Poor Zimmie survives another assassination attempt.
I really want someone to tell me this is just a troll.
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK
It must be so hard being as oppressed as white heterosexual cis men. I don't know how they handle it. These posters talking about how triggered they are on imgur are so brave to talk about how they've been affected by this sort of marginalization.
ill give you a 2/10 for making me narrow my eyes for a second
I'm assuming from the score that you think I'm trolling, but I'm not sure whether you think I was trolling because you assumed I wasn't being sarcastic or because you knew I was and just find my flippant disregard for their faux-outrage inflammatory somehow.
Does it matter why someone thinks you are trolling? Does it change the fact that you are trolling? And you haven't denied that aren't trolling either. If you stand by what you said and implied in >>398098 than I can only assume this argument will spiral out of control. OR your post >>398098 can just be right out glossed over as trolling. And before you get serious on the subject let me first preemptively rebuttal that discrimination is wrong, even against the majority. If you want equality, don't ask to be put on a pedestal. Also, the girl in the imgur link is a universality's diversity officer WHICH should be embracing diversity, not segregation or hate. Fuck. I'm sorry if this ignites another feminist/anti-feminist shitstorm in the Politics thread.
Again, I feel so bad for how badly you're being treated. How do you live with all this discrimination against you? I know it must be maddening. I guess you'll just have to comfort yourself by continuing to have the entire world revolve around you and your needs.
Did I say i was treated badly? Did I say I, was being discriminated against? I was upset about a girl posting a dumb plaque that said "no cis males allowed". If she or any one else put up a plaque that said "no girls/blacks/trans people allowed" I'd still be mad and she'd probably be summarily fired. And I'm not at you, my chum, but at the dumb people IRL. I find this so funny that you didn't dispute the "no cis males allowed" plaque or if you we're trolling or not.
Okay, so let me get this straight. You don't feel discriminated against, you don't feel like you're being marginalized, you just think that it's not acceptable for people to have safe spaces where they don't have to be constantly reminded that they're second-class citizens by being around the first-class citizens all the time. Especially when this whole conversation just proves exactly why such spaces are needed--because people in the position of power try to make every conversation about them and their needs, and try to co-opt the language of the oppressed to make people cater to them even when they themselves admit to not feeling discriminated against.
>constantly reminded that they're second-class citizens by being around the first-class citizens all the time
>the mere EXISTENCE of non-oppressed people is oppression
what the fuck
how do you expect any resolution at all if you're advocating for more barriers?
two wrongs don't make a right
"double standards are good as long as they serve the right cause" is exactly why you're not taken seriously
to be fair, it's better that she's giving people advance warning of her views
>If she or any one else put up a plaque that said "no girls/blacks/trans people allowed"
Funny, because that would be her shitting on already marginalized people.
I'm not so sure I agree with her wording on that sign, but >>398109 is right about these people needing their safe spots. If you don't want these people to have safe spots, then we need to do what we can to have society to stop shitting on them.
Did you ever get mad when your mother had to talk to your sister in private without you or your father being around? Well, it's like that. Sometimes people need to talk with other people that are like them, in comfortable settings, without others intruding.
Now I know this upsets some people, but it's especially needed when some of these groups are, as the other guy said, seen as second class citizens.
You should all probably go outside to be honest.
Yes, discussion on the internet scares me, too. I also recommend dropping everything at the sight of a disagreement.
Glad we're on the same page, friend.
We're not on the same page. I'm mocking you for trying to stifle discussion.
No progress on anything is ever going to get made if we go shush every time a topic that makes you uncomfortable comes up.
See, there's your problem, you honestly fucking think progress is going to come out of a thread on plus4chan.
Oh, goodness, I didn't notice your sarcasm, I'm terribly embarrassed.
If we can come to some sort of an understanding, yes, progress has been made.
And that's a shitty attitude for you to have. If you don't think anything is going to come of this discussion, then why the fuck are you even in here talking about it? Further more, said attitude does nothing but shit up the discourse because it feeds into the "well, might as well shitpost" mentality. Cut it out.
>and the best way to go about it is telling random passers-by to fuck off
>this is what passes for "justice"
Again, look at what's happening here. You've made this about you (while veiling it as "random passers-by"). This is why they need safe spaces where you're not around. Because if you're around, you're going to make them talk about you and your problems and your feelings, and society already revolves around those things.
>"I'm right you're wrong if you disagree you're evil evil EVIL"
No one has said this.
>Speak Your Political Mind has already devolved into bull fucking shit
Ahh, good to have you back.
there's a difference between "leave us alone" and "fuck off, evildoers"
but diplomacy is for the oppressors, the oppressed have the RIGHT to be angry and thus everyone needs to step back and expect aggression, because they're RIGHT and that makes what they do RIGHT by default, everyone who isn't oppressed is by default the enemy and thus should be antagonized
peace means the cishet white man's peace, conflict is the only acceptable course, not-conflict makes you Uncle Tom
because posts like >>398098 totally leave room for discussion, right?
>but diplomacy is for the oppressors, the oppressed have the RIGHT to be angry and thus everyone needs to step back and expect aggression, because they're RIGHT and that makes what they do RIGHT by default, everyone who isn't oppressed is by default the enemy and thus should be antagonized
You can pose this as a question of "what's right" and "what's wrong," but this is still coming down to the fact that you feel oppressed peoples are not spending enough time catering to your feelings.
You still made a strawnan. No one called you evil. Stop being silly.
no, I'm opposed to the idea that it's okay for oppressed people to antagonize others by default when that's supposedly not okay for anyone
collectivism doesn't suddenly become okay because you happen to be the minority
the best part is that the justification always comes down to the feelings of the oppressed, i.e. the feelings of every individual that's part of the majority are by default worth less since they're part of the majority and thus oppressors by association
and before you wheel out the old "you feel attacked, that means you are one of the evil ones": that's the exact logic the nationalists in my country use when talking about "criminal foreigners"
it's not a strawman if it's exactly the intent
>>398098 condemns disagreement with their assertion as evil because that's how statements like that function 100% of the time
they're used to attack the enemy (and the enemy wouldn't be the enemy without being classified as evil), they aren't intended to facilitate actual discussion (because to the people who use them, there is nothing to discuss)
>it's not a strawman if it's exactly the intent
No one here called you evil. If you're still feeling like it after the fact, it's a personal problem.
>they're used to attack the enemy (and the enemy wouldn't be the enemy without being classified as evil)
And look at this right here. You're making this out as if it's a battle or a war when it's not. This is you, all you.
People have disagreed with you here, and at most, maybe they think you're a bit of a jerk (let it be known that this is a far fucking cry from "evil").
Is English your first language? I'm not asking this to be mean, I'm asking this because you seem so fixated on using strong terms (evil, enemy, etc) when no one is even saying this about you.
>the best part is that the justification always comes down to the feelings of the oppressed, i.e. the feelings of every individual that's part of the majority are by default worth less since they're part of the majority and thus oppressors by association
It is not that they are worth less. It is that society already bends over backwards to cater to their feelings. Society revolves around them as the assumed default way of living, and everything in society is designed to make life easier for them. So when we are talking about trying to create a system of equality, their comfort is the exact opposite of priorities, not because they're not just as good as minorities but because we are already expending a considerable amount of effort to make their lives as easy as humanly possible.
We are, in fact, making life more difficult for people who aren't in their categories just to make their lives easier. That is why how your feelings are affected by jokes about white people or straight people or whatever aren't that important in this. Because the oppressed have no power to do anything worse than inconvenience you or make you roll your eyes. You are not actually suffering when people do things like this in any way, shape, or form--you are just trying to make everyone pay attention to you because society has trained you to assume that your comfort is the most important thing. To the point that it doesn't even occur to you that that's kind of a racist/sexist/what have you assumption.
This isn't to call you an evil person, as >>398128 noted. We live in a racist/sexist/what have you society, and the natural effect of that is to indoctrinate everyone--including the minorities themselves--with the assumptions of that sort of thing. I'm not accusing you of actively endorsing racism or anything. But this baseline assumption that the slight inconvenience you're going through when people say that a place is not intended for white heterosexual males is comparable to the marginalization the people who are making those spaces go through on a daily basis comes from the inherent assumption that everyone experiences the world the way you do. And that equality is something we already more-or-less have, and that therefore catering to your needs is a fight for equality. When really, in the world we actually live in, it is an unconscious fight against equality by trying to further hamstring the power of oppressed groups to fight the inequality that you unknowingly benefit from.
stop assuming people who aren't on your side are idiots
>You're making this out as if it's a battle or a war when it's not.
that's a lie
it's a battle of "social justice" vs not-"social justice" because it is impossible to have an actual debate regarding this subject since disagreeing with people on it has already been declared right or wrong by default
"non-bigots vs bigots" or "non-degenerates vs degenerates" isn't a discussion; it's "obviously right vs obviously wrong"
how is >>398098 anything but an attack against not-"social justice"?
it uses sarcasm to imply that the poster they're referring to is a hypocrite; does hypocrisy in political matters somehow not qualify is evil?
there's nothing about that statement that is meant to provoke discussion, it's a typical knockout argument, the type that always appears when anyone talks about "social justice" (in favor of or against it)
the tone is 100% "you're wrong, stop whining", no discussion to be had
>(evil, enemy, etc)
appropriate for the context
someone who wants to deny other people their rights is evil
as is someone who defends those who want to deny other people their rights
if you're striving for equal rights, the above are enemies
>maybe they think you're a bit of a jerk
that's not how anyone thinks of anyone when it comes to serious political topics ("social justice" is never not serious)
in the context of "social justice", someone who disagrees is not a jerk, they're a bigot/oppressor/etc
>stop assuming people who aren't on your side are idiots
I've been much less civil on this site and if I wanted to call you an idiot, I would have outright said it. Stop trying to play the victim.
>there's nothing about that statement that is meant to provoke discussion, it's a typical knockout argument, the type that always appears when anyone talks about "social justice" (in favor of or against it)
It's mocking people for disingenuous outrage about something they don't actually care about. If mockery is really all it takes to make you unable to carry on a discussion, maybe the real reason you can't discuss it is that you don't actually have an argument that stands up to scrutiny.
none of that is a reason to enable and defend what someone on this site called "social revenge warriors", who use "jokes" like >>398096 and >>398098 to attack people
and whenever anyone like that gains any sort of power and does more than just shitpost on an imageboard, people like you still jump out to defend them because attacking their methods means attacking the oppressed and the target probably deserved it anyway for being part of the oppressor group
a good deal of "privilege checkers" aren't even part of an oppressed group, or have acquired money (which grants them a limited degree of privilege, relatively speaking) and use their status to attack people while using the problems of the oppressed as an excuse
>You are not actually suffering when people do things like this
encouraging the mindset of "bigotry isn't bigotry if it targets the right people" gets people fired or convicted IRL, and no, two wrongs still don't make a right
>So when we are talking about trying to create a system of equality, their comfort is the exact opposite of priorities
and this somehow translates into "it's okay to treat members of the majority as evil by default" and "members of the majority don't deserve to have their problems addressed at all"? (that's the political consequence)
one would think the latter would be handled by the majority, but when it isn't and people try, they're declared evil for not focussing on the minorities instead or for daring to "derail" the efforts of "social justice"
telling people to deal with it no matter what you do or say only results in more conflict
telling people that they don't have problems or that their problems don't matter because they're the majority is bullshit, and that's all part of the "it's okay when the oppressed do it" mindset
>and this somehow translates into "it's okay to treat members of the majority as evil by default" and "members of the majority don't deserve to have their problems addressed at all"? (that's the political consequence)
No one's doing that. You are fighting a war with a pretend enemy because you want very badly to believe you're a victim here.
"bad things only happen to bad people" is a fallacy
No one said that either. I'm not even sure who you're fighting with here, but it's not someone on plus4chan. Did you lose some argument on Tumblr and now you're just saying the things you wish you had said then or something?
>these people needing their safe spots
If your social studies degree included any kind of comprehensive history education, you would know exactly where that kind of thinking leads.
Brotip: The Jews on the trains heading to Aushwitz got on them because they were promised "safe spots".
So you're suggesting that someone forming a safe place for themselves is the equivalent of nazis herding people into concentration camps. You understand why this might sound a little bit insane to people who don't suffer from the same mental illnesses you do, right?
Yeah, herding people into death camps is the same as wanting to have a spot to be comfortable when chatting.
Like, really, if you want to troll, don't start off so strong.
Wow, full Godwin already. You didn’t want to waste time, did you?
>Brotip: The Jews on the trains heading to Aushwitz got on them because they were promised "safe spots".
That has just as much credibility as the word "brotip" implies.
stop treating national socialists like cartoon villains you idiot burgerlander
Imagine my surprise waking up to find Canada an international laughing stock and the face of climate change denial.
>then we need to do what we can to have society to stop shitting on them.
Yes, like restrict people who use poor wording from acting as public representatives.
So you think that straight white men in positions of power playing "word police"/"tone police" on women and minorities is a good way to stop shitting on women and minorities?
She's not the one shitting on them, though.
That's also stupid because you're claiming that people are being shit on because of her, when in reality, people shouldn't hold minorities responsible for something she said. You're saying that by stopping her has anything to do with them being shit on. People were being shit on long before anyone started giving a shit about the rights of others.
"Playing police on women and minorities" would imply restricting general behavior, not signs delineating officially designated restricted areas.
General behavior like saying what sorts of things it is and is not okay to say about the Ruling Class?
>the Ruling Class
Alright, are we talking about class now? Cause let me tell you, white cis dudes are not any kind of "ruling class," lol.
So patriot act? The suppression of science for the advancement of oil and agriculture interests? Actual complicated problems motivated by the self serving to dangerous levels?
Or is this thread for screaming at shadows and calling each other trolls?
I think I know who I'm gonna vote for this time around. I forgot how I can respect a good filibuster.
It's a /pol/ thread, Tiki, of course it's just for yelling at clouds.
