I don't think she's going to win, she's a trap for democratic voters and her record speaks for itself.
1. Her one job as first lady was her health care initiative, which failed monumentally.
2. She only got a senate seat because her only opponent, the far more popular Rudy Guiliani, got cancer.
3. Despite serving two senate terms and being the most recognizable name in the senate, she doesn't have a single piece of legislation actually pass with her name on it.
4. She mostly worked alone in the senate, she never reached across party lines to the other side, and she never got anyone in her own party to co-sponsor a bill.
5. Despite being the most recognizable candidate, during the height of terror fears and a failing economy she lost the presidential nomination to an anonymous marxist black man whose middle name is Hussein and last name rhymes with Osama.
6. Her pity job of Secretary of State had one major goal: Resetting relations with Russia. I don't know if you're checking major news networks, but we're pretty much entering a new cold war with them.
7. The same Secretary of State position also has a single basic objective, to protect embassy staff. Without this staff protected, the country loses links to other nations which makes diplomacy hard. Bazing-*cough* I mean, Benghazi. A really cool sound bite of her saying it doesn't matter, which her opponent can replay 24/7 on TV.
8. Feminist vote? Forget about it, she's on record giggling about defending a rapist she knew was guilty. Another sound bite to play on television campaign ads 24/7.
9. Oh I suppose women might throw her a pity vote because Bill mouthfucked a girl in the oval office... If they didn't know that Bill Clinton has been sterile from birth due to a medical condition. Guess where Hillarys daughter comes from... think about it... ding ding ding! A fucking affair.
10. Her book, which contains the juiciest presidential scandal in living memory, somehow managed to flop.
11. She manufactures gaffes like a dedicated asian child laborer. Pic related.
tl;dr She's disloyal, dishonorable and incompetent. Any presidential opponents she fights have a mountain of historical dirt to throw at her if they want to. Her only hope is that they take pity on her and pull their punches.
Hillary will win because she’ll be the lesser of two evils.
(Hey, we all know Bernie Sanders is never going to get the Dem nomination.)
Guess it's time for me to order those signs telling people to vote for themselves.
Does this design work? Should I switch back to "I WANT YOU FOR PRESIDENT" as the text?
For a moment, let's say guns are a good thing and that we benefit from more people having guns. But not everyone can reasonably afford to buy guns. I propose that the answer to this is a welfare system much like food stamps for guns, ammunition, and training. If the public is in fact to unskilled to wield guns, actual purchase of could require the redeemer have a certain amount of range time and level of training, which gun stamps could also cover.
But then, instead of spending training and equipment from the same stamp pool, it might make more sense to have people receive safety course/range time stamps for joining the program, and gun equipment credit as a reward for attending. I get the feeling it wouldn't be ideal to have gun purchases rely on range time per purchase of ammunition, but I can't quite place why. Maybe it'd give more power to safety courses than they ought to have? But if gun credit is given out even if they didn't use gun stamps to purchase the range time, it could be used as a way of restricting all gun purchase to people who spend a certain amount of time at the range. I have no idea wether taking it that far would be a good idea. Also, the basic idea resembles a level up system in video games, doesn't it?
>tl;dr She's disloyal, dishonorable and incompetent. Any presidential opponents she fights have a mountain of historical dirt to throw at her if they want to. Her only hope is that they take pity on her and pull their punches.
The only Republican who even has a chance against her is Jeb, and even he's got an uphill battle.
It's refreshing to see both political parties agree Donald Trump is scum. The Republican party and Fox News want Trump out of the race pronto, before he causes any more harm to the conservative movement.
>Donald and Hillary both win the primaries somehow
>we end up with a Green Party president
Trump won’t get the nomination because he cannot win a national election. He can rile up the GOP base all he wants—and they’re eating his particular brand of bullshit with a smile, judging from the polling numbers—but he is way too toxic a personality for a national election, especially one where whoever wins the White House could end up naming four new Justices to the Supreme Court.
The other GOP candidates have their own issues, but they’re nowhere near as openly toxic to the party as Trump. Jeb! will probably get the nomination in the end, though as >>399535 said, he’ll still have an uphill battle against Hillary.
If he does last long enough, the GOP will just Ron Paul him and pretend he doesn't exist when it comes time to cast votes for the final candidate.
That requires media complicity, which the GOP won't get--Trump is ratings gold.
Which isn't to say he'll ever get the nomination--he has pretty much no chance of that, and fivethirtyeight explained why pretty succinctly recently. But they're not going to Ron Paul him.
And the Weekly Sift hit along another reason why Trump isn't likely to go national, even if he loses the nomination: Sinking shitloads of money into a national campaign means investing in said campaign with no hope of any sort of financial returns. For a guy like Trump, a simple cost-benefit analysis would tell him that a long-term national campaign—whether he runs as Republican or independent—is a money pit.
>woman with a history of being implicated in assasinations
>woman who outright said "we might have to assasinate obama" as a response to how she would win
>giggled when question why she supported a rapist
>didn't authorize a rescue mission because... well no reason, she just wanted more pain inflicted on ambassadors
There aren't any Republican candidates legit more evil than her. Some are greedy, some are religious, some are misguided, but none are actually evil.
Oh and on top of being evil, she's incompetent! The race will probably end up being an incompetent evil bitch vs a competent greedy bastard.
Okay, but you need to remember that just because you believe a fiction doesn't mean the majority of the world does. You're going to have to get outside of the Fox News Bubble if you want an honest assessment of the different candidates' chances.
>Bernie Sanders is the president we need
>won't ever get the nom
Maybe to court the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, Hilary will declare Liz Warren as her running mate.
1000s of times better candidate than Hillary.
#TyroneHarris, friend of Michael Brown opened fire on police with a stolen handgun, and got shot. He's in a hospital now, status unknown.
Possible revenge shooting gone wrong?
Damn shame she doesn't want to run.
What's the name of that Sandberg guy? Even he had a better record than Hillary.
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this tool.
That picture is just uncanny.
Politics in the 2015.
Hillary trying and failing hard to recall accomplishments in her record:
Hillary defending a guy she knew was a child rapist.
1. These posts are 3 minutes apart. Just go gather all your shit and post it in one post.
2. I didn't watch the video but did skim the vid description. You do realize that her job was to defend the guy, right? You do also realize that everyone deserves their day in court, even the scummiest of the scum, right? That's how the system works. That's how it should work. And while it's not perfect, it's something that sets us apart from countries with fuckawful court systems.
My heavily religious, conservative cousin posted a link to this video on Facebook: //youtube.com/watch?v=KKIOBOFaVYs
It uses incredibly bad logic and a misrepresentation of statistics as "evidence" that the claim of "only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions" is a myth.
I think try to explain simple statistics to him, how the video is flat out wrong, and he refuses to directly engage and instead quotes Bible verses and talks about baby murder. I almost had a fucking aneurism trying to a straight answer out of him, I swear.
You're not *going* to get a straight answer out of him. People like that claim to be basing their arguments on morals, but in reality they just believe that women should be punished for having sex.
I was hoping I could at least get pure facts acknowledged, regardless of ideology.
She didn't have to laugh about it to the victims face, who was just a little kid at the time. How are you not seeing a difference between being professional, and being completely unprofessional and evil.
Also why respond to both posts if you ignore the one where she can't even recall an accomplishment?
Both sides are doing statistical tricks.
Planned parenthood says 300k abortions for 30 million services, gives 3%. The video presented is the stance of the evangelists, giving %90+ abortions. In reality, 300k abortions performed per 3 million customers, giving around 10% abortions.
Reality is closer to the planned parenthood numbers, but both sides are trying to trick people.
Also why are we talking about this? It's a distraction in the middle of elections, might as well discuss the Kardashians.
PP specifically says "3% of all services". They never claimed 3% of all clients/patients. It's not necessarily that ~10% of patients, either, as there could be repeat patients.
If someone is against abortion, it doesn't matter if it's 3% of services or 92% that the video claims, there are still more than 0 abortions performed. The video is just intellectually dishonest, and I was hoping to explain that to my cousin so he would argue his side using actual facts and not propaganda.
Trump fucking donated to Hillary's campaign.
Honor among thieves?
Perhaps he thinks he has a better chance of winning against her, so he wants to see her get the Democrat nomination.
>Trump fucking donated to Hillary's campaign.
Trump doesn't give a shit about being president. He's doing this for attention, or as you might say in his line of work, marketing.
Goalpost status: moved.
Your first post was attacking her about her defending the rapist, not how she carried herself. Stick to one story.
>If someone is against abortion
They want their tax money to stop funding abortions. That's pretty much it, they know they can't stop people from buying this shit, even banning them would just create an illegal market. Anti-abortion people just want to stop being forced to participate in what they consider to be a sin, and as long as they use their votes to fight it I have no problem with it.
Both He and She Were Too Drunk to Recall Sex, So the University of Tennessee Expelled Only Him
In what may foreshadow the end to a new "yes means yes" standard of consent for date rape, already been adopted in California and New York as well as on many other campuses, a judge has ruled - in a case in which both parties were so drunk they did not even know if sex had actually occurred - that the new standard violated the U.S. Constitution.
This follows an earlier decision in which another judge had also ruled that the federal Constitution applies to date rape proceedings at all state colleges, and that it requires that the accused be provided with all the procedural protections required by Due Process.
The Tennessee court held that it was unconstitutional for the University, under its "yes means yes" standard, to require the male student to establish his own innocence with proof that consent had been given, rather than putting the burden of proof on the accuser or the University as is always the case in both criminal and civil proceedings.
"If both students were too drunk to even remember if intercourse occurred, much less the circumstances under which it happened, it is obviously fundamentally unfair to require only one student but not the other to prove that there was consent," argued Banzhaf.
>They want their tax money to stop funding abortions.
But PP doesn't use any government money to directly fund abortion procedures. Yes, it uses that money to help keep PP clinics open and pay staff, but PP does a hell of a lot more than abortion procedures, and the higher-ups know even one cent going directly towards abortion would be the downfall of the entire organization.
>Yes, it uses that money to help keep PP clinics open and pay staff
PP uses government money to pay for clinics and staff that perform abortion, but in order to fund abortion materials they sell aborted baby parts.
Neither of this is exactly moral, even by non-christian values of morality, and IMO people have a right to vote against them getting tax money. That's what democracies are all about.
>in order to fund abortion materials they sell aborted baby parts.
No they don't, and you're retarded and easily lead if you believe they do.
>PP uses government money to pay for clinics and staff that perform abortion
As I said, PP doesn't just do abortion procedures. PP provides—amongst other services—contraceptives, screening for several types of cancers (breast, cervical, and testicular), pregnancy testing, STD testing and treatment, vasectomies, and tubal ligations. If we defund PP over abortion, we defund all of those services as a result. PP can be the only such provider of those services in low-income areas, so defunding PP would potentially lead to more pregnancies, more abortions, more STDs, and a general decline in the health of a populace. That is why PP makes sure that none of the government’s money goes directly towards abortion procedures.
>in order to fund abortion materials they sell aborted baby parts
I won't dignify that with a full-bore rebuttal.
Based God has cursed Hillary, she cannot win.
>As I said, PP doesn't just do abortion procedures. PP provides—amongst other services—contraceptives, screening for several types of cancers (breast, cervical, and testicular), pregnancy testing, STD testing and treatment, vasectomies, and tubal ligations. If we defund PP over abortion, we defund all of those services as a result. PP can be the only such provider of those services in low-income areas, so defunding PP would potentially lead to more pregnancies, more abortions, more STDs, and a general decline in the health of a populace. That is why PP makes sure that none of the government’s money goes directly towards abortion procedures.
Not even getting into the abortion debate, every time this argument comes up it feels like political blackmail.
Planned Parenthood isn't funded in a big block grant. Pretty much all of its federal funding comes from reimbursement for performing Title X services. In other words, they do non-abortion service X, they get Y dollars from the government as a result.
So, no, federal taxpayer money is not going to pay for abortions through Planned Parenthood. The abortion services they do perform are funded through other means. Wanting to defund PP is wanting to stop paying them to do non-abortion services.
Also, no, they are not running a black market in fetal body parts, remove your head from Breitbart's putrefacting ass.
It's blackmail to point out the real consequences of bad policy now? Is your skin seriously that thin?
And every time someone tries to defund Planned Parenthood because they know it's illegal to outlaw abortion but they might at least be able to punish poor women for having sex, it feels like a political three-card monte.
OK. If this is just the consequences, and we agree the situation is dire, how come every time this situation comes up, no one is all that interested in making sure women have access to medical care NOT linked to Planned Parenthood?
And in turn, given that Planned Parenthood has absolutely no vested interest in keeping women's health services in jeopardy, you'd think every time this possibility came up, they'd seek to divest and separate their abortion services.
This is the same fucking game the Republicans play when they try to shut down the federal government. "Hey, well if you Veto our legislation you're also vetoing federal funding for everything!"
You know, if you have to resort to a conspiracy theory to delegitimate the other side in a political debate, maybe you should take that as a sign that the other side isn't so bad?
>how come every time this situation comes up, no one is all that interested in making sure women have access to medical care NOT linked to Planned Parenthood?
People are interested, you fucking clown, you just only tune in when people start screeching about abortion. That's no good reason to get rid of a proven provider who've been extremely effective.
>And in turn, given that Planned Parenthood has absolutely no vested interest in keeping women's health services in jeopardy, you'd think every time this possibility came up, they'd seek to divest and separate their abortion services.
Why the fuck would they do that?
1. Abortion services are an essential part of women's health care and family planning services. Since that's the business Planned Parenthood is in (it's right there in the fucking name!), it would make no sense for them to get rid of those services.
2. If they just spin off their abortion services into a separate business, they now have a different problem. Namely, abortion-specific providers have proven severely vulnerable to harassment by organized groups of nuts and interference by godbothering right-wing politicians who like to pass laws making it functionally impossible for them to operate. There's a reason why there are so many huge swathes of land across the US where there are no abortion providers. So if they spin off their abortion services, before long there probably won't be any abortion services. Which, once again, is an essential part of the business they're in.
3. Because if they do that, the terrorists win. I mean, Jesus Christ, why should a medical facility be forced to divest itself of performing a basic medical procedure?
>This is the same fucking game the Republicans play when they try to shut down the federal government. "Hey, well if you Veto our legislation you're also vetoing federal funding for everything!"
