political belief. It should not sound biased, regardless of the biased view being completely true or not.
But to a lot of people it doesn't sound biased, anymore than LGBT activist implies that one is biased against heterosexuals.
>anymore than LGBT activist implies that one is biased against heterosexuals.
This is pretty much what I meant when I called it a personal issue.
There's nothing about the term that's inherently offensive. Your preconceptions are just sullying your view.
You know, I lost my job to an SJW once.
A fat, hipster-dressed female coworker complained to others including my boss that I was oppressing her when I stated I wasn't much of a feminist (And that was all I said).
>And that was all I said
Given the way you just described her, I am absolutely certain that is not all you said or did.
I described her that way because she made me lose my job. I had no problems with her before. So yes, that was all I said or did.
>I described her that way because she made me lose my job.
Which still means you're a hateful and disrespectful person who talks about people behind their backs as soon as you're given an excuse to.
So it's somehow ok when she does that, at my job no less to my fellow coworkers, when I didn't say anything besides "I'm not that mcuh of a feminist"?
Jesus fuck what is even going on in Australia right now.
First Canada and now Australia. What's next? I didn't even think either of those countries were that invested in Middle East affairs for extremist assholes to be interested in targeting them like that.
The Vancouver thing?
I've heard the Vancouver guy variously compared to the guy in Santa Barbara (motivated by mental health issues) and the guys in Boston (lone wolf motivated by sheer malice/sadism).
If they were rational they wouldn't be extremists in the first place.
One of the many reasons why putting our head in the sand regarding terrorism is dumb.
>Feminists are not a goddamn monolith.
It's the radfems and SJWs who pretend feminism IS a monolith, because they want the legitimacy-by-asssociation from people like susan anthony and ayaan hirsi ali.
I see, so anonymously describing a coworker without giving any information to personally identify them after they deliberately have you lose your job is the same as publicly defaming them at a moment's notice?
I want this so badly.
An interesting idea, but I think it would gain about as much traction as a third party in our political climate. The Establishment Party has most of the American population so scared that if they don't vote for "their" guy, the "other" guy will win, and then hellfire will rain down upon Earth.
Seconded. I'm glad that Murthy McFucktheNRA got confirmed and hate Ted Cruz as much as any other reasonable being, but the way the Democrats have been acting towards him is infantile and fucking embarassing.
>the way the Democrats have been acting towards him is infantile and fucking embarassing.
How, specifically? I haven't heard about anything. I know that neither the Democratic nor the Republican establishment have any respect for him because of what a grandstanding jackass he is, and haven't exactly been subtle about that, but what is the infantile/embarrassing reaction?
Or a voting system that isn't first-past-the-post.
So are we about to go to war over a James Franco movie?
No. But it's possible we will use a James Franco movie as an excuse for starting a war that the powers that be already wanted to start.
Did I already suggest somewhere that Mongolia get put in charge of Ukraine and North Korea just because they're already experienced at buffering Russia and China?
Those NYPD killings.
Shit’s gon’ get really real, ain’t it?
Did they ever identify who it was? I really hope it was just a lone psycho being psycho and not the final realization of social revenge warriors letting the Internet get to their heads. Because that kind of action never leads to actual meaningful change.
Yeah, t’was just one person who (I believe) had a history of violence even before he shot his ex-girlfriend, those two NYPD officers, and himself. He is also believed to have no connection to the peaceful protests against police brutality/overreach related to the non-indictment of Eric Garner's killer (though the NYPD would love for people to think he was connected to said protests).
And he was a Muslim extremist apparently, posted a passage from the Koran about slaughtering unbelievers.
That's a real bit of stretch. He posted a comment on his Facebook once but it's hardly indicative of anything. It's almost certain he was motivated by vanilla (?) flavored mental insanity more than anything else.
I don't know the situation well, but to me it sounds as if some people are following this thought pattern:
>a Christian or athiest kills someone
He did it because he was mental/crazy.
>a Muslim kills someone
He did it because he was an Islamic extremist.
If someone said they killed a cop in the name of God, people would say he's crazy or insane, but if the person praises Allah, he is suddenly doing it for religion. Again, I don't know about this case.
>but if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One That hearth and knowth all things
I wonder if extremists just ignore that part
Extremists ignore as much of their religion as anyone else. The parts they do adhere to are just different from the parts other people adhere to.
That's a load of crap, if anything Muslims are treated with kid gloves, because one wants to be on a fatwa. It's way safer to make fun of Christinity or even Judaism nowadays.
A Christian uses his religion to justify his killings, or targets people from other religions on purpose, he'd be called a Christian extremist too. For atheists its more of a multitude of philosophies, although when they specifically attack religious people they're called "militant atheists".
>if anything Muslims are treated with kid gloves, because one wants to be on a fatwa.
Man, the ability of people in the majority to convince themselves they're oppressed is astounding.
>it's safer to make fun of Christianity or Judaism
That just proves MY point: people (at least in my country) assume Muslims are more likely to be a physical threat to people who insult their religion (either by denying it or mocking it).
Yeah I agree, it is pretty sick that a religion of 1 billion people somehow manages to appropriate the status of "minority".
"Minority" has left the standard definition and become a label. I once lived in Flint, MI, which was something like 64% black when I was there, yet you'd still hear them referred to as "minorities".
In America, Muslims are certainly a minority. In countries like Saudi Arabia, Christians are the minority. It's relative, but in American politics and television they use the word as a label rather than an adjective.
Don't be intentionally obtuse. A political minority is one that enjoys a minority of the power in that region. There can be more people who fit a certain description than people who don't, but still have less political power than those in the other groups--there are slightly fewer men than women in America, for example, but they enjoy a much larger portion of the power in the United States than women, as seen when we look at the makeup of Congress or the likelihood of a holder of any other political office being a woman rather than a man.
To be fair that Danish cartoons incident, the Jesus and Mo controversy, the Boston Bombers (who were by all accounts sane, they were just all around horrible people who took their religion way too seriously), and douchebags like Cat Stevens did a fair amount of lasting damage to Muslim PR as being overly sensitive over religion.
Don't think he said anything about Allah at all, his religious beliefs appear to be completely incidental to it. Though I'm seeing crazy Tumblr people (who else) throwing conspiracy theories about how even that comment was planted to besmirch the Muslim community, among greater claims that he's a false flag or plant invented by the white popo to justify anti-POC legislation (because Wenjian Liu was most definitely a white man). It's Chris Dorner all over again.
>as being overly sensitive over religion.
I dunno, christian fundies have been doing that in moderate quantities over decades enough to win that race out.
I guess Theo van Gogh, Lee Rigby, the Mohammed teddy bear and that one South Park episode also come to mind.
Yeah I'd agree that Christian fundies are just as sensitive or worse on the whole, but the point was about physical violence. It's a shitty stereotype but from personal experience I've found that when you make fun of loopy Christians their revenge is usually white-collar in nature like trying to get you fired or constant harassment over the media rather than outright murder and fatwas. When the knives come out it's usually over secondary things like racism/homophobia/abortion or anti-gubment nuttery rather than retaliation for direct blasphemy. Neither of which I'm interested in judging is worse than the other because it should all be condemned as shit. The two biggest counterexamples I can think of are that crazy Christian guy who went to Jerusalem to kill the Muslims there and Jesus Camp, and I don't know if the latter one amounted to any actual deaths.
>Don't be intentionally obtuse.
Don't be intentionally acute. THAT MEANS EDGY
>there are slightly fewer men than women in America, for example, but they enjoy a much larger portion of the power in the United States than women, as seen when we look at the makeup of Congress
What a dumb statement. By that logic black people are the majority in USA now because we have a black president.
>What a dumb statement. By that logic black people are the majority in USA now because we have a black president.
No, your logic would only work if the majority of executives and legislators were black. Obama can't even do his own job thanks to Congress, much less make up for the minimal amount of black representation in all other governmental positions.
The point is that voters are ones who hold the power in a democracy, and we have not only a larger female population but also a larger female turnout. The fact that they choose male figureheads to represent their views is besides the point because its the female populations views that are being represented, the voters could choose puppies to be representatives and the power would still be with the voter. For example a guy like Bloomberg would never have been elected with a male only voterbase, hes riding the concerned mother block.
Also there were some studies done that show people vote for who they're attracted to first, so I'm sure the men would vote for a bunch of attractive models if they ever ran for office, since men already lose their shit over things like pic related.
But more brainless female representatives in office representing male views won't make women powerful any more than brainless male representatives in office representing female views makes men powerful.
BTW none of this has anything with Muslims not being a global minority, we seem to have slid off topic.
So the NYPD turned its backs on Mayor de Blasio while he spoke at the funeral for those two officers killed a week or so ago.
That is…kinda fucking terrifying, really. Who the hell do the cops think they answer to?
>Who the hell do the cops think they answer to?
…I want to retort, but you’re honestly telling the truth.
Cops are judicial branch, they answer to the district attorney (DA) office. The mayor is executive branch, so cops can moon him without repercussions.
The reason why it's like that is so the council and the mayor can't order cops not to arrest them, this curtails corruption in two branches at the expense of the third which is more open to it.
This is why judicial branches are most vulnerable to corruption in any governmental system in the world, and why such things as disbarment of lawyers are so sensitive.
It's a fucked up system but it's better than the alternative.
In other words the guy who police take orders from is the same guy who prosecutes a cop if something goes wrong. So if any cop goes to trial the DA is basically saying "I fucked up", since he gives the orders. Let that sink in, it perfectly answers why policemen rarely go to trial.
I don't think there's a way to get rid of a district attorney other than to wait for his term to be up. Not sure, would have to check, but he does impeachments too so he'd have to impeach himself.
In the image, detail has been omitted in the first two branches, and also in the civil part of the judicial branch.
I blame movies for giving people the idea that mayors run the police
To see the lengths District Attorneys can go to in order to protect themselves, consider the case of Attorney General Eric Holder.
He shipped guns into Mexico and sold them to the cartel, technically an act of war, and he managed to protect himself from ANY repercussions at all by simply destroying all the evidence. Because he was in charge of evidence for himself.
See how circuitous it is?
Technically when something of this scale happens, the other two branches are supposed to stamp it out. But in the case of Holder, and nearly every cop shooting in the country, the other two branches are fucking lazy and not doing anything.
I think laziness paints the other two branches in too kind of a light. They want that abuse to happen, so they can have precedent to do it themselves. Sadly, the reason "well, X did it" is effective with too many people.
>The point is that voters are ones who hold the power in a democracy
I don't think anybody is really still pretending that's true, when you combine a two-party system and the rampant gerrymandering. It's nearly impossible to get somebody that's awful out of office, and it's usually very easy to plan who will be coming in next.
>Actually referring to Fast and Furious as something Holder was involved in when multiple congressional Republican-run investigations have failed to find the participation of anybody above low-level ATF supervisors, and when the program started in 2006
And here I thought most right-wing trolls had given up that canard years ago.
Probably something to do with the fact that he wasn't involved. These were not unbiased investigations, either; congressional Republicans wanted a scandal to pin on the Obama administration, and have a particular animus towards Holder. If there was even the slightest trace of credible evidence connecting Holder to the gunwalking program, or evidence of a coverup, they would have been crowing about it loud enough to be heard on Mars. Instead, they wound up making a ton of noise and fury about it in the early stages of the investigation when they could make whatever wild allegations they wanted, and then suddenly got real hush at the end when they actually had to issue a factual report about it. There's no there there.
Call yourself whatever you like, if you're parroting Fox News talking points I'm going to call you a right-wing troll.
>the fact that he wasn't involved
Based on what? The lack of evidence because he destroyed the evidence?
>If there was even the slightest trace of credible evidence connecting Holder to the gunwalking program or evidence of a coverup
He was held in contempt of congress for destruction of evidence.
It's not a partisan issue, quit trying to make it one.
Do you have any sources on your claims that don't come from partisan organizations?
I'm going to go over a few points that I am pretty sure are facts. Feel free to correct me.
>America are pissing off local forces in sandyland by having bases there and fighting, causing certain terrorist groups to arise
>America can't destroy ISIL/ISIS/etc. and terrorism, because they are decentralised groups
>America can't make peace with them or retreat, because then 'the terrorists win' (and America is notoriously patriotic/nationalistic so the aren't allowed to let the terrorists win)
And this is why I believe America done fucked up. I personally wouldn't mind if we (meaning Australia, Britain, Canada, NZ and etc.) backed the fuck out so that we don't receive retaliation for America's decisions. We're allies in defence, but this is invasion.
Also, I think there would be enough Christian/Jewish/etc. extremists to form an illegal fighting force and slay some Islamic extremists. There is also no way this could possibly backfire disastrously! /s
>America can't make peace with them or retreat, because then 'the terrorists win' (and America is notoriously patriotic/nationalistic so the aren't allowed to let the terrorists win)
This is the part where you're wrong. America can make peace with them and can retreat, but it's going to take someone with more moral integrity than most politicians possess to make the hard decision since it might cost them votes. The sad thing is, Obama's in a perfect position to do this because he can't get elected again and he's already about as hated as he can be by the people who are pro-war, unfortunately he seems to have genuinely thrown his lot in with the people who think fighting is the answer to this situation.
Which isn't a big surprise since he's a Clinton-Democrat, and Clintonians are all about big business interests and the military industrial complex, just like the Reagan-Republicans. There's actually very little difference between a Clinton-Democrat and a Regan-Republican.
Hard to satisfy, when you consider congress a partisan organization.
>America are pissing off local forces in sandyland by having bases there and fighting, causing certain terrorist groups to arise
Negligible effect, they already hated us for supporting Israel. Also if they were going to rally against someone blowing them up, the people would have stood up the the Taliban eventually, considering the Taliban does far more blowing up than the US air force.