>I think I know who I'm gonna vote for this time around.
He may be right on this particular matter, but he still thinks civil rights shouldn't be guaranteed at the national level, wants to implement a flat tax that would put the majority of the tax burden on the poor, and wants to defund education and every other kind of government program.
Conspiracy theory time: The Canadian government is deliberately trying to warm the globe, expecting their own nation to gain a more temperate climate that benefits them at the expense of already warm places. Disruption of ocean currents entirely ignored, of course.
He tries and I appreciate that, but yes he's very problematic.
Oddly enough that's more feasible than the most commonly held conspiracy theory here, speed global warming to claim the arctics' oil reserves.
Fun theories but it's just because of agriculture and oil pressuring the Harper government who is a painfully transparent puppet for American and English interests.
>Minister for Health Leo Varadkar, who earlier this year came out as the Republic of Ireland's first openly gay minister, said the campaign had been "almost like a social revolution".
>Speaking from the Dublin count, he told Irish broadcaster RTE that it appeared about 75% of votes being counted there were in favour of legalising same-sex marriage.
>Some prominent "no" campaigners have already conceded defeat.
Ireland is one of the most fascinating places on the planet, divorce has only barely been legal since 1996 yet they are well on the road to same sex marriage.
I believe so, this will probably sound like dirt but I'm curious of the polarizing effects of radical Islam on the body politic of euro-centric countries, not to imply that this is any kind of result of that but it got me thinking along the lines of culturally engrained theocracy, if a percieved radical "other" is engaging in similarly held beliefs in forms of cultural discrimination could that push some views towards tolerance? what is the ratio to newly discovered tolerance versus sympathy towards another's discriminatory views? I'd love to study things like that.
Simply put, does the "Alien Squid Enemy from Watchmen" effect actually influence politics, in this example does ISIS mutilating gays sympathize lawmakers world wide to their under represented plight?
>in this example does ISIS mutilating gays sympathize lawmakers world wide to their under represented plight?
It's possible it affects the citizenry that way (though that's hard to measure, because only the loudest voices speak out on that sort of thing). But if anything lawmakers seem to be moving further and further away from tolerance. Look at the swerve the UK government is taking after their most recent election where they're happily telling people that they would like to be able to start putting you in jail even if you don't commit any crimes to fight back against "terrorism." The "Alien Squid Enemy" in this case seems to be empowering tyrants to wrest more freedoms away from the people in pursuit of "safety."
Oh yeah, don’t forget how Cameron’s looking to save free speech by destroying it.
That country is so fucked, there are about 300k registered voters, the two parties are the extreme ends of the horseshoe, and 99.9999% of people are completely unrepresented.
BTW, see "others"? That's how the majority of UK actually feels.
Then why did the elections turn out the way they did?
Same reasons republicans won in America probably. Because psychotics are more likely to feel passionate enough to vote, and reasonable people are more likely to be apathetic to stay home on election day.
>Josh Duggar confessed to his father Jim Bob Duggar on THREE separate occasions to multiple acts of sexual molestation against his sisters and a family friend, according to a new police report…[t]he document also makes clear that Josh was 15 years old when he molested his 5-year-old sister and committed at least SEVEN acts of sexual molestation.
This whole shitty situation just keeps getting worse, and what makes me profoundly sad and frustrated is that the Duggars only give a shit about their PR, not about the health and well-being of the girls Josh molested. Sad, sad, sad on every conceivable level.
Who are these people btw? Aside from the fact that they're a bunch of monsters.
The Duggar family are the stars of TLC Network's 19 Kids and Counting (the title being a name change from earlier seasons where the family had fewer kids), followers of the goddamned insane Quiverfull movement — http://gawker.com/quiverfull-of-shit-a-guide-to-the-duggars-scary-brand-1706557073 — and religious conversatives who actively rail against LGBT people and their civil rights while holding themselves up as morally superior. Josh Duggar worked for the Family Research Council — http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council — until evidence of his crimes surfaced, and his mother Michelle did an anti-trans robocall last year as part of an effort to defeat a non-discrimination ordinance in an Arkansas town not far from where the Duggars live.
In other words: they're famous, morally-bankrupt, crazy-as-fuck hypocrites. (I realize a couple of those descriptors are probably redundant, but I trust you get the point.)
I really need to proofread my posts before I hit “Submit”.
Can we stop inserting weird sexual stuff in children's shows?
I checked it out, it's real. Notice how in all the promo photos the girls hair covers the "dogs" part of bulldogs?
The author is a sicko as well.
This seems like you're giving a whole lot of fucks about something completely stupid and unconcerning.
That is some dumb bullshit, and I know dumb bullshit. SPEAKING OF WHICH:
Reminder that Sarah Palin could've been a heartbeat away from being President of the United States.
I'm too busy laughing my ass off to get mad. That shit's legit funny.
Holy shit, this is the funniest fucking thing I have seen all day. It's like a lack of a joke that isn't even an anti-joke.
>Can we stop inserting weird sexual stuff in children's shows?
You expect me to watch cartoon shit with my daughter if it hasn't got subtle adult content? Niqqa I ain't watching ponies if there aren't sex jokes in it.
But that show sounds stupid. Whatever.
>completely stupid and unconcerning
Considering mums in America are concerned about "jenkem" and other fake shit, something tells me they might care about a porn producer making a kids show.
You're confusing "mums in America" with "nerds." No one pays attention to who makes the children's programming but nerds. Barely anyone even pays attention to who makes ADULT programming but nerds.
There's also this one which I saw on /v/ the other day. This is legitimately the funniest shit I've seen on 4chan in forever. I don't care if anyone is taking it seriously or not.
Okay, I cracked a smile at some of that.
Dude moms got mad that Barney the dinosaur guy was a black convict.
Where else he gonna get the job? But THINK OF THE CHILLENS moms care.
They don't have nearly the power they used to. Sure there was a tiny amount of controversy when Korra and Steven Universe did their things but it was mostly hot air. The fact that it existed at all was more notable than any amount of influence it actually had on the thing.
There was controversy about Steven Universe?
...oooooooooh, right. Stevonnie. People were pissed about that?
They were probably more upset about the fact that Ruby and Sapphire are explicitly romantically involved despite both being coded as female. Openly homosexual (for want of a better word) characters is still not something that plays in kids' shows easily--remember how Korra had to dance around the issue?
Ruby/Sapphire. Again, the fact that almost nobody gave a shit is a sign that the corporate bigwigs really need to get with the times and that it's costlier to sacrifice the ever-increasing LGBT and ally demographics to appease angry soccermoms than the other way around.
Only because Nick forced that little dance.
Yes, but that's exactly what this conversation is about. Ignoring the soccer moms versus appeasing them. Nick decided to appease them, Cartoon Network decided to ignore them, and ignoring them seemed to have no serious repercussions.
>Cartoon Network decided to ignore them, and ignoring them seemed to have no serious repercussions.
Bad example, Cartoon Network was on the verge of shutdown over that Mooninite thing because Samples stepped down.
But none of this is a really good analogy. I don't know what LGBT rights and silly mom freakouts has to do with a porn producer making a kids show and liberally sprinkling his past experience in. Trying to equate an LGBT programming problem with a porn programming problem is awkward and potentially sexist.
This is a WHOLLY separate issue.
Really the only connection is angry moms, but in my opinion even non-moms and male parents should be caring that their kid is watching some weird fetish based fanfic by a guy clearly out to troll people on twitter.
>Bad example, Cartoon Network was on the verge of shutdown over that Mooninite thing because Samples stepped down.
We're talking about things happening in 2015, not things that happened ten years ago.
Nick didn't nix Korrasami because of soccer moms. Nick did it to keep the network on the air in specific countries where airing a show with a same-sex couple could've gotten both Korra in specific and Nick in general tossed off the airwaves.
A shame too because it never really gave the show an opportunity to really develop that relationship outside a few subtle things.
Or Asami as a character in general. Even though they were given three whole seasons to make her into an interesting character with proper development, and no rules keeping them from doing so, yet they still gave her the generic girlfriend character treatment. 90% of the interesting stuff about her all came from Book 1 and it makes me mad that the writers dropped the ball so hard on her.
Very true. Most we know of her is that she works hard, fails often due to circumstances beyond her control, and has issues with her family.
Heck, her personality was never really as well defined as the rest of the cast. Even that unimportant thief kid got more development in that sense.
I legit would've been happier with Korra/Opal as a pairing than Asami, even though Opal had a fraction of Asami's screentime. Asami was just THAT lame.
The Charleston shooting. Good lord. A hate crime, a terrorist attack, and an assassination rolled into a single horrific act.
has it been blamed on videogames yet or are americans slightly less likely to jump to that excuse?
At least they called it a hate crime right off the bat. Haven’t heard of any news outlet questioning the shooter’s mental state or ask how well he was raised or the usual shit that only gets asked when it comes to white terrorists.
>It's not a hate crime
of course it can't have been a hate crime if you believe hate crimes don't exist
I've never seen him before (because not American), but I like that guy. He is sane.
Transcript of the whole thing, just because it’s as good a read as it is a listen: https://www.facebook.com/johndeguzman/posts/10153404778989188
Are you implying that every gang shooting is a hate crime because the victim is black?
>This video contains content from Viacom, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.
Oh boy typical John incoming...
>takes photoshopped rhodesia flag seriously, and somehow implies rhodesia was racist (wtf?)
>implies black people didn't fight for confederates, or that black people weren't slave owners, claiming the conflict was black and white
>ignores how many europeans worldwide gave their lives to end slavery FOR ALL RACES FOREVER, having no reason other than believing it to be wrong, and are never thanked for it but instead insulted and demonized
Ok John slow down.
>Are you implying that every gang shooting is a hate crime because the victim is black?
That's not what he's implying at all. That's a long jump not even Mario could make.
I know it's going to be difficult for some of you, but do not engage with this retard. He is either stupid or trolling. Either way, not one to waste time on.
>speaking for another person
Why would you even answer that? How do you know what he was thinking when he wrote the comment?
I'm a little confused when I see people say to call it terrorism instead of a hate crime, as if the two are mutually exclusive. I agree that it's an act of terrorism but I don't think it's wrong to use the hate crime either or that acknowledging it as such diminishes the former. I mean, for a counterexample look at the Oklahoma bombing, which is definitely terrorism but not hate crime, and the antisemitic shooting in Kansas which is also a case of both.
Terrorism and hate describe two different motivations for a crime.
Terrorism is a very specific thing. It is the killing of civilians in a democratic country, in an attempt to scare the citizens into voting a certain way OR in order to force the government to respond a certain way. Terrorists usually have a list of demands, and they have to be part of an organization, otherwise the fear of future attacks can't really grow.
As for hate crime, it is a specific type of homicide, namely first degree murder where the emotion (hate) stems from prejudice. I don't think these killings were done out of disgust, mercy, love, anger, jealousy, greed, accident, or self defense, and I certainly don't think this guy was an emotionless psychopath. So that leaves us to conclude it was 100% hate crime.
But I see nothing that suggests terrorism.
This kid didn't have any demands for the government and he wasn't a part of an organization threatening further attacks.
>inb4 ISIS claims responsibility for attack
Is weaponising fear, not as specific as what you said. If, for example, a group of people kill a random citizen every day, they will make civilians scared, giving the group power through fear of death. That is terrorism.
Voting, governments and democracy have nothing to do with it. If I go to some rural, anarchic town with a bunch of people and torture whoever disagrees with us, we are using terrorism (through fear of pain) to give us power.
I think your hate crime definition is fine though.
>Are you implying that every gang shooting is a hate crime because the victim is black?
let me guess, the things the shooter was reported to have said are actually lies spread by the zionists to instigate racial conflict?
only /pol/ is dumb enough to claim shit like "racism doesn't actually exist, it was invented by inferior races to defame whites" and not see the cognitive dissonance at work
"colonialism was a good thing for the lesser races because they got the master race's table scraps" is another good one
and it would never have happened without the help of the government
got any racial breakdown there?
I'm kinda surprised you didn't go one step further and posted that image that explained "white" slave-ownership as yet another jewish lie
well i see this place hasn't improved at all
Yeah, the way I always saw it was hate crimes were a specific kind of terrorism, not a "lesser" act as these people seem to be viewing it but merely a class of terrorism.
>expecting something good
You KNOW that is a bad idea.
/durp/ is dead
Only if you're using that intimidation and coercion for political aims.
Hate crime is very different from terrorism. One is done out of prejudice, second is done for a political goal. The only way terrorism is "greater" is that it's often organized or international.
Something can be both hate crime and terrorism (such as everything that KKK does) but hate crime is NOT a type of terrorism.
>Only if you're using that intimidation and coercion for political aims.
Which in this case, he was, because he felt blacks were "taking over the country" and that he had to "stop them." Then let one person escape so she could tell everyone what had happened. Meaning he clearly did it to send a message. Plus, he assassinated a senator.
This was terrorism.
One thing about the terrorism angle is that, it's a lot harder to prove in court than a hate crime charge. While it's easy enough for us civilians to come to the conclusion that the guy was a domestic terrorist, it's probably a lot easier for the court to nail him for just the hate crime part. If that's how they go, it doesn't necessarily mean there's a conspiracy or that it's proof of white privilege. It may be so, but its absence would just as likely be the result of legal pragmatism. Similar to how the FBI ended up jailing Capone on income tax evasion instead, which doesn't invalidate all the other horrible things he did and wasn't charged for. Though some people are probably going to complain anyway.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33205339 has a write up on the stuff, and one of their related articles mentioned a disturbing 2006 FBI report about how thoroughly law enforcement and the police force has been infiltrated with white supremacist agents.
I don't think there's going to be a hate crime charge unless the feds step in. Last I heard, South Carolina doesn't have a hate crimes statute.
Even so? Nine murders, absolute clear evidence that he's the killer, and lots of evidence that shows he both planned the murders out and has no actual mental defect means he's probably gonna spend the rest of his life in prison.