I...what? No! That is perpendicular to reality. Republicans in Congress aren't trying to defund Planned Parenthood's abortion services. They cannot defund planned parenthood's abortion services, because they do not fund them in the first place. What they are trying to do is burn down everything else out of spite. So, unsurprisingly, it turns out that the ones acting like Republicans in Congress are...the Republicans in Congress. How about that.
OK let me put this to you in another way: If an organization performed abortions without getting any taxpayer funds even for unrelated services, far fewer people would be voting the other way.
If PP split into PP and PPA, literally no one would give a fuck.
>Why the fuck would they do that?
Its kind of like running an organization that provides services for the disabled AND murders people, so every time a critic mentions the second part the organization can say "hey what do you have against the disabled??!". Critics of the second part are not going to care that government only gives their tax money to the first part, because they consider murder deeply immoral. The same critics are also going to vote people into office who want to kill the organization, which would actually harm the legitimate disabled aid part of it.
In this way, by choosing not to divest, PP harms women.
And before you bring it up, it's considered murder by your opposition, they aren't faking their feelings, and they're going to vote based on that. So best start treating it as a real thing instead of ignoring it or sweeping it under the carpet.
>the terrorists win
Thanks for bringing the discussion to a new low btw, here let me try to reach your depth:
>they do not fund them in the first place
Even oblique funds are still funds. Giving harmless food aid to Al Qaeda is unethical because the money they save on not buying their own food goes into murdering more people. Same moral situation with Planned Parenthood.
>People are interested, you fucking clown
Wow, that was a huge jump in tone. And yet,
>2. If they just spin off their abortion services into a separate business, they now have a different problem. Namely, abortion-specific providers have proven severely vulnerable to harassment by organized groups of nuts and interference by godbothering right-wing politicians who like to pass laws making it functionally impossible for them to operate. There's a reason why there are so many huge swathes of land across the US where there are no abortion providers. So if they spin off their abortion services, before long there probably won't be any abortion services.
Comes with an admission that I'm basically right. That the reason these services have to be coupled is that it would be politically and socially non-viable for the abortion programs to stand on their own, so they have to be coupled with the other programs to protect the abortion programs.
>If PP split into PP and PPA, literally no one would give a fuck.
Except the politicians who draft TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws in an attempt to shut down abortion clinics. You know those laws you hear about that say abortion clinics must have hallways of a certain width to stay open? That’s a TRAP law—it’s designed to regulate legal abortion providers into oblivion. If PP split off its abortion services into a standalone organization/standalone abortion centers, “PPA” would be shut down sooner rather than later because of TRAP laws.
PP keeping abortion services wrapped into its complete package assures that the entire range of medical procedures are offered without sacrificing one really…really…really fucking controversial-yet-legal service in order to keep the less controversial services afloat.
>Thanks for bringing the discussion to a new low btw
Yeah, uh, you might be forgetting that abortion clinics are routinely targeted by violent anti-choice zealots—as are the doctors who perform them. Late-term abortion providers are exceptionally high-priority targets; just ask the family of the late George Tiller, who was killed in church by an anti-abortion activist.
>Giving harmless food aid to Al Qaeda is unethical because the money they save on not buying their own food goes into murdering more people. Same moral situation with Planned Parenthood.
As has been noted, PP’s state-sponsored funding is reimbursement from the government for providing specific medical/health services. Your analogy is flawed because the government doesn't say “Here’s your dosh, don’t use it on abortion” and wag its shaming finger at PP execs. The only service PP can’t be reimbursed for is abortion.
>the reason these services have to be coupled is that it would be politically and socially non-viable for the abortion programs to stand on their own
Yes. It's true. But so fucking what? Abortion is a legal medical procedure and women should have the right to decide for themselves if they want one. Taking away their choice—whether by TRAP laws or by acts of violence against abortion providers—only serves to drive them towards the black market that springs up in the face of a prohibition. If PP coupling abortion services with its other medical/health services means those clinics stay open and a woman’s right to choose remains intact, I can accept and support that.
>Comes with an admission that I'm basically right. That the reason these services have to be coupled is that it would be politically and socially non-viable for the abortion programs to stand on their own, so they have to be coupled with the other programs to protect the abortion programs.
Except for the big missing statement that abortion services are a key part of family planning services - Planned Parenthood's raison d'etre. That option needs to be there for PP to do their jobs. They aren't just protecting abortion services out of spite or whatever it is you think they're saying.
Why would I treat it as a real thing when it clearly isn't? People also truly believe that tax is theft and that all illness can be cured by drinking enough water. That doesn't mean I have to take them seriously or that their beliefs are legitimate grounds for public policy.
>Even oblique funds are still funds. Giving harmless food aid to Al Qaeda is unethical because the money they save on not buying their own food goes into murdering more people. Same moral situation with Planned Parenthood.
Not even remotely a correct analogy, and also taking the obviously tongue-in-cheek line 'the terrorists win' way too seriously.
No one would care about PP, but everyone would care about PPA. Come on he was clear on that.
>abortion clinics are routinely targeted by violent anti-choice zealot
And everyone who is against our presence in the middle east is a terrorist, because some terrorists blow themselves up to get us out of there.
Can we as a board stop engaging in these false equivalency? If we're talking about people voting against abortion, why the fuck would you bring up terrorists? Voting is the literal opposite of terrorism!]
>Voting is the literal opposite of terrorism!
Am I missing something here or are you ignoring the abortion clinics and doctors that have been bombed and or killed?
Abortion doctors have had a target on them by zealots for a long fucking time. Decades. I dunno if I missed something or if you're being willfully dense, but it's not particularly cute. If this is the case, you've no position to talk about bringing down the level of discourse on this site if you can't even read 20 years into the past on the history of your country.
>People complained that the Iraq war was just an excuse to get at their oil.
>Bush was actually just super emotional and acted rashly despite his better judgement.
>Obama tried to be diplomatic for everything and pulled out because he wanted to keep his promises.
>Now the media is giving all the attention to Trump, who says we need to take the oil to stop ISIS.
>Illumernati remain unseen, utilizing predictable human structures that look like conspiracies but aren't.
>>Illumernati remain unseen, utilizing predictable human structures that look like conspiracies but aren't.
Hey man, this one's not on us. We were busy laying the groundwork for Project Antivaxx. It's probably the Bilderbergers.
Some humor for my fellow fun lovers ITT:
I think I've figured it out. All the Republican state governors running for President aren't actually trying to be president. They're trying to overwhelm Bernie Sanders by sheer numbers. They think by flooding the election with candidates they'll make Bernie less popular.
Unless Bernie gets the nomination, Bernie is completely irrelevant to the Republican candidates right now, and they're completely irrelevant to him.
I wasn't being completely serious
Politics are gay
Yeah, Sanders must win the nomination from Hillary for the GOP to even dare take him seriously. (And yes, I phrased that right. Hillary is the Democrat nominee unless a more viable candidate or a major scandal dethrones her.)
Do you think everyone who disagrees with abortion has bombed an abortion clinic?
If I support abortion and bomb a church, does that mean you and everyone ITT who supports abortion is a terrorist?
>If I support abortion and bomb a church
When was the last time you heard about someone who identifies as pro-choice committing an act of violence against a “pro-life” organization on behalf of an aborted fetus?
No one called all people who are pro-life terrorists. The only thing he said was that letting the viewpoint of pro-life win would make it so that those extremists (extremists here are referring to actual, literal, murdering terrorists here) won. And it does.
So again the question: If I blow up an anti-abortion rally, does that mean the terrorists have already won because PP gets funding from government?
Honestly you have something wrong with your brain if you can't apply simple moral equivalency. Well either that or you actually get why you're wrong but you still continue being full of shit because "when grog steal neighbor cow it good, when neighbor steal grog cow it bad!"
When abortion opponents talk about abortion, they rarely talk about how the procedure is one of the safest in the country (more people die in dentist’s chairs than women do from abortion). They rarely bring up the fact that a majority of women who make the decision to have an abortion are ultimately okay with the decision afterwards. “Pro-life” people don’t even call abortion a medical procedure, really.
You know what they call it? Murder.
“Pro-life”—well, more “anti-choice”, when you get down to it—activists routinely refer to abortion as an act of murder, as the taking of a life. They see themselves as protectors of lives yet to be born. To keep that idea alive, they tailor their rhetoric to shame the pro-choice crowd as killers of innocent lives (or supporters of such killing). “Anti-choice” activists will show you pictures of aborted fetuses and ask you to “stop the killing” of the unborn, the innocent, the defenseless.
Knowing that, do you really find it surprising that some whackjobs would take up the cause of using violence to prevent abortions? If so, you’re woefully naïve. But more to the point: If stopping abortion is the ultimate goal of violent anti-abortion protestors, and a combination of continued violence and legislative action—all spurred on by that “defenders of innocent sacred unborn lives” rhetoric—drives abortion back into the back-alleys, would you be surprised if those violent protestors counted that as “victory”?
>Honestly you have something wrong with your brain
I don't know where you hobos keep coming from or how you end up on +4.
That equivalency will make start to make some sense the day prominent pro-choice groups start passing around anti-choice organizer's (or whatever equivalent to abortion providers you think is most appropriate) personal information, including home addresses, while referring to them as baby murderers (or, again, your preferred equivalent) who need to be stopped at any cost, knowing full well that this will inevitably result in harassment and violence and probably murder. All with a wink and a nudge.
The violent extremists cannot be treated as separate from the rest of the "pro-life" movement, because they are very much a part of it, and used as tools (with plausible deniability built in) by the movement's leaders.
Simply put your moral equivalence falls flat on its face because no pro-choice organization does anything even remotely equivalent to the repugnant shit anti-choice organizations do regularly.
A main argument against abortion being part of planned parenthood is that affiliating it like that is in fact a political trick. But given that one of the obstacles to abortion independent of planned parenthood is anti-abortion officials pulling their own political tricks by using quickly shifting, arbitrary regulations to effectively put an illegitimate ban on legal activity, I would think part of the solution here would be to regulate the issuance of regulations such that there is less for abortion clinics to defend against and thus less reason to need planned parenthood for said defense.
Also, having a movement that's specifically "anti abortion but also anti-violence-against-abortionists" would really help separate people from the terrorism that we know a lot of abortion opposition isn't a part of, but not really how many when looking at the large scale politics of it. Getting people who look too hard for excuses to retaliate against perceived threats is a problem that happens when a group puts too much emphasis on a with-us-or-against-us policies, and it helps for leadership to explicitly call that it get reigned in.
>having a movement that's specifically "anti abortion but also anti-violence-against-abortionists" would really help separate people from the terrorism that we know a lot of abortion opposition isn't a part of
If such a movement could stop using the sort of “defend the defenseless”/“abortion is murder” rhetoric that drives violent anti-abortion “activists” to do what they do, we’d have something to talk about. But the pirmary arguments against abortion (and a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion) all sit in that entire “fetal lives matter” sphere of thought. Condemning violence wouldn’t much matter if the base rhetoric that inspires the violence stayed the same.
While not meaningless, I find the line of reasoning from that to "but then the terrorists win" too much of a stretch for me to really get behind it. The subject matter is inherently inflammatory, being more inflammatory for one side than the other doesn't inherently invalidate the more fervently inflamed side. Sharing base rhetoric isn't something I qualify as indemnifying the way supporting specific leaders such as those described by >>399728 is, and the idea behind condemning violence would be to remove the support of those leaders so that they no longer represent the movement in the minds of the public, which would hopefully reduce violence.
>I find the line of reasoning from that to "but then the terrorists win" too much of a stretch for me to really get behind it.
Non-violent anti-abortion activists use “abortion is murder“/“save the innocent” rhetoric to defend their anti-abortion positions. Lawmakers opposed to abortion use similar rhetoric when discussing TRAP laws and regulations on abortion. Violent anti-abortion activists use that rhetoric to justify their violent acts (“I was protecting the innocent!”). If lawmakers succeed in effectively outlawing abortion by removing any legal access to it, anti-abortion activists “win”…and that means the violent activists, who support the cause and the rhetoric associated with it, “win” as well.
>the idea behind condemning violence would be to remove the support of those leaders so that they no longer represent the movement in the minds of the public, which would hopefully reduce violence
Condemning violence while continuinally using the same rhetoric held up as a justification for such violence makes that condemnation all but worthless.
>to defend their anti-abortion positions
Defending their positions, what a crime.
>Condemning violence while continuinally using the same rhetoric held up as a justification for such violence makes that condemnation all but worthless.
The thing I have to question is this:
If you GENUINELY believe abortion is murder, as opposed to saying it to get an emotional reaction and get people on your side, why AREN'T you committing murder to stop it like the anti-abortion terrorists? You are allowing murder to be committed against "the helpless." If you believe that this is a genuine, A:A comparison to murder, then in what sense do you justify not killing the people who carry out these murders--it's unquestionable that in a genuine case of murder, the person attempting to commit murder is generally seen to be of lower priority for saving than the people being murdered.
That's why I don't really buy it when people say that abortion is murder unless they're terrorists. The terrorists, sure, I believe they're telling the truth--they've shown the strength of their convictions. They think murders are being committed and they are doing what any compassionate person would do in the face of the murder of the helpless--preventing it by any means necessary. Now because I DON'T believe abortion is murder, I think those people are crazy and need to go to jail forever because they're unstable and unable to operate in a society....but I at least respect them as being honest. The people who DON'T pull that shit....either they don't actually believe that abortion is murder (in which case they're liars) or they DO genuinely believe it's murder, but don't consider saving those "people" their problem (in which case they're just disgusting people).
Which is why it's pretty impossible for me to respect anti-choice people. Because there are pretty much only four ways to be--crazy, dishonest, misogynistic, or willing to look the other way in the face of murder for the sake of convenience. None of those four paints a very good picture of you as a person.
>If you GENUINELY believe abortion is murder
I don't, at least not early term abortion. Late term I'd consider closer to something like animal abuse, as it makes sense to have a buffer area like that in lieu of a singular moment of easily measured development to point at. But really, I'm just bringing up points I think make sense because I figured it'd be good for quality of discussion, wasn't meaning to appear otherwise. Feel free to disregard the following if you've no interest in refuting devil's advocates who jump into anonymous political discussions uninvited:
>The people who DON'T pull that shit....either they don't actually believe that abortion is murder (in which case they're liars) or they DO genuinely believe it's murder, but realize how hard it'd be to prevent abortions if they got themselves called crazy and thrown in jail forever while defaming their entire cause by association.
I'll try to focus on other issues in the near future, preferably ones I actually have more personal interest in.