>America can't destroy ISIL/ISIS/etc. and terrorism, because they are decentralised groups
Not really. America can't destroy these targets because American politicians are seeking a CONVENTIONAL military solution to the problem, and refusing to accept any levels of casualties. An unconventional military solution, or a non-military solution, can easily deal with ISIL.
>America can't make peace with them or retreat, because then 'the terrorists win' (and America is notoriously patriotic/nationalistic so the aren't allowed to let the terrorists win)
America can't make peace with them because ISIL would lose what support they have by siding with Jew-enablers (America). Remember, considering they're the belligerent power, ISIL has to make the first move for talks, Americans sending people to negotiate simply can't work if the danger of getting beheaded is high.
>America can't make peace with them because ISIL would lose what support they have by siding with Jew-enablers (America). Remember, considering they're the belligerent power, ISIL has to make the first move for talks, Americans sending people to negotiate simply can't work if the danger of getting beheaded is high.
ISIL gained power because we keep bombing places in the middle east and from the perspective of civilians in those areas, we are a faceless entity raining death from the skies for no discernible reason. *We* are the belligerant power. *We* are the terrorists. We just don't define it as belligerence or terrorism when we're the ones doing it. And since we have the bigger bombs and spend more money on the ability to make war than any other nation on Earth and have shown ourselves to be willing to bomb the shit out of people who look at us crosswise, our "allies" (read: vassal states) tend to agree with us.
i like house of cards
>ISIL gained power because we keep bombing places in the middle east
If you actually think that's true you're fucking dumb, ISIL was bootstrapped to Al Qaeda and hated America long before we started bombing anything.
Also if you think the civilians actually like ISIL you're even more idiotic. ISIL is going around village to village killing all the shia men, killing OR recruiting all the sunni men, and selling off or raping the women regardless of their faith. Congo style.
The vast majority of people hate ISIL worse than anyone else, the ISILs only support is at the barrel of a gun or among the 10-15% of the racist redneck equivalents of the middle east.
>*We* are the belligerant power. *We* are the terrorists.
What the fuck? Can you point to one invasion, attack or bombing the West did in the middle east without provocation?
>ISIL was bootstrapped to Al Qaeda and hated America long before we started bombing anything.
I said gained power, not started. We advertise for ISIL every time we drop bombs on people in the Middle East.
>Can you point to one invasion, attack or bombing the West did in the middle east without provocation?
Can you point to one attack or bombing the Middle East did in the West that they wouldn't also say was provoked? When the only thing stopping you from killing people is lacking an excuse, finding that excuse is always going to be easy.
>If you actually think that's true you're fucking dumb
Way to be open minded, dickhead.
>ISIL hated America long before we started bombing anything
Can you please support your arguments with at least something? I can't see why they would care about a country on the other side of the world, until America entered the region.
Osama didn't try to destroy the WTC twice because he hated all non-Muslims. He had a list of shit he wanted, and "Death to all infidels" was not there. I can't exit this tab on my shitty iPod without this tab refreshing, but a quick google search can find this stuff. It had stuff about how the clearance of US bases and demanding they stop bombing shit. He didnt hate America just because you aren't 100% Islamic, it's because they fucked up the region (justified or not).
Likewise, ISIL wouldn't have cared about America before they started attacking places in the Middle East. I don't know if it's because of the war on terror or because of Israel, but either way America and allies came in and fucked shit up. Maybe the local issues are fucked up (I wouldn't know, I don't keep up with it, nor do I try and find out which stories are actually true and not propaganda), but everything that I know those groups have done to Westerners was provoked (but not necessarily justified).
>civilians hate ISIL
I don't believe you. If they didn't have a fair amount of support, they would have no new recruits and may have been killed by civilians (if someone you don't like invades your homeland, you don't just accept it because they behead a few people).
>Can you point to one invasion [...] the West did without provocation?
>a small group of pissed off terrorists attack America
>"lets kill *all* the terrorists!
Now, killing Al Qaeda members was provoked, but not the rest
I'm also pretty sure a lot of American attacks have killed heaps of civilians, completely unprovoked. I can't search any up on this POS iPod, but I'm pretty sure a lot of civilians have been killed without reason in attacks in the Middle East.
Also, provocation doesn't enter into it. AMERICAN MILITARY has gone half way around the world to try and fix what it sees as a problem and claim it's for self defence. Last time that happened was in a place called Vietnam, and sure as fuck, most South Vietnamese citizens hated the US for it. If beginning a war far outside your region isn't being a belligerent, then I don't know what is.
>We advertise for ISIL every time we drop bombs on people in the Middle East.
Actually we drop missiles. We stopped using bombs in Vietnam, now we use missiles because they allow us to focus on a single target. We're even lowering the amount of explosives in the missile to reduce casualties.
I don't see ISIL suicide bomber blowing up a mosque or school to be on the level of a minimum explosive warhead on a missile targeted at an insurgent.
>Can you point to one attack or bombing the Middle East did in the West that they wouldn't also say was provoked?
They consider America supporting Israel as the primary provocation. I bet when we send in ground troops to curb stomp ISIL they'll call that unprovoked too, even though they've been killing civilians in the West.
What a terrorist thinks is provocation is not provocation by any logical means.
>If beginning a war far outside your region isn't being a belligerent, then I don't know what is.
>What a terrorist thinks is provocation is not provocation by any logical means.
The lack of self awareness you have is astonishing.
The lack of world awareness you have is astonishing.
"World awareness" is a weird way of spelling "jingoism."
Stop your petty squabbling. This thread is for political opinions, not 12 year old insults.
That don't look like a war to me.
>people on my dash who I thought were generally smart enough to be above this kind of thing are reblogging posts actually victim-blaming the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and defending the killers just because they're fellow brown people
>one of them even called Charlie Hebdo "right-wing"
Sasuga Tumblr. How long til stupidfriend tries to get me to join a rally for them just because I'm also technically brown.
Look up a bit, you'll find a few trying to defending Osamas reasoning for 9/11.
>mfw friends and cousin call at 2AM
>"<friend name redacted> found a store without a security grill, wanna go loot it?"
>"they cant arrest us because ferguson"
>"bring your bat!"
ffffffffuuuuuuu then I had to decide whether to get enough sleep to be awake by 7:30 or go with them to try to talk them out of it.
I've unfollowed several people already.
It's the blatant hypocrisy that gets to me the most.
Unfollowing does no good to anyone.
If your friend had a bad habit, like smoking or something, would you up and drop the friendship?
Of course not, if you consider them friends its your duty to at least try to help them out of it.
At least try.
If they're beyond hope they won't respond to your attempts, and will block YOU. So no need for us to go pre-emptively blocking people.
Just for clarity's sake - ACTUAL victim blaming? Or something more along the lines of "I sympathise with the victim's families, but the martyrization of Charile Hebdo as an institution is appalling and gross."?
It's those shitty passive aggressive "I don't condone murder/death threats, BUT..." kinds of posts. As in "those silly Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were so bad that some form of retaliation was deserved, and that they should've known better than to provoke the Musliim community when they're already so troubled and oppressed and trapped into a corner that they feel they have no choice but to fight back". They're treating this whole incident like an act of vigilante justice and the perpetrators like some sort of social justice crusaders martyred for defending their own kind, even though one of the victims was a fellow Algerian Muslim they executed in cold blood. Fuck Tumblr.
Yeah, they'll grow out of it.
The thing I REALLY don't like though is how this was taken pretty much as a rally call to express anti islamic sentiments.
I've seen dozens upon dozens of hateful caricatures of muslim men and women as stereotypes and antagonists explicitly in support of the Charlie Hebdo publication from people in all parts of Europe and the Americas. The loss of innocent life will always be a human tragedy. That aside, there are more victims than those that were murdered. The anti immigration, racist sentiment of Western europe is stronger than ever now.
Damn it, this is genuinely a problem.
I imagine this must be how the sane Muslim community must feel about those murderers.
When the Aussie Muslim funeral homes turned down the bodies of the ISIS terrorists and told the government to "chuck them into the sea", the Muslim community got a tremendous amount of support even from the racist Aussies.
I think any terrorists using any religion to excuse their behavior should get similar treatment from that religion.
That's how any sane member of anything sees extremist action in their name. Religion, politics, ideologies. There's always going to be assholes that fuck it up for everyone else and pollute the idea of good intentions behind the concepts.
>ISIS or something hack American military social media or at least made a small database of details I don't know I didn't look at it
People are going to get scared, but seriously, congrats, you know that PFC Joseph Sampson has a brown dog. Whoop-de-fuckin-doo.
We need more people killing each other over internet arguments. I want Mad Max, not Star Trek. And we're pretty good on track to getting there, but things still need a little push.
What am I going to know if the terrorists know what kind of cartoons I like?
WHAT WILL I DO
It's a bullshit fear monger attempt for NSA to get more money.
Every recent "hack" has been tracked down to a bunch of script kiddies, ISIS and north korea haven't done shit.
Do you believe in individual liberties? Do you want to make the world a better place? Do you take action against exploitation of environment? Are you an animal lover? Do you complain about bias in the media, or among politicians? Are you frustrated with mainstream ideologies? Are you personally connected with a grievance that involves the government? Are you against the use of nuclear weapons? Do you fear communist regimes? Do you disrespect or have a negative view of the United Nations? Are you a returning veteran?
Congratulations! You just may be an extremist! An Iron class target for the NSA!
Your transactions, movement, communications and community activities will be monitored and all information will be saved on offline servers, never to be deleted.
lol, The Daily Show will get so much footage from this "debate". They can probably do two or three episodes just on this.
Do you repeat this kind of bullshit? Do you post big scary diatribes about the evils of the government, with a link to a Scribd document that doesn't remotely support anything you say but that you didn't bother to read because they're long? Do you just trust sensationalized and inaccurate summaries instead of actually reading it for yourself?
Congratulations, you're an idiot parroting idiotic conspiracy theory nonsense!
Your comments and posts may be mocked roundly by your more intelligent peers.
That would be SO much more funny if you bothered to read the document.
>Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, manyextremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place
Actually you're just making it all the funnier.
>Excerpted quote which might seem scary when ripped entirely from context but which doesn't mean anything like how I'm trying to make it seem
In case y’all missed the news, SCOTUS granted cert to four same-sex marriage cases (all from the Sixth Circuit, the only circuit court to rule in favor of SSM bans). By the end of June, we’ll likely¹ have SSM legalized across the country.
¹ - I realize it's not a slam dunk, but given the ruling in United States v. Windsor (where even the dissent said marriage was a fundamental right) and the refusal to hear appeals of pro-equality rulings post-Windsor, the tide’s in favor of marriage equality. And with every major anti-equality argument all but demolished and buried in other courts, SCOTUS might have an easier time ruling in favor of national marriage equality.
Why, because I don't fall for paranoid delusions and actually bother to read these documents and try to understand what they mean?
>I blame movies for giving people the idea that mayors run the police
You see, I figured that if cops answered to the mayor, you'd just have the city cops answer to state cops*, who in turn answer to a governor who can be overruled by the federal police who would answer to the president, who would have to be impeached. All of that is also what I got from movies.
But given how things actually work, I guess the obvious solution would be to split the D.A.'s office into a judicial position and one that only manages police, maybe even making enforcement a separate branch altogether.
*Or the county sheriff, but NYC skips over that level from being so huge.
>Fuck off, you're the worst poster here by far.
I'll note, now that I remembered it, that I also used to think the lowest level of government available (town or whatever) would be the only one to directly tax the populace, with higher levels of government just skimming off a percentage of their subordinate polity's income like some kind of democratic variant of feudalism.
I don't know if this belongs here, but after hearing about the shit that just happened in Japan, I understand more and more why people don't like porn. Jesus fucking Christ.
I assume they are referring to a recent scandal with Amazon.co.jp possibly distributing material classified as child porn bringing the Japan's general relationship with porn coming under international scrutiny.
Japanese man says "Hello" to hundreds of women, nothing to see here.
>are we absolutely sure this isn't some japanese fetish thing?
>they put seafood into their vaginas, its not out of the realm of possibility that they faked this for publicity...
some people actually believe this
I have no idea what's going on, but I need good evidence before I believe something in any direction. I've been burned before.
OK we've all seen Science+, Atheism+, Gaming+, Metal+, and Comics+.
Now get ready for the next installment: Agriculture+!
Fortunately, if they keep going like this, they will become the laughing stock (of mainstream, not just a chosen few) very soon.
They already are, only ~11% of American women think feminism is a net positive on society.
People are embracing true equality and rejecting the movement, the only place SJWs even have a voice anymore is university campuses.
RUSSIA JUST NUKED UKRAINE!
That's a big explosion... but most of what I found says it was probably a hit on an ammunition stock and not a nuke
What would happen if they actually did, though?
Probably not. We'd invade Russia as a EU/US contingent with China happily watching next door, and then when we're through with Russia with split the land amongst the various other former USSR states, except a small remainder, and China gets a piece for its own oil source.
>We'd invade Russia
Yeah, because that's worked out so well for everyone else who's tried it.
Or we finish what the Cold War started and end up blowing the world up.
thatd be nice
Rule one of international conflict: Do not invade Russia.
Rule two: If you are Russia, don't invade Finland.
I don't even understand what the fuck they're trying to say here? That media depictions of farmers are mostly men and not cis women or trans or something? Cuz there's plenty of the former to be found if you look at media outside American children's cartoons.
I feel like I have to explain this because while I understand why it may seem totally dotty to the average layperson, when understood in its proper context it's really pretty innocuous.