I don't even care about the whole Anita thing. The fact that he's putting "people saying mean things on the internet" at the same level as infrastructure, tobacco, sugar, standardized testing and other serious issues that affect literally everyone in the country just disgusts me. I used to respect John Oliver immensely, but this reeks of tumblr feminism.
So you're saying that you're turning against someone who you have no other issues with because he appears to have betrayed your tribe?
No, I'm turning against him because he's retarded enough to think this is a serious issue that affects literally the entire nation like almost every other topic he's talked about.
>It's not a serious issue if it doesn't affect me
That's you right now.
I've noticed on the internet that it's a popular arguing technique to say that "there's something more important to deal with right now". Well, it's not so much of an arguing technique as much as it is a way to dismiss literally anything people are concerned with.
Because let's be honest: Damn near anything can be deemed less important than some of the big issues that face humanity today, like cancer or climate change. But by saying this, and using it as an argument against issues you've deemed less important, you enter this false dichotomy where people can't be concerned with more than one thing.
No, it's factually not a serious issue, especially compared to everything else he's talked about.
"Torture is bad, it doesn't work and makes us look like monsters"
"The death penalty should be abolished"
"The tobacco and sugar industries are seriously affecting our health"
"Waahh he said a mean thing and it hurt my feelings! :("
One of these things is not like the others.
Yes, because the last one is an accurate description of Internet harassment and not at all an attempt to trivialize the issue by making it seem like the people victimized by such harassment just need to “toughen up” or “man up” or “grow a pair of balls” or follow some other equally worthless platitude meant to make the person hearing it feel like a coward, amirite‽
Look, wangsultan, you may not consider it an important issue because it’s not something you feel particularly “connected” to or whatever, but for a lot of people—especially women—Internet harassment is a serious issue. If you don’t want to take it seriously, more power to you, but you’d do well to stop belittling and insulting the people who do think it’s a serious issue by making them sound like they’re “hysterical” over “hurt feelings”.
Does it endanger lives? No. Does it cost money? No. Can it be stopped? No. So why should anyone care?
You’re right. We should stop caring about Internet harassment and never speak of it again. We should shout down the voices of women and men—but especially women—who proclaim themselves victims of harassment. We should tell them all to “man the fuck up” and “grow a pair” and spend hours upon hours managing blocklists and blacklists across various social media accounts and websites because there’s no other way to deal with harassment and that’s going to be their life from now on.
After all, it doesn’t endanger lives or cost money, and it can’t be stopped, so why bother giving a shit about the people who suffer from it?
Precisely my point. Sorry, but you can't magically make someone stop hating you enough to harass you. Maybe you liberals should use logic and reasoning for once instead of letting your emotions dictate your judgment.
Your lack of empathy for others disturbs me on a level that…well, you can’t possibly fathom because of that lack of empathy.
I have empathy. Really, I feel sorry for anyone who gets harassed so hard they have to basically close their email accounts. But we can't make that shit illegal without it causing even MORE problems, and we can't just stand up on soapboxes and make overdramatic speeches over and over again, because not only does that solve nothing, but it's only going to make you get harassed even more. What the hell are you or John Oliver going to accomplish by pointing at a mean internet message and saying that it's mean?
>I have empathy. Really, I feel sorry for anyone who gets harassed so hard they have to basically close their email accounts. But we can't make that shit illegal without it causing even MORE problems, and we can't just stand up on soapboxes and make overdramatic speeches over and over again, because not only does that solve nothing, but it's only going to make you get harassed even more. What the hell are you or John Oliver going to accomplish by pointing at a mean internet message and saying that it's mean?
For starters, making it more socially unacceptable would have a much bigger effect than changing the laws would. But in the second place, the fact that you're not creative enough to think of legislation that could handle it doesn't mean it's impossible to handle through legislation.
>I feel sorry for anyone who gets harassed so hard they have to basically close their email accounts
You just don’t care enough about them to speak out against harassment and help make it seem socially unacceptable. You’re the one who just agreed with my sarcastic assertion that nobody should speak out against or do anything about the plague of Internet harassment, after all.
I said that whining about Internet harassment and trying to change the world is not going to work. And it won't. This is something you absolutely cannot do anything about for at least another 50 years.
Making it seem socially unacceptable means fuck-all when most people do their online harassment anonymously.
>This is something you absolutely cannot do anything about for at least another 50 years
The lesson is: never try.
Maybe I'll go out and complain about the sun being too bright. I mean, I know it's literally 100% impossible to do anything about it, but I might as well try.
Yes, because the brightness of the sun is the same thing as Internet harassment. That's a 100% fair and practical equivalence, yup.
Bored now. Go pound sand.
>Making it seem socially unacceptable means fuck-all when most people do their online harassment anonymously.
And they get validation on it from their peers on 4chan, and apologists like you pull a "boys will be boys" to excuse their behavior. They absolutely see it as socially acceptable and even something that will get them accolades from the people they associate with. And continuing to talk about it and to make people who are okay with that sort of behavior feel like pariahs will reduce the number of people who consider it a shortcut to internet fame.
It's not going to fix everything, but it's doing a hell of a lot more than your apologism is.
I don't think you understand how the internet works. Much less how 4chan works. If you go on 8chan, you'll find a shitload of communities into socially unacceptable crap. There is always going to be a niche for people who consider such actions "the right thing to do", whether it's socially acceptable or not. They will get their internet fame, from one source or another.
always nice to see nerds of all people defend bullying
"it's just words" they say, denying that verbal harassment is not considered acceptable in meatspace (try behaving the way you do on the net irl; it won't take the law to give you hints that you should stop)
"emotions are meaningless" they say, as if they've never been insulted for little to no reason and felt bad because of it (they then grew up subconsciously accepting it as normal, that's why they do it now in an environment where they won't get beaten up for acting like that)
the internet isn't and shouldn't be a consequence-free space where you can be anti-social trash attacking others for dumb reasons while insisting that any counterattacks are unjustified
sites like 4chan are the exception, not the rule
stop complaining that you can't behave like a drunk monkey everywhere you fucking retards
>no one should care about bullying
you probably use the term "moralfag" unironically
are you the "spamming is a form of expression and banning people for it is censorship" guy?
> I feel sorry for anyone who gets harassed so hard they have to basically close their email accounts
until they speak up about it, then they become censorious feminazi tumblrites
seen before, seen again
You can stop pretending to be anon, Bea.
>if you disagree with me you're SJW
/pol/ never changes
>if it's acceptable on imageboards it should be acceptable everywhere
>if you don't accept shitposting as a force of nature that cannot be counteracted, you want CENSORSHIP
>if you speak out against shitposters, you're a WHITE KNIGHT
>if you remove shitposters from your community, you HATE LOGIC AND FREEDOM
this is the exact train of thought of the subhumans-by-choice who want to turn the entire internet into 4chan
excapt nowadays it's been hijacked by the non-ironic shitposting crowd, the sort who genuinely believe that 4chan is and has always been a bastion of "race realism"
>If you go on 8chan, you'll find a shitload of communities into socially unacceptable crap
and then shitheads like you cry injustice when those people are ostracized from other places
and then you cry tumblr when your bullshit subhuman hypocrisy is exposed
and then you claim they're destroying western civilization because attacking people for idiotic reasons is what western civilization is all about according to degenerates like you
this is the sheer anti-logic insanity that lead to utter morons declaring national socialists as paragons of free speech and I want you hypocritical "it's not censorship when we do it" scum to drop dead
you killed 4chan and you're trying to kill the rest of the net out of spite
stop defending /pol/ you idiot socialists-in-denial
>if you disagree with me you're just an asshole
Tumblr never changes.
Harassment has an actual definition.
>it is characteristically repetitive
A court would not even consider a comment made once, it doesn't matter how bad it is.
I realize if a thousand people each send someone one comment, it seems like harassment from the targets point of view, but its fucking not. It's jut a thousand people deciding individually that you pissed them off once that day.
Another factor to consider is that online personalities are technically celebrities. Celebrities will laugh in your face if you suggest some offhand threat is harassment, because some of the more controversial ones have been ignoring so much hate mail that they can comfortably fuel a fire in a log cabin for the winter with it.
Funny because the demographic that gets the most online "harassment" (people talking shit) is white men.
But they don't whine about it and thus don't receive national coverage and speak in fucking congress. Although that could just be because most men haven't fucked a congressman's son chelsseeeaaaa.
>im thirty six, ive done time for killing women before who just did <insert thing you just did>
If someone is saying this to you, you're being talked to by a twelve year old kid with a poor imagination.
>nerds of all people defend bullying
Hey anyone remember when SJWs had a campaign on twitter promoting bullying of "nerds"?
That's because in meatspace someone can follow up their harassment with a punch. But go ahead, call 911 and say that someone on the street shouted insults at you as you passed by, see how fast the response time is.
Hell even sending a letter shows some kind of effort, you have to cut out parts from magazines for hours, glue them together, buy stamps, and walk to the post office to mail it. If your hatred level is the same for that long, you might actually do something.
Not so with something as effortless as trolling online (which you're familiar with you shitty trollbear) which requires hatred to last about 20 seconds.
Online insults are the equivalent of some guy saying fuck at someone who cut them off on the freeway, he's shouting in his car where no one can hear him unless they bother to read his lips, and hes going to forget the incident by the next exit... except internet is without the incredibly dangerous situation of being at the wheel of several tons of pure weapon.
Mostly it doesn't matter because comments like that can be ignored. Similar to spam or intrusive ads, we don't go to court to complain about a Nigerian prince harassing us.
your kind of faggotry lead to kids flooding 4chan for "teh epic raidz", cutting its half-life by several years
then it leads to other boards degenerating into neo-/b/ shit
then it lead to /pol/ taking over because non-retards leaving made it easy for genuine hatred and ideology to replace ironic shitposting and lulz
of course you'd call me the political enemy, it's what all neo-4channers do
you do not understand 4chan, you never have and you never will because you killed it
Reminder that this is a totally different, sane anon.
>other people do it, therefore it's fine
>everyone should be an ashole to eachother on the net, this is something to strive for and defend
>the entire internet should be like 4chan
>disagreement means you want censorship
your retarded attitude lead to bullshit like "if you don't laugh whenever I say nigger you're a communist"
it turned "if you don't like ironic shitposting, leave" into "if you're not a genuine asshole, you're an enemy agent"
pretend-idiocy invites genuine idiots, that's why encouraging it leads to nothing good
>bullying is acceptable if people don't talk about it
has been idiotic before the internet existed and it hasn't become any more logical since
>online personalities are technically celebrities
except you don't have to be e-famous to get targeted by mass shitposting
saying the "wrong" thing once is enough
>the wrong people are talking about it, therefore talking about it makes you one of them
newfag apologism and being /pol/'s shield are not displays of sanity
also, nobodies using shitposting to become e-celebs is the fault of THE SHITPOSTERS, you braindead mongoloids
people turning your weapons against you is YOUR FAULT for using them in the first place, dumbass /pol/niggers
the vidya devil wouldn't have been anyone if not for retards giving her free press
>the vidya devil wouldn't have been anyone if not for retards giving her free press
>the vidya devil
Again, nothing is going to solve 100% of the problem. For example, vaccinations only have a 75% efficacy rate or something. We still do vaccinations. And, wonder of wonders, even though 25% of the population is still susceptible, they end up not catching the diseases we vaccinate against because the 75% of people they do work on fail to spread that illness to others. So slowly, over time, the disease gets less and less likely to get ANYONE, even though it's still alive and does still affect people from time to time. Its power to do damage is greatly lessened by a little precaution.
Until some idiots come along with paranoia based on misinformation and get people to stop doing the things that prevent those diseases are spreading, and suddenly there's a whooping cough epidemic because we lose our herd immunity.
So I guess what I'm saying is that you're the internet equivalent of an anti-vaxxer.
nah bro, at least AAA companies are not trying to turn gaming into a cultural marxist propaganda platform (that's what /pol/ and its subsidiaries believe)
shit i thought this was the regular SYM thred. ignore me
>"if you don't like ironic shitposting, leave"
If it was only that, there would be no problem. But they're trying to legislate it out of existence, the stupid John Oliver skit is all about making insults illegal, Chelseas visit to congress is the same. This is actual censorship, not merely ignoring this stuff or asking people to leave.
Your unwillingness to defend the speech of someone you disagree with is disturbing as hell to me, but I'd never go to congress and ask for legislation to ban your shitty opinion from being voiced.
Involves violence or a credible threat of violence. Social shunning, insults and non-credible threats are not bullying, regardless of where they happen.
And before you ask a retarded question about common sense like "what is a credible threat", I'd venture to say "I'll put an egg in your vagina and punch it" might be classed as non-credible.
>But they're trying to legislate it out of existence
which is stupid because you can't reasonably define it well enough to prevent the inevitable (government abusing its power) from happening, but some anon took that one step further and extended the definition of censorship to include any attempt at community-level self-policing ('it's like a force of nature and trying to act against it is stupid and/or unjust')
I should've posted that much earlier but I've tried diplomacy in the past, multiple times, on multiple sites, and it was never ever worth it, so why not open with attacks, the result is the mostly the same
>Your unwillingness to defend the speech of someone you disagree with
nigger you're defending people who want the very site they post on destroyed by their ideal government
I oppose censorship on principle because no human-made power structure could enforce "just" censorship
I do not oppose censorship so that national socialists can turn it against me and legislate _my_ opinions out of existence (that's what national socialists do, burgerlanders); defending them from censorship is an unfortunate but unavoidable by-product and I see no obligation nor merit to coddling /pol/tards and other people who believe in thought-crimes
there's a difference between calling idiots out on equating shitposting to murder (even if it's large-volume shitposting) and appealing to the retarded /pol/-or-tumblr false dichotomy
there's also a difference between one throwaway comment and a hundred of them (something which neither side has even thought about from what I've seen); spam is not a valid form of expression because it's inherently destructive (the goal is to silence/remove the target) and it doesn't magically start being one because you believe the target "asked for it"/"deserved it"/"just needs thicker skin"
also nice job taking the phrase out of context; that attitude is how 4chan used to think, it never was the outsiders' approach
>Involves violence or a credible threat of violence. Social shunning, insults and non-credible threats are not bullying, regardless of where they happen.
funny because that's not how I've seen it interpreted by the self-appointed defenders of freedom and truth
what happens in practice is the good old "it's ironic when we do it and an actual threat when they do it" fallacy because most violent sjw threats aren't actually any more credible than the average imageboard shitpost (their threats of social shunning are, but you just claimed those aren't bullying)
>the stupid John Oliver skit is all about making insults illegal
I don't think you actually watched the John Oliver skit.