>but realize how hard it'd be to prevent abortions if they got themselves called crazy and thrown in jail forever while defaming their entire cause by association.
Then you consider those "people" to be acceptable losses. You're not winning any points here in my book. Either they're people, in which case no amount of punishment from society makes protecting their lives not worth it, or they're not people, in which case you have no case. There's no "It would be politically unwise to prevent these murders."
And you aren't on a terrorist campaign against abortion protestors because the doctors they lead to the death of are acceptable losses? Just gonna let people who specifically vow to help others and do no harm die like that? Not politically viable I guess.
>And you aren't on a terrorist campaign against abortion protestors because the doctors they lead to the death of are acceptable losses?
No, an Ad Hominem attack would be bringing something irrelevant to your argument up to discredit you without addressing your argument. Saying that any justification you make to support your argument is morally depraved is not an ad hominem attack, because it is an attack against your argument--it is saying that your argument is either intellectually dishonest, emotionally manipulative, or being made in bad faith.
Fine, it's not an ad hominem, it's just a ridiculous standard. Pro-lifers don't go out and kill abortion doctors because (a) that's a morally reprehensible idea, (b) that's a really crappy way of effecting any kind of desired change (ie. making abortion illegal), and (c) unless they work in law-enforcement, personally stopping crimes from happening isn't their responsibility. It's their responsibility to report crimes to the proper authorities whose job is personally stopping them, but in the case of abortion they can't because it's not illegal. Thus, they support efforts to make it illegal.
So then you're saying that if you saw someone else getting stabbed, you wouldn't try to stop it?
Actually, know what? Forget my last post. It most definitely is an ad hominem. You're discounting the argument that abortion is murder not because you have a counter-argument, but because of something you dislike about the people who make it. That's the definition of an ad hominem. Pro-lifers could all be intellectually dishonest, emotionally manipulative people who make claims in bad faith, and they could still be right about abortion being murder.
Abortion isn't murder because a fetus isn't a person.
Everyone is on the same page here but you, pal.
I'm saying, if pro-life advocates are obliged to go out and personally murder murders of what they see as the innocent as >>399735 describes, then pro-lifers are as well, and since they see the doctors as innocent then they need to go and personally murder the murderers of those doctors, because otherwise they're saying those doctors are acceptable losses the way non-terrorist pro-lifers consider the fetuses to be acceptable losses. Or maybe sane people on both sides just realize the points made by >>399761 *
People who protect each other form getting stabbed get legal protection via good Samaritan laws, and aren't called crazy or thrown in jail.
I get that the transition from non-person to person occurs sometime after multi-cellularity, but I'm pretty sure that being taken out of the womb or separated from the placenta isn't the deciding factor. Personally, I have more of an interest in seeing no-kill pet shelters get funded than because they involve animals that are more developed already, but that doesn't mean I see a position against abortion as inherently insane or evil. I just think focusing instead on preventing situations where abortion would be sought is the better solution.
*Though legally speaking, the US doesn't compel police to actively defend anyone.
Non-medical abortions which occur after the point where the fetus is anywhere near viability are so rare that they are practically a myth. It's an ethical red herring.
>focusing instead on preventing situations where abortion would be sought is the better solution
That means focusing on contraception (e.g. condoms, the morning-after pill) to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and plenty of anti-choice people see that as a big no-no. In their eyes, sex is meant only for procreation between a loving couple who want to bring a child into the world, and anything that prevents the natural outcome of sex—pregnancy—is just as bad as abortion.
>At what point is "personhood" achieved?
This is actually one of the sticking points of the whole abortion debate. There is no one universal “personhood moment” where a fetus becomes a person; if there was, we could probably do a better job of placing legal restrictions on abortions. But since we don’t have a scientific consensus on the issue (and probably never will), we have to deal with the differeing theories and beliefs on when we can regard a fetus as a person. A fair number of anti-abortion activists will usually go for 24 weeks (six months) as the earliest restriction date for legal abortion, while others shoot for 20 weeks (five months), and others still believe the moment of conception itself is so sacrosanct that all abortion should be illegal.
>Contraception is already widely available and nobody is trying to make it illegal.
I wouldn’t be so sure about the latter point. Plenty of rabid anti-choice activists want to outlaw contraception, as they don't want anything getting between sex and its intended purpose (procreation). The Hobby Lobby decision wasn’t about outlawing contraception, but it was about employers having to pay for health care plans that included contraception, which is just as bad to the anti-contraception crowd.
(If you squint your eyes, you can also see how the anti-contraception fight miiiiiiiiiiiiiight be a little bit sexist, seeing as how it’s ultimately about a woman's right to choose if/when she gets pregnant in the first place.)
In all honesty you're not a person until about five years old. Before then babies are basically just animals. Five or so is when individuality and personalities really start establishing themselves. "Personhood" arguments are silly because babies aren't people. They should be less about personhood and more about when the fetus becomes its own organism. In which case I think it's pretty obvious that it's not its own organism until it can survive being removed from the mother.
>babies aren't people
Well they're not. They're humans, but they're not people. They don't have individual personalities or thoughts and they're no more mentally capable than a dog. There's a reason you can't remember anything before age six or so--it's because your brain literally hadn't started working like a person's brain until then.
Funny, my first memory dates back to when I was about three years old and having a gabbleygook conversation with my then-one year old brother. I haven't been paying attention to this thread much because it's basically the same rightwing troll shitting these threads up with a handful of smaller buddies versus everyone else and I don't see a point in engaging trolls, but claiming that babies don't have any elements of personhood until that late in life is just ignorant and would get you laughed out of any basic behavioral neuroscience lecture.
For the note I'm pro-choice without age limits, I just think the claim that post-natal individuals take that long to develop personhood is ludicrous.
The trouble with all those cut-off dates is that they are completely arbitrary. Our legal system has a lot of arbitrary dates; 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink. Those we put up with because, in the long run, they don't really matter that much. On this issue, however, I feel ask for something more concrete. We're talking about the difference between being treated as a human being and being treated as a tumor. If we really believe that all humans do have "unalienable rights," then you'd better have a pretty good reason for denying those rights to someone. Being conceived 23 weeks and 4 days ago instead of 24 weeks isn't an acceptable rational for treating two almost entirely identical beings by two completely different standards.
Being forced to provide contraception when you have a moral objection to the use of contraception is an entirely different issue than making contraception illegal for everyone. The Hobby Lobby people weren't trying to prevent their employees from using contraception, they just didn't want to be forced to provide a service that violated their religious beliefs.
I feel confident in saying that not calling a baby a person is a very unpopular opinion. As for your definition of when a fetus becomes a human being, that comes with its own problems. By only considering a fetus a human only after it can be removed from the mother and still survive, you're basing "humanity" not on an innate attribute of being human, but on the quality of medical assistance readily available. A premature birth in a New York hospital has a much higher chance of the baby surviving than an equally premature birth in a hut in Africa. Is one baby a human and the other one not? For that matter, a premature birth today has a much higher chance than an equally premature birth in the same place 120 years ago, so are we also basing humanity on the current level of medical science? The right to life is sounding less "unalienable" by the minute.
See, I think these points are pretty reasonable, and because of that important to bring up in conversations about things like "how much of PP activity involves abortions".
I'm pretty sure I have some memories from before that. I do know it took me a while to learn keeping most memories distinct from each other, and I honestly still have trouble with order of events further back than a day, but I remember that empty room where I stood up and walked to the other end on my first try. When you're a baby, I can only presume it's easy for a lot of things to be embarrassments you don't want to put much effort into remembering in the first place.
But yeah, I could see a buffer zone where the minimum sentencing is halved might be useful, I just don't know when that would be either.
>By only considering a fetus a human only after it can be removed from the mother and still survive, you're basing "humanity" not on an innate attribute of being human, but on the quality of medical assistance readily available.
No, I'm basing it on the same scientific rules that apply to counting something as a distinct organism in any other situation. Like cells that are, for all intents and purposes, alive are not considered their own organisms unless they can be removed from the creature they're part of and survive. if you scrape of skin cells, they don't survive being separated from you because they're not separate organisms. But if you scrape off bits of a Man O' War, they do. That's what defines an organism--the ability to maintain homeostasis.
>If we really believe that all humans do have "unalienable rights," then you'd better have a pretty good reason for denying those rights to someone. Being conceived 23 weeks and 4 days ago instead of 24 weeks isn't an acceptable rational for treating two almost entirely identical beings by two completely different standards.
This is the actual heart of the argument about abortion itself—and the question that drives everyone mad: "When does life begin?" Some people see the moment of conception as the moment where life begins, while others see it as either some arbitrary point during pregnancy or after the moment of birth. As I mentioned before, there is no scientific consensus on the subject (and likely never will be), so we have to use our best judgment and come up with regulations to ensure the likelihood that a child wanted by its mother/parents will be brought to term in as healthy a state as possible. Sweden seems to have the right idea; via Wikipedia:
The current legislation is the Abortion Act of 1974 (SFS 1974:595). This states that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever. After the 18th [week], a woman needs a permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare […] to have an abortion. Permission for these late abortions is usually granted for cases in which the fetus or mother are unhealthy. Abortion is not allowed if the fetus is viable, which generally means that abortions after the 22nd week are not allowed. However, abortions after the 22nd week may be allowed in the rare cases where the fetus can not survive outside the womb even if it is carried to term.
The issue is largely settled in Sweden and the question of the legality of abortion is not a highly controversial political issue. […] Consensus in Sweden is in favour of preventing unwanted pregnancies by the use of birth control and the primary goal is not to lower the amount of abortions, but rather the goal is that all children that are born should be wanted.
This is probably the best pro-choice argument for abortion: Every woman, every family, and every pregnancy is different. In an ideal world, the decision to carry a fetus to term would be made only by the people involved. Since that decision's moral weight increases as the fetus develops, the law should push women to decide promptly—and it should demand higher levels of justification for later-term abortions.
>The Hobby Lobby people weren't trying to prevent their employees from using contraception, they just didn't want to be forced to provide a service that violated their religious beliefs.
Then you could make an argument that doing so violates the First Amendment rights of their employees, as the employer themselves is forcing their religious beliefs upon the employees. (It might not be a compelling or even legally sound argument, but it's there.) There's also something to be said about employers getting involved in healthcare decisions that they have no real business getting involved with; after all, why is it Hobby Lobby's business if one of its female employees uses her company's healthcare plan to legally obtain contraception?
>The Hobby Lobby people weren't trying to prevent their employees from using contraception, they just didn't want to be forced to provide a service that violated their religious beliefs.
They *weren't* providing a service that violated their religious beliefs. They were compensating their employees as much as much as every other business in the country is required to. They wanted a way to get away with paying their employees less than everyone else does.
Also, the fact that Hobby Lobby's owners have heavy investments in contraceptive companies proves that they are perfectly willing to contribute to contraceptive companies' business. This was purely an effort for them to fuck over their employees because they knew if they blamed it on Jesus they could probably get away with it. They're mercenary douchebags, and no one should hold them up as heroes of religious freedom or even as decent human beings--their only goal was to exploit their workers and get away with it.
Sure would be nice if judges would treat women and men equally.
Does it look like a person? Does it have the characteristics of a person? Does it behave like a person? Does it resemble a person in any way?
No, no, no, and no. Look at how easy that was.
>Does it look like a person?
Pretty much? A smiley face can look like a person. Anthropomorphizing things is incredibly easy.
>Does it have the characteristics of a person?
That is is pretty much just asking to summarize an unwritten list of things that should actually be in this list.
>Does it behave like a person?
Given an environment of "tiny sack where you don't have to eat but there's virtually no stimulus", yeah.
I'd expect a person to sit there and arbitrarily kick at stuff.
>Does it resemble a person in any way?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the behavior answer above holds well enough.
To get the thread somewhat back on track, is anyone up to date with the Hillary campaign... she committed perjury, destroyed evidence, sold some 300 pieces of classified info....
Patraeus got canned for being SUSPECTED of sharing classified into with a journalist he was banging, who wants to bet if Hillary can shake these charges?
>Ex-Ravens cheerleader Molly Shattuck must spend every other weekend in a Delaware work-release detention center for nearly two years
Damn that's some HARD TIME.
>Patraeus got canned for being SUSPECTED of sharing classified into with a journalist he was banging
Patraeus was treated far better than Chelsea Manning, who did much the same thing he did only she did it in what she saw as the service of the nation's best interests, while he did it in service of his dick.
And Chelsea Manning almost got sent to fucking solitary confinement for…well, basically for the rest of her life over a fucking expired roll of toothpaste.
Rank and connections matter, that's why Patraeus makes a better comparison. Yeah if Clinton was a low level flunky she would get thrown into solitary over a tube of toothpaste or whatever.... but she isn't.
Hence the question remains, is she more powerful with better connections than a US general, real life test incoming lol.
Legally? A corporation is more of a person than a 13 year old kid. If someone can make all their medical decisions for them, then they are just as dependent on those people as fetuses in the womb are dependent on their mothers. So that kind of distinction is retarded.
Biologically? A new individual human is created with the act of conception. After the two haploid cells merge to produce a diploid zygote, which then starts to metabolize... that's a brand new human. Making a distinction based on the scale of development is also retarded.
Morally? Well I'm not a philosopher, priest or a rabbi, you'll have to talk to them for an answer on that. Just don't expect the answer to be rational coming from people who think we're made of clay or that reality is illusion.
>No, I'm basing it on the same scientific rules that apply to coun-BLAA BLAA BLITHERHY BLOO IM AN IDIOT
>The line was derived from cervical cancer cells taken on February 8, 1951, from Henrietta Lacks, a patient who eventually died of her cancer on October 4, 1951. The cell line was found to be remarkably durable and prolific — which has led to its contamination of many other cell lines used in research.
By your definition this cancer is more of a person than a fetus, in fact according to your FLAWLESS logic this cancer should have had the right to vote in 1969. Stop failing so hard at making a logically consistent argument.
This Nintendo faggot seems to be the only guy in this thread that gets it.
>By your definition this cancer is more of a person than a fetus, in fact according to your FLAWLESS logic this cancer should have had the right to vote in 1969. Stop failing so hard at making a logically consistent argument.
More of an organism than a fetus, certainly. The fact that you use "human" and "person" interchangeably is pretty clear evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about in regards to this though. The terms are not interchangeable.
So, the entire point of parties and primaries is that there's only so many people that you can reasonably expect people to keep track of for an election. But that amount is much more than two, and I don't know of anything that binds those primaries to work in a particular way. What if a political party was made not around a particular policy for governance, but around holding primaries with a particular voting method?