First off, these sorts of events are a 'by academics, for academics' type of thing. They're not usually intended to produce workable or practical solution in themselves - they're intended to provoke thought and make people challenge unspoken assumptions they've held about themselves and about society. Academically, there's a lot of value to be held in going out on a limb - even if that limb doesn't hold up, in the process of getting out there you might stumble onto something useful. It might seem a bit masturbatory to outsiders, but the point of it is to try and make the audience think about something commonplace - in this case, agriculture - in a way they hadn't before.
More to the point, these talks are almost always given about research in process. It's a way of checking one's self by subjecting what you're working on to the academic peanut gallery, so to speak. These will be ideas that the professor in question has been working on, and started formulating, but isn't ready yet to commit to a journal article or a book. The discussion session after the talk is complete will provide them with useful feedback. Sometimes, completely unworkable ideas get presented at talks like these, and are abandoned shortly afterward.
Second, while it may seem that queerness and farming have nothing to do with each other, this talk is clearly coming from a Cultural Theory standpoint. The best way I can think of to describe this is...you know how there are all these theoretical physicists who are always looking for a Unified Field Theory aka The Theory of Everything, which explain all known physical laws in a single equation? Cultural Theorists are like that, but with society and culture. They have a standpoint - maybe Marxist, maybe feminist, maybe gender studies, maybe Queer theory - and they interpret society as being constructed through that lens. To a Cultural Theorist, even parts of society which have no overt connection to race, or gender, or capitalism, are informed by it.
So in this case, the Professor likely wants to talk about the ways we think of and depict agriculture - our cultural narratives about agriculture - as being constructed in terms of gender. An obvious example of this would be the connection between the image of the farmer and a sense of masculine individualism. The rugged masculine farmer is an institution in America, and one which is essentially propped up by government giveaways and protectionist policies. By 'queering' that narrative, she hopes to turn those gendered narratives on their head and make us think about agriculture in a different way, which may in turn lead to better and more sustainable agricultural practices.
Of course, very few people see the world purely in terms of cultural theory, and fewer still of those are taken seriously, even within the academy. Which brings me to my final point: academics get invited to universities to give talks all the time, even if they're outside the mainstream. The academy encourages its participants to consider the thoughts of even its goofiest members - you are free to reject them, but you should at least think about them first, because even a total nutcase can dig up a good acorn or two from time to time. That this talk is being given does not necessarily indicate that the idea of queering agriculture falls within the academic mainstream, or even the mainstream of ideas at Berkeley.
So, yeah. It's a bit masturbatory, and I don't doubt at least some of the ideas being presented will be crazy as shit, but it's really not that odd or noteworthy. It's just aimed at a target audience who isn't you.
So basically 99% of it is probably hogwash, but the 1% that isn't is still enough to make the whole thing worthwhile. I can understand that.
Although I'm not so sure that the Unified Field Theory is necessarily the best analogy because physics (and science in general) comes in the form of testable hypotheses which can easily be proven or disproven given sufficient resources, and most of that has already been crystallized through repeatable experiments and observations with the exception of a few really tricky (but major) pieces. Science has a strong foundation of empirical data to stand on, and scientists seen as fringe tend to be that way because their conclusions are frequently empirically wrong or based on unsound logic/data, such as antivaxxers, phrenologists, and steady state theorists.
Whereas when it comes to sociology their theories on the other hand are by nature untestable and purely conjectural, which is cool because you have the ability to generate all these cool and unconventional perspectives, but also leads to all sorts of armchair academics running around the Internet and making it hard to get rid of the seriously toxic ideas some of them spread around (because even if they aren't right, by very their nature it's also hard prove that they're WRONG too, and the reblog system on sites like Tumblr make them the perfect platform for reviving fringe ideas once rejected by mainstream academics for being too impractical/extreme).
Russia was un-invadable BEFORE they had nukes.
>actually being an apologist for "plus" movements
The only thing plus movements have ever done is damage social sciences irreparably, to the point where other sciences have pretty much ostracized social sciences and don't accept them as a true "science" anymore.
>So in this case, the Professor likely wants to talk about the ways we think of and depict agriculture - our cultural narratives about agriculture - as being constructed in terms of gender. An obvious example of this would be the connection between the image of the farmer and a sense of masculine individualism.
How absolutely moronic, gardening and farming has historically been the work of women. The only thing men did was till the fields because that required some body mass.
>Unified Field Theory
Don't make me laugh with your faux intellectualism.
I'm not going to get into the debates on the merits of whole fields of study with someone as obviously dedicated to jacking off over his own superiority over them, but if you think farming and agriculture is not associated with masculinity in our society - despite, yes, women always doing a lot of the farm work - you're fucking kidding yourself. Our social narratives are very rarely representative of reality, and one very common way that they're twisted is to eliminate women's involvement in important work. So what else is new.
I'm a social studies major and I fully agree with that guy, minus the flowery language. The "privilege ladder" and <insert> plus" movements are the bane of all social studies.
We're working real science now, understanding how the brain works, understanding how people interact, and the kind of intellectually dishonest stuff coming from tumblr, facebook and such media is completely distorting what social sciences are trying to achieve.
>if you think farming and agriculture is not associated with masculinity in our society
If you were a scientist you wouldn't just assume that hypothesis is true, or debate about it philosophically... you would be seeking a way to support the hypothesis.
Or, I would hold a discussion to consider what precise hypothesis to bother testing in the first place.
Is the test to be about self-perception of masculinity, reputation among the public, reputation among potential romantic partners, or correlation with objectively measurable traits that are taken as being masculine? Will it use testosterone measurement, brain scans that might involve people looking at images, statistics on pornography purchases, a phone survey? Will different types of farming be differentiated from others? Corporate from privately owned? Synthetics-using from certified organic? Ratio of crops to livestock?
It all affects the setup of the test. Before testing a hypothesis, pin down what question is even being asked.
>Oklahoma House Panel Votes To Eliminate AP US History Course
>Fisher said Monday that the AP U.S. History course emphasizes "what is bad about America" and complained that the framework eliminated the concept of "American exceptionalism," according to the Tulsa World.
Fuck these guys. America has done a lot of great shit, America has done a lot of bad shit. If we don't teach the bad with the good, future generations will have a far harder time avoiding the same mistakes the previous generations made.
Ah, whitewashing history. I say let them doom themselves if they really don't want to learn the truth of history - warts and all.
They'll be mostly fine, it's everyone they affect who will suffer.
As it stands America is probably the most advanced human civilization in recorded history, not putting that idea out there first suggests that previous civilizations (monarchies, fascism etc) might have been better.
For example, a kid is taught 90% of his high school history class about about America. 30-40% is spent on American historical failures. The 10% of foreign history is full of how great ancient monarchies and empires were, because there isn't enough time to cover all their failures and explain why their failures were more numerous than American ones. Kid leaves class thinking we ought to abolish the constitution and have a Cesar instead of a president.
It's about context you see, not about keeping skeletons in a closet.
If you're looking for a start on a hypothesis, simply do a large enough opinion survey.
On a sliding scale of 1 to 5, which of these activities is considered the role of men or women?
Taking care of plants.
And so on.
Not that any of this has anything to do with homosexuality in farming, which is the topic, it's just an example.
>As it stands America is probably the most advanced human civilization in recorded history, not putting that idea out there first suggests that previous civilizations (monarchies, fascism etc) might have been better.
Several first world nations are more advanced than us on pretty much any rubric you care to name. Japan especially is ahead of us technologically and economically, and it's not the only country that can say that. Most first world nations are ahead of us in terms of infrastructure, education, healthcare, crime prevention and law enforcement, social care, and personal liberties.
Germany's way more advanced than Japan.
It depends what particular field of technology you're talking about, but economically yes. Germany's doing a lot with Solar Power that's really impressive, but Japan's still doing gangbusters with consumer electronics and stuff. It'd be tough to say which of the two is further ahead technologically, but they're both ahead of the US.
Not just in terms of technology, but socially as well. They're constantly fighting for establishing equality with gender, sexuality and religion. Making nation-wide stands against hate crime and all their previous iterations stood for.
They're culturally ahead of the US and light years ahead of Japan.
I mean sure if you want to talk about who makes better videogames though...
One thing the US have over Germany is that over here, people still believe that censorship is a good idea.
What? The "I have the right to be racist" stuff?
People aren't censored. Actions just have consequences.
I believe that anon is from Germany, friend. Real honest censorship is alive and well there.
You mean what the actual definition of "real honest censorship" is, or what idiots on the internet call "real honest censorship?"
I say something positive about your country and I immediately get accused of racism. Awesome.
Attaching legal consequences to wrong opinions is censorship. It doesn't stop being censorship even if the opinions are stupid and destructive. The government trying to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to think doesn't make shit ideologies go away (if it worked that way, we wouldn't have nazis anymore) but it does provide the framework for eliminating any opinion the government doesn't like. That's why censorship is never right.
Also, it's not exclusively about politics.
So then you're talking about restricting minors' access to media deemed inappropriate by the Government and/or self-regulating lobbying groups? Because America actually does that too. The Germans just appear to be more efficient about it.
Except that it affects adults too, unlike in the US. It leads to "inappropriate" content (e.g. violence, NS symbols) being removed by publishers because if a work lands on the Index, it cannot be legally sold at all. It's questionable at best whether the intended effect (protecting minors) is actually achieved since no law can prevent incompetent parenting, especially in the age of the internet, but the side-effect of the government restricting material for adults certainly exists.
In general, it's not the government's job to tell adults what media they can or cannot consume.
>it cannot be legally sold at all.
Then you need to update the wikipedia article, since the Wikipedia article only says that it can't legally be sold to minors.
Sorry, I was conflating it with other laws. My bad.
No use correcting myself, you've probably already made your judgment by now. I lost.
A few years ago, I was totally liberal. But ever since then, as I've gotten older, I've grown more and more conservative. I wonder how many other people feel the same.
Isn’t that the way, though—the older you get, the more you want the world to stay like it was when you were younger?
Studies have actually shown that it's less common than people think for people to become more conservative with age. The data points that they had been basing that assumption on had actually been based on the fact that older people tended to be more conservative, but point of fact that was shown to mostly be because the generations in question were generally more conservative for their entire lives than the later generations.
It's less likely to be about how old you are and more likely to be who you hang out with.
Bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit. What the fuck.
Technologically they have parity in manufacturing, but are behind the innovation curve in many respects. Also if you knew jack shit about their economy you would realize how shitty it is, they're 100% boom-bust based and have a major recession every 5 years.
>Germany's doing a lot with Solar Power that's really impressive
They're using coal powered plants to offset the periods when their solar shit is offline, so Germany has 4.5x worse emissions than nuclear France (both carbon and radiological emissions). There's a reason why solar is a bad idea outside of equatorial deserts....
People do jail time in Germany for saying things that hurt peoples feelings, that's honest to god censorship any way you slice it.
Same for Canada, some Jewish guy said something to the effect of "I don't like Muslims" on a subway train, a Muslim granny reported him for hurting her feelings and the dude is doing one year in prison.
Americans don't realize how precious and rare the freedoms they enjoy are in the world although they might, if they keep attacking American values in universities, voting for presidents who desecrate the constitution and allow >>396714 to happen.
>that's honest to god censorship any way you slice it.
No, it's not. It's not even protected in the United States. "Fighting Words" have never been protected speech in the United States, and if someone says something that is likely to cause a breach of the peace, they can absolutely be jailed for it, and it does not conflict with the Constitution in any way.
>They're using coal powered plants to offset the periods when their solar shit is offline, so Germany has 4.5x worse emissions than nuclear France (both carbon and radiological emissions). There's a reason why solar is a bad idea outside of equatorial deserts....
I don't know where you get your information, but about a third of Germany's net electricity production comes from renewables. Solar makes up less of that than Wind or Biomass, but it's still pretty impressive.
>if i can do it in america it isn't censorship
There is a flaw in your logic. All I know is you go to jail for anything vaguely Nazi-related. That is censorship. (>inb4 a reason why: it's still censorship if it's justified or not)
>There is a flaw in your logic.
No, there's not. Censorship is not just "Any time I want to say something and can't." You are not being censored when you are prevented from shouting fire in a crowded theater, you are not being censored when you are prevented from inciting people to riot or commit crimes, and you are not being censored when you are prevented from committing libel or slander. Your rights end where they begin infringing on other people's rights, and that is not now nor has it ever been unjust. You need to stop getting your definitions from 4chan.
I am however being censored if I wish to promote Nazism (side note: I don't) and I get arrested for it. That doesn't infringe on anybody, and yet it is suppressed.
>Censorship is not just "Any time I want to say something and can't."
>You are not being censored when you are prevented from shouting fire in a crowded theater, you are not being censored when you are prevented from inciting people to riot or commit crimes, and you are not being censored when you are prevented from committing libel or slander.
Not necessarily. However if I wish to write 'fight the police and rob people' in a newspaper and it is removed because of that message, that is censorship of my speech by an authority. If I want to yell 'fire' in a crowd theatre and (somehow) a person stops me because they don't want me to, that is censorship. It is preventing me from expressing my thoughts. Censorship has nothing to do with other people's rights.
Here is a definition of censorship that I agree with:
>Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
The guy in >>396721 said that you can be imprisoned for saying hurtful things to other people. Assuming he means it actually illegal to say that kind of thing there, then it is a government's attempt to censor out hateful speech, which I believe is a form of censorship. They are trying to prevent him from expressing an opinion which they believe to be hurtful.
>Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
That definition can be stretched to include literally anything you disagree with.
By your logic, getting banned from an imageboard for shitposting (e.g. spamming a videogame board with gore images) is censorship. So is another person telling you to stop insulting them when you're standing right next to them. So is any action against bullying.