I really think you need to lay off the cocaine.
and I really think present-day 4chan needs to lay off the authoritarianism fetishization and bullshit collectivism
The thing that bothers me about Libertarianism in America is that it ignores the actual ideals of libertarian philosophy in favor of promoting oligarchy and defending bullying and harrassing behavior. I feel like we should start a movement to have the American version of Libertarianism renamed to "Antisocial Paranoia and Egotism."
You may be confusing libertarianism with something else.
The American version of Libertarianism supports the removal of regulations on businesses and things like flat taxes that put the tax burden on the poor, elimination of the social safety net, and the eradication of things like public education. And reduction of government power in a capitalist society simply results in the most powerful businesses taking over the roles the government steps out of.
So yes. Libertarianism supports oligarchy. Whether or not its adherents realize they're doing so.
oh, please be one of those libertarians who think the world runs on videogame logic, I haven't had a good laugh in a while
Banning the confederate flag from government offices will do nothing. At best it's just an empty act to pacify those hurt by recent events and at worst it's only going to anger those who already value it. Once again we ignore key issues to pursue the easiest feel good solution.
That being said, I don't know why government offices would bother to raise it in the first place.
It signifies the loss of the government support, whether it was explicit or implicit, for the Confederacy and "Southern heritage". Individuals can still fly it from their homes and trucks, but the flag no longer gets government support.
>That being said, I don't know why government offices would bother to raise it in the first place.
The Confederate flag resurfaced in the mid-20th century as an act of defiance for government actions towards civil rights. Despite that period being long over, either no one thought to take it down, or they kept it up as a continued statement against civil rights.
That's just it.
I's just a symbol.
The issues surrounding this whole situation go much deeper. Having the flag around doesn't cause racism and violence. Those people are going to be just as evil without it. Feel free to ban it from government, but pretending it's actually going to help anything is pure delusion in my eyes.
>it's just a symbol
Maybe we should raise Nazi Germany's flag and see how well that goes over. And yes, this is one of the few times bringing Nazis into the equation is totally relevant.
The confederate flag my not be the cause, but it is a symptom. And we have no reason to keep it around. Southerners especially, because it's a reminder that your predecessors went against the country, lost, and weren't even allowed to leave. Why the fuck would you want to keep something around that not only exists as a reminder of a sordid past, BUT ALSO as a reminder that you got the ever-loving shit kicked out of you during a time of war?
It's "just a symbol", yes, but it's still a powerful and influential symbol—just like the streets and schools and whatnot named for soldiers who served under the Confederacy. Hell, the church that got shot up in SC is on a street named after such a soldier.
And while it won't have effects like you're describing, removing the flag from state property will help dispel the notion that the SC state government implicitly supports everything the flag stands for (a "heritage" of secession, betrayal, and racism all in the name of the "state's right" to keep slavery legal). That’s a powerful statement in and of itself.
I'm not arguing the potency of the flag as a standing symbol. I'm arguing that it's one of the least important thing to be focusing on.
It's not just a band aid on a bullet wound. It's a band aid in the wrong spot.
True, removing it from government locations won't fix racism, but it's a very low-hanging fruit that, at the very least, will no longer be a distraction from issues of racism.
Symbols symbolize what people want them to symbolize. The popular narrative is that the Confederate flag is a symbol of America's history of racial oppression, but most of the people running with that narrative aren't the people who decided to fly the flag in the first place. Only the people of South Carolina can tell you why they choose to fly the flag, and I very much doubt they'd appreciate the rest of the nation ascribing ulterior motives to their decision.
I live in Texas where we quite famously fly six different flags for the six nations that have had sovereignty over Texas in the past (Spain, France, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, the Confederate States, and the United States). There's nothing racial about flying the Confederate flag alongside the other five; it's a part of our history and we aren't going to just pretend it didn't happen because there are some parts of it we don't like. We certainly aren't going to stop flying it out of fear that we might offend people who don't even live here. I'm not going to tell SC the appropriate way to honor their cultural heritage. The rest of the nation needs to lay off and let them figure that out for themselves.
There is at least that much.
But the problem with low hanging fruit is that it tends to be particularly abundant.
The people who do this sort of evil will do it with or without the flag. And I just hate how we seem to have to slowly chip away at these distant issues instead of putting our efforts where it will not only help squelch racism, but also cascade into other benefits to the nation. And I believe the answer is in unifying American culture through education reform and reducing the opportunities for segregation. Fairly broad issues yes, but I'd like to think they get closer to the roots than trying to subdue a symbol.
>It's not just a band aid on a bullet wound. It's a band aid in the wrong spot.
It's not. No one (And I do not mean this as in literally everyone) is arguing that removing it is going to fix racism. It's just one of the things that have to go.
>The popular narrative is that the Confederate flag is a symbol of America's history of racial oppression, but most of the people running with that narrative aren't the people who decided to fly the flag in the first place.
Ahahaha. Go look up the history of it.
>There's nothing racial about flying the Confederate flag alongside the other five; it's a part of our history and we aren't going to just pretend it didn't happen because there are some parts of it we don't like.
No one is ignoring history by telling people to get rid of the flag. Do you think that because Nazi Germany flags aren't on flagpoles that people somehow don't remember WWII?
>The issues surrounding this whole situation go much deeper. Having the flag around doesn't cause racism and violence. Those people are going to be just as evil without it. Feel free to ban it from government, but pretending it's actually going to help anything is pure delusion in my eyes.
If so, I don't think you understand how culture works. No, the flag doesn't create this hatred and racism, but as you said, it's a symbol--and that symbol reinforces the idea to people already predisposed toward hate that they have community support in their hatred and that makes them feel more justified. The effect it has is intangible, but intangible doesn't mean unreal. Symbols are often more powerful than reality.
And that effect is magnified not only when it’s the government raising that symbol, but when members of said government use the same exact dogwhistles ("heritage, not hate" or similar bullshit arguments) to defend the symbol. It implies that the government shares the sentiments of those who defend the symbol as something "positive" or worth celebrating.
I'm just annoyed that yet again, people seem to be putting the brunt of the focus on the pacifying tangential shit instead of doing something reasonable to prevent another disaster in the future.
I mean the people who continue to fly it today. The only people who should decide what flying the flag means and whether or not they should keep flying it are the people currently living in South Carolina.
And I know Civil War history is a hot-button issue, but can we cool with the "What if they were Nazis?" hypotheticals? It's a Godwin-esque reduction of a much more complicated sociological issue.
I'm just annoyed that yet again, people seem to be putting the brunt of the focus on the pacifying tangential shit instead of doing something reasonable to prevent another disaster in the future
>The only people who should decide what flying the flag means and whether or not they should keep flying it are the people currently living in South Carolina.
The flag means what its creators said it means—it stands for the Confederacy, for slavery, and for white supremacy. There really isn't a whole "up for interpretation" thing here when the flag's makers explicitly spelled out why they made the flag. Unless you wanna do a whole "Death of the Author" thing here and now.
>can we cool with the "What if they were Nazis?" hypotheticals?
You misunderstood his point. Germany doesn't fly Nazi flags on its government buildings, but no one (except maybe a handful of complete lunatics) is accusing Germany of "cultural genocide" or "whitewashing history". South Carolina removing a flag with a storied history of representing the Confederacy and everything for which it stood also doesn't "whitewash history".
>people seem to be putting the brunt of the focus on the pacifying tangential shit instead of doing something reasonable to prevent another disaster in the future
Oh, you mean like tackling the gun problem in the United States? Yeah good luck with that. If that big school shooting a few years back couldn't get major gun control reform passed, this sure as fuck ain't gonna do it—especially not with the NRA around.
>I'm just annoyed that yet again, people seem to be putting the brunt of the focus on the pacifying tangential shit instead of doing something reasonable to prevent another disaster in the future
If you think this is true, you are way out of touch.
Gun control and mental health discussions crop up EVERY SINGLE TIME a shooting happens in the states. Racism against blacks has been a CONSTANT discussion for YEARS. These things didn't just suddenly crop up in the wake of the Charleston shootings.
I'm pretty sure that's the point: we’re always discussing these things, but we never seem to do anything about them. (By “we”, I mean the US in general.)
If that is what he meant, I'm sorry.
On the other hand, the question here is, what do you do? You try to talk and educate people to get them to see your views. Then a lot of people don't listen. Then people riot or something and some will demonize the rioting (which it is bad) but on the other hand not listen to the people when they talk.
Really, I don't know what to do in my position, besides talking and voting when it comes up. There's not much I can do personally. Talking is the only thing many of us can do.
MOTHER OF FUCKING GOODNESS YES.
5-4 DECISION FOR OBERGEFELL. ALL STATES ARE REQUIRED TO GRANT MARRIAGE LICENSES TO SAME-SEX COUPLES AND RECOGNIZE OUT-OF-STATE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LICENSES. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS NOW LEGAL ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES.
FUCK THE FUCK YES.
>reduction of government power in a capitalist society simply results in the most powerful businesses taking over the roles the government steps out of
The very opposite is true, currently the large businesses are using the power of government to bully smaller businesses and competitors out of existence.
>removal of regulations
Removal of SOME regulations, such as the regulations that prevent new businesses from starting up.
Do you even know how monopolies work? The government prevents competitors from arising, and you get megacorporations like we have now.
Off the top of my head, a company has to pay 500 million to 5 billion in fees to FDA just to approve a drug, meaning no company below big pharma can actually pass anything, so we don't get drugs for smaller markets and rarer diseases.
Firstly you're confusing a flat tax with a proportional tax. All the flat tax does is eliminate the concept of BRACKETS which are ridiculous.
Secondly, progressive income taxes are a really retarded way to tax the rich. They have a dozen different ways to avoid it (deductions, credits, exemptions), and most of the rich don't even have an income to be taxed because they either inherited their money or are growing their wealth in non-taxable means. I know that sounds counter intuitive so I'm going to say it again: The rich have a lower taxable income than you..
Remember those stories of CEOs getting paid 1 dollar a year? Sounds heartwarming until you realize they did it to avoid the income tax.
If you want to tax rich people, use sales taxes, trade taxes, taxes on non-liquid property, taxes on gifts and donations, and finally a inheritance tax which cuts off everything above the national yearly average. You can have a flat income tax of 5% and still have a tax revenue equivalent of 20% of GDP, because income tax is not the only tax.
>elimination of the social safety net
Depends on what you mean by that. Every discussion on the removal of the current system includes the establishment of superior systems to replace it.
>eradication of things like public education
Eradication of federalized public education, which hasn't been working so well. Public education only functions when its decentralized and local.
I'm fine with banning the confederate flag, as long as we also ban communist and anarchist flags on every college campus that gets government subsidies.
Oh, also, because racist speech is banned in public schools and on campuses that get government grants, lets also fire every professor that tries to promote socialism in their classes.
The flag isn't banned, though...
That's what's being discussed.
I want the same treatment for all oppressive genocidal regimes.
I don't know what point you're trying to make here because swastikas and hammer and sickles aren't being flown in mass in the states.
Uh....no? Sales taxes are demonstrably much worse for the poor than they are for the rich and this is so well known that I'm surprised I'm even having to tell you.
>hammer and sickles aren't being flown in mass in the states.
Yeah they kind of are
Sales tax can be tailor made to apply to high end or luxury products, or bulk products used in manufacturing. Also that was you misunderstanding one thing on a list of things, do you agree that the rest are workable then?
>Yeah they kind of are
Where? And there is no "kind of". Either they're being flown in mass or they aren't.
There's no school or college without communist paraphernalia strewed everywhere. Occasionally US government has flown the flags as well, such as flying the Chinese flag across the street from the white house.
If you want you can post a confederate flag flying somewhere in America, I'll post a socialist flag flying somewhere in America, and we can do this all day.
>There's no school or college without communist paraphernalia strewed everywhere. Occasionally US government has flown the flags as well, such as flying the Chinese flag across the street from the white house.
Have you ever actually been to a school or college?
>There's no school or college without communist paraphernalia strewed everywhere.
Please don't respond if you lack an argument.
Okay, let me put it another way since you apparently can't read between the lines: I have been to many schools and many colleges and none of them have had communist paraphernalia strewn everywhere. Your statement that "there is no school or college without communist paraphernalia strewed everywhere" is demonstrably and provably false and therefore the entire argument that you based around that assumption is spurious.
You weren't looking for them before.
You'd be surprised how much your brain can miss if you aren't focusing on a visual.
>the confederate flag is not a part of history thats why we have to ban it!
>we should present both sides of socialism and encourage students to imagine an american flag if it were conquered by socialism, but if we try the same for our own civil war it would be a horrible thing
Introspection is and art.
Did any school ever get students to imagine cleansing Jews?
Did a history class ask students to imagine how easy their life would be if they owned slaves?
Because that would be retarded.
Asking them to invent a socialist country/economy has no educational value and doesn't cover any historical facts, it doesn't explain why socialist countries don't function, it doesn't explain anything. It's simply an endorsement of communism.
Meanwhile we have this.
Don't make fun of the weak and downtrodden. They need our help.