>there are posts here that are more of a person than a fetus
Actually: Given the sheer size of the largest political parties currently, in contrast to the population of the entire country when it was decided it would be a good idea to have parties with primaries as a way to manage elections, wouldn't we need state primaries to get preceded by pre-primaries in which subdivisions within each party choose candidates to run in the actual primaries, or else not actually need primaries or parties?
Maybe they actually won't end up like the libertines, only remembered for their poetry and sex dungeons.
Why would you ever read Breitbart?
Because it was retweeted by David Lillie (who I respect immersly). And whatever terrible horrible things that site published in the past, it does not change the fact that the article is gr8.
I hate being labeled a liberal or a conservative. Why am I not allowed to see positive aspects of both sides? Winston Churchill once said if you're not a liberal at age 20 you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at age 40 you have no brain. It's so accurate it hurts.
bipartisanship and stuff
though there are conservative democrats and shit
honestly, i'm a liberal through and through, but don't identify as one. i'm an issues person. it just so happens that i lean left on 95% of everything.
to clarify, i'm not talking about the two parties, but saying that the same idea leads us to strict labels.
>It's so accurate it hurts.
Except it isn't. Recent studies have shown pretty conclusively that people tend to get no more or less conservative with age. The reason old people seem to be conservative more often than young people is just that older generations, such as the baby boomers, were always more conservative. People tend to think that the baby boomers were all hippies when they were kids, and then grew up into the raging douchebags they are now, but the fact is that the hippie movement was actually a very small fraction of the Baby Boomers--something like 80-90% of all hippies were at Woodstock.
People don't get more conservative as they get older. The closest that they come, is that as the prefrontal cortex shrinks your inhibitions are reduced (much like when drunk), so you become less capable of controlling your impulses. So old racists get worse at hiding their racism than young racists are. But that's about as far as it goes in terms of becoming more conservative. Their views don't change, just their willingness to care about how saying their opinions affect other people.
It's great if you're totally ignorant of all the issues involved and of the history of almost every single person named in it.
So basically, this is a classic Mister Twister post.
Fox News is getting tired of Trump's bullshit.
"Yes...At long last, does the man who accused the vast majority of Mexican immigrants to be drug-addicted rapists have no sense of decency?"
Let's discuss White Lives Do Not Matter, Latino Lives Do Not Matter, Only Black Lives Matter And Only When Shot By White Cops, Not When Shot By Fellow Blacks (#WLDMLLDMOBLMAOWSBWCNWSBFB) movement.
Way to discourage discrimination by using class discrimination.
>defending people who attacked bernie
>a guy trying to help them
>because hes white
BLM can get fucked as far as I'm concerned. They go after Bernie because he is the one person they have access to. They can't get to Hillary and nobody would care if they got to O'Malley (no one is still talking about it from the first time) or Chaffee.
They would be scared to death to try this at a Republican rally of any sort. They use Bernie because he is accessible, it has nothing to do with anger or bravery or their cause. The movement has turned into a bunch of cowardly bullies.
Even guys on the other side are realizing that BLM is full of a bunch of fucking psychopaths, https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ben-carson-blasts-black-lives-matter-for-targeting-127559300721.html
>They go after Bernie because he is the one person they have access to.
They crashed a Jeb bush session, too, you ignorant fuckwad.
You're that same idiot that didn't bother to read 20 years into the past on anti abortion doctor violence, aren't you? Let me ask you a question: Do the librarians care that you come in to shitpost on a knockoff Mongolian Puppet Theater board or do they welcome it?
Those protestors went after Bernie first because he was both the easiest target and the man who would have the most sympathy for the movement. In the end, they got results—a few days after the protest, the Sanders campaign website posted a plan on how Sanders would address racial justice if elected President.
They're not going after Republicans (as hard) because they know those candidates and the GOP base would have no sympathy for/react negatively to them. Imagine what would happen if a BLM group crashed a Trump campaign stop.
Like anyone gives a fuck what they did "too" wrt other people, Bernie is the nicest guy in the entire running and he did not deserve to be repeatedly attacked.
They attacked him and derailed the entire rally, making it less likely for him to be elected and help them in the first place.
The saddest thing is that Bernie supported fixing the justice system for years, this entire thing was unnecessary. For example here's a recent quote from him three months before the attacks started:
>The word has got to get out that when police act inappropriately, and of course in this case there has to be a thorough investigation. For too many years, too many...mostly Black suspects, have been treated terribly and in some cases murdered. That is unacceptable. And police officers have got to be held accountable for their actions.
He didn't forget that, he planned to do it, so why the fuck did BLM attack him again? Even if he didn't support revamping the justice system for fucking years before BLM existed, they could have gotten the same response from Bernie by writing him a fucking letter.
BLM is a bunch of uncultured swine and I'm not going to shed a tear when they are relegated to the dustbin of history by their own actions. Pic related, fresh off the newsreel, psychopath shoots three people and BLM supports him because he's black.
They won't stop being retarded anytime soon, I can guarantee more fresh idiocy to post no matter how long you want to argue with me.
>psychopath shoots three people and BLM supports him because he's black
Would you mind telling me which national BLM leaders support the shooter? Can you show me a statement from the top of the BLM organization that supports the shooter?
…no, you can’t, because BLM isn’t a top-down organization with designated national leaders. It is an amorphous grassroots movement with “leaders” in the loosest sense working with larger groups in various cities and regions—groups whose members may not always agree on how far to take the BLM movement in terms of messaging and protesting or who to support under the BLM “banner”. So before you go spouting that kind of horseshit again, you’d do well to take a minute and think about what the fuck you’re talking about…
>BLM is a bunch of uncultured swine
…instead of immediately going for the tactic of dehumanizing the people with whom you disagree for the sake of winning an argument on the Internet.
I don't care one way or another about your internet arguments, but aren't you the guy who criticized another amorphous grassroots movement called Gamergate for a pretty damn similar situation? Can't have your cake and eat it too bruv.
>Still responding to hobos on the internet
Come on, son.
GamerGate was an amorphous grassroots movement dedicated to harassing women in/associated with gaming that used the guise of “ethics in videogame journalism” to rope in unsuspecting dupes who could easily give the harassers cover while simultaneously helping the harassers carry out their plans.
GamerGate didn’t discover journalistic ethics, nor did it start the first conversation on the subject. (Especially not on ethics in gaming journalism.) GamerGate as a loosely-affiliated group of people uniting under a single banner didn’t exist until Zoe Quinn's sex life was outed. The “movement’s” primary targets were women (e.g. Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu). Fuck GamerGate—and fuck any attempt to make it seem like it was anything but angry nerds trying to harass women off the Internet/out of gaming.
>GamerGate was an amorphous grassroots movement dedicated to harassing women
Stopped reading there. Plus4 is contaminated with brainwashed liberals like you.
Someone told me they hope Trump gets elected, because it will be such a disaster that the politician dynasty system will have to be completely reworked. I have to admit, I never thought of it that way.
Yeah ok, McKesson is the closest thing to defacto BLM leader, and the loudest voice there. Before the race of the shooter was known, he was trying to label the shooter as terrorist, and using the shooting to politicize more of his vitriol.
Tweets like this get retweeted by BLM supporters hundreds of times, and no one is stepping up to tell people they're wrong to be racist.
They aren't presuming that black people support BLM by default, or that while people don't.
I think I'd still rather try to get a third party win if he makes it to the polls and I don't like the democrat candidate either, even though it's been a long time since we've had one.
>BLM is a bunch of uncultured swine
>when you stop comparing black people to pigs.
Spot the difference.
Funny to see the mental hoops you'll jump to in order to insulate yourself from reality.
Stone, I'm legitimately interested in hearing your rebuttal to the points presented in this post (written by a woman) http://thespectacularspider-girl.tumblr.com/post/100433941529/zoe-quinn-and-gamergate-genesis-myths
Written by a woman? Well by gum, that must make anything she says okay then.
Her "facts" don't seem to be based on fact. Zoe Quinn is still brought up by gators any time they start on one of their schpiels about corruption, yet she specifically says Zoe Quinn is irrelevant to GamerGate now.
Look also how this first thing she posts where she tries to prove that this is all "okay" (Subtitled "The Start") she doesn't give evidence of corruption or anything else GamerGate claims to be about--she starts attacking Quinn's character. She provides evidence that Zoe Quinn was a bad girlfriend who was emotionally abusive to her ex boyfriend and somehow we're supposed to give a shit--which would be fine if GamerGate were about Zoe Quinn and proving how bad she is. But this woman is claiming that's not what GamerGate is about while using an essay to do exactly that. At best you can say she is rationalizing why it was okay to attack Zoe Quinn, not proving that GamerGate was ever about corruption.
Okay, so we already see where her first two paragraphs completely negate the argument that she's arguing for any reason other than to attack Zoe Quinn.
Next, the evidence of corruption she provides in the "Why Zoe Quinn is Still Wrong" section is....what? One of the guys she is alleged to have slept with included her in an interview with a bunch of other people who he presumably wasn't sleeping with who had the same credentials she did? STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. And then Zoe, among several other people, alleged misconduct in the Pepsi games jam thing and because one of the witnesses was her, this is an example of corruption?
"Corruption Outside of 5 Guys" — No corruption in Games Journalism is addressed at all in this section. This is 100% hit piece on Zoe Quinn. So....hooray? I mean even if we allow this woman her point, that Zoe Quinn is the devil or nothing, GamerGate is still coming off as an organization that exists for no other reason than to attack Zoe Quinn. Also, the Fine Young Capitalists thing has been examined to death, and a screenshot of a reddit post where one of them is whining doesn't count as proof of anything.
tl;dr: The link you posted does nothing but demonstrate GamerGate has never cared about Journalism Ethics and still doesn't--this is entirely about Zoe Quinn and trying to make her cry. You've just found one woman who happens to think it's justified because she's decided Zoe Quinn is a dirty slut--what you haven't found is any evidence that GamerGate has ever given a shit about anything other than attacking a specific woman, then fanning out to attack other women when they realized it would make them look bad if they only talked about Zoe Quinn.
In a bit of good news, the Sixth Circuit (the same circuit court that sent Obergefell to SCOTUS, I believe) denied Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis’s request for an emergency stay from being forced to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
Davis had tried to hang her hat on the “religious freedom” argument by claiming the state would put too heavy a burden on her if it forced her to sign a same-sex marriage license (or have her signature appear on one). The judge presiding over her case ruled against her, but gave her a temporary reprieve—which expires on Monday—to file an appeal with the Sixth Circuit. As the circuit court denied her appeal, if she refuses to let same-sex couples get a marriage license after the stay expires, she’ll be found in contempt of court and possibly face jail time.
It’ll be interesting to see whether she capitulates and tells her office to follow the law or goes to jail because Jesus told her so.
She probably also has the opportunity to file for resignation.
Her son—who is a county clerk in the same office—claimed in an interview that he’d go to jail or “die” for the right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Makes me wonder what he’d choose to do if his mother resigns or gives in to the court order.
Just passing by but Zoe Quinn is a fucking cunt. Reason I ever heard of her is because she accused an imageboard I go to of harassing her out of completely nowhere - this was a year before any /v/ shit. What's insane about this is, she was claiming to be a depression awareness activist at the time (not "muh women in gaming") and rather than stop for a minute to ask if the people she was demonizing were depressed, no she threw us under the bus and got kotaku and huffpo to write articles about us. Because anons are acceptable targets I guess and not "harassed women in gaming". Really the backlash couldn't have happened to a more nasty person. If you get compared to anonymous chantards and you look like the asshole, you failled at life.
Why are liberals so obsessed with forcing people to accept gay marriage? It's already legal...
Yes. It is legal. Which is why that woman needs to do her job and carry out the law.
Or you could just go to another clerk.
You can't just go hire any clerk sign a marriage certificate.
Sure you can. Go to the next country over. If she was elected to serve her county, then she can't violate her constituents' wishes.
What are you lolling at specifically?
No one is obsessed with forcing Kim Davis or anyone in her office to “accept” same-sex marriage (i.e. to like the idea of same-sex marriage), least of all me. She can think gay people are the evil mutant offspring of Satan and Lady Gaga for all I give a shit. But she is a civil servant, and as such, she is expected to do her job and follow the laws of the land. Last I checked, gay couples can legally marry, so her refusal to do her job by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is a flat refusal to follow the law—an act of discrimination based only on the sexual orientation of the couple trying to marry. Her religious beliefs do not allow her to flout the law she swore to follow.
Why are conservatives so obsessed with letting government employees break the law?
<b> Idaho student asked to remove Confederate flag from truck</b>
<i>WILDER, Idaho A Canyon County high school student has been asked to remove a Confederate flag from his truck because administrators worry it is a gang symbol.
KIVI-TV reports that Cossa Academy student Jordan Beattie says he hung the flag from his truck after his girlfriend gave it to him as a gift. His mother Sherry Beattie says when he came to the Wilder school with the flag displayed he was called to the school office.
Jordan has removed the flag for now, but Sherry Beattie says they will meet with the school board to discuss the matter further.
Caldwell Police Department Cpt. Frank Wyant says his department does not consider the Confederate flag a gang symbol.
Cossa officials say if Jordan displays the flag at school he could be expelled.</i>
>Another Leftist attacking free speech.
Funny how the only speech Rightists ever seem interested in protecting is Hate Speech.
If Democrats and their supporters truly want to fight gun crime, and they truly believe that less guns directly correlates to less gun homicide, there is a simple way they could do so: they could give up their guns. Bryce Williams was a leftist who was chastised by management for wearing a Barack Obama sticker during on-air election coverage.
But he’s just one example of gun crime in the Democrat-supporting world. From 2009-2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 26,632 firearm-related homicides took place in the United States. The CDC investigated the number of firearm-related homicides in the 50 most populous U.S. cities; all but six of those cities were located in counties which would go on to vote for Barack Obama in 2012. In those cities, 13,014 firearm-related homicides took place.
In other words, just by confiscating all the guns from all the people in the most populous Democratic cities–by following the Democratic theory that less guns mean less gun crimes–the American gun murder rate would drop by half. And that doesn’t even count all murders from all Democrat-supporting areas in the country.
Obviously, that wouldn’t work–virtually all the major Democratic cities already have gun control, and the Democratic-area murder spree continues. But the media will never discuss where most murders actually occur, or who actually commits them. That would be inconvenient to the Democratic narrative that gun crime does not center in any location–that a gun is dangerous in and of itself, no matter who wields it.