Typical case of "the First Amendment says I can troll and harass and if you disagree YOU are evil".
Your parents should've continued beating you until you stopped moving. That'd have improved the lives of a lot of other people during your school years.
>If I want to yell 'fire' in a crowd theatre and (somehow) a person stops me because they don't want me to, that is censorship.
Please commit suicide before you actually decide to endanger others for teh lulz.
>That doesn't infringe on anybody
Ah yes, an ideology that advocates governmental oppression against anyone who disagrees with it and violence against anyone who is considered an enemy based on pseudoscience doesn't infringe on anybody. That makes total sense. Leave it to contrarian reality-deniers to defend censorship advocates on the basis that telling them to fuck off is censorship.
>(side note: I don't)
Of course not, you have the mindset of a nihilistic cartoon villain.
>if I wish to write 'fight the police and rob people' in a newspaper and it is removed because of that message, that is censorship of my speech by an authority
I am 100% certain that even your bullshit has limits. You're pretending that all opinions are worth protecting, but NO ONE actually believes that. If some Muslim-looking fellow paraded around openly recruiting for ISIS in the US, you wouldn't jump in to defend him when the inevitable happens. If some keyboard warrior posted your personal info on a public website and called for others to 'make [your] life hell' you wouldn't be okay with that.
If all the retards who claim that they're never ever offended in order to justify attacking others were telling the truth, it would actually be worse; then they'd be emotionally defective humans (no capability for perceiving anything that doesn't have direct physical consequences as wrong) while still possessing the desire to attack others using the same methods they are immune to, usually for personal amusement. Why should any sane person tolerate demihuman garbage like that?
Keep in mind that if you prevent someone from promoting censorship, you're censoring them.
Only if you're in the government or something like that. A newspaper refusing to publish someone's editorial is not censorship.
>By your logic, getting banned from an imageboard for shitposting (e.g. spamming a videogame board with gore images) is censorship.
Yes. That is what I am saying. They don't want you to make posts they think are stupid, and so they stop you from expressing your thoughts on their site.
>So is another person telling you to stop insulting them when you're standing right next to them.
No. They aren't preventing me from doing something, they are just expressing an opinion. I don't think that is censorship, it's actually the opposite.
>Typical case of "the First Amendment says I can troll and harass and if you disagree YOU are evil".
Bitch Fucking Please. I don't think that at all. Nor am I American.
>Please commit suicide before you actually decide to endanger others for teh lulz.
I literally used the same example the post I was replying to used. Just because I disagree with your opinion does not make me an immoral, evil douchebag.
>You're pretending that all opinions are worth protecting
You're assuming I stand for everything you don't. I don't think all opinions are worth protecting. Yours doesn't seem to be worth protecting at all.
>If some Muslim-looking fellow paraded around openly recruiting for ISIS in the US, you wouldn't jump in to defend him when the inevitable happens.
I would glass him and light him on fire unless someone else got there first.
>If some keyboard warrior posted your personal info on a public website and called for others to 'make [your] life hell' you wouldn't be okay with that.
Of course not but its not like anyone would actually do anything with it
Why do you assume I am against censorship? Did I say something to suggest I'm for complete freedom of speech?
Reminds me of pic related: a guy using his freedom of expression to protest freedom of expression.
>They don't want you to make posts they think are stupid, and so they stop you from expressing your thoughts on their site.
Their website is their private property, idiot. Telling you not to shit on their carpet is not censorship. If you're invited into someone's home and while there you insult your host, getting thrown out is not censorship you asocial dimwit. You're not entitled to someone else's private property as a platform for your opinion. Stop believing that your opinion is inherently worth more than other people's.
>They aren't preventing me from doing something, they are just expressing an opinion.
So it would only be "censorship" if they actually made you stop insulting them. Why do you think you have the right to insult others without consequence? Are you defending bullying because that's what you personally do?
>Just because I disagree with your opinion does not make me an immoral, evil douchebag.
No, the part that makes you an evil douchebag is the one where you think it's a good idea to cause panic for your amusement.
>Why do you assume I am against censorship? Did I say something to suggest I'm for complete freedom of speech?
I interpreted your insistence on blind idealism as exactly that, but apparently you're only against "censorship" when it directly affects you personally. You idiot psychopath. Let me guess, your list of acceptable targets of censorship is congruent with /pol/'s?
>Yes. That is what I am saying.
Oh, okay, in that case I don't need to read anything else you say because you've demonstrated yourself to be retarded. Thanks for identifying yourself before I wasted my time on you.
I'm gonna insult you. Don't take it personally, but you need to hear it: You are a fucking moron.
Now, why did I insult you? To prove a point. See, if plus4's mods wanted to, they could kick me off the site right now for insulting you. (They probably want to do it for other reasons, but this would be a convenient excuse.) I could then go to any other site that would have me, post a link to your post, and continue to say "this person is a fucking moron" for as long as those sites would let me. plus4's mods kicking me off plus4 is not censorship because I still have access to platforms from which I can speak.
Now, imagine if agents of the government—police officers, Men in Black, Congress critters, you get the drill—came to my house and said I could not use any platform whatsoever to say "this person is a fucking moron". That would be censorship because the government wants to deny me access to a platform from which I can speak. Furthermore, any attempt to deny me a platform would on the basis that my words constitute defamation would require a legal battle to prove that my words don’t equal a legally-protected personal opinion (to which any court in the land would say "yes, that is an opinion, and it is protected by law").
The owner of a home can kick you out for saying stupid shit in their home. A store that is privately owned can kick you out for saying stupid shit in the store. A privately-owned web service can kick you off of the service (and refuse to let you use it in the future) for saying stupid shit on the service. All of those things? Not censorship. Why? Because you don't have the right to force others into giving you a platform for your speech.
So if/when you ever get banned from plus4, regular4, 8, 420, or any other *chan, don’t fucking call it censorship—or else you really will be a fucking moron. :)
I would appreciate if you attempted to debate me in a rational mindset instead of creating your own false image of me and insulting it.
Literally none of your post applies to me.
How come most liberals and left-leaning people openly embrace the fact that they are on the left side of the political spectrum but right-wing nutters most often refer to themselves as "neutral"?
My guess is that they want to paint themselves as "normal" to make the "left-leaning" seem even more to the left. "Me, lean? No sir-ee, I have your average political opinions. You want to see far out, look at those self-admitting left-wing hippies."
You believe that spamming is a valid form of expressiong one's opinion.
You don't oppose censorship on principle, you're okay with it when it suits you.
There's nothing to debate here, you're objectively worse than pseudoanarchist /b/tards.
>Literally none of your post applies to me.
That is objectively incorrect.
Well Canada's government just shit the bed on C279.
I'm sorry, being a CONVICT because of public criticism of philosophies is not censorship? Not even remotely true, and you should be ashamed for making such a claim.
The only recourse for any kind of insult in United States are defamation statutes, which rarely reach court unless the insulting statement can be proven to be A) incorrect and B) damaging. In other words, what financial damage is there to which person if someone criticizes a religion, and can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the points of the criticism are false. By the way defamation law only exists on a state by state basis, because it predate the constitution and hasn't yet been challenged in the supreme court on a constitutional basis.
It has reached that point in Canada though:
>Because you don't have the right to force others into giving you a platform for your speech.
All public land, and public communication on the internet, is this platform. Promoting it is fine, although be ready to be criticized and demolished in debates if you express such a ridiculous opinion.
Here's a point: There is a reason expression is enshrined as a natural right. Every breath people take is expression, every dish washed, every sonnet written, every criticism published and every rifle fired at an oppressor. All these things are expression, you can ban SOME of them, but the ones that remain... lets just say if you actually succeed in forming a censorship based country, and you ban sonnet writing and criticism, don't be surprised if people express themselves with tools other than the pen.
Canadians arguing whom they should censor and which of their citizens are more equal than others.
>and public communication on the internet
There is no public communication on the internet. All communication on the internet is handled by private intermediaries.
I don't think you understand what words mean.
All information on the internet that is available to everyone is public. Now a website owner might try to limit information available to the public (facebook privacy mode etc), or delete posts by someone, but that's not the same thing as an ISP denying black people connections.
>All communication on the internet is handled by private intermediaries.
Based on infrastructure constructed by governments or publicly traded multinationals that are essentially governments anyway.
Not to mention that the internet is pretty much designed to work around any block... look at how the chinese firewall is faring.
>Based on infrastructure constructed by governments or publicly traded multinationals that are essentially governments anyway.
>Not to mention that the internet is pretty much designed to work around any block... look at how the chinese firewall is faring.
You are making irrelevant arguments because you still seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works. When you post something on the internet, you are only able to do so because you have made a contract with, or are being granted permission to, by private companies deciding to give you a venue. It is never censorship for those private companies or individuals to rescind that venue. Freedom of speech does not mean entitlement to be broadcast.
>are being granted permission
You mean we're paying them? If we pay someone to fix our cars, they aren't "granting permission" to drive it afterward, they're providing a service.
>It is never censorship for those private companies or individuals to rescind that venue.
Yes it actually is, they're breaching a contract. Same if they pull back services from regions in order to promote a monopoly.
Your shitty logic only applies to BBS and other unpaid forums.
Test at Tonopah solar project ignites hundreds of birds in mid-air.
>Yes it actually is, they're breaching a contract. Same if they pull back services from regions in order to promote a monopoly.
*You* are the one in breach of contract when they refuse to continue hosting you, you nimrod.
>Yes it actually is, they're breaching a contract. Same if they pull back services from regions in order to promote a monopoly.
If you get banned from Twitter, you can go to Tumblr or Ello or Facebook and say whatever got you banned from Twitter. Twitter is under no legal obligation to give you access to the service, nor do you have a legal right to force Twitter into giving you said access. Censorship is the denial of all platforms for speech by the government, not the denial of a single platform by its owner.
So you'd be perfectly fine with malls banning Hindus? What about for example private hospitals, can they refuse to treat a Jew with a bullet wound? Can hardware stores throw out Muslim customers? What about banning people holding liberal political views on things like abortion and gay marriage from using online means to run a political campaign? Would this be morally correct do you think?
After all according to you businesses aren't obligated to do commerce with people they disagree with in philosophical arenas such as religious belief or political views.
Everyone who reads your comments knows you're evil as fuck by the way. I'm just checking for my own amusement exactly how far into the dark side you've gone, and to see how much of your sense of right and wrong is even salvageable.
Except we're talking about government putting pressure on businesses to do this.
tl;dr if Obama tells Anonex to ban Mr. Stone or Anonex will get IRS sicced on him, that would definitely be censorship.
He's just stating facts. You're a bit of a dimwit.
Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion we're having seeing as it hasn't happened and it in no way changes the fact that getting your posts deleted on 4chan is not censorship, it's you being an asshole and facing the consequences for it.
>seeing as it hasn't happened
nigguh wut? government pressuring businesses to do things happens all the time, look up googles involvement in the chinese firewall, or what nsa has pressured companies to do.
>posts deleted on 4chan
>implying we were ever talking about that
conversation started over here >>396657, but nice try shifting goalposts.
Apparently ISIS has bulldozed Nimrud almost entirely. If you don't know what that means, it's an Assyrian city from the 1400s BCE.
>ISIS doing the most fucked up depressing shit
So... what's new?
NOT MUH UNREPLACEABLE WORLD HISTORY
It is irreplacable. And you're pretty clearly an uneducated simpleton.
I'm pretty sure he was being unironic about that.
Not even the first time something like this happened.
But Anita's the con artist.
Well, there goes my hope of ever earning enough to make a living. Looks like I'm gonna be flipping burgers from now on.
Eh. This sorta thing is why I'm gonna be out by 30.
This is such bullshit, having no minimum requirement AND trying to force it on non-EU companies. I don't know what the fuck they were thinking when they passed this.
>sarkeesian effect breaking up over personal reasons
>equivalent to taking 100k dollars to make a single youtube video, then delivering a steaming pile of shit with zero researched sources and stolen lets play footage
This. SJWs need to get this through their thick little heads. They think anything she does that is completely, objectionably bullshit is fine just because she's the only feminist doing what she's trying to do. Yes, it's good that she at least brings attention to the subject, but glorifying her as a celebrity? Come the fuck on.
I thought this was satire. It isn't. Fucking hell.
So the article that was linked described how the people who were making the Sarkeesian effect blew the money on new cars and moving to Vegas and have yet to produce anything--and the chances of them actually doing so are getting more and more remote every day. And you consider that to be "personal reasons" and make it sound like you are sympathetic to their plight. However you consider Sarkeesian actually delivering the promised material--material which you are dissatisfied with but which she nonetheless delivered--to be "legitimate bullshit." Is that correct? Like you consider it to be more dishonest for Sarkeesian to deliver a product that you didn't like than for these guys to deliver no product at all and to have demonstrably blown the money that was donated to them on toys.
In less important but more hilarious news, a 71-year old nun in India was raped because she resisted a robber. Ha! Those Indians and their shenanigans. Who will they rape next?
>person getting raped is 'less important' than people pretending they are being raped
This is a strange world...
Measured by what? Horse cocks?
Most of this board supports Sarkeesian still, despite everything.
Indiana looks poised to sign the legal discrimination of LGBT people into state law—under the guise of "religious freedom", natch.
One of the bill's defeated amendments would have required businesses planning on discriminating against LGBT people to put up signs stating as much.
Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting
About time someone addressed this, communities with bad parenting don't survive for long.
Speak for yourself. I'm pretty neutral (a.k.a. don't care) about whatever that small corporation does or says.
