/baw/ - General Discussion

I really want someone to tell me this is just a troll.

>>398054
YOU CAN'T FLIMFLAM THE ZIMZAM

http://imgur.com/gallery/RYoRQa4
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK

>>398096
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.

>>398098
ill give you a 2/10 for making me narrow my eyes for a second

>>398099
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.

>>398104
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.

>>398106
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.

>>398108
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.

>>398109
>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

>>398108
to be fair, it's better that she's giving people advance warning of her views

>>398108
>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.

>>398110
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.

>>398113
Yes, discussion on the internet scares me, too. I also recommend dropping everything at the sight of a disagreement.

>>398114
Glad we're on the same page, friend.

>>398115
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.

>>398116
See, there's your problem, you honestly fucking think progress is going to come out of a thread on plus4chan.

>>398116
Oh, goodness, I didn't notice your sarcasm, I'm terribly embarrassed.

>>398117
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.

>>398112
and the best way to go about it is telling random passers-by to fuck off

this is what passes for "justice"

>>398116
>stifle discussion

"I'm right you're wrong if you disagree you're evil evil EVIL" is not discussion

>>398120
>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.

>>398120
>"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.

>>398121
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

>>398122
because posts like >>398098 totally leave room for discussion, right?

>>398124
>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.

>>398124
You still made a strawnan. No one called you evil. Stop being silly.

>>398125
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"

>>398126
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)

>>398127
>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.
>>398127
>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.

>>398127
>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.

>>398128
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

>>398131
>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.

>>398131
>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.

>>398129
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

>>398134
>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.

>>398135
"bad things only happen to bad people" is a fallacy

>>398136
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?

>>398137

see
>>398135 No one's doing that

implies that members of the majority who are declared evil over "social justice" issues always deserve it and members of the majority whose problems are dismissed also deserve it

>>398138

…wat

>>398158
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?

>>398158
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.

>>398158

Wow, full Godwin already. You didn’t want to waste time, did you?

>>398158
>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.

>>398158
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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/silencing-scientists.html?_r=0

>>398111
>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.

>>398182
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?

>>398182
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.

>>398183
"Playing police on women and minorities" would imply restricting general behavior, not signs delineating officially designated restricted areas.

>>398185
General behavior like saying what sorts of things it is and is not okay to say about the Ruling Class?

>>398186
>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?

>>398191
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/rand-paul-begins-filibuster-derail-patriot-act-150520230613804.html
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/20/rand-paul-begins-filibuster-of-patriot-act/

I think I know who I'm gonna vote for this time around. I forgot how I can respect a good filibuster.

>>398191
It's a /pol/ thread, Tiki, of course it's just for yelling at clouds.

>>398192
>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.

>>398172
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.

>>398192
He tries and I appreciate that, but yes he's very problematic.

>>398196
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.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32856232

>>398204
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.

>>398207
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?

>>398208
>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."

>>398209

Oh yeah, don’t forget how Cameron’s looking to save free speech by destroying it.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150513/07020630985/uk-plans-to-do-away-with-free-speech-name-free-speech.shtml

>>398333
BTW, see "others"? That's how the majority of UK actually feels.

>>398334
Then why did the elections turn out the way they did?
Genuine question.

>>398342
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.

>>398352
What is wrong with being Psychotic?

>>398352
/pol/, everyone!

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/josh-duggar-chilling-molestation-confession-in-new-police-report-59752

>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.

>>398369
Who are these people btw? Aside from the fact that they're a bunch of monsters.

>>398400

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.)

>>398402

>conversatives

I really need to proofread my posts before I hit “Submit”.

>>398417
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:

http://www.nbc12.com/story/29246186/there-she-goes-again-sarah-palin-says-youre-spitting-on-american-soldiers-graves-by-criticizing-the-duggars

Reminder that Sarah Palin could've been a heartbeat away from being President of the United States.

>>398420
I'm too busy laughing my ass off to get mad. That shit's legit funny.

>>398419
>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.

>>398449
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.

>>398455
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.

>>398460
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.

>>398468

There was controversy about Steven Universe?

...oooooooooh, right. Stevonnie. People were pissed about that?

>>398479
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?

>>398479
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.

>>398490

Only because Nick forced that little dance.

>>398495
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.

>>398498
>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.

>>398496

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.

>>398506
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.

>>398508
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.

>>398508
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.

>>398603
has it been blamed on videogames yet or are americans slightly less likely to jump to that excuse?

>>398608

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.

>>398611
>It's not a hate crime

of course it can't have been a hate crime if you believe hate crimes don't exist

//youtube.com/watch?v=SaW47WxcwPQ

>>398614
I've never seen him before (because not American), but I like that guy. He is sane.