Unpopular speech is the only speech that really needs protection.
While we're on that topic,
>latest spree killer is a gay man
>both his victims are straight
>manifesto says he did it because of homophobia at the hands of “black men and white women.”
>had a gay flag in his apartment
>no one is calling for it being banned
Hate Speech is not the only kind of unpopular speech, though. Rightists never seem to be lobbying hard for people to have the right to say "fuck" in public or air pornography on television. The only form that "Free Speech" protection ever seems to take when it's someone on the right arguing it is "I should be allowed to call people niggers and faggots."
>they could give up their guns
I've never owned a gun and I never plan to. So I don't really follow your logic here.
#WhiteLivesMatter is trending
White people are trying to take attention off of problems facing other people by making it all about themselves? Stop the presses!
>no one is calling for it being banned
Well the gay flag hasn't had a history of being used by oppressors of straight people. Also, this is one example of some dude having a gay flag. And again, the gay flag wasn't used by traitors who fought to continue oppressing people. So...
Yeah, duders, I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Is this low tier trollbait or are you really this dumb? I'd think with you being a hobo in the library, you'd take some time to read the books there. No, they aren't all "liberal propaganda".
... tweeted by 12 year olds no doubt.
I think you're forgetting that 2 people were killed over this yesterday.
Some high school student isn't hurting anybody by having a southern flag sticker on their pick-up truck, and the First Amendment protects his right to do that. On the other hand, Leftists are being indoctrinated to hate "traditional" America, and as we see, they are even picking up guns and murdering people. Yet somehow a 200 year old piece of cloth is the real threat.
So, nignogs brutalizing half a million whites per years is not an issue? Whites are just "hijacking" by talking about that? That's over 100 times your "urban youts killed by police" numbers. But they were going to church, and were turning their lives around, so they're the real victims of course...
You're not doing yourself any favors by using words like "nignogs." You're revealing your hand too early. If you want to troll people into thinking you're arguing from a legitimate place, and actually engage the things you're saying, you can't be an OBVIOUS klansman. You've got to keep that subtle so that people don't realize until several pages in that you're a crazy person who doesn't deserve to be treated like a legitimate participant in a discussion. All you're going to get behaving the way you are is people critiquing your trolling technique, like I'm doing right now.
I mean, we could address the real issues here - inner-city crime, by uneducated, ignorant minorities, and the fact that we're importing millions more of these types of people per year... but for some reason people would rather ban flags. It's fucked up.
They need jobs, and education, but we're shoving millions of new thirdworlders into our countries faster than we can fix the Chicagos and Detroits of the world, and if you say hey maybe we should lower those numbers, you get called a racist. WTF?
I call them nignogs because that's what they are, rapists, murderers, thieves and thugs. That's the "320,082 white victims" number I'm talking about, they're not black people, because they're not people. I don't consider cold-blooded murderers and rapists people. The fact that you see black murderers and black rapists as worth more than innocent white victims proves you're a racist.
>you're a troll!
Yeah, anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, stay in that little safe space bubble where you don't have to have your views challenged. :^)
Get out of the library, hobo, that isn't where you take showers.
"OK, This Trump Thing Isn’t Funny Anymore"
When people are shouting ‘white power’ at his rallies and Trump is endorsed by the Daily Stormer, the joke is over.
The flag isn't the cause. It's a symptom.
I don't know why you think any of this is new. You guys sure are acting like it is.
I've heard people making some pretty legit and/or frightening comparisons between Trump's rise and the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. And while I know everyone's going to cite Godwin's Law at a comparison like that, I don't know that it's necessarily a stretch to compare a highly capitalist/corporatist, profoundly xenophobic "outsider" politician with a fervent base of voters interested in ousting the establishment and "correct" the ways the country has "gone wrong," while celebrating militarism and warmongering...
...I mean is it really so wrong to call Trump and his followers fascists? Is there some major way in which they do not fit the label of fascism?
lol remember when it was uncivil to compare politicians to Hitler?
Thanks for avoiding the question. I take it then that you have no reasons why Trump shouldn't be considered a fascist other than that it goes against The Internet Rules?
I meant on CNN or MSNBC lol. I have no problems admitting fascism is on the rise again; maybe we need a bit of that after 70 years of unrestrained marxism.
Let’s not forget how Trump is promoting a form of “national purification” by ranting about the deportation of undocumented immigrants and generalizing those immigrants as rapists, murderers, and drug dealers to make his case more palatable to the xenophobic/racist GOP voting base (and thus secure more support from said base).
>by ranting about the deportation of undocumented immigrants
All countries do this.
When did this idea of "not complete open borders=racist" idea exist?
The generalization and demonization of undocumented immigrants is the more worrisome part of Trump’s messaging.
Trump treats illegal immigration as though it were THE BIGGEST ISSUE FACING AMERICA. Which it's not. Net immigration from Mexico to the United States over the last ten years or so has been zero, if not less than zero (it's hard to get a good read on illegal immigration numbers, but the best figures we have point to a general decrease).
I mean other than that, it's not so much that "not complete open borders=racist" as that Trump has demonstrated himself to be a pretty big racist every time he's been given the opportunity to open his mouth. His form of immigration concern is not a rational, "let's implement a sensible border policy" immigration concern. It's a "Mexicans are coming to rape your children" form of immigration concern. It is xenophobia used to unite a crowd of frustrated, scared people behind your cult of the personality.
It's doubly ironic how Trump goes on about immigrants being rapists when he is, himself, a known rapist.
>The CDC investigated the number of firearm-related homicides in the 50 most populous U.S. cities; all but six of those cities were located in counties which would go on to vote for Barack Obama in 2012.
Democrats more popular in urban centers, news at eleven
I think this might be the worst infographic I've ever seen.
Trump's racism is also forcing the other nominees to play his game. The GOP knows it can’t go “full racist” without all but ensuring its Presidential candidate will lose the election, so it codes racist messages in dogwhistles and double-speak (the party’s own form of “political correctness”, if you will). But Trump has all but tossed that PC shit out the window in favor of clearly racist messaging. Compared to Trump’s bevy of boisterous bullshit, the other candidates seem “safe” or “tame” in comparison.
Any GOP candidate who wants to poll near Trump’s numbers has to act nearly as crazy/racist as Trump—and that would endanger any hopes for a Republican win in 2016.
Exactly, how will getting rid of it do better than mask actual problems?
Reading Scott Adam's blog, he repeatedly insists that Trump isn't even a proper politician, and is rather a businessman trained as a magician/hypnotist (or wizard, as Scott puts it) who plans to run based entirely on his array of persuasion skills. Which of course does not make him seem like a good candidate to me, but until reading your post I didn't make the connection that Hitler was also compared to magicians, in that he built his political career almost entirely on public oration.
>how will getting rid of it do better than mask actual problems?
Not flying a flag that was used as a symbol of oppression not even a century ago would be a great fucking start to boosting morale.
This guy gets it
This is the same situation as the voter ID laws, which every fucking country has. People entered the country illegally, we don't know if they're criminals or not, this is why ALL countries control immigration.
The OTHER reason we have legit immigration systems is to PROTECT THE IMMIGRANTS. Illegal Mexican immigrants pay their life savings to cartels to be brought over the border, and instead get robbed, brutalized and shot in the back of the head in Sonora. If you argue against changing immigration laws, you're contributing to pic. Just sayin.
By the way I don't even like Trump but go read the comments he made, the media posted fake ones and twitter is en-masse making fake Trump quotes. Don't believe everything you hear.
As I understand it he was talking about fugitives in Mexico being able to run from the law to America, because of the porous border, and this is absolutely true and the vice versa applies as well.
>I think this might be the worst infographic I've ever seen.
I agree, it's a damn tragedy, and everyone is ignoring it.
Worst as in most poorly constructed, don't try to pretend that I agree with your troglodytic ramblings.
Also yes, 'every country' (not actually every country but let's just put a pin in that) has voter ID laws. But they don't look like the ones being used to suppress minority voters in the U.S. For example, in Canada, you need to present ID in order to vote. But if you don't have a driver's license or passport or what have you, that ID can be a piece of mail with your name on. Or someone who does have photo ID walking in and signing a form certifying that you are who you say you are.
>democrats more popular in urban areas
>urban areas commit more murder
>no correlation here guys!
your attempts at trolling are getting more and more pathetic
like you aren't even riling anyone up at this point
i'm just laughing right now
>i type like a retard
>the shift key is a white patriarchy myth
>you are a troll!
Imagine how fucking racist it would be if we demanded the Middle East burns all copies of the koran and comes up with a "new symbol"
>inb4 not the same thing
>inb4 not the same thing
Well, I'm glad you realized it wasn't the same thing so that I didn't have the point out the stupidity of your statement.
The modern "confederate" flag isn't even the flag the confederates used in the civil war, it's Virginia's battle flag.
The design made up a small part of one of the official confederate flags, but a blank white space makes up part of Japan's flag too. Doesn't mean that anyone who flies a white flag is being a massive weeb.
>a symbol of a cult that currently to this day executes women for misogynistic reasons and wants to kill everyone in america and the west
>a piece of cloth that 200 years ago was the symbol of a militia that fought over taxes
They are not the same thing.
What kind of anime does the library have to rent?
I remember a year or two back, there was a troll who spouted conservative/libertarian flavored nonsense and who always had to have attach an image to his postings. Only then I think it was Avatar pics, and I think he might've namefagged as RainbowKid for a while. I seem to recall him being banned for being a fucknuts.
I think he just left, and if I'm recalling him correctly, he was more intelligent and reasonable than anime guy over here.
Rainbowkid actually had some pretty legit arguments, made me reconsider my positions on a few things.
I liked him.
Nowadays the only "counterarguments" +/pol/ gets are appeals to guilt and "lol you act like a homeless person," which is honestly pretty offensive.
Surprising to see Freehaven and the anons who learned about politics from tumblr make such a joke out of it, really.
I have no problems with people making good counterarguments and engendering healthy discussion on political issues, but Hobo with a Library Card isn’t doing that.
>Worst as in most poorly constructed
What? In what way? Be clearer in how you speak and quit the one liners, maybe more people will catch your drift that way.
>For example, in Canada, you need to present ID in order to vote. But if you don't have a driver's license or passport or what have you, that ID can be a piece of mail with your name on. Or someone who does have photo ID walking in and signing a form certifying that you are who you say you are.
OK, that sounds pretty good. Why aren't people arguing for doing that, instead of having NOTHING in place. Modern vote fraud is so massive that (considering this is America) can change the course of the world.
>but Hobo with a Library Card isn’t doing that.
Ironically neither are you.
>CTRL+F hobo in this thread
And what the fuck is up with the homeless people hate? Please stop this nonsense, it makes you sound ignorant as fuck.
Maybe not so much a political thought, but in the Christian faith, do agnostics go to heaven?
I'm not one, but still curious.
>Modern vote fraud is so massive
By the way I don't see how it's bad statistics, it was made by the DOJ and the only reason race was included is because a Liberal researcher tried to prove African-americans were being disproportionately targeted by whites.
It's a simple count of crime adjusted for population, not many ways it can go wrong.
320 thousand violent crimes per year, one every 1.6 minutes, or 811 white people attacked since the blue statistics block image was posted.
It shows something quite clearly, reporting on it would be impossible, there isn't enough news time. I suppose they could make a scrolling image set below the screen, but that's kind of morbid.
It seems to me the reason no one is discussing black on white or black on black violence is because it is commonplace and thus not newsworthy.
The reason everyone is discussing white on black violence is because it is rare as fuck and gives us weeks or even months to discuss it before the next one.
>cue being accused of not having a home, in this real estate market
I'm not really surprised you're coming to his defense.
Anyone who thinks that the gay pride flag is comparable to the Confederate flag is stupid. Anyone who thinks taking the Confederate flag down is comparable to going to an entire different country and telling people to burn the Koran is stupid. Anyone who outright doesn't even know the history of the US for the last 20 years has no business speaking on anything.
I also love how you're more offended over him being called a hobo when he was just in here the other day calling black people "nignogs".
>Modern vote fraud is so massive that (considering this is America) can change the course of the world.
Name a single case of modern vote fraud that was committed in person, as opposed to a situation like Gerrymandering or voting machine hacking / bugs.
Sorry I should have said wider reaching, and I was meaning specifically gerrymandering and other such vote fraud. It's damn easy to fool digital voting machines or fuck with mail-in votes en masse.
If everyone was required to show up in person, and followed the Canadian procedure, it would cut down massively on this shit.
It would have absolutely zero effect on Gerrymandering, and it would essentially forbid oversees military personnel from voting at all. Not to mention people with disabilities, the elderly, and those with difficult hours at their jobs who are unable to get to the voting booths under normal circumstances and depend on mail-in voting for their voices to be heard. Not that I expect any of those things to matter to you because people who wring their hands about "voter fraud" are almost always trying to prevent the "wrong kinds of people" from voting anyway.
And since there's effectively no in-person vote fraud being committed either way, what purpose does the voter id serve if you've already forced people to go to the voting locations?
That might have been me, except I never namefagged. Personally, I just came here to check on your avatar board, since I had an idea for a thread, saw it was locked, and then since I posted in your /new/ threads for about a month a few years ago, set up camp here for a little bit. I don't get why political shit type discussions always have to be angry. Does that happen in other languages? It feels like, "yeah, we're both human, and apparently I am a hateful asshole, but we're still both human, so any opportunity for us to relate friendlily should be welcomed rather than rejected".
>I am a little drunk so please don't be mean to me
Also, politically, how do you fags feel about the eva BDs?
I am the anon referring to. I consider bi or gay, while I am also a northerner (NY bitches!). Am I somehow a "weirdo" for that? Am I self hating? I do have self hatred issues, but they have no relation to my sexuality, or region of origin. I simply feel that flags have no effect on me or anyone else, and therefore flags should be openly tolerated by everyone, as long as that is not hurting anyone else. Am I somehow an "asshole" for this? If anything, I feel threatened by the fact that anonymous IB's are the only place I can express this opinion (since anywhere else that can be tracked to your identity can lead to you getting fired, just for saying that people who aren't giant assholes should be tolerated)
Also, to be clear, I did not call black people nignogs; I called rapists and murderers nignogs. Cold-blooded criminals are not people.
>Cold-blooded criminals are not people.
What does that make Dick Cheney, then?