The funny thing is how much of the "support" for Sarkeesian is sort of brought about BY gators. Like I really don't give two shits about Sarkeesian for the most part. I don't watch her videos and I didn't contribute to her campaign and I have no intention of watching them in the future. But the way these gators act make me *sort of* support her just because it's inherently obvious that anyone they oppose must be doing SOMETHING right. It's like that old chestnut of how you can't be certain a politician has done any good in the world until someone tries to assassinate them.
Did you read the article all the way through?
The comparison she makes equates the pain of not knowing her birth father with the pain an adoptee or child of divorced parents might feel, but at the same time being reluctant to voice that pain due to potential backlash that doesn't exist to the same degree for children in those circumstances.
She spoke highly of her mother's partner, and stated that she treated her like she would a true daughter.
But the only reasons she can give for wanting a father are "traditions" and seeing other people have something that she didn't. By her own admission, her father "wasn't a great guy," and her adoptive mother was loving and supportive.
With that being said, I'm confused by what she's proposing if this disconnection is her only concern. Not that it's trivial, but sometimes not knowing one's birth parent(s) is simply something one needs to deal with. There are worse things. Like having abusive parents. Or no parents.
In the end she just comes off as ungrateful.
You have some pain over wishing you had a father and traditional upbringing? Okay, that's understandable to a certain degree.
You find fault with and blame an adoptive parent for stepping up to the plate, raising you in a nice atmosphere and accepting you and loving you as though you were her own in place of a parent who didn't want to bother? You've lost me.
>It's like that old chestnut of how you can't be certain a politician has done any good in the world until someone tries to assassinate them.
Careful with the hyperbole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot
Faulty syllogism. "a politician hasn't done real good until someone has tried to assassinate them" is not the same as "everyone who anyone has ever tried to assassinate is good."
Right back at ya.
I think Hitler qualifies as a politician.
I think maybe you don't understand how words and/or logic work.
"All X is Y" does not imply that "All Y is X."
"All (Politicians Who Did Real Good) (Have Assassination Attempts Against Them)"
Does not imply
"All (Politicians Who Have Assasination Attempts Against Them) (Were Good)"
That is what I meant when I said it was a faulty syllogism. Not that Hitler is not a politician, but that your argument doesn't in any way refute or question the claim that was made. It's like someone says "All humans have hearts" and now you're arguing "CAREFUL FRIEND!" and linking me to an article about how many lizards have hearts as if that somehow proves not all humans have hearts.
And much support for GG came from opposition to it as well, aside from when excitement for Vivian and Fine Young Capitalists was going on. They would both be forgotten without the other.
Necessary qualifications != sufficient proofs.
Consider this diagram.
I recently learned that the version of Internet that we are all using right now was never build for privacy. You can make it harder for others to see who you are or where you're posting from, but if someone really wanted to find you, they will.
Which made me wonder: if/when we will make Internet 2.0 with full privacy, how much will that help e-criminals and how much will that fuck us over?
Anyone pissed off a thread just disappeared here be mad at me, I was getting rid of the spam and nixed it by a miss-click, I don't even know what thread it was.
In short my B, I'd remake it with an apology if I knew what it was.
Depends on the type of crime, privacy invasion is as helpful to criminals as law enforcement. Casing an area before a heist, stalking, taking access to someone's account, breaking into someone's wifi to pepper their connection's activity with something suspicious. Not to mention organized crime and terrorists groups using it in enforcing their own rules, but who wants to give the police an anonymous tip without Johny Kneebreaker knowing it was you anyway?
As for if/when, there is http://hyperboria.net/ already, it's just a matter of how extensive it needs to be set up before it's considered a second Internet.
And Internet 2.0 is, strictly speaking, already used for a big science data thing.
I'm not the person you think I am. You are refuting two separate Anons. No need to insult me.
But to me, it seems
>you can't be certain a politician has done any good in the world until someone tries to assassinate them
>you can be certain a politician has done any good in the world once someone has tried to assassinate them
But honestly I don't care and this whole argument is stupid because the original saying has a point and obviously wasn't talking about dictators starting wars. It's like that one that (Churchill?) said about having enemies is good, because it means you've stood up for an idea. (In a rush and can't be fucked finding actual quote. Sorry).
You heard of Tor, Twister? Onion browsing is pretty damn close to what you're describing. I guess the main way to track people back there is through what they say and do, not the method they use.
>calling gamergaters "gators", a term coined by journopros SJWs
>sucking saarkeesians clit this much, despite feminist frequency being a shitpile by any standards
I'm wondering how the hell you came to conclusion that a leaderless consumer movement was the bad guy here. Did you just have the SVU episode on repeat while taking LSD or something?
>you can't be certain a politician has done any good in the world until someone tries to assassinate them.
I'm pretty sure the terrible politicians have more assassination attempts than the good ones. A LOT more.
>anyone they oppose must be doing SOMETHING right
Attracting heavy opposition does not imply legitimacy. There's nothing "inherently obvious" to it.
>you can't be certain a politician has done any good in the world until someone tries to assassinate them
"If A then B" does not imply "if B then A".
It's not about videogames and it never was. It has always been a proxy war between [redpillers] and [SJWs].
>leaderless consumer movement
I'm not sure which movement you're referring to. It has been conclusively proven that GamerGate's sole reason for forming was because whatshername's boyfriend wanted to assassinate her character and use /pol/ to do it. It has always had leaders, and it was never about consumerism. It was about you being /b/'s personal army to make someone's ex-girlfriend cry.
Burgers was something /pol/ was laughing at.
/v/ didn't get involved until people realized the girl was using sex to get media coverage and push her objectively shitty game.
Which in turn led to the discovery of the gamejournopros and further corruption, as well as the downright evil shit Quinn did to TFYC.
Which a week and a half later led to Baldwin coining #gamergate.
And the majority of the gamers involved have been criticizing games journalism for YEARS, we've just never had leaks and evidence of unethical behavior before.
So no, burgers didn't "start" gamergate, your conclusive proof has more holes in it than the plot of Lost.
It's pretty odd that everyone seems to forget that one of /v/'s main forms of entertainment was shitting all over male game bloggers/industry people when they said stupid things.
Of course, it's clearly about issues that #GG bandwagoners have IGNORED FOR YEARS. It's nothing but coincidence that this never blew up until the evil of feminism got involved! It's even more coincidental that people who decried vidya as evil sided with us after they learned that LEFTISM was the true enemy; better welcome them unquestionably, because the enemy of my enemy cannot be anything but my friend! Let's appropriate legit problems in gaming to justify collectivist garbage and reactionary political views! Let's insert ourselves into history to hide our actual motivation (removing "degeneracy")
#GG DID NOT CARE about those problems until THE EVIL "SJW" was revealed to be behind it all! Thank /pol/ for unmasking The Eternal Jew yet again!
>/v/ didn't get involved until
/pol/ crossposters suggested they make their own character for TYFC to cause confusion among the "degenerates"
>And the majority of the gamers involved have been criticizing games journalism for YEARS
Bullshit. They cared for about a week whenever vidya journalists said something particularly stupid, then stopped caring until it happened again. That's why vidya journalists KEPT DOING IT.
But of course, all they needed was the revelation that those evil lefitsts were the true force behind it, now that's something worth fighting against! Definitely only concerned gamers, right. Not a political issue, nope, just consumer activism. That must be why they're so quick to label anyone who doesn't wear their flag an enemy political agent, I mean that's what every customer initiative does, right?
>never had evidence of unethical behavior before
What, vidya journalists openly insulting gamers who disagree with them somehow wasn't enough?
#GG isn't the hero who will save gaming. If #GG were to win, gaming would not be any less of a barren wasteland than if self-appointed moral guardians won. You're not a hero of "free speech" if you consider anyone doubting your infallibility in cahoots with the Devil. You're not fighting for "truth" if doing so requires denying the existence of malicious elements in your group, especially if you used to defend their existence as a natural thing until recent events.
And yet despite your claim that it's about Game Journalism Ethics, GamerGate has never once gone after a journalist. It has *only* attacked developers, almost all of them female.
Except that the girl who "traded sex for coverage" was only ever involved with one of the people who covered her game, and it had been years before that. So, again, you're full of shit.
I always said creating /pol/ was a mistake. Containment boards never get rid of the problem, they only allow them to fester undisturbed.
>provide a timeline
>he still fucks up
>GamerGate has never once gone after a journalist
Are you retarded? We went after everyone on the GameJournoPros list, got a few of them fired/reprimanded. We sent complaints to the Federal Trade Commission which forced journalist websites to disclose their advertising and expose their back room bribery.
The only game 'developers' we went after are ones exposed in the collusion.
Where do you get your information?
>mfw I've tried to convince somebody commenting on the latest UKIP story that shooting unarmed protestors is a bad idea, even if they jump on your car bonnet
Just when I think UKIP voters can't get any stupider...
>provide a timeline
Stop trying to retcon your own history. No one outside your party believes that #GG emerging when it did was just coincidence. No one except for utter idiots believes that the whole issue is the easy black and white good-vs-evil conflict you make it out to be.
If your response to some idiot talking shit about vidya is BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT VIDEOGAMES, you are not the hero. If your response to being accused of misogyny is "shut up, woman", you are not the hero.
If your response to literally anyone not siding with your party is "you're an enemy agent", you are not the hero.
You display the EXACT SAME behavior as your enemy. That's why I am on neither side. If either wins, videogames will be a worse medium for it, because the victor will initiate their form of Gleichschaltung.
If someone considered anti-#GG had written http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/moot-vs-gamergate the wiki would have spun it into enemy propaganda. Or did that person "turn SJW" for being too critical of 4chan attitude and the supporter page just wasn't updated?
>You display the EXACT SAME behavior as your enemy. That's why I am on neither side. If either wins, videogames will be a worse medium for it, because the victor will initiate their form of Gleichschaltung.
What is the "other side" here? I've never heard who the "other side" is except from people who claim to be on "neither side."
>What is the "other side" here?
The people who try to paint #GG as this universal evil that needs to be eradicated at any cost. You know, the ones who call people misogynerd rape-apologists for doubting their infallibility.
>I've never heard who the "other side" is except from people who claim to be on "neither side."
Now you're just being ignorant. It is flat out impossible to know about #GG but not be aware that there are two factions involved. You shouldn't need labels to identify the loose camps of "women-hating manchildren are harassing innocent people" vs "social justice conspirators are trying to destroy videogames".
>Now you're just being ignorant. It is flat out impossible to know about #GG but not be aware that there are two factions involved. You shouldn't need labels to identify the loose camps of "women-hating manchildren are harassing innocent people" vs "social justice conspirators are trying to destroy videogames".
From the way you were talking up there, you hate #GG too. So I was having difficulty seeing the label you had created that consisted only of "People who hate #GG but who are, you know, bad people."
Honestly it sounds like you've invented this other faction to satisfy your golden mean fallacy.
>Honestly it sounds like you've invented this other faction to satisfy your golden mean fallacy.
Thinking that both sides have valid points which they choose to bury under mountains of bullshit is not a logical fallacy. In fact, reducing a complex problem to a binary one via broken shortcuts (which is what your post implies you're doing) is a false dichotomy.
I don't believe the optimum lies exactly in the middle. Reality usually isn't that convenient.
Also, seriously, "inventing" the other side? Have you been sticking your head in the sand since August?
>Also, seriously, "inventing" the other side? Have you been sticking your head in the sand since August?
No, it's just everyone who argues against #GG claims to be against both sides and I've yet to see anyone who actually claims to be part of this "other side."
>I've yet to see anyone who actually claims to be part of this "other side."
They don't identify as such. "Anti-#GG" isn't an actual group like #GG, it's a common identifier for people who share certain opinions about #GG. To them, it's not their group vs #GG, it's everyone who isn't a reactionary asshole vs #GG.
Pornography produced in the UK was quietly censored today through an amendment to the 2003 Communications Act, and the measures appear to take aim at female pleasure.
The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 requires that video-on-demand (VoD) online porn now adhere to the same guidelines laid out for DVD sex shop-type porn by the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC).
Seemingly arbitrarily deciding what is nice sex and what is not nice sex, the board's ruling on 'content that is not acceptable' (p.24) effectively bans the following acts from being depicted by British pornography producers:
Penetration by any object "associated with violence"
Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)
Urolagnia (known as "water sports")
Role-playing as non-adults
The final three listed fall under acts the BBFC views as potentially "life-endangering".
Also, if you're using this site as your point of reference: the deep end of anti-#GG don't seem to be represented here at all.
This has to be an elaborate prank, right?
What the fuck, still can't delete this post even though I literally made it less than a minute ago.
I deleted it.
However, your shame will always be known to me.
>retcon your own history
If you have time to be vitriolic on the internet, maybe you have time to disprove any part of that HEAVILY SOURCED timeline.
The rest of you don't have to read this, it's just for the flippant turd I linked to.
>No one outside your party believes that #GG emerging when it did was just coincidence
Who said it was coincidence? We discovered massive collusion and were attacked simultaneously by dozens of copypasted articles, all by different authors dude.
"Appeared out of nowhere" is strawman #1 in your post.
>If your response to some idiot talking shit about vidya is BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT VIDEOGAMES, you are not the hero.
My response is usually to ignore said idiot, which the video game community has been doing for about a decade now. We only really started taking notice when these people started getting millions from software companies and started negatively influencing the standard of video games.
The ISIS comparison is strawman #2 in your post.
>If your response to being accused of misogyny is "shut up, woman", you are not the hero.
My response is usually that I'm not a misogynist, that I game with women fairly often but not as often as I'd like, and that accusations with zero proof behind them hurt us all equally.
Accusations of silencing women is strawman #3 in your post.