Nah, this makes perfect sense. Asking kids to make a flag for a free capitalist nation would get too many suck-ups saying America's is perfect when that defeats the whole point of the test, while asking to make a flag for an optimistic but doomed group of rebels who like farming and steady factory jobs wrings a bit more actual thought out of them. Plus it lets you see which ones get too into it so you can mark them as suspicious for later in your vast database of potential communist sympathizers.
And more importantly, being in a few history tests isn't the same as "strewed everywhere" in the school.
Historical context is in fact constantly getting mentioned as a place where the flag is facing no restrictions, I'd be more concerned as to what that context is expected to consist of.
>Did any school ever get students to imagine cleansing Jews?
Well the actual action of killing Jews wasn't exactly a main selling point of the Nazi party at the time. In fact, it was heavily downplayed in addressing the German public and referred to in terms of protecting freedom and strength. You know, like every secret torture prison that's been publicly discussed by the regime that made it.
>Did a history class ask students to imagine how easy their life would be if they owned slaves?
Pretty much, we were asked to consider how dependent slave owners were on having cheap labor and how they could have trouble imagining a way to make a better system than what they grew up with.
>Asking them to invent a socialist country/economy
The test is about flag design, not economy/country design. Very different subject, I'm sure anyone addressing the latter loses points for straying off-topic.
And that's why Dr. Loveless's giant mechanical spider will destroy us all if we continue flying Confederate flags.
I'm really fucking tired of idiot brainless burgerlanders talking like they know anything at all about socialism as if their country had ever had to deal with it
half of mine did and we don't fucking stylize socialism into literally the devil, we can have actual discussions about it without some dumbass "freedom defender" yapping about how even thinking about it as anything than the worst thing possible will destroy your ability to think critically
fyi just about no one takes the actual socialist parties seriously here so not telling us how Stalin was ten times as bad as Hitler hasn't turned us into the red menace
I'm really fucking tired of retards like you clinging to every possible personal attack in order to ignore reality when you're presented with it. There's a reason why during the pinnacle of any communist nation you can pick a stream of people was rushing out of them and heading towards capitalist countries, but a reverse flow was scant if at all present.
>stylize socialism into literally the devil
Some 75 years of socialism was responsible for worse living conditions and for more deaths than 200+ years of slavery in North America. If you're going to demonize one, either demonize the other or admit to yourself that you're a hypocrite.
By the way I'm not a "burgerlander" and I probably have more experience with communism than you.
Almost all of the developed world practices varying degrees of socialism, including America. America uses less socialism than a lot of countries, and wouldn't you know it, it has a lower standard of living and a worse economy than most of the countries with more socialist governments. Regardless of whether or not you think you know communism (which you don't, incidentally) the only form of communism anyone honestly gets behind these days is anarcho-communism, which by its very nature wouldn't allow for a Stalin-esque figure.
Incidentally, Russia's economy is far worse under capitalism than it was under communism, even though communism was also a huge hit to its agrarian economy under the tsars. Russia, as a country, took a fucked path to 2015 and it hurt it all around. They shouldn't have even attempted communism until after a period of heavy industry and capitalism. They just didn't have the infrastructure for communism to work even under ideal conditions. And they didn't have even close to ideal conditions with Stalin in charge.
On the other hand, while there is a lot wrong with Cuba, Cuba has done much better under communism than Russia did. Castro was a dictator and did a lot of evil things, but Cuba has become one of the most egalitarian societies on Earth, and they have a higher literacy rate than the US. That's not to say everyone is doing great under Castro, but he has been a huge benefit to Cuba compared to Baptista, and thanks to the changes he made to Cuba during his tenure, Cuba now has the infrastructure and the education to be a really amazing country once they start enjoying more of the freedoms expected of a Western country now that the US Embargo is ending.
>lower standard of living and a worse economy
The countries you're thinking of (Europe) depend on America for military protection, allowing them to allocate more budgets to social purposes. They have only recently turned socialist, after the fall of USSR, and are currently supporting their economies by external debt.
If you don't trust me, do an experiment yourself.
A) Open up excel.
B) Get a list (on Wikipedia) of countries by GDP per capita. You don't have to keep a complete list, just pick twenty or so countries at random making sure they span most of the gamut and are in order. This is column #1.
C) Following this, get a list of those same countries by economic growth per year, it will be in percentages. This is column #2.
D) Next, also on wiki, get a list of countries by government expenditure. Take the expenditure amount, not the revenue, and divide it by the nominal GDP of each country to get a percentage result. This percentage result goes in column #3.
E) Now using those 3 columns, make a line graph in excel, and choose the line to be best fit.
Pro tip: Ignore heavily undeveloped countries (such as due to disease/natural disaster), protectorates, client states, war torn nations, known tax shelters and resource based economies (oil based etc). These things adversely affect GDP or growth of economies without any fault to the economic system.
As for HDI, the thing is heavily flawed. It considers how long a person lives and how long they spend in school to be the centerpieces of human development, countries boost their scores by giving (poor) lengthy education to kids and by keeping old people alive in a vegetative state.
Anyone who is pro-ban on the confederate flag is first a hypocrite, and second an idiot who is for ineffectual feel-good laws. Kill yourselves (yes this is online harassment).
>confederate flag sales up by 3600% on amazon in the hour before the ban
I bought one and I don't even want it. I don't like trailer trash, I don't like rednecks, I fucking hate hurr southern pride corrnbreed. I bought the stupid flag because I can put it away and sell it later when it becomes rare due to a retarded ban on free speech.
Free markets are a bitch.
I want the Confederate flag off government property. That's not the same as calling for a ban of the flag. And, on top of that, I have no problem if people want to buy/sell/display the flag—it’s their right. I can hate the flag and what it stands for while still defending the rights of people who want to express themselves using it.
>The countries you're thinking of (Europe) depend on America for military protection, allowing them to allocate more budgets to social purposes.
What? Are you high? America's military doesn't protect European countries. The only countries other than the US that relies on the US Military for protection are Costa Rica and Israel. The American Military is the cause of most of the wars in the world right now.
Your "experiment" shows a lack of understanding of economics. The per capita GDP, first of all, doesn't show anything about standards of living. Americans are often so heavily in debt and/or spending so much on property that they don't have any disposable income, compared to countries like Japan with lower GDP per capita but much higher disposable income. This is part of the real estate culture in America. Second of all, many of the richest people in the world live in America, and have more wealth than 99% of the country combined. "Economic growth" and GDP per capita figures are going to be skewed when the majority of Americans make five figures and a handful of super rich elite make millions every year. No one's arguing that America is a great country to be rich in. It's just that it sucks for everyone else compared to the rest of the world. And "everybody else" is almost everyone in the country.
It's not a surprise that you're arguing so heavily against socialism and then using statistics that weight "standards of living" much more heavily on the standards of the rich than the poor though. Most people who favor 100% capitalism are people who believe that the poor deserve to be unhappy. It's really the only way to justify the mindset.
If you live in South Carolina, call your representative and ask to have it removed. If needed, vote to remove it.
If you don't live in South Carolina, your feelings and desires are invalid.
>That's not the same as calling for a ban of the flag
Alexander Dobrindt is keeping his word about improving the German telecommunications infrastructure. Just got a visit from a lady from the phone company, saying that I need to upgrade my modem and contract because they're making the switch to optical fiber in three months. Now I'm gonna pay 8€ less for 40x the internet speed. Fucking neat-o.
great, this is one of those "removing christian symbols from government institutions is WAR ON CHRISTIANITY" type of nutjobs
Laugh all you want, but I am not calling for a ban on the flag. I am calling for all levels of government - local, state, and federal - to stop endorsing the Confederacy and everything for which it stood by flying the Confederate Flag. I can support your right to buy, sell, and fly that flag while I simultaneously ask the South Carolina state government to take down the flag and move it into a museum.
You however, are a dipshit.
Please stop putting words you want to hear into your opponents mouths, stop pre-judging people, and stop ignoring arguments because they hurt your feelings.
there's a difference between the government doing something and a private person doing the same thing, dumbass
the only people unable to understand that are the sort of crazies I described
The government has an establishment clause against religion, not flag designs sort of maybe resembling flag designs from centuries ago. Your analogy is shit and you are clutching at straws.
The only people unable to understand this aren't really "people", they're turds shaped to look like people, and they walk among us.
governments displaying flags associated with former injustice isn't something that needs to be protected
the german government doesn't display the german empire's flag because of "muh heritage" and you don't see anyone arguing that it should; even people who want nazi symbols unbanned because they oppose censorship on principle don't go that far
Good thinking, TV Land. That'll put an end to racism.
And it's completely illogical to assume that the American South has exactly the same relationship to the Confederacy as Germany has with the Nazi party. Confederates were basically Nazis and Robert E Lee was literally Hitler.
>Good thinking, TV Land. That'll put an end to racism.
Viacom isn't trying to end racism, they're trying to maximize advertiser profits.
Honestly didn't know TV Land still showed Dukes of Hazzard. It's mostly 90s shows, whenever I flip by.
Ok, as someone who understands the confederate flag being taken down, this is just stupid.
Obama defends slavery, then attacks rebel flag for ties to slavery
Right before he publicly attacked the Confederate flag as a “symbol of slavery,” President Obama quietly removed an anti-slavery provision from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement.
“The provision, which bars countries that engage in slavery from being part of major trade deals with the U.S., was written by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.),” the Huffington Post reported in May. “At the insistence of the White House, Menendez agreed to modify his language to say that as long as a country is taking ‘concrete’ steps toward reducing human trafficking and forced labor, it can be part of a trade deal.”
“Under the original language, the country that would be excluded from the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership pact is Malaysia.”
Malaysia is a major hub for human trafficking in Southeast Asia, with enslaved men, women, and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking, according to the State Dept.
And yet it's what you people argue for.
When you rabidly demand feel-good politics, you don't get to say "that's fucked up" after people start engaging in feel-good politics.
>governments displaying flags associated with former injustice isn't something that needs to be protected
I'm sorry, but what do you think actually needs to be protected? Shit we agree with? You're a fucking idiot, the concept of free speech is there to protect shit we DISAGREE with.
Hilarious fact: 50 years ago some retard with your exact mindset was saying "well race rallies aren't speech that really needs to be protected, unleash the dogs". Because that sort of speech was unpopular back then. Do you get it yet?
>I'm sorry, but what do you think actually needs to be protected? Shit we agree with? You're a fucking idiot, the concept of free speech is there to protect shit we DISAGREE with.
And it is doing that. There have been no changes in laws or policy that affect people's abilities to say what they want. People have been choosing of their own volition to remove things. And you are bitching about it like it's a free speech thing because you're using it as a cipher for some other issue that you actually care about and know that if you argue the position you're actually arguing for, no one will be sympathetic to your viewpoint, because it's either heinous ("racism is cool!") or insane ("the government is going to take away my ability to look at porn because they stopped flying the confederate flag!").
freedom of speech is about protecting private people from the government, not about protecting the government from criticism
GOVERNMENT != PRIVATE PEOPLE
you statist mongoloid
You'll note I said the concept of free speech not the first amendment, because it's not just a law, it's the basic philosophy of civilization and the way of life in the west.
>retards from other states demanding that federal government force south carolina to ban a form of expression (flag) which the south carolina electorate actually wants
>hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr demanding fed ban carolinian expression is not a ban on expression!
>durr demanding fed ban carolinian expression is about protecting private people from government!
>herp why? well because the flag is racist and supports slavery! please ignore that our current administration also supports slavery.
Makes perfect logical sense, 2+2=i.
None of the things you said happened the way you said they did, and even if they did your interpretation of their meanings is retarded.
>retards from other states demanding that federal government force south carolina to ban a form of expression (flag) which the south carolina electorate actually wants
Except no, that's not really what happened (or is happening).
People in states with monuments dedicated to Confederate soldiers/leaders, locations named after Confederate soldiers/leaders (e.g. streets and schools), and Confederate flags flying on government property want those monuments removed, those locations renamed, and those flags taken down (and preferably put in museums). All such actions would require action from the respective local and state governments to happen, and I seriously doubt anyone wants the federal government to step in and do something about it. Nobody with any sense is asking for any government—local, state, or federal—to outlaw the flag as a form of “illegal speech”, and the people that actually do want that to happen are fucked because the First Amendment protects “hate speech” (for which you can thank the ACLU standing up for the rights of Neo-Nazis).
Private businesses such as Amazon, Wal-Mart, et cetera can legally pull the Confederate flag (and merchandise bearing the flag's design) from their shelves and refuse to sell it because they have every right to decide what kind of products they want to sell to the general public. Their refusal to sell the flag does not constitute a ban on the flag. Any other business can freely sell the flag, and any private citizen can freely buy the flag and fly it on their private property.
Before you go ranting about things like this, get your fucking facts straight instead of whining about censorship where none is taking place.
No ones talking about banning private speech (the confederate battle flag). They're talking about state governments ceasing to fly it. The Confederacy was a racist terrorist state. Assholes can fly the flag all they want, but states flying it (and otherwise honoring confederate war criminals) is as revolting as Syria, in 2115, fly ISIL flags and having streets named after Al-Baghdadi (assuming Daesh hasn't persisted until then).
Not every act of war is terrorism.
It wasn't an act of war, it was an act of insurgency from domestic terrorists and separatists.
I'm gonna need you to define a few of those terms for me, because when you say "domestic terrorist" the Confederacy doesn't come to mind. When one independent political body starts an armed conflict with another independent political body, I think it's typically called a war.
It wasn't an independent political body. That's the whole point. It was a cell of insurgents within one country trying to fight other people in the same country. The confederacy was never its own nation, so it can't be an act of war.
The United States were thought of more an individual countries that happened to be tightly linked than provinces under another name before the end of the war. There was a functioning Confederate government with its own politicians, laws, currency, and taxes. Many joined the armies of the Confederacy out of feelings of nationalism, seeing their state government as the true seat of their loyalty. It was referred to even by the Union in terms of states ceding and taking up arms, not terrorists or criminals who happen to be in control of multiple state governments and their armies. Or did Lincoln really say "A house with terrorists cannot stand?".
