/baw/ - General Discussion

>>394947
>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.

>>394962
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.

>>394963
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.

>>394964
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.

>>394965
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.

>>394966
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.

>>394974
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.

>>394975
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?!

>>394974
This but not the pot thing.

>>395041
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.

>>395045
Nah, I live in Germany.

>>395041
I kind of wonder how these people survive.

>>395047

The adults probably had their vaccinations already. The kids survive by sheer dumb luck of not contracting the diseases they're not vaccinated against.

>>395048
>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.

>>395049
That also leads to the lovely problem of just one infected individual entering the group of non-vaccinated and having it spread like wildfire.

>>395047
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.

>>395047
>>395048
>>395051
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.

>>395046
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.
//youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

>>395125
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.

>>395193
You see what happens? You see what happens when you do this shit? I protested, but no, this is a great idea you guys.

>>395193
Way to go, Stone.

>>395196

;A;

I BLAME THE GOP FOR THIS.

Well, I'm sure that /pol/ is going ape-shit, what with no captcha during the revelation of the CIA torture investigation.

>>395199
>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?

>>395201
>Any chance of humanity actually remembering history this time around or not?
Ahahahahahaha

So is there a new SOPA thing or is it just scuttlebutt?

>>395241
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.

>>395242
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?

>>395273
http://pastebin.com/W5BpTzme
Think you mean Stop 309.

>>395201
>I thought we knew this from the witchcraft trials.
But is America overrun with witches now, despite their efforts?
Yes.

>>395274
So is this scuttlebutt or should we be concerned? Cause I haven't seen anything about it except from gamergate stuff.

>>395289

>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.

>>395290
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.

>>395291
>I just wish feminists

Feminists are not a goddamn monolith.

>>395294
What do you expect me to say?

>>395295
>The etymology IS an actual issue

No it isn't.

The term incites hatred because people can't be arsed to do their homework.

>>395297
>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.

>>395299
>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.

>>395301
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?

>>395302

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’.

>>395302
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.

>>395299
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.

>>395303
You're strawmanning so hard it's not even funny.

>>395304
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!"

>>395306

>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.

>>395306
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".

>>395307
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.

>>395309
But to a lot of people it doesn't sound biased, anymore than LGBT activist implies that one is biased against heterosexuals.

>>395310
>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).

>>395322
>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.

>>395324
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.

>>395325
>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.

>>395326
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.

>>395322
Uh huh.

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.

>>395330
>Canada
The Vancouver thing?
100% unrelated.

>>395331
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).

>>395330
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.

>>395326
>blaming the victim THIS HARD

>>395294
>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.

>>395326
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?

>>395375
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.

>>395375
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.

>>395377
>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?

>>395376

Are they wrong though?

>Looks at Florida in 2000

>>395375
Or a voting system that isn't first-past-the-post.

So are we about to go to war over a James Franco movie?

>>395435
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?

>>395466
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.

>>395473

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).

>>395474
And he was a Muslim extremist apparently, posted a passage from the Koran about slaughtering unbelievers.

>>395483
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.

>>395527
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.

>>395527
>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

>>395557
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.

>>395546
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".

>>395570
>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.

>>395570
>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).

>>395573
Yeah I agree, it is pretty sick that a religion of 1 billion people somehow manages to appropriate the status of "minority".

>>395597
"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.

>>395597
>>395604
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.

>>395575
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.

>>395546
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.

>>395607
>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.

>>395607
I guess Theo van Gogh, Lee Rigby, the Mohammed teddy bear and that one South Park episode also come to mind.

>>395608
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.

>>395606
>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.

>>395613
>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.

>>395624
>Who the hell do the cops think they answer to?
No one.

>>395625

…I want to retort, but you’re honestly telling the truth.

>>395632
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.

>>395623
>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.

>>395632

>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.

>>395637
Well I should say "supposed to", since we live in a corporatorcracy by now anyway.

>>395638
>investigations have failed to find
Really? Why do you think that is?

>right wing trolls
You're talking to an anarchist dude.

>>395644

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.

>>395647
>the fact that he wasn't involved
>fact
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.

>>395667
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

>>395700
>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.

>>395670
Hard to satisfy, when you consider congress a partisan organization.

>>395700
>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.

>>395777
>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.

>>395787
>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?

>>395804
>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.

>>395804
>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.

>>395825
>What a terrorist thinks is provocation is not provocation by any logical means.
The lack of self awareness you have is astonishing.

>>395831
The lack of world awareness you have is astonishing.