>If your response to literally anyone not siding with your party is "you're an enemy agent", you are not the hero.
At that point I'd usually ask you if you support ethics in games, and if you say "I support ethics but still have issues with some trolling that's went on" I wouldn't consider you an enemy anything. If you're retarded enough to outright say "I don't support ethics", you are the enemy by definition (not just mine, but of civilization in general).
Partisanship is strawman #4 in your post.
>You display the EXACT SAME behavior as your enemy.
I support ethics and basic reporting standards for intermediaries between the customer and a 100 billion dollar industry. The opposition doesn't, they prefer cronyism and corruption for their own gain. I'd say that's a pretty solid line.
And you are lynching negroes, the glorious strawman #5, knew you wouldn't disappoint for the last one.
Every line in your post was a strawman, thanks for the mammaries.
The sheer amount of historical revisionism that's going on here is staggering. Either you're a conman or you've been so thoroughly duped you may never work out how much of an idiot you look like.
Protip, genius, most of us were witness to Gamergate's beginnings. We saw its early days unfold, these aren't 'myths' that we're receiving second-hand.
Half this shit doesn't even make sense on a cursory inspection. BurgersAndFries isn't an 'official' Gamergate channel? How can a 'leaderless consumer revolt' have an official ANYTHING? That's the thing about being a 'leaderless movement', anyone who says they're a part of it is, definitionally, part of it.
#GG emerged in response to yellow press idiots believing they could win by force. Said yellow press idiots acted in response to the usual 4chan behavior following the "quinnspiracy" reveal. Saying that #GG "is not about [named idiots]" is arguing semantics. #GG would not have existed without the "quinnspiracy" because that was the impulse that caused its core members (imageboard posters) to become active.
>#GamerGate does not condone [/b/ shit]
Neither does the other side, but that didn't stop either from claiming that [/b/tards] are representative of the whole faction. Both have their psychos and both deal with them the exact same way: denial. Both also jump onto every opportunity to label "for teh lulz"-type psychos as enemy agents, because somehow neither of them remembers how far trolls can go for the purpose of schadenfreude.
>#GamerGate does not want to "silence women's voices"
Of course not, it's just that "SJW" are the enemy and there are a lot of women among those. If you think this is coincidence, you haven't paid attention to 4chan.
>#GamerGate's main and only goal is to make ALL voices be heard equally.
Now that's just a lie. #GG wants "SJW" (minimal qualification: criticizes vidya in ways #GG does not approve of) to shut the fuck up.
>"Appeared out of nowhere"
No one's saying that. It's very obvious where the core came from if you're familiar with 4chan. /v/ has been complaining about "SJW" for years, so of course people jumped at the opportunity to attack one of them. When the idiot "journalists" decided to "take a stand", the fire that would have burned out with no lasting effect (like everything else gamers complained about, legit cause or not) instead exploded and the core got an armor of unwitting bandwagoners which is what most of #GG is.
>I am not an asshole, therefore no one in my group is and if you doubt me you're the enemy
Stop defending assholes. Stop declaring anyone who acknowledges the existence of assholes an enemy. Stop normalizing asshole behavior. Stop claiming that everyone who does not accept asshole behavior is an evil outsider. That pattern has existed long before #GG. Learn from history for once.
>We only really started taking notice when these people started getting millions from software companies and started negatively influencing the standard of video games.
Vidya journalists have been spewing anti-consumer idiocy for several years (and have been doing so long before anyone in the "gaming community" paid attention to [social justice]).
Why did it take "SJW" for #GG to form? (This is a rhetorical question. If you're familiar with /v/, you know the answer.)
>At that point I'd usually ask you if you support ethics in games, and if you say "I support ethics but still have issues with some trolling that's went on" I wouldn't consider you an enemy anything.
In my observation that is not the average response. I am in favor of customer advocacy, but I disagree with most of /pol/'s mainstream. That makes me a "SJW" according to the imageboard-based parts of #GG.
>If you're retarded enough to outright say "I don't support ethics"
Literally nobody says that. You're just proving me right: Disagreeing with you implies I don't support ethics! No strawmanning at all!
>I support ethics and basic reporting standards for intermediaries between the customer and a 100 billion dollar industry. The opposition doesn't, they prefer cronyism and corruption for their own gain. I'd say that's a pretty solid line.
Yeah, totally objective, no partisanship at all. Let me invert your statement:
"I support inclusivity and decent human behavior towards people regardless of gender, ethnicity or sexuality. The opposition doesn't, they don't want women and minorities in their clubhouse."
Everyone sees themselves as the hero.
>Every line in your post was a strawman
Observation of common imageboard posting patterns is not a strawman. Stop trying to retcon 4chan out of your history.
Outsiders not understanding 4chan is how #GG could come into existence in the first place. It would've gone nowhere if not for the morons demonizing it.
>Yeah, totally objective, no partisanship at all.
Except it's the truth, I didn't invent this, members of gamejournopros have outright said they don't value ethics. The editor for Gawker actually made a presentation on why ethics shouldn't be used. And we've seen unethical behavior from ever GJP member.
Whereas your shitty strawman of silencing women couldn't be further from the truth.
So then why are SJWs claiming what one poster says reflects on all of Gamergate?
You're seriously using "Insulting Penny Arcade" as some point against her? Aren't you the same people who never refer to those two as anything but "Bald" and "Piglike?"
There's a difference between cracking jokes about how someone looks and talking shit because someone triggered you. That post she made was about the Dickwolves comic.
>ignores she suppressed new female writers
Gee I'd hate to interfere with that titanium bubble you've got going on.
And her main complaint against him seemed to be directly related to that, in the accusation that he has the emotional maturity of a twelve year old. Which incidentally, based on the other things I've seen about his behavior on social media, is an entirely justified position to hold.
So I'm assuming your difficulty with what she said is that she insulted his art skills? Except that there's been such a huge backlash against his art since he went all Spumco on everyone's asses that even that's hardly a remarkable position.
I feel like you just needed something to fill out your shitty infographic and chose to add complete non-issues because you didn't have enough material without it.
Because these are the people whose dumbass 'movement' you've chosen to join/fall for like a stupid bumblefuck. You are branding yourself with their byproduct. Holy shit this isn't complicated.
The problem with #GG is not that it exists at all, the problem is that they took the piece of advice "distance yourself from the shitheads" to mean "fervently deny their existence and attack anyone who doesn't let you just ignore your history".
Stop being /pol/'s shield. No amount of genuine idiocy from your enemies will make you heroes. If your enemies are cancer, you're a bullet through the patient's head.
Seek out the bad apple and throw out the whole bunch. This reasoning serves poorly. That's anyone from any side.
There will be people who make remarkably stupid decisions in every group. Would you tell a saint that they are guilty because of the actions of a bigot who waves the same flag?
>Would you tell a saint that they are guilty because of the actions of a bigot who waves the same flag?
What if the "saint" defends the "bigot"?
Except you're not dealing with "There's some corruption in our otherwise fine organization." You're dealing with "You know not everything the KKK stands for is evil--they helped revitalize the south in the antebellum period!" There's a difference in how one is expected to deal with a barrel of apples when there are only a few bad apples that need to be thrown out, and when half or more are bad.
You are in a position where you are clinging desperately to maintaining a brand which is completely and irrevocably poisoned in the mind of non-members. And the message that sends isn't that you're noble warriors who really believe in the cause that brand represents--it's that this isn't so much about the principles your brand stands for, but about the tribe/brand itself. Which suggests you *do* support the bad apples in the bunch.
What reason do you honestly have for continuing to support GamerGate instead of forming, say, SchmamerSchmate? Do you actually think SchmamerSchmate, a brand which has *no* association with misogyny and rape threats would really be less able to accomplish the positive goals of GamerGate? Because your rigid adherence to a toxic brand makes it seem like this is nothing more than tribalism, and the reason you can't start a new brand is because of loyalty to the tribe. The tribe which makes death and rape threats against women and has shown a great deal of overlap with misogynistic goals in general.
Okay, fine. I don't actually have to convince you of anything because I don't actually give a shit what you believe. I was trying to help you understand why people now, and always will, lump you in with misogynists and will treat you as though you're one of the assholes making rape threats regardless of how much sealioning you do. You can choose to ignore this, but the fact that you choose to ignore it is exactly why I have absolutely no sympathy for you, nor will I ever believe that you are anything more than an apologist for that sort of behavior.
For people who constantly make pleas for "rational" discussion, you certainly don't engage in anything approaching rational behavior.
If you're going to generalize #GG as a bunch of misogynists, you have no right not to accept them generalizing anti-#GG's as insane extremist SJWs.
But go ahead, live in your little fantasy world where you're right and everybody else is wrong.
Both sides have horrible people, and if you decide to support neither you get labelled as both a misogynist and a SJW, with the rabid dogs from both sides deciding to make your internet life horrible. I don't think there's any good that can come out of it at this point.
>If you're going to generalize #GG as a bunch of misogynists
Guess what? LOADS of people already generalize GamerGate as a group of misogynist rape-threat-spewing wangsultans. The GamerGate ‘brand’ has a horrible reputation, in part because GG as a whole can’t really ‘kick out’ the radical members of the ‘movement’ in the long term. If you stick with GG, you do so out of ‘brand loyalty’—and sooner or later, backing a toxic brand will bite you on the ass. (Just ask Mike Pence.)
See but I don't actually care if you generalize anti-#GG's because I don't identify with a group like that. Unless you're referring to "Everyone who isn't part of #GG," in which case....boo hoo, a thousand or so internet nerds hate everyone else? Not really news here. Hatred of outsiders is the default state of antisocial nerds.
Both sides are fucking atrocious and the sooner they realize this the sooner we can stop talking about this shit. The difference is that the positive #GG supporters despise the shitbags on their end, while the anti-#GG supporters see every single one of them as having the right mindset.
Denying the existence of bigots or labeling them as false-flag enemy agents.
That's the best part - evidence is difficult to provide because understanding the core of #GG requires more than a few screenshots.
If you have no idea how 4chan works and what kind of opinions have been commonly accepted on /v/ for at least two years, then of course any claims that it's just a few trolls may sound reasonable.
For someone who has been there, claims that harassers are not welcome (which only seemed to manifest after the mods started deleting #GG threads) sound like PR bullshit.
The sequence of events that led to #GG's creation should at the very least give you a hint what's up, because the "gamers are dead" garbage didn't come out of nowhere either.
It should also be telling that people who didn't care about videogames or outright condemned them suddenly sided with "gamers" when they learned that the enemy is "SJWs". #GG of course immediately accepted them and proceeded to defend them as part of the collective even in other contexts, because the enemy of your enemy can't be anything other than your friend, right?
>Denying the existence of bigots or labeling them as false-flag enemy agents.
They exist and they're assholes that only serve to ruin the higher intention of the movement.
#GG literally believes that any and all /pol/-approved threads on /v/ are/were "SJW shilling".
#GG literally believes that /v/ trolls witlessly turning a nobody into a martyr was a deliberate PR campaign.
You belong in the trash along with Sarkeesian, Macintosh and all the other pretentious "New Gamer" hacks. It's a perfect match.
Holy shit, why do people even care about that circlejerk?
Ahahaha, fucking what.
Documents show that Slager signed his “Oath of Office” with the force on March 1, 2010. In that, he pledged to “faithfully serve the citizens of this city” and voted to “never abuse my authority either by words or acts.”
Then he shot a guy in the back, didn't give him any sort of medical treatment, tried to plant a taser on him to make it look like an actual struggle, and lied about the whole thing.
If he beats the rap and gets off scot-free, it’ll only be because he has a badge.
>read any TV show wikia
>a charater in show says something jokingly or obviously fake
>'fact' is taken seriously by editors
>"oh hey, a policeman in America is getting attention because he shot someone. I bet the victim was black."
I used to think the whole "fuck the police" movement was stupid, but now I kinda understand where they are coming from.
The day the video came out he was fired, his lawyer dropped his case, he was arrested and charged with murder, appeared before a black judge and was denied bail, all within the span of 8 hours.
This is gonna be a public lesson to cops. They are making an effigy out of him.
A lot of the problem stems from putting foxes as guard dogs of the chicken coop, check out this break down on the disparity of white officers to black populations:
Now factor in that municipal violations are massive and sometimes the main source of income for these shitwater bergs and civil forfeiture earning the cops enormous money, plus an increasingly militarized police force that is trained to look increasingly at citizens as enemy combatants and you end up with a recipe for police abuse.
Those fucking assholes in the Scottish National Party are at it again.
You know what's more fucked up than shooting a man eight times in the back? Cuffing him on the ground and letting a dog tear him apart.
Jesus Christ almighty.
I'm would like to know what he died from exactly.
>I used to think the whole "fuck the police" movement was stupid, but now I kinda understand where they are coming from.
Same here, though I cut it off at advocating retaliatory violence like some people *coughcoughsomeofmyTumblrfollowscoughcough* do.
Stephanie March, the star of Law & Order SVU, is divorcing her husband Bobby Flay. She has 4 million in her bank account, and a job that's going to increase that wealth no matter what.
The prenup they both signed before marriage gives her $5000 a month "spousal support" for five years. Spousal support is kind of like child support for women, because women are apparently a bunch of incompetent children in the eyes of the law.
On top of the spousal support, he's paying her an extra million just to decide to get the fuck out of his house, and an extra $50k so she can hire people to move all her stuff out without lifting a finger.
Here's the kicker: SHE IS STILL ASKING FOR MORE
Modern feminism folks. Not even once.
I like how you've managed to turn the private economic affairs of two married individuals into a screed on feminism in general. It really shows off how confirmation bias works.