Funny that when we're using racial slurs to shit on people, we always seem to gravitate back towards ones that were used for black people. I wonder why.
Also, stop dehumanizing people who do bad shit. People who do bad shit are still people. Trying to other them is silly, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it. I could easily call Hitler a literal monster, but he wasn't. He was a human. A piece of shit, but still a human.
>I could easily call Hitler a literal monster, but he wasn't. He was a human. A piece of shit, but still a human.
I do it as a reaction to the people who make apologies for murderers, rapists, and dictators. Obviously, thugs are still "people", in the technical sense of the word, but I hate people who elevate the thugs and criminals to a more "sympathetic" level than their victims, so I try to oppose them.
I like that one comment.
>Tumblr is probbly the only place we could have this conversatioion and not be lynched.
Yes, truly liberal places are the only place you can have subversive conversations and not be in personal danger for it. And that should be celebrated. Not "Oh it's TECHNICALLY not censorship so you are a retard and PC is good!". The idea that people can have their personal livelihood, or their career, put in jeopardy for their individual beliefs is fucking horrifying, yet libtards see this as acceptable unleess it is a "woman in gaming" as the victim.
I truly hate this new "political correctness" style of activism, where people claim to be fighting for the victims yet they victimize average jews. Maybe one day we will have a society where people can say anything and carry the expectation that everyone else will tolerate what they said. Isn't that the society we should be working towards?
Well you and Mr. Stone have slandered pretty much everyone who disagreed with you with slurs... fun fact: hobo was used to refer to migratory workers at one point.... I judge people by their character and their actions not by the color of their skin or the cash they have in their pocket, and I refuse to stop judging people for their actions because that is asinine.
>Also, stop dehumanizing people who do bad shit.
I will when they start acting like it.
>the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence.
>Synonyms - sympathy, tenderness, goodwill.
>Antonyms - inhumanity, unkindness.
>characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed:
>acting in a manner that causes the least harm to people or animals:
>Synonyms - merciful, kind, kindly, kindhearted, tender, compassionate, gentle, sympathetic; benevolent, benignant, charitable. See human.
Hitler was a monster. Being a monster doesn't mean looking like frankenstein or not being of the human species, it means acting abhorrently.
>a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems
>one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
>something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme [...] wickedness, or cruelty
>What does that make Dick Cheney, then?
lol do you still think you're talking to republican hobos here mate?
Calling someone a hobo really isn't comparable to calling someone a racial slur or saying they're not human. I don't expect you to understand the difference, though, seeing as you've proven you haven't even finished high school.
>it would essentially forbid oversees military personnel from voting at all
What? How? You think bases can't have voting stations?
>people with disabilities, the elderly, and those with difficult hours at their jobs
The only way that would be true is if someone is locked up 24/7 in their house for months, people with disabilities have government provided carers that take them out. Elections last for a long time, if a person has the time to get out of the house during the voting period, then they have the time to take five minutes to vote if they really want to.
>people who wring their hands about "voter fraud" are almost always trying to prevent the "wrong kinds of people" from voting anyway.
Yes the "wrong people"... such as people voting multiple times, voting with fake names of deceased individuals, voting for neighbors, or not even being a citizen.
>no in-person vote fraud being committed
I really don't see why you're opposed to commonsense voting reform AND immigration reform, it's like you want America to stay one step short of the rest of the civilized world.
>Calling someone a hobo really isn't comparable to calling someone a racial slur or saying they're not human.
Yes it is, you're dehumanizing your opposition so you won't have to read their posts, much less take their arguments seriously.
>seeing as you've proven you haven't even finished high school.
What the fuck do you have against the uneducated now?
You just can't stop shitting on people.
>you're dehumanizing your opposition
Hobos are still people, you dummy.
Well, for one thing, the way it adjusts for population at the end is hilariously and obviously backwards. The statistics count victims within given populations, so the correct way to adjust for population is to see what percentage of each population are victims. Instead it checks each number against the OPPOSITE population, which actually compounds the distortion from population effects instead of eliminating it. If you run the numbers the correct way, it comes out almost dead even: 5.18 times more white people than black people, 5.11 times more white victims than black ones. That's actually about 1% more black victims than white, although the difference is so small that it's attributable to statistical noise.
For another thing, even if it didn't totally bungle the population adjustment, the statistics still don't say what they want them to. The two statistics cited are not directly comparable. For obvious reasons - they depend on totally different populations and are unconnected, and have no other data to provide context.
And third, even if all the statistical work in them was aboveboard, it's clearly intended and is being deployed as a counterpoint to #blacklivesmatter. But #blacklivesmatter is specifically focused on police and vigilante killings. So even if it was right, it would still be a non sequitur.
Out of a billion in-person ballots cast since 2000, 31 were possibly fraudulent. So while it's not exactly 'no' in-person fraud, it's so little as to not be worth mentioning. Certainly not enough to warrant expensive policy changes which disenfranchise sections of the population.
>Also, stop dehumanizing people who do bad shit. People who do bad shit are still people. Trying to other them is silly, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it. I could easily call Hitler a literal monster, but he wasn't. He was a human. A piece of shit, but still a human.
I didn't mean to imply that bad people aren't people, just that someone building their campaign entirely on charisma might make some unwise decisions if actually given a position of military power like the presidency.
><insert racial slur> are still people, you dummy.
Why are you so retarded?
>see what percentage of each population are victims
This would give a minority of the population the right to kill many times their number of the majority with no consequences. For example if I'm the only white man in an Asian country, it would be ok for me to kill as many Asians as I wanted.
This is fucking retarded.
Where I'm from we treat each life as special instead of as a percentage value of total people in the country.
Also the entire point is to count the total white-on-black cases of violence vs black-on-white, proving BLM is based on the lie that blacks experience disproportionately more violence.
>#blacklivesmatter is specifically focused on police and vigilante killings
No it's not. For example the people killed in that church shooting are often brought up by BLM activists, and they've taken part in report-bombing certain sites to ban the confederate flag because of it, as well as in starting a hashtag encouraging people to steal confederate flags.
But even if you were right on BLM focusing just on police (you're not), you would still be wrong overall because police don't shoot blacks disproportionately. Despite minorities presenting a larger threat, the police shootings fit the population demographics to a T.
Out of a billion votes cast 31 were caught, because the government is simply not interested in investigating voter fraud. This is not reassuring, it is scary.
>The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a law firm dedicated to election integrity based in Indiana, recently sent statutory notice letters to election officials in 141 counties putting them on notice of their discoveries. The group says if action is not taken to correct the questionable voter rolls, they will bring lawsuits against every single county on the list.
People are starting to call voter fraud a fucking tradition.
You're not fooling anyone, you realize. Blatant race-baiting and using the notorious dog-whistle of in-person voter fraud (which no one actually thinks is happening, including the people who talk about it all the time). Why don't you just come out and say "I want to make sure black people's votes mean less?" At least then we might have some respect for the fact that you're open about what you're doing instead of trying to pretend like you have a reasonable political stance here.
Because he's too much of a limp dick to say, "I hate niggers."
Not to mention, he knows we'd (rightfully) tune his ass out if he didn't try to tiptoe around the fact that he was racist. I imagine folks like him want it both ways. They know racism isn't "cool" these days, but they still want to be racist without the repercussions of being racist. So they do all but admit it.
>Because he's too much of a limp dick to say, "I hate niggers."
>Why don't you just come out and say "I want to make sure black people's votes mean less?"
Because I don't want any that, and racism was never cool.
You apparently want me to want that really badly though, I've been catching that creepy vibe all thread.
>This would give a minority of the population the right to kill many times their number of the majority with no consequences. For example if I'm the only white man in an Asian country, it would be ok for me to kill as many Asians as I wanted.
How the fuck did you get anywhere near that from what I said? You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
Out of a billion ballot cast over a fifteen year period, only thirty-one. And that's cases where vote fraud was ALLEGED, not even proven.
And you can say 'oh no, there's all this other problem that nobody's finding' if you want, but unfortunately this isn't how this works. If you want us to act to fix a problem, you need to show that there is a problem in the first place. FIND THE ELECTION FRAUD.
And you've ignored stats which prove blacks aren't disproportionately attacked by whites, or disproportionately shot by cops.
BLM is a shit movement.
>but unfortunately this isn't how this works.
"It" meaning fraud investigation, doesn't seem to work at all.
>FIND THE ELECTION FRAUD.
>more voters than people
>"no fraud here sir, nothing to see, move along!"
It's a dogwhistle, like thug is a code word for nigger. What you're really saying is calling people hicks.
*gasp* Oh no! You said a "derogatory" word! Don't let the SJW Plus4 police find out!
All images posted have sources in the image somewhere, if you open the image and look, you might fight it.
unironic use of the tern "SJW" just makes people overlook your post FYI
and go ahead and post your dumb smug anime pic along with some text i won't read
I don't know why you'd dismiss the term. It's a real thing that exists.
He should say libtard, or Communist instead. They're far more accurate, and most people hate libtards and commies but SJW is a cringey sperglord term.
The only thing wrong with progressivism, the modern left, and communism is.... social justice. Without this they would be tolerable, social justice is the most abhorrent use of the term justice and the entire movement is an abomination of bigotry.
Social justice = judging people by groups (sex/race) instead of as individuals, meting out guilt to races, for purposes of "justice" for other races.
One thing the SJWs don't seem to realize is: When Nazis gassed the Jews they were engaging in Social Justice. See, the Germans believed the Jews had exploited them, and so they sought to make a more just system...
That is one of the most ridiculous reaches I've ever seen. It's really impressive how far you'll go to invent a villain just because you don't like being told that you shouldn't call people faggots.
Social justice is actually a good thing for people who get shit on. Unless you, for whatever reason, think it's okay for women and minorities to get shit on. Of course, you likely will not admit this in no uncertain terms, as you people tend to be pussies about your edginess.
Your problem is that you don't know what the term social justice means outside of social justice warriors.
It's nice that you guys are getting mad about SJWs and all, but my government is literally killing people for no reason other than it can.
Your government also covered up the rape and trafficking of thousands of children by Muslim immigrants.
Real social justice was the Christian-run soup kitchens and orphan shelters, not marxist sociology shit.
>The DWP were keen to stress throughout its "Mortality Statistics" report that: “Any causal effect between benefits and mortality cannot be assumed from these statistics."
Translation: A bunch of people died of unrelated stuff (age, accident) but we're saying it's work related anyway. Of course the system isn't perfect and people get hurt, but this is going overboard. It's like counting all deaths in the country and going "*gasp* everyone should be on welfare!"
Click the link in the article for some anecdotal stories.
>She was found dead after a failed operation to relieve her symptoms
>being in a coma.
>died the day after his disability benefits were stopped
>died of cancer after receiving a terminal diagnosis with just weeks left to live.
Suicide, medical error, terminal cancer, coma complication, a brain aneurysm.... In other words nothing is work related, and most of these deaths couldn't be prevented if cash was catapulted at them. Anyone who's worked in shelters understands people need care and attention, not a benefit cheque.
>you shouldn't call people faggots.
Not insulting others is called politeness.
Taxing, imprisoning etc. people who insult others is called tyranny.
>for women and minorities
Men are statistically minorities compared to women, when looked at worldwide white men are the absolute minority. The only people who are more minority than white men would be specifically gay white men.
Larger population sizes and more free time to get involved into media or politics let women have the strongest voices in democracies, which in turn allows them to get preferential laws regarding alimony, child custody cases (despite being more violent towards kids), assault cases when either accused and accuser, preferential treatment in universities and high schools, getting into jobs regardless of qualifications due to quotas.... oh and women to work the least demanding and highest paying jobs.
BLM podcast calling for the death of cops is deleted after cop gets shot up.
>Men are statistically minorities compared to women, when looked at worldwide white men are the absolute minority. The only people who are more minority than white men would be specifically gay white men.
Oh, wait, you're serious. Let me laugh harder.
you might as well link to a gawker site
It links TO THEIR RADIO PAGE
God, liberals are insufferable.
>he doesn't agree with me therefore liberal
To be fair, compared to someone who reads Breitbart, everyone who doesn't agree with him probably *is* liberal. Relatively speaking. Also smart.
More REGISTERED voters, numbnuts. A registered voter isn't actually a vote.
oh great, literal imaginary voters
Yeah, that brings up a good point--how would an ID card help prevent an issue with too many voters being registered? Why does the conservative "solution" to a problem they can't prove exists seem to not solve any of the the problems they can find even the most tenuous evidence to support? Voter IDs don't prevent registration fraud, they don't prevent hacking voting machines or mail-in voter fraud, and they don't do anything against Gerrymandering. The ONLY thing they do anything about is in-person voter fraud which, as near as we can tell, just isn't done. Which makes sense, when you think about it, since if you actually wanted to rig an election, in-person voting fraud would be the LEAST EFFICIENT AND EASIEST TO PREVENT METHOD EVER.
>as near as we can tell
But we can't tell is the entire point.
>"the sun rotates around the earth"
>"how do you know, shouldn't we invent telescopes and math before making that conclusion?"
>"well do you have any evidence that it's the other way around? then shut the fuck up"
>But we can't tell is the entire point.
If in-person voting fraud is as prevalent as you think it is, why haven't we heard more about people being accused/convicted of attempting to file fraudulent votes? The simple answer is what >>400081 said: it's inefficient compared to large-scale shit like gerrymandering. Maybe—MAYBE—a politician could convince one person to file one fraudulent ballot in one election/referendum, but convincing multiple people to file fraudulent ballots would require shitloads of work. (Such a plan would be risky as all hell, too.) What's the point of trying to defraud the ballot on an individual level when you can all but rig the system via gerrymandering and disenfranchisement?
Not unless Mickey Mouse ACTUALLY shows up to cast a ballot.
Actually, mostly these situations are caused by people being registered in multiple districts (which is not a sketchy move, if you're wondering; it's just what happens when you move. Your previous registration isn't immediately cancelled) or by people dying and their paperwork never making it to to registration office. It does suggest that the local elections aren't being run by incredibly thorough or competent people, but it's not evidence of voter fraud.
And incidentally, several republican governors HAVE gone on auditing crusades, convinced that the voting fraud boogeyman was real. They all turned up bupkis. It just doesn't happen on any meaningful scale.
>no way to prove if you are who you say we are
>clearly they're being honest!
Virtually every other country has voter ID laws, yet when America does it we're being racist.
>But we can't tell is the entire point.
We can't tell that our elected officials haven't been replaced by lizard men, either, but I think installing safe guards against lizard man attack would be a pretty retarded thing to do.