>>395832
"World awareness" is a weird way of spelling "jingoism."

Stop your petty squabbling. This thread is for political opinions, not 12 year old insults.

>>395825
That don't look like a war to me.

>>395836
It's being belligerent.

>>395850
Look up a bit, you'll find a few trying to defending Osamas reasoning for 9/11.

>im black
>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.

>>395850
I've unfollowed several people already.
It's the blatant hypocrisy that gets to me the most.

>>395855
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.

>>395850
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."?

>>395858
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.

>>395860
Oh.

Yeah, they'll grow out of it.

>>395860
>>395863
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.

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.

Problem solved.

>>395866
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.

>>395925

What am I going to know if the terrorists know what kind of cartoons I like?

WHAT WILL I DO

>>395925
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.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/162321199/2161-docs

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/15/does-climate-change-exist-the-senate-is-about-to-let-us-know

lol, The Daily Show will get so much footage from this "debate". They can probably do two or three episodes just on this.

>>395941

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.

>>395946
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

>>395955

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.

>>395960
Fuck off, you're the worst poster here by far.

>>395966
About damn time.

Really should have happened decades ago, the california proposition just slowed it down.

>>396031

Why, because I don't fall for paranoid delusions and actually bother to read these documents and try to understand what they mean?

>>395631
>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.
no u

>>396130
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.

>>396315
What happened?

>>396316
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.

>>396316
>>396317
Some Fucker drugged over a 100 women and raped them and sold the tapes to porn sites for 3 years.

Fuck everything about that.

>>396319
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...

>>396329
some people actually believe this

>>396346
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.

>>396351
Different poster by the by.

>>396351
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/05/asia/japan-rape-porn-arrest/

>>396362
Fortunately, if they keep going like this, they will become the laughing stock (of mainstream, not just a chosen few) very soon.

>>396371
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!

//youtube.com/watch?v=uFvUBpZ0omo
//youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQ5EPnSE_4
//youtube.com/watch?v=VA01suHS1lc

>>396379
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

>>396379
What would happen if they actually did, though?

>>396383
WWIII

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.

>>396384
>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.

>>396385
Rule one of international conflict: Do not invade Russia.

Rule two: If you are Russia, don't invade Finland.

>>396389
What about Sweden?

>>396362
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.

>>396362
>>396371
>>396378
>>396463

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.

>>396506
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).

http://www.npr.org/2015/02/15/386406810/some-see-extreme-anti-theism-as-motive-in-n-c-killings

Wat.

>Unified Field Theory
Don't make me laugh with your faux intellectualism.

//youtube.com/watch?v=j-FVctaW3j0

>>396539

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.

>>396552
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.

>>396563
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.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/oklahoma-ban-ap-us-history
>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.

>>396538
M'ohammed?
I kid, I kid.

>>396574

Ah, whitewashing history. I say let them doom themselves if they really don't want to learn the truth of history - warts and all.

>>396587
They'll be mostly fine, it's everyone they affect who will suffer.

>>396574
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.

>>396571
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?
Growing food.
Gardening.
Taking care of plants.
Cultivation.
Harvesting.
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.

>>396634
>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.

>>396638
>Japan
Germany's way more advanced than Japan.

>>396654
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.

>>396655
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...

>>396656
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.

>>396658
I believe that anon is from Germany, friend. Real honest censorship is alive and well there.

>>396659
You mean what the actual definition of "real honest censorship" is, or what idiots on the internet call "real honest censorship?"

>>396658
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.

>>396662
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_Harmful_to_Young_Persons

>>396664
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_Harmful_to_Young_Persons
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.

>>396665
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.

>>396666
>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.

>>396673
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.

>>396690

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?

>>396690
>>396691
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.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site

Bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit. What the fuck.

>>396638
>Japan
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
lold hard
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....

>>396662
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.

>>396721
>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.

>>396721
>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.

>>396724
>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)

>>396726
>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.

>>396727
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."
Yes
>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.
(Wikipedia)

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.

>>396729
>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.

>>396739
Only if you're in the government or something like that. A newspaper refusing to publish someone's editorial is not censorship.

>>396740
This.

>>396747
>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?

>>396747
>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.

>>396747

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. :)

>>396754
You already did.

>>396749
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"?

>>396758
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."

>>396757
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.

AGAIN.

>>396764
And what's that about?

>>396798
>and public communication on the internet
There is no public communication on the internet. All communication on the internet is handled by private intermediaries.

>>396799
I don't think you understand what words mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sphere
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.

>>396801
>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.