Exactly. The prenuptuals were set up by both of them, privately, and signed by both of them, voluntarily, so now they are bound to them. Plus, if we want to talk about money, Bobby Flay has an estimated net worth of $20 Million, so $300,000 over five years is not some enormous burden on him like it would be on Joe Sixpack.
>Spousal support is kind of like child support for women, because women are apparently a bunch of incompetent children in the eyes of the law.
None of this compares to the disaster that awaits if the Scottish National Party gets their filthy claws deeper in as they threaten to.
Remember: Nationalism is tribalism. It's not just a betrayal of Britain (or Spain or whatever), it's not just a betrayal of Europe, it's a Betrayal of the entire Western Alliance from South Korea to the Baltics.
The Western Alliance is *also* tribalism though. You can't really use "It's tribalism" as a reason to be against something and then appeal to our tribal loyalties to larger tribes.
Well Christie just fucked himself out of the Nomination by coming down rockwall on marijuana, the thing even staunch republicans want scaled back, every single choice for the nomination is batshit crazy outside of Marco Rubio and we know he's not getting in because they won't vote for someone whose not white as snow with a neck redder than crab apples.
Say what you will about her, Hillary looks like aces compared to these maladroit dorks, Christie was the only worth his salt and that's because he's a known semi-competent crook rather than a doomsday cultist like a lot of them seemed to have morphed into in recent years.
Nationalism is tribalism because it's about your nation ie your ethnicity. It's similar but distinct from allegiance to a state or group of states which can be and basically always are multi-ethnic.
Whoa hold on, are you implying feminism in general doesn't like spousal support? Or female-benefiting relationship agreements? What world are you in?
But ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can post five peer reviewed feminist articles arguing against splitting of assets in a marriage.
Prenup was 50k a month for 5 years (~300k). Everything extra is in contravention to the prenup, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that she asking for MORE THAN THE EXTRA SHE GOT ON TOP OF THE PRENUP MONEY!
>confusing spousal support for child support
>Whoa hold on, are you implying feminism in general doesn't like spousal support? Or female-benefiting relationship agreements?
No, they are not.
Stephanie March has no children with Bobby Flay. In fact she's sterile, she has endometriosis. The wiki article is about child support, which no one has ever argued is bad, and the argument isn't about this.
What this feminist icon is asking for and what the argument is about, is money to support HERSELF as grown adult with a job that rakes in six figures a year. One can conclude that either feminists think women are mental defectives incapable of supporting themselves, or feminists support predatory laws that exist only to support greed and sexist exploitation.
tl;dr in both cases it explains rather plainly why people don't like feminism anymore and why only 18% of Americans consider themselves feminist.
Sarah Silverman Admits She Made Up a Wage-Gap Story, Then Calls Critics ‘Maniacs’
Comedian Sarah Silverman admitted that a story she told about wage discrimination (in which she even went so far as to call out a specific employer by name) was a lie — and then said people who might consider her lie a reason to question the movement she was supporting were “maniacs.”
Another feminist ruins a guys life with lies and doesn't even get a slap on the wrist for it.
Fantastic response by the Calgary Comic Expo. If this shit pops up at any other conventions, this incident will set an example of what to do.
You're still not getting that your example provides absolutely zero support for the argument you're making, and that no one gives a shit about your hunt for the witches who are stealing your penis.
Read the entire article. Also, again, "a ∈ A → ∀ x ∈ A: x = a" is not valid logic. (Neither is "B ⊂ A → A = B".)
Would have been nice to know what #GG actually _did_ there, because removing #GG just because it exists is exactly why it won't go away. You can yell about "being on the right side of history" all day, but that won't convince anyone who isn't already a believer. [Anti-#GG] not understanding the concept of diplomacy is why #GG exists in the first place, the "movement" would have fizzled out if not for the "gamers are dead" articles (just like any other instance of "gamer" outrage).
Yeah, but do we really *want* to get rid of #GG? Having #GG means that a lot of hateful people in the gaming community self-identify just by saying they're part of it. You know immediately that you no longer have to pay attention to that person when they start identifying themselves as part of it.
>Would have been nice to know what #GG actually _did_ there
The Gamergate-affiliated group Honey Badger Radio snagged a booth at the con under false pretenses (they used someone else's website to apply for vendor/exhibitor status). Members of the group attended a “Women Into Comics” panel, tried to derail the panel towards men's rights issues, and later used footage they shot at the panel to paint the panelists as "professional victims".
Oh, and let's be clear: the Honey Badger people pretty much expected the Expo to kick them out, if not for the false pretenses bullshit (which was enough to get them booted on its own), then for the disruptive tactics. I’d bet money on the Honey Badgers setting themselves up for the boot so they could paint the Expo as misogynist (since several of the Honey Badgers were women) and censorious (since it would look like the Honey Badgers got kicked out for their beliefs/ideas/speech).
But I don’t take sucker bets.
Most #GG supporters don't actually realize that the core came from /pol/. I don't think it's fair to condemn 100% of them by default. Videogame journalism being full of shit has been an observable fact for many years (and I'm not referring to "social justice" clickbait here). Criticism of such now being linked to /pol/'s unwitting shields is the worst consequence of the whole affair.
>tried to derail the panel towards men's rights issues, and later used footage they shot at the panel to paint the panelists as "professional victims"
"Ethics in vidya journalism" indeed.
>Most #GG supporters don't actually realize that the core came from /pol/. I don't think it's fair to condemn 100% of them by default.
I don't see why it's not fair. They know how people see #GG, and they continue to associate with it openly rather than form a splinter group that actively discourages the toxic elements of #GG. Which means they either endorse, or at least tacitly approve of, the bad parts of #GG.
Do you really think anyone who splinters off to form a new group won't just be painted with the same brush? People cannot be reasonable about this on either side.
>Do you really think anyone who splinters off to form a new group won't just be painted with the same brush?
If they don't police their userbase, sure, they will develop the same reputation. And they will deserve it. They can't afford to be the same sort of ad-hoc, anything goes dis-organization that GG is--they need to have leadership so they can actually kick people out who misbehave.
But no one actually cares about "ethics in gaming journalism" enough to go to the trouble of something like that. It's always been a cat's paw for hate speech. And that's the real reason no one ever had the idea to do this until someone wanted to get back at his girlfriend, and the real reason no one is willing to put in the effort to actually improve things. The only thing they are willing to put effort into is making rape threats and anonymous sealioning and concern trolling on imageboards. Because no one actually gives a shit about "gaming journalism."
>The only thing they are willing to put effort into is making rape threats and anonymous sealioning and concern trolling on imageboards.
Don't forget the shit that the Honey Badgers pulled.
Wow, I knew it'd be bad but I didn't think even his own state would immediately hate him.
What do you mean by the "core"? /pol/ was the first to take notice of SJWs and of quin, but /v/ discovered collusion and formed the core of the actual movement when the "gamers are dead" articles came out.
I don't think /pol/ has taken part in #gamergate for months now, the last thread was on 8chan about two weeks after the exodus.
Don't really see how you can tie /pol/ to it, might as well blame Serbs for WWI.
/v/-/pol/ crossposters have been fairly common for several years by now and they certainly didn't leave when the yellow press attacked. The chain of events that led to #GG's creation was started by a typical /pol/ issue (one woman does something immoral -> 'proof that feminists are evil').
If GG and aGG can ever debate without strawmanning each other to the point of cartoon villain caricatures I will probably drop dead from the shock. You're all ridiculous to the point of becoming a joke.
Normally trying to take the middle road might be reasonable, but I don't think this is one that you can do that on. I've literally never seen anything of worth come from anyone pro GG.
And we're honestly at the point where the brand has been poisoned to the point that if you actually DO care about games journalism (and maybe want to focus attention on the actual corrupt giants, i.e. not indie shit), you would have dropped your flags a long time ago.
Note that the "you" in this post isn't directed towards you, Slowpoke. I just thought about reformatting my post, but decided not to, so the "you" remains.
As would I.
But that's the same with any polarized duality.
One side will demonize the other till they both look like idiots.
>Look at me! I'm above all your silly shenanigans you little kids!
When the other side demonizes their enemy to the point where Fox News' idiocy compares favorably and regularly engages in behavior claimed to be exclusive to psycho trolls, you shouldn't want to join them even if their enemy is /pol/.
>if you're not a partisan you're stupid
Which one are you, the one who believes that feminism is killing Western society or the one who believes that "degenerate art" keeps oppression alive?
I'm not joining anybody.
But I am anti GG. Being anti GG doesn't make me an SJW or tumblrina or whatever retarded insult the internet has come up with.
Okay, I need more clarification here because I still don't understand.
You guys clearly disapprove of GG, from the way you're talking here. And yet, you don't consider yourself to be part of the anti-GG "side," which doesn't have a name, doesn't have meetings, and has no named members, correct? So what is the definition of anti-GG again, exactly?
>has no named members
If you don't know what you're talking about, just don't.
Certain vocally anti-#GG people even got coverage from non-vidya press.
>You guys clearly disapprove of GG, from the way you're talking here. And yet, you don't consider yourself to be part of the anti-GG "side,"
There's a difference between realizing that #GG aren't the shining heroes they believe themselves to be and comparing #GG to ISIS and the KKK. How does that elude you?
Anti-GG are dedicatedly against GamerGate. Most people have recognized GamerGate as the shithole movement it is and refuse to give them any power, but that also usually means not engaging them. You have to work hard to be AGG, unless of course GG decided you were a target and dragged you into the conflict.
I have not voiced my opinion about the issue itself, only about how stupid the arguments are. Both sides make themselves look hella trashy, and can only really blame themselves for how easy they are to attack and "discredit."
What's that logical fallacy called where you make the other side sound like a bad person and then go "so as you can see, they're literal human garbage, therefore their opinion on what ice cream flavor is best is utterly invalid"?
That's all this thread is. People going "but death threats" and "but harassment" (both of which have come from both GG and aGG, don't play that "it was just trolls PRETENDING to be a/GG!" card) so that they can say "therefore your political views are wrong, I win."
So dumb. I've lost a lot of respect from some plusFours that I used to think were Cool Dudes just because of how ridiculous they immediately became when this issue came up--not that that matters to anyone, just a comment.
Anyway if you base your political view on "well people who have this viewpoint did bad things, so I will be on the side that directly opposes them" then lol.
>There's a difference between realizing that #GG aren't the shining heroes they believe themselves to be and comparing #GG to ISIS and the KKK. How does that elude you?
I guess because the group you're talking about is made up, and you're just referring to individuals who share the same opinion as you but who you disapprove of? There is no group. There's GG, and there's everyone else, and it just so happens that everyone else includes both people who are willing to admit to having an opinion, and people who refuse to admit to having an opinion for fear of being judged for it.
>it was just trolls PRETENDING to be a/GG!" card
See, that's my point though--there *is* no a/GG to pretend to be part of. There are just a bunch of people who think GG is retarded. Some of them actively oppose it, some of them passively oppose it, some of them don't give a shit. They are not an institution or a group or a community. You and people like you have invented an institution to assign people you agree with but who you disapprove of to.
>-there *is* no a/GG to pretend to be part of
a/GG is about as organised as GG is.
If you take a stance against it, congratulations, you're anti-Gamer Gate.
>You and people like you have invented an institution to assign people you agree with but who you disapprove of to.
So have 'you' on a way. A few idiots threatened and harassed and others decided to use those instances to blanket the whole concept in spite of them being isolated incidences as opposed to organised attacks.
(ps: accidentally sent a report when trying to hit reply. Mobiles suck. Sorry mods)
Thanks for the note, I thought that was weird.
So a collection of imageboard users, social media users and e-celebs with shared interests are a group because they have a label they attach to their cause but a collection of journalists, devs and social media users with shared interests are not a group because they don't use a label?
Go ahead and proclaim that you're "neutral" on any site anti-#GG people frequent and tell me again it's just "#GG vs the world".
I get the impression that you're arguing semantics in order to force people who don't identify with either side to either join you or "confess" to supporting #GG.
It also reeks of the usual "#GG is a terrorist group, everyone who isn't a terrorist opposes #GG, you are either working towards the eradication of #GG like the rest of the civilized internet or you're one of the terrorists" bullshit rhetoric that keeps appearing everytime someone says something about #GG that isn't 100% disapproval.
>You and people like you have invented an institution to assign people you agree with but who you disapprove of to.
Stop sticking your head into the sand if you want to discuss this topic. #GG itself consistently refers to its opponents as a group, this is not something cooked up by rifle-dropping cowards/sleeper terrorists like you seem to believe.
>#GG itself consistently refers to its opponents as a group
Of course they do. Inventing an enemy validates their position and makes people more willing to buy into a watered-down version of their position.
How is that hyperbole? It's exactly what happened. They have managed to convince you that their temper tantrum is an actual fight against an equal but opposite number rather than a bunch of toddlers holding their breath and stomping their feet and lashing out against anything that comes near them.
Where did you get your "opposed to #GG => better people by default" idea from? There are enough anti-#GG people who do the shit they supposedly stand against, because #GG is an "acceptable target". Even acknowledging the existence of those people, let alone suggesting that what they're doing isn't okay, causes those people you claim don't exist to target the one who dared to not march in line too.
What criteria does a set of people have to meet to qualify as a "group" to you? You're arguing semantics and I'm not sure why.
>doesn't know about gamejournopros mailing list
>Doesn't know that he's not only being suckered by the Breitbart fake outrage machine, it's actually recycled material from 2010
We let neonazis and gamergaters alike have free speech, that doesn't mean we don't shit on them for being human trash.
>neonazis and gamergaters
Remind me, how many people did #GG hospitalize or murder?
He didn't say they physically harmed anyone.