>Virtually every other country has voter ID laws, yet when America does it we're being racist.
Because I'm pretty sure most of those countries have FREE IDs. The way people set it up in America is designed to be a modern day poll tax.
They can fix the DMV and either nix voter IDs or just send people their free voter IDs in the mail.
I still do not know why you are so fixated on fixing this problem which has yet to be proven to exist in any meaningful way. By the way, would you like to buy some giant spider zombie insurance? I can get you a good deal. I know a guy or two.
I am not sure why doing what every other country is doing is racist
Few countries have the demographics of the United States. Due to the lingering effects of slavery, black people are overwhelmingly more likely to suffer from poverty than white people. So requirements that affect the poor more than they affect the rich (for example, anything with a flat fee associated with it) have a profound racial effect--in this case, disenfranchising a huge portion of black voters by requiring them to choose between a meal, maybe even several, and a voter id. Plus a few hours at work vs. time spent at the DMV trying to get that voter id.
I don't know why I'm even explaining this to you though. You know these things. It is the whole reason you want voter ids in the first place. You want to disenfranchise the poor and especially blacks because you know they don't vote the way you want them to.
Bullshit so refugees and pakis don't live in poverty?
I don't know what you're going on about here, but we're talking about the US of A, which has a nasty history of going out of its way to prevent oppressed people from taking part of a political process that directly effects them. These voter ID laws that you and everyone on the right keep proposing are just a modern version of it.
Also, above all, if you need an "objective reason" as to not support this shit (and for the last time): voter fraud is *virtually nonexistent*. "Virtually" in this context meaning it hardly ever happens. I don't know how much clearly this needs to be made. Trying to go through all these hoops to "protect" the sanctity of voting has only proven to be a waste of time, money, and resources in the past.
And again, countries that have voter IDs foot the bill for them. They send them to their people. Of course, this is still keeping in mind that voter fraud does not happen in any meaningful way.
You know how people are always saying "we have more important things to worry about"? Well this goes doubly so, because all you would end up doing is wasting time and resources. If you want to be super objective about it, wasting time and money is not good for the government.
And now that we see it's not worth our resources to fight, I can only come to these conclusions: 1. You are so prideful that you can't admit you're wrong. 2. You are a shithead. 3. You are stupid for trying to fight a problem that does not exist.
Hell of a short notice too.
>comparing voter ids, a measure the majority of planet has, to imaginary reptile and arachnid insurance
It must hurt to be that stupid.
No one is asking for voter IDs that are paid for individually or some new system to be instituted.
The government already issues free IDs to people, such as PASS cards, and it's not out of the realm of imagination to ask people to bring their PASS card with them to the voting booth.
If the person lacks a PASS card but wants to vote RIGHT NOW, do it like Canada does and just have them issue a new card right at the voting booth.
How is this racist, impossible, or comparable to imaginary monsters?
>You are so prideful that you can't admit you're wrong.
Sargon's law lol.
He's right about the gender gap though. It's a real issue, you could have at least googled it before having a knee jerk reaction.
Women are not only more populous percentage wise (51.1% vs 48.9%) but also vote more often (48.6% vs 41.5%) within their groups which gives 15 million extra votes to whichever candidate panders to female demographic. And there is a clear statistical difference in what kind of government women like and what kind of government men like.
Being part of the demographic that wields 12.5% extra votes is a significant privilege and the main source of inequality between genders in American politics, and the trend is common (maybe even higher) in all other western countries.
Which makes the entire patriarchy thing funny, especially when it's brought up by places like Canada and Britain that live in an actual matriarchy and pay tax money so their matriarch can buy more useless expensive shit.
Hahahaha. The mental gymnastics you people are capable of to explain why you're the victims despite having all the money and power in the world is astounding.
They aren't even the ones who have the power. The people who have power delude them into thinking they do have power, and then point to a scapegoat so that those without said power can continue shitting on themselves.
No, just to explain that it's not as simple as "all the money and power in the world" versus "victims with nothing".
You hate America. Gold star for you.
Still no argument why voter ID laws are racist.
You lack some serious reading comprehension, especially given I said nothing about hating any--
Oh, why am I even responding to this shit? You people aren't reading anything that's being said and are ignoring any logical point (even those that have evidence behind them) given to you. I swear, it's like you guys are attempting to beat Creationists at their own game.
Wait, no, this is worse, because even some God fearing folks left Creationism and decided that theistic evolution was the way to go, because at least that one didn't outright deny scientific knowledge.
Back to the story of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis: SCOTUS denied her request to stay a federal ruling calling for her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The temporary stay from the judge who originally ruled on the matter expired today. Come tomorrow, Kim Davis must do her job and have her office issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or risk a contempt charge.
She might also face a charge of “official misconduct” if the State Attorney General decides to file the charge against her. If she’s charged and convicted of misconduct, she could face up to a year in jail. (And that would be separate from any fines and jail time she might face if she’s held in contempt of court.)
Gon’ be an interesting day in Rowan County tomorrow.
Pointing out there's more women than men globally is worse than YEC?
>Technically there are more Hindus than Protestants in the world, so Protestantism is a minority religion!
Protestantism isn't a religion, and yes all the Protestant religions are minorities.
There are probably more Chinese than anyone. We need to blame the true oppressors!
I still remember that fucking ad.
all those actors are Taiwanese who dont want America to fall to China
…and Kim Davis decided to fuck herself.
This explains the reasons why "All Lives Matter" is so stupid pretty well.
God the liberalism on Plus4 is suffocating.
Feel free to leave, then.
I feel sorry for you. There's a reason this place only has 5 people visit it anymore. Take a guess why.
Multiple periods of downtime combined with a population that is increasingly becoming more and more like 4chan's therefore defeating the appeal of using the site as a 4chan alternative in the first place?
Look, I don't care if you're liberal or conservative or anarchist or what-the fuck-ever—if you’re going to bitch about the board feeling too [x] for your tastes and still keep coming here, you’re better off leaving altogether. I left 420chan’s /wooo/ behind when it became clear the board was getting too negative and too shitpost-y for my tastes. (I drop in every now and again, but visiting it is no longer a regular part of my day.) I tried reporting shitposts and doing what I could to make it a better board, but it was clear that I couldn't have any real effect on reversing the board’s increasing toxicity, so I gave up on it.
I’d been a regular poster on that board since its inception (or damned close to it), and I couldn’t take what it had become any more. If you’re so upset by this thread and can’t bring yourself to hide it—if you feel the need to complain about the political leanings of this board’s users instead of offering something of substance to any of the ongoing discussions—you’re better off leaving the board itself. Your bitching won’t change shit.
Ah, twitter posts magically redirect all water and political attention.
It's not magical at all. It's you intentionally trying to steal water from people whose houses are on fire because your tender fee fees can't deal with the idea of not being the center of attention at all times.
So how bout that Sarah Nyberg.
Between her and Lena Dunham, there's an alarming trend of pedophile-sheltering by people who claim to be for the protection of those who need it most. Pretty scary honestly.
Never heard of her. But wasn't the Lena Dunham "pedophilia" about stuff she did when she was like five? Is Sarah Nyberg another person who is liked by people you dislike and are therefore trying to characterize as having done something worse than she did so as to attack their movement? Because given it's coming from you, that's my first instinct.
Lena Dunham's abuse of her little sister continued until her late teen years. It's in her book man, these aren't just rumors.
Likewise, Sarah Nyberg has confirmed herself that the info gathered about her is true, which is that when she was 20, she was preying on her toddler cousin Dana.
Consider actually knowing things for a change, anon.
>Consider actually knowing things for a change, anon.
There you go again, being an insufferable douche.
You're so hyper unaware of how this system works, I love it.
How the hell is taking away somebody's only means of financial support meant to stop them from being disabled? ATOS' doctors have looked at people in comas and gone "Yep, they're fit for work!". The UK government has cut funds set aside to help the disabled just to save a few hundred thou. This isn't about "catapulting" cash at people, it's about making sure people have enough to survive. I love how you side-stepped the whole "one person comitted suicide because their benefits were stopped" as nothing to do with that person having his benefits stopped.
Did you know that it took four months to get this information out? Iain Duncan-Smith kept giving excuse after excuse - why would he do that unless he had something to hide? I've been living under that sick little fuck's retarded policies for five years now, and I know damn well that nothing he's done has been to help people on benefits, just to help promulgate this bullshit that everyone on benefits is too lazy and just needs to buck their ideas up. The most basic research would show that all of IDS' policies have shit the bed, when the bed was already pretty full of shit already.
>ATOS' doctors have looked at people in comas and gone "Yep, they're fit for work!".
I'm going to go ahead and doubt that this is an official government policy, and that this was just a mistake.
Also the article is about whether working is killing thousands of people a year, which it plainly isn't because they're counting unrelated deaths as well.
>"one person comitted suicide because their benefits were stopped" as nothing to do with that person having his benefits stopped.
Are you suggesting that a new suicide prevention policy should be to give them cash?
Callous cookie cutter procedures don't work, at best they're a band aid until we something that does work.
She was warned it might come to this. She was given multiple opportunities to comply with the law and the oath of her office. She had every chance to avoid this outcome.
But Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis stuck by her bigotry, and as a result, she was found in contempt of court for refusing to comply with an federal order telling her office to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Now she's being hauled off to jail for her trouble.
So! How long until she’s part of the Christian “Martyr” Travelling Circus?
Imagine if we sent someone to jail for being gay. "But we gave you many warnings to stop being gay."
The comparison doesn't work because we're not setting black houses on fired.
1.) You forget that sodomy was illegal in this country for some time, which meant being gay was illegal.
2.) Someone else being gay does not infringe on anyone else's civil rights. Kim Davis was trying to use her religious beliefs as a sword to discriminate against gay people. She didn’t have the right to deny gay people the civil rights to which they’re legally entitled.
3.) She was given every possible opportunity before today’s contempt hearing to comply with the court order. She was given every chance to do her job, serve the public, and avoid being found in contempt. I feel bad that she’s going to jail, but I’m not gonna feel bad over her being found in contempt of court for refusing to follow the law.
Imagine if we sent someone to jail for unconstitutionally abusing her government-granted authority to discriminate against and tread upon the rights of people who are legally entitled to certain rights. Oh wait.
Equality: "Go to jail for offending me"
You're being disingenuous. She's not going to jail for offending people. She's going to jail for depriving her constituents of rights that are guaranteed to them by the constitution. She's behaving like a dictator. Her behavior right now is the same is if a government employee were to come to people's houses and take their guns from them based on their religion.
She isn’t going to jail for “offending” someone. She is going to jail for refusing to follow a court order saying her office must follow the law and issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She refused to let gay couples receive the marriage licenses to which they were entitled and used “God said I could” as an excuse for her discrimination.
She doesn’t get to hide behind her religious beliefs when she uses her position as a civil servant to illegally discriminate against people and deny them access to their civil rights. Kim Davis refused to follow the law, and now she’s facing the consequences for doing so.
Ways homosexuals are more tolerant than normal people:
1. If you don't preside over gay marriage, you can go to jail.
2. If you don't photograph gay weddings, you can go to jail.
3. If you don't cater gay weddings, you can go to jail.
4. If you are in favor of traditional marriage, you will most likely lose your job.
5. If you are a traditionalist Christian, you will be harassed by activists, they will threaten to burn down your business and rape your children. Yet you will be ignored in favor of feminists in video games.
6. If you are gay and right-wing, you will be treated as a traitor and discriminated against. ex: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/23/banned-from-pride-for-being-a-gay-libertarian-right-to-marry-clashes-with-right-to-carry-at-gay-pride-event/ http://www.queerty.com/mati-weiderpass-gets-kicked-out-of-fire-island-gay-bar-and-the-crowd-goes-wild-20150612. No one will try to make laws to protect you though.
7. If you are in the closet and on the sidelines, activists will "out" you.
8. They marched with pedosexual groups in the 1970s, 40 years before pedosexual rights were popular.
9. "Pozzers" fantasize about having sex with straight men and breeding HIV into the general population.
Even though America is a hateful, bigoted imperialistic nation, these people have so much love in their hearts and are far superior than normal people. Even though they have higher rates of drug abuse, sexual disease, domestic abuse, mental disorder, infidelity, promiscuity, and lower life expectency than the normal population, this small group making up 1% of the population is clearly better than normal people and deserves unconditional respect. (Also, any downsides of LGBT are caused by homophobia, gay people are in no way adults and don't share responsibility for their own choices)
Homosexuals are PERFECT and all dissenters should be BANNED
No, it's more like going to an IRS agent for a marijuana tax stamp and they refuse to give it to you.
Oh, I'mma have fun with this one.
1.) No religious organization/clergyperson has ever, or will ever be, jailed for refusing to host/preside over a gay wedding. The First Amendment protects them from that.
2./3.) No one who owns/operates a public accomodation and has been found guilty of discriminating against a gay customer has been sent to jail. In all such cases, the matter is a civil one, not criminal. The most severe punishment those business owners/operators can receive is a hefty fine.
4.) Yes, businesses should be forced to employ people who might create a hostile work environment for LGBT employees. That's why there are laws saying as much, amirite‽
5.) That “feminists in video games” thing isn’t even remotely related to the point you’re trying to make. Oh, and as someone who supports full LGBT civil equality, all those things you mentioned are bad and should be condemned.
6.) Well, when you’re gay and you routinely vote for politicians who’d prefer to see you denied your civil rights, it does seem like you’re working against your own best interests—as well as other gay people.
7.) And that blows and should never happen.
8./9.) 
The rest of your post is a hideous display of bigotry disguised as sarcasm, and it doesn’t deserve a proper rebuttal. Please go take a shower, you crazy hobo, you’re scaring off the kids who just want to read Beverly Cleary books in peace.
How is that the same as a gay couple being denied the civil marriage license to which they’re legally entitled by a woman who thinks a magic sky fairy has given her the authority to flout the laws of this land?
Stop using a trip you humongous faggot.
Cop denied service at Arby's
>offended when a trip is used
Trip related, it's you.
>This explains the reasons why "All Lives Matter" is so stupid pretty well.
I agree that #alllivesmatter is designed to detract from #whitelivesmatter, a movement based on statistically verifiable social problems.
Freehaven's been around for a long time, bruv, probably longer than me, and I've been here for like, 6 years.
>No religious organization/clergyperson has ever, or will ever be, jailed for refusing to host/preside over a gay wedding. The First Amendment protects them from that.