>The United States were thought of more an individual countries that happened to be tightly linked than provinces under another name before the end of the war. There was a functioning Confederate government with its own politicians, laws, currency, and taxes. Many joined the armies of the Confederacy out of feelings of nationalism, seeing their state government as the true seat of their loyalty. It was referred to even by the Union in terms of states ceding and taking up arms, not terrorists or criminals who happen to be in control of multiple state governments and their armies. Or did Lincoln really say "A house with terrorists cannot stand?".
No, he said "A nation divided against itself cannot stand[/i]." As in, they were never their own nation no matter how much they tried to pretend they were. And only the South saw the US as a collection of independent nations, and even that they only said as justification for their war to keep slaves in spite of the law saying they couldn't.
The equivalent of what happened in the South was this Attorney General in Texas who is telling officials they don't have to allow gay marriage despite the fact that the law says that they very much do. We'll see what happens when he gets slapped for it, but the choice the Southerners made in the Civil War was to say "Well fine then! We'll make our own country! With black jack! And hookers!" Only they never had the right to do that.
The term terrorism wasn't really used in Lincoln's time, so of course it wasn't described as that at the time. For the same reason that the actions of the revolutionaries in the American Revolution weren't called terrorism at the time even though they were committing countless terrorist acts. What the neo-confederates haven't learned is that you only get to rewrite the history books so that you weren't terrorists if you win your war.
>They're talking about state governments ceasing to fly it.
That decision is the free expression of the electorate of that state you ridiculous idiot.
Read the 10th amendment, the states were independent political bodies. The very law against establishment of religions exists because the states were afraid a federal government would change their little state religions, also the entire civil war was being fought over whether the states were free after Lincoln shat all over the 10th.
>The term terrorism wasn't really used in Lincoln's time, so of course it wasn't described as that at the time.
Actually it was used in Lincoln's time, the word meant "systematic use of terror as a policy", and the actions of the South still can't described that way
This new fad of social studies professors telling their students they'll get extra credit if they use the word terrorism as much as possible is kind of cute.
>Read the 10th amendment, the states were independent political bodies. The very law against establishment of religions exists because the states were afraid a federal government would change their little state religions, also the entire civil war was being fought over whether the states were free after Lincoln shat all over the 10th.
So then are you calling for the post-humous impeachment of Lincoln? Or can we get you to admit that your interpretation of the 10th amendment is retarded and no lawyer who has ever worked in the United States would ever interpret it the way you have?
>So then are you calling for the post-humous impeachment of Lincoln?
Considering he turned America into a belligerent empire... FUCKING YES!
The prosecution's case against your sanity is getting stronger and stronger.
Bwahaha, your shitty little emotional manipulation failed, because I'm not the stereotype you've prejudged me with, deal with it.
Yeah, that's fair, I don't think anyone could've predicted that you want to impeach Lincoln.
America was (part of) a belligerent empire from day one.
>the entire civil war was being fought over whether the states were free after Lincoln shat all over the 10th.
That's an interesting interpretation of events, given that it's what none of the Confederate leaders were saying at the time.
I'm honestly curious about this:
Can anyone think of a worse example of cultural appropriation than taking a song about the misery and poverty of being a disenfranchised minority, stealing the tune because you can't produce your own music, and replacing it with lyrics about how unfair it is that you went to jail for murdering a bunch of said minority?
Yeah that would be an example of cultural appropriation.
Although it's a bullshit term never to be used seriously. Honestly whenever someone in mixed company says cultural appropriation by brain deletes the previous 20 seconds and tunes out the following 20 seconds of their mouth grunts, then afterwards I silently forgive them for their lack of critical thinking and curse the horrible environment that failed to teach them basic logic.
>I silently forgive them for their lack of critical thinking
How magnanimous. And ironic, given that the entire paragraph you just wrote was about your inability to think critically about what someone said when someone uses a particular term.
I'd say that doesn't sound like appropriation unless it's claimed that using the tune somehow makes the lyrics representative of or part of the minorities' culture. Otherwise it sounds more like a very bad attempt at mockery. Like, "Oh, you're poor and miserable? Well you got nothing on me, I got put in jail for killing people!"
He probably considered it, then decided against it when he realized that there weren't enough lunatics in the country to actually impeach Lincoln for saving the goddamned country from the radical separatists who tried to destroy it.
Brown skinned woman tries to prove privilege of white skinned men exists by not getting arrested for belligerent behavior.
Accidentally ends up proving we live in a matriarchy.
The Guardian is saying white people culturally appropriated the ability to cook meat from the Native Americans, despite that being a thing since caveman days.
This is how retarded it's gotten.
I don't see the article telling whites to stop doing it
maybe you ought to stop giving tumblr idiots free space in your head instead of buying into their bullshit hyperbole and trying to one-up them by doubling down on the hyperbolic nonsense
case in point:
>white people culturally appropriated the ability to cook meat from the Native Americans
you read a dozen words and then went into the usual nonthinking socialist mindset of twisting the narrative because you can't stand reality possibly not matching up with your belief 1:1
The article is not just implying, but outright saying whites took barbecue from native Americans and Africans (wtf?). There's zero evidence provided for any of this, in fact it runs contrary to what we know as historical fact, and people actually published it.
I'm sorry, I can't take people who think that way seriously. If your world revolves around "cultural appropriation" and you use such terms unironically, please get the fuck out.
Going to post Greek portable barbecues now just to mock this article some more.
You're implying only minorities can be culturally appropriated, despite having 90% of their culture stolen from the majority. Every black hip hop star is culturally appropriating european musical notation, western instruments or singing in english. Every East Asian country has culturally appropriated western values, systems of government and economy. Practically everyone is wearing Western clothes by now.
But we don't talk about inferior cultures appropriating everything from superior ones in order to catch up.
That kind of thinking eventually leads to conclusion that nothing matters, so you might as well get it over with now.
>You're implying only minorities can be culturally appropriated, despite having 90% of their culture stolen from the majority. Every black hip hop star is culturally appropriating european musical notation, western instruments or singing in english. Every East Asian country has culturally appropriated western values, systems of government and economy. Practically everyone is wearing Western clothes by now.
Western states use their cultural domination as a form of neo-imperialism. Cultural appropriation is about taking the theme park version of someone else's culture as a joke, with an undercurrent of belittling that culture as being "weird" or "exotic." When people take on trappings of Western, and especially American culture, it is part of an intentional plan on the West, and especially America's part to culturally and thereby economically dominate the world without the bad kharma that comes with conquest by force of arms.
Someone in Malaysia wanting to "act American" isn't cultural appropriation because 1.) their idea of what is and is not American is going to be based largely on intentional cultural exports like movies produced by Americans, rather than movies made about Americans and 2.) America wants them to do this because it increases the amount of money American companies can get out of the Malaysian person. But someone in America wanting to "act Indian" is much more likely to be getting their idea of what is and is not Indian from American movies than Bollywood films, and they're going to be buying locally made bindis and saris and such rather than Indian-made ones. It's appropriation in the latter case and not the former case because in the former case, America is the one benefiting from indoctrinating someone into American culture, and in the latter case....America is still the one benefiting from someone trying to indoctrinate themselves into a shallow recreation of Indian culture.
Do you honestly think all cultures are equivalent? Like genocidal Nazi Germany, bloody Mesoamerica and peaceful neutral Switzerland are all the same?
Cultures that maximize the personal agency and the breadth of experience of its members are superior to cultures that don't, period.
>taking the theme park version of someone else's culture as a joke
>with an undercurrent of belittling that culture as being "weird" or "exotic."
That's not in any definition of cultural appropriation. From Oxford:
>A term used to describe the taking over of creative or artistic forms, themes, or practices by one cultural group of another.
A few tumblerites define it as specifically westerners taking elements of other cultures, which is my main issue with how it is used.
>without the bad kharma that comes with conquest by force of arms.
LOL if you seriously think this bothers anyone in the West, bombing the shit out of weaker cultures is not an issue as any student of the last three centuries of history will attest.
Protip: We don't have the concept of karma.
People appropriate Western Culture purely because it works better, is more competitive, produces a more stable society, happier populace etc.
>their idea of what is and is not American is going to be based largely on intentional cultural exports like movies produced by Americans
Actually Malaysians (and most of third world) watches Bollywood productions, which stereotype and make fun of Western culture A LOT.
In fact entire second paragraph is based on a faulty premise that Western media is dominant. This was true maybe in 1950s, when everyone's infrastructure was crushed except Americas. But it certainly isn't true anymore, India and China are out-edging Westerners for both production and consumption of media.
Pic related, Bollywood was leaving Hollywood in the dust back in 2001.
You're being incredibly disingenuous here, and you know it.
"we must keep cultures seperate to protect the poc from the white devil" isn't any less retarded than "we must keep cultures seperate to protect the superior western one from nonwhite degeneracy"
I don't fucking get this shit. It's racist if you reject different culture's food, language, or clothing. However it's also racist if you embrace a different culture's food, language, or clothing. Basically no matter what I do I'm a racist shitlord?
No. The point is that cultural appropriation isn't actually embracing another culture, it's playing along with a theme park version of that culture.
It's not racist to reject a different culture's food, language, or clothing, either. It's racist to demand them to learn English or demand that they dress like suburban white Americans, but not liking sushi doesn't make you a racist, and not knowing swahili doesn't make you a racist, and not wearing a burkha doesn't make you a racist.
>The point is that cultural appropriation isn't actually embracing another culture, it's playing along with a theme park version of that culture.
Can you please stop saying shit that's not in any of the definitions?
Neither of those are racist. Sounds like you've been hanging around some delusional snowflakes.
>Basically no matter what I do I'm a racist shitlord?
No, but you are kinda dense.
It's when you don't give proper credit to the culture for creating shit, essentially.
>the same thing as cooking meat.
Not only are your political opinions trash, your taste is food is trash.
WHITE GUY WEARING SAMURAI ARMOR
I think the point of that was that what Amerindians did was cooking meat, it wasn't close to actual barbeque.
Well, then we're at the logical endpoint of Cultural Appropriation: the erasure of history.
>Grilling is generally done quickly over moderate-to-high direct heat with little smoke, while barbecuing is done slowly over low indirect heat and the food is flavored by the smoking process.
>Traditional barbacoa involves digging a hole in the ground and placing some meat (usually a whole goat) with a pot underneath it, so that the juices can make a hearty broth. It is then covered with maguey leaves and coal and set alight. The cooking process takes a few hours.
>The first indigenous tribes Christopher Columbus encountered on the island he named Hispaniola had developed a unique method for cooking meat over an indirect flame, created using green wood to keep the food (and wood) from burning.
If that was the point, it's a wonderful example of how cultural appropriation works.
Woops, forgot my second link.
Chrome browser and Crome OS starts blocking torrents.
Get rid of that shit.
>barbecuing is done slowly over low indirect heat and the food is flavored by the smoking process.
Then by that definition Sumerians had barbecue. Sumerians were the first civilization to write down their history, so barbecue was probably going on long before that and was just never recorded.
So in summary this method is not unique, the only thing that was "stolen" from the West Indies is maybe the root of the word barbecue.
And even if you're still asshurt about this, I'll be glad to stop using such a shitty word like barbecue and use grilling from now on.
I just went to Kickass Torrents and didn't have a problem. Not that I really care that much about using Chrome but Firefox was so terrible last time I used it that it wasn't even worth it. And I used to be a devoted Firefox user.
Usually when that warning pops up it's because of ads installing shit or redirecting you to a site that does install shit. Unfortunately, torrent sites probably can't get much better ads than those.
Get palemoon or some other fork.
I can vouch for Palemoon. Swank as fuck.
Dude fuck Firefox post version 30, HOLY FUCK IT'S TERRIBLE.
I'm actually thinking Spartan might be my new browser.
This is true. FF39 got benchtested with only text pages and minimal images, it uses higher resources than 3D video games and is actually slightly slower than IE11.
Forget post-30, I've hated every single UI decision Firefox has made since version 4. Thankfully, you can fix that shit, so I haven't felt the need to switch.
Have this Chinese guy talking about a rapier:
It's ok, only Europeans can be racist, only Europeans have that genetic flaw.
Planned Parenthood director caught on tape selling aborted "baby parts" - her words
Remember the cuckold kids show posted earlier in the thread? It's now terrorism to criticize it.
The site’s name is Terrorism Watch because it reports on the activities of white supremacists. Whether as individuals or as groups, white supremacists have a history of committing acts of racially-biased violence with the intent of terrorizing racial minorities. Even so, I doubt even that site would argue that criticizing a dumb Nickelodeon show would equal "terrorism".
>It's now terrorism to criticize it.
Pulling whacked out conspiracy theories out of your rectum does not criticism make.
How do you morons find your way over here anyway? Barely anyone even posts here. That guy from earlier was right: There are crazy hobos using library computers to shitpost on +4chan.
/pol/ is the only one doing conspiracy theories, but no one cares about them because they're insane.
The rest of the people learning about this are criticizing the fact that a porn director is directing a kids show, which is ridiculously inappropriate and vaguely pedophilic. I'm not exactly sure how raising awareness about this is equivalent to being violent or terrorizing minorities.
Why would you support this? Do you think you're helping the black community?
Makes as much sense as Obama releasing 46 drug offenders, two dozen of which are dealers of hard drugs (mostly crack), back to ply their trade in a show of "solidarity" with his black voter base. One was convicted of selling crack within 1000 feet of a school. Because hooking more black kids on crack is somehow a good thing, because this won't damage the black community even further.
Can't people see good intentions applied through ignorance cause real world damage?
>the fact that a porn director is directing a kids show,
Directing a porn movie doesn't automatically turn everything else you direct into porn. That's like saying married people shouldn't live with children because they have a history of having sex with the people they live with.
remember, moral panics are only bad when "sjw" do it
>Why would you support this? Do you think you're helping the black community?