It doesn't exactly help the credibility of your argument if you compare a bunch of internet nerds to real-life murderers.
It was less of a comparison and more "Here are these assholes who we allow to talk. But we can also shit on them."
Is there any organization more embarrassing the DEA?
Tiki doesn't Canada have politics you could be talking about?
Except it's all a lie.
First of all it had nothing to do with "booking", and she didn't "snag a booth at the con under false pretenses", Allison Tieman is a comic book producer at a comic book convention.
Second of all I can't see how she "tried to derail the panel towards men's rights issues" if she was a comic book producer at a comic book convention panel on womens issues asked a single question related to womens issues.
It's literally impossible for her to be more on topic.
Canadian Politics and corruption all center around debate or what is best for the nation and occasionally robbing Peter to pay Paul, with it's systemic bias mainly against natives and Asians who usually are just fined more.
It doesn't have the pure ideological toxins I find so incredibly fascinating about the United States, Leonheart literally calls the president an idiot (for which she almost lost her job) for his opinions on marijuana not being as bad as alcohol and sets her entire career up around fighting Marijuana, all while at the same time only targeting American rivals to the Mexican drug cartels who could be considered her real bosses, considering the exorbitant bribes they gave her.
The drugs cartels then in thanks offer her and her men a party, with drugs and illegal hookers which she accepts with joy.
Nothing in Canada is as strange as the head of the DEA seeing nothing wrong with giving money, guns, drugs and even vehicles to a drug cartel while accepting hookers as a reward, all while thinking marijuana is the root of all evil.
Wow, Canadian news seems too fucking chill to be real. Do they even have anything approaching the Tea Party or the neo Nazis who run for office in Europe and still get elected?
Man I would take a lot of the outrage on Tumblr over the Baltimore riots more seriously if they weren't all from people literally named things like revolutionaryblackmarxist/proudnubianprincess/ebonywarrior/destroywhiteppl or some equally cheeseball or edgy name, or people known for citing fake articles claiming a black person was murdered by police when the name and picture came from a guy who lived and died in a completely different state, or quoting shit from known loonies and charlatans like Assata Shakur, Malik Shabazz, Elijah Muhammad, and so on. I'm no fan of the cops but if you're going to complain about them lying and making up shit you're not going to achieve progress or help your cause by doing the same fucking shit.
By the way I'm not saying it's not something worth getting angry over because it definitely is. I just don't think these are the people to go to for the "truth" when there's plenty of actual injustices they could've cited to make their point instead of making things up.
Today, SCOTUS hears arguments for and against the national legalization of same-sex marriage. The decision won’t come until June, but still, the arguments themselves (and the Justices’ questions regarding those arguments) could enlighten us on how the decision will go down.
I'm honestly thinking they'll strike down SSM bans, but the decision will be close, like 5-4 or maybe 6-3. (I don't see the vote going beyond 6 on the winning side, though.)
>guy runs from cops
>breaks his neck on curb
>still has some control over legs
>cops dont believe him that hes hurt probably because every black guy they arrested in the past few months was shouting that he can't breathe
>kid dies in hospital under care of doctors
It's an unfortunate chain of events, but is this really a case of police murdering an unarmed kid for no reason, as it's being sold in the media?
Oh wow, that asshole? People are truly hypocrites if they support him and his openly hateful ways while bashing actors for being "problematic" at the same time.
Why do you still have friends who say words like "problematic?"
Who said I'm willing to associate with people biased like that?
Were the cops wearing cameras when this happened?
Super glad we have you pure and saintly Canadians around to teach us dumb Americans how things work. Why, if it weren't for you we'd never get anything done!
That's probably because Mr. Stone just copypasted the Amanda Marcotte article. He even used the same phrases, like some strange brainwashed parrot.
>It's an unfortunate chain of events, but is this really a case of police murdering an unarmed kid for no reason, as it's being sold in the media?
SURE IS! Top to bottom front to back.
The police breaking Gray's neck due to callousness inside the police van sounds like a much more plausible scenario than either extreme case of them randomly kicking the shit out of him in the street, or him tripping and falling. I'd like to see the autopsy's notes for more specifics out of curiosity though.
The people of Baltimore have proven they're capable of protesting perfectly peacefully, and for the most part have been behaving, yet the media is obsessed with labeling all black Baltimoreans as thugs because of that one night. Most of it seems to be the actions of young punks getting ahead of themselves. It's an age issue, not a race problem. On the other hand Tumblr takes it the opposite direction with their riot apologism and support of radical black nationalism, their bizarre conspiracy theories, and inability to fact check properly (accusing white people of 90% of the damage caused in the riots using a falsely attributed pic that actually comes from a group of white thugs from an Oakland robbery half a yearago, yet claiming photos of black youths participating in the riot were doctored, in the same post chain for one).
Media being honest and unbiased... The DA decided to press charges after a hearing, that's what has been "ruled".
There hasn't been a trial yet.
>breaking Gray's neck due to callousness inside the police van
By all accounts his neck was broken before he was in the van. From the only available video, it seems his neck was broken before the police even put the cuffs on him. One major reason the trial mentioned above will probably collapse and cause a second series of riots.
>the media is obsessed with labeling all black Baltimoreans as thugs because of that one night
What are you talking about? They're refusing to even say the word "riot" right now. They're calling it the "freddie gray protests" on every channel.
>guy in a ski mask
>throwing rocks at store windows
>caught with a rock in his hand
>"berating her son for participating in the protests"
They're calling an out-and-out rioter a protester.
That's not helpful to the actual protesters, and THAT is the damage being done by media. They are refusing to say where the riots are, who the rioters are, and because of that the average person can't distinguish between rioter and protester.
I've seen this all over social media as well, some retarded social justice warrior even coined "riot-shaming" as a thing now. Because it's bad to shame someone for a fucking crime. I wonder when they'll come up with murder-shaming, theft-shaming and rape-shaming.
>23 year old
Getting real sick of media infantalizing black men.
Man, these people are just completely fucking gone. It's kinda frightening.
No Justice No Peace, Society is thing based on the promise that if we all try and look out for each other we don't need to bash each others heads in for food or to settle disputes, when a case like Freddie Gray's occurs in systemically and historically disenfranchised area it completely shatters that contract. A riot is a symptom of a broken society, unless you are a retarded sports fan, then you are just a fuck head.
This is interesting, they don't actually have to prove they attempted to murder Gray or that they did, just that he was so viciously reckless it caused his death and given Baltimore's rough ride policy it shouldn't be two hard, I know they lost at least two cases previously that resulted in suspects being paralyzed.
>No Justice No Peace
>someone was possibly treated unjustly... though we haven't really determined that yet...
>therefore im going to treat this unrelated shopkeeper unjustly because this TV now belongs to me
seriously if you can't distinguish between a criminal and someone with a legitimate grievance, but you still want to improve society, simply kill yourself and the society will be improved by the loss of your participation in it
There is no excuse for a riot. Unless you think unrelated people stealing from other unrelated people and cutting fucking fire hoses is totally excused by shitty cops.
>No Justice - No Peace
No Peace - I shoot you in the head with a shotgun if you come at me with a rock, you fucking faggot.
You both ENTIRELY missed the point of what I'm saying.
I'm saying this is a symptom of a disenfranchised people who've had their trust violated by the organization in charge of order.
A riot is inevitable given that situation, in no way am I defending rioting, I'm just saying the system fucked up so bad it broke.
Lord you people, read a moment before having a kneejerk reaction to my starting phrase.
hahaha can't stop laughing!
>buh..buh...but that's not what I meant
Shut up Mayor Rawlings, we all heard the tape.
You are willfully misinterpreting now.
but yes, the racial breakdown of the officers is important, it reveals it's more of an economic than racial problem which banks on a racial one.
>There is no excuse for a riot.
Unless of course the British levy a tax on tea.
the tea party wasn't a riot and even if it were, that was the 18th century
Violence and destruction of other people's property isn't a riot? And when it happened doesn't matter--the Boston Patriots are still considered heroes by the majority of America, therefore it is fair to consider the reaction to their actions relevant in the present day.
No it was not a riot, as it was an organized affair and carried out by a specific group, not a mob. Contrast Baltimore, when a bunch of people decided that a few corrupt cops justified their cutting of fire hoses and rounding out their home stereo system.
And yes the time period matters, because the balance of force and the organization of modern politics have eliminated the bread riot as a legitimate engine of change. Now a mob is nothing more than a gang of criminals who are more a threat to any law abiding citizens than any filthy officers.
Tea Party was an act organized by a government officials as an attack against a foreign occupying party.
The only way Baltimore riots would parallel it is if Baltimore is declaring war on America.
Ah, I see. Then your argument is not "Violence, destruction of property, financial crimes against private businesses (i.e. the East India Company) aren't in and of themselves wrong, it's just the timing and the fact that this isn't organized very well / backed by a government that makes this immoral." You're fine with hurting people or destroying things and are willing to consider those justified and even heroic actions given the right justification, it's the fact that these people are disrespecting authority without designating a different authority figure to kneel to. Plus you do not recognize the merit of their grievance.
As with basically any riot most involved are not remotely related to the actual issue and are just looking to steal shit.
Okay, so we're moving the goalposts again. It's not "riots are never justified," it's "riots might be justified sometimes, but not everyone who is participating is in it for the right reasons, or if they are, they are also benefiting from it at the same time, and either way that invalidates the entire movement even for the people who are in it for the right reasons and/or who aren't getting personal benefit from it."
No, riots remain never justified, you just brought up grievances. I pointed out that most of the rioters don't have one besides "I lack a nice stereo."
Also when the grievance is" the police are abusive" turning into a dangerous mob and justifying police action is a baffling response.
>Also when the grievance is" the police are abusive" turning into a dangerous mob and justifying police action is a baffling response.
So you think the correct course of action is to allow the police to continue brutalizing and killing people until they get tired of it? Or just to allow them to continue brutalizing and killing people until the next generation of politicians and policemen take over and just sort of hope that they get replaced with people who don't do those things? And don't say "peaceful demonstration" because these riots started as peaceful demonstrations and turned violent in response to police harassment, so that is clearly not an option.
Because peaceful demonstration against racism with police harassment hasn't worked to grand effect in American history or anything
Every time it has, it has been coupled with violent demonstration. Martin Luther King's movement would not have worked without Malcolm X's movement also being present.
And let me also point out that even if you deny that Malcolm X's movement made MLK's possible, there are many innocent black people who are dead or whose rights were abused by authority figures while we waited for MLK's changes to go through. Even to this day, racism continues to exist. So it is not as though pointing out situations like that helps, since it only highlights the fact that it hasn't worked yet. The only oppressed minorities in America who are not still oppressed are white minorities, and they only get a pass because no one can tell who's who easily any more. It's hard to oppress third generation Irish or Hungarians since they look the same as all the other white people.
Meanwhile, black people are still punished more for crimes that are committed equally as frequently as white people, brutalized by the police, and less likely to be hired. And as an added bonus, the increased rate of incarceration for black people means that it's legal to force a large number of black americans to work for less than minimum wage making things like license plates and military gear, effectively reinstating slavery.
Hispanic people are treated as though they're all illegal immigrants, and like blacks are treated with much more scrutiny and violence by the police, and again arrested more often for crimes that they're no more likely to commit than white people. Amerindians have been practically driven to the point of extinction, largely forced to assimilate into European American culture, and continue to have their land taken from them in 2015. The sovereignty of their reservations are routinely ignored and their communities are also heavily prone to poverty--and they face the same issues as Hispanic people, since it's hard for an idiot in a hurry to tell the difference between Hispanic people and Amerindians by looking at them. Middle easterners and non East-Asians are treated much the same as Hispanic people, and get the bonus of being thought of as terrorists now.
Like I guess East-Asians are doing okay-ish now, comparitively? Like there's still racism all over the place against them, but at least they're not treated like criminals by default and companies are usually willing to hire them and rent to them and stuff.
I mean I guess by "grand effect" here you mean like "I'm not allowed to say the n-word anymore without people giving me severe looks, so that's progress."
The fact that the tea party was organized meant no one profited from it, and no one took part in it for malicious self-glorifying purposes. Also it was targeted against a foreign power, and had a solid purpose behind it. This makes it not a riot, the comparison is not valid. A riot requires some kind of fight against authority, or violence towards people, not working with authority to oppose an external enemy.
It's the difference between killing in a war, and murder. I can't make it any clearer without insulting your intelligence.
>Martin Luther King's movement would not have worked without Malcolm X's movement also being present.
Martin Luther King's movement worked IN SPITE OF Malcolm X's movement was also present. In fact the current situation of racial segregation, breaking of black family, and the collapse of black culture can firmly be put on the shoulders of Malcolm X. May that fucker burn in hell.
Malcom X was a terrorist and a monster. Also are you trying to say that Dr King didn't accomplish anything? I get the feeling you aren't American because no racism didn't fucking go away but the civil rights movement was a fucking tremendous leap forward that basically rests on his shoulders both from his skills as an orator and at what we'd think of today as image control.
See, but even that is a sanitized version of history. America was not its own nation at the time. It couldn't declare war. The Revolutionary "War" was just a bunch of traitors rebelling against their proper authority figures. Their decisions to do this were not legitimized until they won. The Founding Fathers were guilty of High Treason, and knowingly so--enough so that Ben Franklin made jokes about it.
You're making the argument that people should submit to tyrannical authority in a country that was founded on the notion that you should not submit to tyrannical authority.
Yes it could, just like Baltimore can declare secession and war on the rest of America. If they did that, and attacked non-Baltimoran businesses in a series of organized "riots", it might be at least a valid explanation for their actions.
But that isn't the situation you moron.