>>398616
What a time for Jon Stewart to retire too.

>>398614

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

>>398624
>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.

>>398625
>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.

>>398637
>Terrorism
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.

>>398624
>Are you implying that every gang shooting is a hate crime because the victim is black?

what

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

>image

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

>>398640
STOP FEEDING IT

well i see this place hasn't improved at all

Hyperbole is our lifeblood.

>>398639
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.

>>398642
>politics thread
>expecting something good
You KNOW that is a bad idea.

/durp/ is dead

>>398639
Only if you're using that intimidation and coercion for political aims.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

>>398644
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.

>>398650
>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.

>>398654

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.

//youtube.com/watch?v=PuNIwYsz7PI

>>398692
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.

>>398697
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?

>>398698
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.

>>398701
>It's not a serious issue if it doesn't affect me

That's you right now.

>>398701
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.

>>398702
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.

>>398704

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”.

>>398705
Does it endanger lives? No. Does it cost money? No. Can it be stopped? No. So why should anyone care?

>>398706

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?

>>398708

Your lack of empathy for others disturbs me on a level that…well, you can’t possibly fathom because of that lack of empathy.

>>398709
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?

>>398710
>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.

>>398710

>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.

>>398713
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.

>>398712
Making it seem socially unacceptable means fuck-all when most people do their online harassment anonymously.

>>398714

>This is something you absolutely cannot do anything about for at least another 50 years

The lesson is: never try.

>>398716
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.

>>398717

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.

>>398718
>i may not have won the argument but i won life

>>398714
>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.

>>398720
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

>>398706
>no one should care about bullying

you probably use the term "moralfag" unironically

>>398708
are you the "spamming is a form of expression and banning people for it is censorship" guy?

>>398710
> 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

>>398722
You can stop pretending to be anon, Bea.

>>398723
>if you disagree with me you're SJW

/pol/ never changes

>>398714
>>398717
>>398721

>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

>>398724
>if you disagree with me you're just an asshole

Tumblr never changes.

>>398725
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

>>398726
Reminder that this is a totally different, sane anon.

>>398727
dude wtf are you even talking about lmao

>>398726
>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

also
>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

thanks, /pol/

>>398728
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

>>398733
>the vidya devil wouldn't have been anyone if not for retards giving her free press
>the vidya devil

Activision?

>>398720
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.

>>398734
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)

>>398646
shit i thought this was the regular SYM thred. ignore me

>>398731
>"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.

>bullying
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.

>>398758
>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)

>>398758
>the stupid John Oliver skit is all about making insults illegal
I don't think you actually watched the John Oliver skit.

>>398759
I really think you need to lay off the cocaine.

>>398762
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."

>>398767
we already have a name for that: objectivism

>>398773
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.

>>398773
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.

>>398791
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.

>>398794
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?

>>398795

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.

>>398798
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.

>>398796
>>398797
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.

>>398799
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.

>>398798
>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.

>>398800
>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?

>>398795
>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.

>>398804

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.

>>398803
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.

>>398803
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.

>>398803
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

>>398808

>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".

>>398807

>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.

>>398809
>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.

>>398811

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.)

>>398812
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.

Oh good.

>>398829
The flag isn't banned, though...

Time to get gay married guys. Let's party!

>>398831
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.

>>398828
>sales taxes

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.

>>398833
>hammer and sickles aren't being flown in mass in the states.
Yeah they kind of are

>>398838
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?

>>398839
>Yeah they kind of are

Where? And there is no "kind of". Either they're being flown in mass or they aren't.

>>398841
>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?

>>398841
>There's no school or college without communist paraphernalia strewed everywhere.

Uhh.

>>398844
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.

>>398848
>>398849
>history classes are full of evil socialist mind poison, the only thing kids need to know is that socialism === evil, anything more might corrupt them

you are insane

>>398848
>>398849
>History class is now comparable to flying flags

By that logic, schools endorsed the Holocaust, slavery, and internment camps by teaching them to students.

This exchange was good for a laugh. Thank you. You've brightened my day with your jokes.

>>398852
>>398850
>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.

>>398852
>schools endorsed

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?

No.

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.
http://allenbwest.com/2015/03/california-professors-support-ban-of-us-flag-on-campus-as-racist-symbol/

>>398860
>>398859
You're a crazy homeless person using the computer from the library, aren't you?

>>398859
>>398860
you really like your slippery slopes, don't you

>>398861
>>398863
You're a retarded product of your generation using the Mac your daddy bought you, right?

>>398861
Don't make fun of the weak and downtrodden. They need our help.

>>398849
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.

>>398859
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.

>>398860
>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.

>>398867
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

>>398872
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.

>>398874
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.