You're confusing "not giving a shit about" with "supporting."
There's only like, 5 people on this website in total.
How the hell do we get such staunch righties here.
This site used to host /n/ (which now became /pol/, if you're new) during the time it was abolished. Some of them might have rediscovered this site in the dark depths of their bookmarks.
>zimbabwe genocides european farmers
>europe offers food aid
>zimbabwe rejects it because its not organic
>starvation finally reaches dictatorship
>"pp..p...please come back"
SJWs kill Allan Moore.
On the subject of cultural appropriation.
A more honest interpretation of that story might be "Cranky old man continues to be cranky."
>doesnt like alan moore
>still goes to +4
>a /co/ based website
On the subject of /pol/, they infiltrated a JIDF group and broke the story on what they do on reddit.
Yes folks, it seems /pol/ was right again, JIDF is a real fucking thing.
And they called /pol/ paranoid...
"Conspiracy nuts" they said...
When they find out they got infiltrated, and they WILL find out, expect them to claim racism/antisemitism or try to deflect and obscure the relevance of the leak.
Standard operating practice.
>JIDF is a real fucking thing
no fucking shit, they have a public website and a wikipedia article
still, exposing propagandists is always good, even if the people doing it only do it because it's not _their_ propaganda
>Yes folks, it seems /pol/ was right again, JIDF is a real fucking thing.
The JIDF have a website up that anyone can visit, you moron. That's about an astute observation as me saying, "Google exists."
You really are a homeless person using a public library computer aren't you? You're new to this whole internet thing, huh?
What a silly post. You don't have to like Alan Moore to like comics. Furthermore, you can like Alan Moore's work still and disagree with him every time he opens his ugly mouth. I do the same thing with John Byrne and Frank Miller.
I love Alan Moore....'s writing. Sometimes. But here's the thing: Alan Moore is a cranky old man. He has been a cranky old man since he was 8 years old. I am honestly surprised that anyone would consider this a controversial statement.
>Moore is criticizing censorship
No he's not. He's criticizing criticism.
you're not allowed to "criticize" everything, fucking cultural marxist!!!
>I love Alan Moore....'s writing. Sometimes. But here's the thing: Alan Moore is a cranky old man. He has been a cranky old man since he was 8 years old. I am honestly surprised that anyone would consider this a controversial statement.
A more honest reading of the article would suggest that actually, he's leaving public life for unrelated reasons, and the closest thing he said to 'censorship' was 'I'm a little sick of talking about this one vein fo criticism, I'm going to stop making public comments on it'
he's not telling the truth because he doesn't want more feminazi™ harassment, stupid goy!!!!!
>be cranky old women about his comics
everything wrong with comic book nerds in one statement smh
Defending feminism while being antisemitic doesn't make you or the movement look good, friend.
Did I miss something?
>Did I miss something?
If you don't know why mocking Jewish people through play-acting as a Jewish stereotype is antisemitic, you aren't very intelligent.
Actually, I'm going to cut the snark and just call you a fucking retard.
Mm, that was a bit harsh. Tell you what.
If that was honestly a question, I am sorry.
If you were doing that thing where you say stupid bullshit and had the cheek to ask, "Well why was that stupid bullshit I said not stupid bullshit." then I take back nothing.
>We Played Some Halo Multiplayer, And What Happens Next Will Change Your Views On Sexism!
Do you find fault with the methodology of the study, then? Do you have suggestions for how to increase the rigor of the study?
So, then, try giving sexist people ways to feel better about themselves so they don't take their problems out on others? That doesn't sound ideal, but it can avoid being a reward for bad behavior it could be useful. Maybe just telling them about activities that are less competitive, or at least ones they're better at.
Also: Were there not enough women involved to have a good sample size to measure their behavior, or was monitoring their comments for comparison not done for some other reason?
No, it's probably not really possible to "cure" people that have already been affected that way. They develop these associations of hatred and hostility as a defense mechanism against the potential loss of what little status they already have to "outliers," but giving them increased status wouldn't remove that defense mechanism, it would just mean that when it kicked in it was even stupider than when they had a reason to feel defensive.
A more egalitarian culture, where status was less of an issue, might work well as a preventative measure against people developing those defense mechanisms in the first place, but that's going to be very hard to pull off given how hugely nerd communities revolve around dick measuring contests and alpha male bullshit.
Such a simple treatment could in fact be ineffective, and the problem being harder than that is one I can believe readily, but a stance of "not really possible to 'cure'" doesn't sit well with me. What I believe more likely is that reducing tendency towards sexism in an individual requires a distinctly different set of expertise than what is used in detecting and taking on problems caused by sexism on the societal level, and thus intervention by different experts.
As for bringing about more egalitarianism in nerd communities, would it not make sense to look at what few nerd communities that don't revolve around personally establishing dominance have that keeps them from having that quality, and then consider what might bring about the flourishing of those values in other nerd communities? Actually, I should probably write from my own experience of nerd communities and what seemed to influence them to help with that.
>Also: Were there not enough women involved to have a good sample size to measure their behavior, or was monitoring their comments for comparison not done for some other reason?
There weren't any women involved at all, they were using female voice clips, not actual people.
The only part I cared about was that they used that really skewed study showing gaming is split 50/50 between male and female. It seems odd when their premise depends on skill being factored into sexism.
If anything that "study" confirms that men treat women better than men on average.
The article opens with a conclusion then seeks ways to prove it, then it ends by claiming the study proved the initial conclusion. This:
>Gender inequality and sexist behaviour is prevalent in almost all workplaces and rampant in online environments.
Is not a fucking hypothesis, and their record keeping is insufficient. This shit should not have passed editorial, some heads are going to roll.
>methodology of the study
The conclusion of the study is contrary to the results of the studies. Results plainly show men reacted to opponents of either gender with equal emotions, the only difference is that men responded more to women (larger emotional response). Pictures related.
Conclusion of the study should be: Although emotions followed a similar pattern, men had a faster and more magnified response to female competitors.
This could actually have been a decent article, that ties into evopsych, anthropology, whatever. Instead they decided to make it media bait for personal fame, I have no respect for researchers who do that.
I think you're confusing legitimate literary criticism with insults, harassment and " it offends me, ban it".
When did the left turn into the censorific right of the 1950s? I remember progressivism used to stand for free speech, even vile disgusting speech of its enemies.
And if you look at the data on what the voice clips said, it's all generic stuff which would be annoying as fuck in a competitive game.
One of the responses is even “From where, which direction?”, because the recorded female voice kept warning of enemies. It's fucking dumb.
Yeah I found it funny that they didn't compare the number of negative/positive responses from female players to their female bot, they had a full data-set and could have done a double study. Fucking fail...
They actually said their female bot was the only female voice in all the games they played.
>I think you're confusing legitimate literary criticism with insults, harassment and " it offends me, ban it".
>When did the left turn into the censorific right of the 1950s? I remember progressivism used to stand for free speech, even vile disgusting speech of its enemies.
You are free to say what you want. You are not free to avoid the repercussions of saying things that make people get mad at you. Censorship isn't saying "Hey Alan Moore, you're a dickhead for making that thing you made," it's saying "These people shouldn't be allowed to tell Alan Moore he's a dickhead for making that thing he made."
Let me remind you "waaah, PC police are silencing me" brigaders once more: the audience can't censor you. Publishers can't censor you. The only people who can censor you are the government, and that is not what's happening. Refusing to give you a platform, or calling you a dick because of what you said, is not censoring you. It is exercising our own free speech.
“The blacks have been out here attacking people, stealing people’s property, taking their flags,” said Steven Johnson, a South Carolina father of two who was among those waving Nazi flags during the rally. “I’m scared of what my family’s about to grow up with.”
I am floored by the lack of self awareness.
>Censorship isn't saying "Hey Alan Moore, you're a dickhead for making that thing you made," it's saying "These people shouldn't be allowed to tell Alan Moore he's a dickhead for making that thing he made."
>The only people who can censor you are the government, and that is not what's happening.
Odd thing, no one called for the government to silence Alan Moore's critics for him.
>the only people who can censor you are the government
Did someone just say that?
How long ago was the last time we argued about censorship?
>You are not free to avoid the repercussions of saying things that make people get mad at you.
Only if those repercussions are also covered under free speech. Harrasment, doxxing, lynching etc are nor legitimate forms of "repercussions".
>The only people who can censor you are the government
So when KKK hangs blacks for making civil rights speeches, that's not censorship? You're a fucking moron.
I think this covers it:
>So when KKK hangs blacks for making civil rights speeches, that's not censorship?
That is murder.
bwahaha zimbabwe just asked for white farmers back because they're starving, now zambia is asking for whites back as well!
sorry, not coming back to educate or heal you anymore, we're too evil.
America works hard to keep the top spot in mass shootings: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/us/louisiana-theater-shooting/index.html?sr=fb072315movietheatershooting10pStoryLink
Welp. Bets on how long until the NRA does its usual spiel about how we (read: white people) need more guns?
I'm sure they'll start with "Now is not the time to talk politics." Because it's never the time to talk politics when the evidence that your politics are fucked up are fresh on people's minds.
>two people dead
Two people dead is a family dispute, imagine if Brazil counted crime the same way.
Wonder how long until retards and start equating gun ownership with conservatism, racism, sexism, or persecution of gays. OR until they start ignoring this happened in a gun free zone, thus tacitly proving their shitty ideas of gun bans don't fucking work because murderers don't follow laws.
Oh... that quick huh....
>Two people dead is a family dispute
And if this were a family dispute being talked about, that would mean something. But we're talking about a guy who walked into a movie theater and shot several people, two of which died. Thus: mass shooting.
>Wonder how long until retards and start equating gun ownership with conservatism
More often than not, the GOP/Republicans come down on the side of the NRA, which itself pushes the idea that the solution to gun violence is more guns.
>gun bans don't fucking work because murderers don't follow laws
Arming more people with guns and making them fearful that the next person to walk into a theater or an airport or a Wal-Mart will open fire on a defenseless crowd won’t make things better.
>Wonder how long until retards and start equating gun ownership with conservatism, racism, sexism, or persecution of gays. OR until they start ignoring this happened in a gun free zone, thus tacitly proving their shitty ideas of gun bans don't fucking work because murderers don't follow laws.
Oh, by the way, turns out the person suspected of being the shooter was a Christian tea-partier associated with the Westboro Baptist Church.
If gun laws don't work because people break the law, then why do we have any laws?
Legit serious. I see this argument crop up all the time and don't understand the logic of it. Car theft is illegal, but car theft still happens. Using "well people are going to do it anyway" is a weak defense because you can apply that to literally any law that we have.
>If gun laws don't work because people break the law, then why do we have any laws?
Plus, the thing is, gun laws *do* seem to work, at least better than a lack of gun laws. States with restrictions on gun access, such as background checks or AWBs, have lower per capita shooting crimes than states without those same laws. Now it could be a case of correlation not implying causation--for example, maybe states that support those measures enough to put them in to law have less radical gun culture in the first place so they're less likely to engage in gun violence to begin with, and the laws are mostly just decorative--but the correlation is strong and statistically significant. Countries with gun restrictions also have an incredibly lower number of gun-related crimes being committed than the US per capita.
When it is phrased like that, I agree, but it's just poor phrasing. The point isn't (or, at least, shouldn't be) "People are going to break the law, so why have the law", it's "There are non-evil purposes for owning a gun, and criminals will ignore the law anyway, so banning guns will only negatively affect honest individuals without a positive benefit."
Non-evil purposes: Sport (skeet shooting etc.), hunting (though PETA would object), self-defense.
Ending someone's life without their prior consent is evil, hence murder is illegal. (The law does allow exceptions, such as self-defense, that are non-evil.) Depriving someone of their property, such as car theft, is pure evil, so once more it's illegal.
Well then what the fuck do you think we should do about the gun violence problem in the US, then?
There are also non-evil reasons to own depleted uranium (building nuclear plants, studying chemistry), but I don't know if that's really a good reason to make it more readily available.
Well, ignoring all the other components (like our country's inability and unwillingness to tackle mental health issues), the first thing would be to see if processes we already have in place failed. For instance, the Charleston shooting was done with a gun that was purchased from a legal vendor, and the vendor thought was a legal purchase, thanks to a slip-up at the FBI for the background check. That's the first step, because fixing it is unlikely to require action from politicians (many of whom would either bungle or block an attempt to fix.)
If any gun regulations were to have an effect, I think that severely regulating pistols and handguns would work the best. While these aren't that common in mass shooting, I believe they are used in the vast majority of gun homicides. Being easy to conceal and dispose of also makes them alluring to criminals.
If we were to enact far stricter firearm laws, on all types of firearms, it could be useful. Gun homicides have gone down in countries where such bans were put in place (though other types of activity went up.) But I don't think it's just the availability of firearms: The Swiss are a great example, having about the same guns per capita that we do thanks to their compulsory military service and having to keep their weapon on them, yet without any of the mass shootings. (Two things to note there, though: 1) gun suicides are quite high, and 2) they can only have a small amount of ammo at home or none at all, though they are required to keep their weapon there.)
Uranium, left on a desk, can harm people around it with no further direct interaction. A gun, left on a desk, will not harm anyone until interacted with. Same reason that a private individual owning large, dangerous animals is frowned upon if not illegal. Uranium requires a lot of training and certifications to be able to handle. Honestly, I think guns should be the same, though not to the extent of uranium.
>Uranium, left on a desk, can harm people around it with no further direct interaction
That's not why Uranium is as tightly controlled as it is and you know it. Radium left on a desk with no further direct interaction can harm people around it, and it's not controlled the way uranium is. Pesticides left on a counter can harm people with no further direct interaction, too, and they're not as tightly controlled as uranium.
Uranium is controlled the way it is because the amount of damage a person can do with it far outweighs the amount of good that can be done with it, and it would be insanely reckless to just let people pick it up at Wal-Mart solely because not every use it can be put to is evil. We weigh the potential for damage versus the potential for good or neutral acts and the value of those good or neutral acts.
So when we speak of gun control, we are asking the same question: is the value of the good or neutral acts that they are capable of worth the damage that the evil acts they're capable of inflicting? Not everyone thinks they are. That is where the argument stems from.
If only that theater banned guns, this never would have ha-.... oh wait....
Family murder is actually considered spree killing. What I take issue with is that a media buzzphrase is considered a more important topic than a gangster lighting up a neighborhood and killing friends of mine.
>the GOP/Republicans come down on the side of the NRA
That's because the Democratic party is constitutionally retarded. A huge portion of Democrats in this country owns guns, they're just harassed, silenced and sent into the corner every time an issue comes up. Some liberals like myself end up throwing votes away on fucking conservative party because the parties representing Democrats are too fucking stupid for their own good.
Gay Open Carry Group Kicked Out of Gay Pride Rally Due to “Psychological Harm”
But they aren't gay enough to be in that gay pride rally, because they are unpersons that committed the crimethink of independent thought.
Oh that's really cute, he wants to act partisan! Cool, no problem. Hey! Want to count how many people in prison are registered democrats?
7 in 10 felons register as Democrats
Hey! Want to count how many people die per year in "mass shootings" vs gang violence, crime etc?
Hey! Considering recent media attempt to paint America as wild west, do you want to see if we're seeing an increase in crime, or a decrease?
The problem with prohibitions is not in the law, it's in the enforcement. You can enforce laws against car thieves and murderers because they are a miniscule proportion of the population, and the vast majority agrees that what they do is detrimental to society.
How do you plan to remove 200 million guns from 90 million gun owners without them and their families not fighting back?
tl;dr car thieves, murderers and rapists don't make up a serious voting bloc, nor do they represent a majority of peaceful taxpaying citizens.
Factually wrong, every study ever done shows plain as day that guns contribute nothing to the homicide rate. The main factors influencing homicide rate are things like poverty and education, not fucking tools with which its done.
When guns are banned murderers just switch to another type of weapon, and murderers become bolder as they become secure in the knowledge that no one will shoot them.
>is the value of the good or neutral acts
On average 2 million cases of guns used in self defense per year, whereas guns used in murder are at 10-20 thousand.
Numbers are clear, if you support gun control you're willing to brutalize, torture, rape or kill two million people to save a few thousand.
The more salient fact is that this guy had a criminal record, and background check laws already in place didn't prevent him from getting a gun.
But more laws we cant enforce will somehow prevent it in the future?
Gun grabbers are funny as fuck if you stop to think about it.
I think it's not a bad time for me to post this again: http://cureviolence.org/
Really unfortunate name. I do agree with some of his methods, but the approach will ultimately fail because he's still focusing too much on guns. Jamaica is so anti gun that having an expended bullet casing in your possession means jail time, and it still has no effect on the crime rate there.
In fact he seems not to give a shit about stabbings, bludgeonings and so on, and focuses exclusively on guns. It's just a recipe for disaster once the criminals catch on.
From what I can tell it doesn't seem all that gun-focused, aside from cooperating with and getting evaluated by organizations that are.
>liberal media cornerstone website
>makes mistake of allowing a fair poll instead of controlling results
Yellow is "the second amendment guarantees it", gray is "only for self defense", blue is "no its too dangerous".
Eh, I don't have an answer how to enforce it. The only people I want to have their guns taken away are legit gun nuts. See:
>People who feel the need to walk around town with a rifle.
>People who think life is an action movie and that they're the hero.
>People who WANT to shoot another human and is just waiting for a time to pull out the gun.
>People who are not mentally sound to own a firearm.
People who collect guns for fun or actually hunt, I don't give a shit about. I just want to stop people who are teetering on the edge of violence against other humans to be stripped of their rights to own guns. Crazy thing is, this shit gets lost in every gun debate. Wanting to change how we doll out guns isn't the worst thing in the world (and most people who complain about this shit would likely not notice, as if they just paid attention to the arguments being made and didn't just assume "gun control" means "no guns anywhere, ever" in all contexts) and might help things out.
I don't know. I'm sleep deprived right now and am just rambling.
>>makes mistake of allowing a fair poll instead of controlling results
I think you mean "makes the mistake of not taking precautions against vote brigading." No political group in the world is as prone to vote brigading and comment bombing than gun nuts.
Yes, online polls are the epitome of unbiased and fair.
lol nice try but it only registers votes of people with google accounts, facebook acounts or msnbc accounts. So unless you're suggesting someone made a bot network of those accounts....
Deal with your butthurt.
How do you feel about people defending themselves though? Like a average working person who has to walk to a bus station/subway/etc every morning at 4AM through a bad neighborhood.
Learning karate is not a viable defense against a criminal armed with even a knife, neither is calling 911 and waiting five minutes for the cop to get there, neither is just giving them the money and crossing fingers they don't feel like rape and murder when the money ends up being 5 bucks.
>How do you feel about people defending themselves though? Like a average working person who has to walk to a bus station/subway/etc every morning at 4AM through a bad neighborhood.
>Learning karate is not a viable defense against a criminal armed with even a knife, neither is calling 911 and waiting five minutes for the cop to get there, neither is just giving them the money and crossing fingers they don't feel like rape and murder when the money ends up being 5 bucks.
It's almost funny the way gun nuts all have these sorts of paranoid fantasies that end with them killing people and being lauded as heroes by it because they can shout "self defense" afterward. But even when you're imagining doing it in self defense, fantasizing like that is literally you imagining scenarios where you could get away with killing other people.
There's nothing paranoid about worrying for your safety if you regularly need to pass through shitty areas, and it's not about hoping you can kill someone, but the sense of security having a gun with you can give.
Disclaimer: I don't own a gun, but I grew up in high-crime areas because my family was poor. Gunshots and sirens were everyday things.
Jesus Christ, what the fuck we're these parents thinking?
A gun is not a viable defense either. Guns are fucking awful self-defense weapons.
Right, the only thing they're good for is destroying things, and the manner in which it damages things makes it bad at even that, other than in regards to making living things stop living.
And yet they're used many times more often in defense than in assault.
There is no way to defend yourself without resorting to some kind of proactive defense, some kind of violence against the attacker.
The definition simply doesn't cover passive defense like wearing armor or something.
Have you ever worked a fucking job? That story described the average working persons experience you fruitcake.
>fantasizing like that is literally you imagining scenarios where you could get away with killing other people
Wow! Do you even realize what you're saying? By the same token I can say you fantasize about calling armed men to kill people for you, how is that superior.
You sound like a dumb motherfucker though, so you'll probably miss how utterly retarded you sound even when it's pointed out to you.
>And yet they're used many times more often in defense than in assault.
That is logically impossible. A defensive use cannot be made without an attack being made first, so logically the absolute maximum number of defensive uses is the same number as the number of offensive uses.
You can be attacked with things other than a gun, friend.
Why would you need a gun to defend yourself against things other than guns? Now it sounds less like these people are defending themselves and more like they're intentionally escalating the situation to live out their Rambo fantasies.
Because not everyone is as strong as you, Bruce Lee's ghost.
>says a guy who expects everyone to defend themselves from knife attacks with their bare hands
You know what I did when I got mugged instead of instantly trying to murder the person that was threatening me? I gave him my money. Turns out that worked. Not only that, it also worked when I reported him to the police. Got my money and then some back from him and he was sentenced to community service. But I guess things are different for you guys in the US. Everyone's got a huge murderboner over there. The thugs and the pedestrians equally.
Everyone else said it in better and funnier ways, but guns are equalizers. A 6'4" beefy dude with a knife vs a 5'2" woman? Unless she has a gun, she is dead or raped or robbed, depending on what he wants from her. Completely at his mercy. With a gun, they're honestly on equal terms, esp if he also has a gun. It makes "unwinnable" matchups "fair."
>A recent report from the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group
The reason for the discrepancy is that murderers rarely call 911, often they take special care to make sure the witness is eliminated.
Law abiding people however, don't do finishing moves. They call 911, the criminal who got shot usually lives. This is why the same study ends up claiming about 50-60 thousand recorded non-lethal defensive uses of guns per year, although they do their best to bury it in the text and never mention it again. Whereas there are only about 11 thousand deaths (criminal or justified), thus making self defense cases fire or more times higher - from the same anti-gun study!
The simple fact is that a defensive use of a firearm doesn't have to be lethal if the gun is fired.
The gun doesn't have to be fired in the first place, between 70 and 80 percent of defensive gun use is brandishment only.
And it doesn't have to be reported or make it into statistics unless the criminal is bleeding.
This is why surveys are used, instead of counting dead bodies.
You going to give a rapist your anal virginity too?
>The simple fact is that a defensive use of a firearm doesn't have to be lethal if the gun is fired.
I think you must not have any training in firearm safety. While it is POSSIBLE to survive a gunshot wound, any gunshot wound, to any location on the body, is potentially fatal, and it is just common gun safety protocol that you never fire a gun unless you are prepared to kill your target. If anything, the rate of criminals surviving only proves the point about untrained individuals attempting to defend themselves with a gun even more--if the fatality rate of these "self defense" shootings is so low, it's because these people aren't hitting the criminals they're trying to defend themselves from.
Also, do you have a source on this "70 to 80 percent of defensive gun use is brandishment only" claim?
The number of rapes committed by random criminals on the streets is not very high in the United States. Most rape is going to be committed by people you know or even who are dating you.
Popping a zit is "potentially fatal." Guns, at least, standard low-caliber handguns, the most popular and common kind, are not nearly as deadly as you seem to think.
You must get your information from action movies. The chances of shock from bullet wounds, even to the extremeties, is high, and a shot to somewhere like the legs where major veins or arteries run is even higher. Even survivors tend to have permanent impairment or scarring.
action movies portray bullets as being instant-death pellets, what are you even talking about
yeah, OBVIOUSLY having a hole punched in you is gonna leave some scarring and potential impairments, but right now we're discussing their fatality rate. most people won't even go down--much less DIE--from being shot once or twice unless they miraculously blow out the brainstem on their first try, and gunshot wounds are pretty darn easy for medics to treat for the most part. complications arise if the bullet gets lodged right up against one of your organs, but i've been told that if a gunshot victim is still alive when a doc gets to them, there's something like a 95% chance they can be saved. (source is not "a guy i know" btw, i come from a family of doctors and my wife is a military medic)
9mms are not just "one and done" weapons, even self-defense classes teach you to empty your entire mag into someone you're trying to kill because otherwise it's likely that it's just gonna make them angrier and more pumped up. Christ.
Jesus, I'm actually related to someone who tried to commit suicide by putting a gun in their mouth and pulling the trigger, and it just severed their spinal column instead of being the quick death they were presumably hoping for, and they suffocated several minutes later because their diaphragm couldn't work. They shot themselves in the got dang mouth and the reason they died is because they suffocated.
So your argument is "It's pretty survivable if treated by a doctor immediately?" Being stabbed in the fucking heart is pretty damned survivable if you get treated by a doctor immediately. That doesn't make it not an injury with a high chance of mortality for people in the real world.
No, my argument is "pistols are not death rays."
Pretty sure being stabbed in the heart is not that treatable, and I'm 100% sure that most of the time, a single (hand)gunshot wound is very non-fatal.
There's a 33% survival rate for being stabbed in the heart if treated almost immediately. Which counts as "pretty survivable." If you have to get to a doctor immediately to survive something, it's fatal.
Simply calling 911 completely changes survival statistic, this is why people who get shot by law abiding citizens live longer. Even a head wound isn't guaranteed to kill a person if an ambulance is on the way.
>You must get your information from action movies.
No idiot, you do, because you think a gunshot is an instakill.
The reason why heart shots are so deadly is because heart transplants aren't readily available. But in real life a man shot in the heart still has quite a few seconds to stab the fuck out of you.
>No idiot, you do, because you think a gunshot is an instakill.
I never said anything about the amount of time it takes, so I don't know where you're getting the idea of "instakill." And name a single action movie where a shot to the foot kills someone.
The point is that even a shot to the vitals isn't guaranteed death if an ambulance is on the way. Look at the Giffords woman, she got popped in the head and survived until ambulance drove her to the hospital.
This skews the disingenuous statistic used previously.
It would skew the "disingenuous statistic" if it were "2 innocent people for every self defense," or maybe even 3 to 5. 34 innocents dying to every 1 self-defense is a very different situation.
>If anything, the rate of criminals surviving only proves the point about untrained individuals attempting to defend themselves with a gun even more--if the fatality rate of these "self defense" shootings is so low, it's because these people aren't hitting the criminals they're trying to defend themselves from.
Which could mean they aren't even trying to, and instead just fire the weapon at a wall or the ground to scare the criminal into retreat or surrender. You know, because they *don't* see self defense as an opportunity to murder and get away with it.
Don't give me that horse shit. Gun nuts kill people on accident every day by firing their guns in the air in excitement, cleaning their guns with the safeties off, or forgetting to lock their gun closet when their kids are around. You can't honestly expect me to believe that these same idiots demonstrate restraint, good judgement, and luck when under duress 35 times for every one person who is killed by an attacker.
Those are some pretty wild generalizations, friendo. Consider cooling off for a bit before replying in the future, if your goal is civilized discourse.
Your very sentence is disingenious, you're saying:
>34 innocents dying to every 1 self-defense
But the study itself says
>34 innocents dying to every 1 self-defense DEATH
>5 cases of self defense NON-DEATH to every 1 innocent dying
Which is massively different.
>Don't give me that horse shit.
You realize the study brought up proves it's not horse shit? Are you retarded?
Fascinating to see Fox News doing everything in its power to take out Trump. Knowing damn well he will cost the Republicans the election.
>fox news won the debate
>audience went wild every time trump spoke
At this point the dude might even win against Hillary, all he has to do is take Rand or someone as running mate.
Hillary is a shit candidate to pick, I have no idea why the party is even considering her.