Constitution doesn't apply to second class citizens, ex straight white men, christians etc.
>No one who owns/operates a public accomodation and has been found guilty of discriminating against a gay customer has been sent to jail. In all such cases, the matter is a civil one, not criminal. The most severe punishment those business owners/operators can receive is a hefty fine.
Also I don't see how even paying a fine would be acceptable, a private business is not the "the public sphere". Especially when the fine can be $135,000 and if you can't pay you go to jail anyway.
If for example that same bakery asked a homeless man to leave, or a shirtless woman, that would be ok, even if the first was undergoing a religious trial of some sort and the second is being discriminated for her sex. Here's a direct quote: A store, for example, is private property. Offering merchandise for sale implies an invitation to enter, but the store owner is entitled to ban someone from coming in. The person could be a suspected shoplifter or a troublemaker, or he can be banned for any reason, as long as it is not based on bias against a federally protected class of people.
If you think it's ok for the government to have federally protected classes, I've got news for you son... you're a fascist.
>Yes, businesses should be forced to employ people who might create a hostile work environment for LGBT employees. That's why there are laws saying as much, amirite‽
What if an LGBT employee is genuinely an asshole who creates a hostile work environment for everyone else, by hitting on straight men in an unprofessional way? If this asshole was fired for that, the business would have to close down because gays are a federally protected class of people.
>Well, when you’re gay and you routinely vote for politicians who’d prefer to see you denied your civil rights, it does seem like you’re working against your own best interests—as well as other gay people.
lol what a conceited bastard. "Let me tell you who you should vote for to improve your situation."
Have you considered for a moment that a minority individual might have a conscience, and thus feel bad over the shit majority people have to suffer through on his account, because of shit laws drafted by liberals?
Have you considered that a minority voting for say, a libertarian candidate, is doing so because he's smarter than you and thus realizes libertarians are more likely to respect his rights AND be fair to everyone else?
But no, minorities can't be smarter or more moral than you can they Mr. Liberal, why don't you tell them what's good for them.
You don't... you don't want it... not for pozzers. It's a real problem in the community and the reason why everyone carries their own condoms which are sure to be untampered with.
The statistics showed that people who were found fit for work had died a few weeks afterwards, so stop acting like it was "just" about work-related deaths. Again, you honestly don't seem to know what you're talking about - how the fuck do you declare somebody in a coma fit for work "by mistake"?
Benefits aren't a handout, they're the only way vulnerable people like the disabled and the unemployed can afford food, water and somewhere to live. When you take that away, what do they have left? You talk about "Callous cookie cutter procedures", but that's exactly what my government is doing; a one-size-fits-all "test" designed to save some money and reduce the surplus population.
And before you bring it up: yes, I do know that people who commit benefit fraud exist. However, it's been proven that those people aren't nearly as prevalent in the UK as most people think. What the Conservatives should've been doing was making it easier for the unemployed to get a job, instead of making everyone who hasn't got a job feel like shit.
>that first link
Funny thing: I plugged the guy's name, profession, and home state into Google. The only relevant results were that article and another article from a different site basically repeating the one to which you linked. Oh, and the pic that leads off that article — http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/priest-is-arrested-by-police-as-he-participated-in-a-news-photo/82558501 — is from 2008, not 2015, and it’s of a priest being arrested outside the Democratic National Convention for blocking the street while participating in a peaceful pro-life protest.
The next time you think you have a smoking gun for your argument, maybe do a little pre-emptive factchecking. You don’t want to be made to look like an idiot…do you?
>that second link
When the ruling came down on that bakery — http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/colorado-commission-rule-cake — no one was tossed in jail. (As far as I can tell, the owners weren’t even fined.) There also seems to be room for an appeal of the commission’s decision, the only result of which was the bakery being told to serve all customers equally.
>I don't see how even paying a fine would be acceptable, a private business is not the "the public sphere".
A privately-owned business that purports to serve the general public is a public accomodation business and thus sits in the public sphere. This is why Sweet Cakes by Melissa—another bakery sued for anti-gay discrimination—closed its doors to the public after the owners lost their case.
>Especially when the fine can be $135,000 and if you can't pay you go to jail anyway.
And I’ll remind you that said fine was paid—at least three times over, in fact—by crowdfunding: http://www.advocate.com/business/2015/07/17/antigay-bakers-set-crowdfunding-record
>If you think it's ok for the government to have federally protected classes, I've got news for you son... you're a fascist.
And if you think it’s okay for businesses purporting to serve the general public getting the right to choose who makes up the general public, you’re arguing for discrimination.
>What if an LGBT employee is genuinely an asshole who creates a hostile work environment for everyone else, by hitting on straight men in an unprofessional way?
That’s sexual harassment and they can be fired for that. Being gay isn’t an excuse for acting like a jerk.
>If this asshole was fired for that, the business would have to close down because gays are a federally protected class of people.
Actually, they're not. While Obama issued an executive order saying federal contractors could not discriminate against LGBT employees, there is no federal law or statute protecting LGBT people from discrimination in housing, public accomodations, and employment. In over half the states in this country, it is 100% legal for an employer to fire you, a landlord to evict you, and a public accomodation such as a hotel or a general store to refuse serving you for being LGBT—the whole “married on Friday, fired on Monday” schtick is a result of that legal loophole. Individual states, counties, and cities have NDOs that do the job of protecting LGBT people in those regards, but there is no federal law that protects LGBT people from the most overt kinds of discrimination.
>"Let me tell you who you should vote for to improve your situation."
The GOP has long stood against protecting the civil rights of LGBT people, including marriage. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.
>Have you considered for a moment that a minority individual might have a conscience, and thus feel bad over the shit majority people have to suffer through on his account, because of shit laws drafted by liberals?
…wow. I…I’m gonna just leave that for someone else to handle.
>Have you considered that a minority voting for say, a libertarian candidate, is doing so because he's smarter than you and thus realizes libertarians are more likely to respect his rights AND be fair to everyone else?
If a gay man wants to vote libertarian, I have no issue with that…unless the candidate is openly pushing for laws that would repeal legal protections for LGBT people, in which case I’d like a chance to present an argument as to why that gay man’s vote for said candidate is a vote against his own interests.
>It's a real problem in the community
Yes, because LGBT people are just one big monolithic community with one big monolithic culture and whatnot. Just like the black people, amirite‽
Look, if there are people who are actually trying to do that shit, they’re assholes—and their being gay is no excuse for their actions. You might think I’m just all about GAY PEOPLE DESERVE SPECIAL RIGHTS AND THEY’RE THE PERFECT BEINGS SO BOW DOWN TO THE RAINBOW MAFIA, but I’m not. I’m about LGBT people having the same civil rights as straight people, the same access to those civil rights, and avenues of recourse when those civil rights are curtailed, denied, or otherwise infringed. That also means I’m for LGBT people not using their sexual orientation or gender identity as a shield from acting like an asshole or a sword to attack the civil rights of others.
And I know you’ll probably bring up Kim Davis now, but she’s not in jail for her religious beliefs. She’s in jail because she denied gay couples access to their legally-entitled civil rights because they’re gay. She’s a goddamned elected official; she doesn’t get to hide behind God.
>The statistics showed that people who were found fit for work had died a few weeks afterwards
So? Some half a million employed people die in the UK each year, does that mean no one there is fit to work?
>how the fuck do you declare somebody in a coma fit for work "by mistake"?
By making a typo on your report for one person so it applies to someone completely different. You're an idiot if you seriously can't wrap your head around the difference between overwork by the investigators bringing on a mistake and an actual government policy to employ coma patients. Sure a coma patient might be an improvement over people in parliament, but I doubt it's an actual government policy.
>Benefits aren't a handout
Ok... what services other than money accompany the benefits?
Are physiotherapists or psychiatrists paid to visit the homes of those who need them?
Is their quality of life improved by activity of any kind (work, volunteering or sports)?
Things like this are thousands of times more important than a cheque.
Actually I wasn't going to bring it up because A) it's not my concern, and B) I don't judge policy by outliers, criminal activity, accidents, or shoddy work like you seem to. Because that's fucking pointless.
Oh, for fuck's sake, am I going to have to spoonfeed you through this whole damn argument?
>In July 2013, despite her condition, Atos placed Sheila – from Rochdale, Greater Manchester – in the Work Related Activity Group of disability benefit claimants following one of its now infamous assessments.
>As soon as she was called in by Atos, Linda was worried.
>She wrote on Sheila’s form: “It is extremely important Sheila doesn’t experience stressful situations”.
>But in August, Sheila was allocated a Groundwork placement in Middleton, Greater Manchester – two bus rides away – where she forced to compile CVs.
>When Ken visited his daughter on December 5, she was so agitated he took her to A&E. The next day she was sectioned and on December 17 she suffered a massive heart attack at the psychiatric unit. Staff fought to save her but her brain was starved of oxygen for 30 minutes and she fell into a coma.
>While Sheila lay unconscious in hospital, she was sent letters from Seetec, the private company providing the Work Programme. One said: “We hope that all the activity completed so far has not only supported you to achieve your aspirations but has moved you closer to the job market.”
Could you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about? I've given you fact after fact, and you still keep acting like it's wrong to give disabled people help. Of course I'm going to judge policies by shoddy work, because that shoddy work is killing people.
In case you thought that was a one-off thing:
You realize you're kind of proving yourself wrong?
They didn't order a coma patient to go to work, as you originally claimed, they got a by all accounts capable woman to enter a work placement program.
Five months after entering work placement and handling it just fine, she had an unrelated health issue which placed her in a coma. Her coma status wasn't communicated to work placement, which continued sending pamphlets to her.
This is akin to someone having a car accident and still receiving advertisement to change his long distance company. Then some enterprising "journalist" writes an article about evil telemarketers ran a man into an early grave, and how thousands of people who received telemarketing calls also ended up dead COINCIDENCE!? I THINK NOT!
>man loses benefits because hes classified fot to work
>man loses benefits because he didnt hand in his fitness-to-work questionnaire in
The article presents the first as the title, but goes on to say it was the second.
Again attempts to sensationalize the issue or trick people with disingenuous statements. Both of these were isolated incidents due to two different causes, ending in two different situations. No matter how hard you try to tie the two together.
I don't know why I'm arguing with such a dunderhead, but just as a mental exercise, to make <x amount of people died off benefits> not a laughable statistic, you would have to compare it to the number of people still on benefits who died.
You can move the goalposts all you like, but you can't pretend that declaring people who are clearly too unwell to do anything as "fit to work" is bullshit. I have given you enough proof to sink a battleship that Iain Duncan Smith's policies have done nothing but bring misery and death, and you keep pretending that up is up is down, black is white and that hounding people who can't fight back has nothing to do with those same people dying.
I've lost count of the times I've tried to be nice to you, but you are one of the stupidest cunts I've ever had on online conversation with, and that's saying something.
Reminder that Muslims raped 1,500 children while the ministries covered it up.
How many children did Catholics rape while the Vatican covered it up?
More evidence that LGBT isn't a gay movement, it's a pro-liberal and anti-American movement. You could take baths in buckets of semen, or you could be a happily married tax-paying normal gay dude, but if you're not a liberal, they see you as the enemy. They're pretty much nazis.
A lot dude. A lot of covered up sex abuses are coming out into the open in the UK.
I heard it's even spreading to the US with /pol/ finding evidence of covered-up pedo rings in Las Vegas.
You're a garbage troll, but the baker story clearly states that they're going to jail for refusing to comply with the cease and desist order, not for the initial discrimination. So no, they're not being jailed for their beliefs, or for refusing service based on those beliefs. They're potentially facing jail for refusing to comply with a court order telling them to stop violating an anti-discrimination ordinance.
You also don't understand how protected class works. "African Americans" or "gays" are not protected classes. "Race" and (in some states) "sexual orientation" are protected classes. For the same reason we can't have affirmative action any more, we can't have, constitutionally, minority-only protection. Whites are protected by "no race discrimination" and Christians under "no religious discrimination".
>What if an LGBT employee is genuinely an asshole who creates a hostile work environment for everyone else, by hitting on straight men in an unprofessional way? If this asshole was fired for that, the business would have to close down because gays are a federally protected class of people
They get fired for sexual harassment and potentially get sued by their victims. If their employer keeps them on after multiple complaints, whether for fear of a wrongful termination lawsuit by the lgbt employee or simply because they're a good salesperson, their employer would face a potential lawsuit as well.
Contrary to the oft-stated conservative fears of employment protections making LGBT people (or women, or racial minorities) un-firable (and/or, as a consequence, unhirable) employment discrimination lawsuits are very hard to litigate and win. Employers are crafty, and if they want to discriminate (or tolerate discrimination/harassment by a valuable employee/manager) they can find ways to make it look legit either by blaming the plaintiff (he came in late one time, she and the harasser used to consensually date and dating coworkers is against policy so that's why we fired her, he took a swing at his supervisor for calling him the n-word the fiftieth time, etc.) or simply putting it on "we were restructuring/consolidating/had been bought out/had a really bad year and just so happened to lay off both the harasser and the plaintiff." Even if you have a great plaintiff, a model employee who cleans up nice, speaks well, has no felonies, and lots of evidence (harassing emails/texts, complaints in the harasser's HR file, witnesses, co-plaintiffs), juries, being (still) often compromised of old white people (due to the lower numbers of minorities and young people having driver's licenses/being registered to vote and therefore not being inlcuded under motor-voter laws) who tend to not take kindly to the idea of, say, a gay man, a transgender woman, or a disabled person (and heaven forbid you're a multiple-minority!) getting "more money than I ever made in a lifetime jus' fer gettin' fired!", don't often side with plaintiffs.
So a gay employee who flagrantly harasses coworkers and gets fired for that will not be able to sue for discrimination and win (even if the employer or coworkers may made a few homophobic remarks), and will probably get their case thrown out on motion to dismiss, if they can even get a lawyer stupid or unscrupulous enough to bring suit.
A major problem with the LGBT movement *is* that it is too liberal, and not sufficiently radical. It has contended itself with integration in polite, straight society, without addressing its root problems (radical = to the root). The Stonewall riots weren't held so that LGBT people could join the military and further U.S. imperialism and stateless corporate oligarchy. While yes, the government shouldn't refuse to hire gay or lesbian or trans soldiers and sailors, or refuse to acknowledge same-sex relationships, the mainstream LGBT movement is now devoted to assimilation. "We're just like you: law-abiding, patriotic, monogamous, only gay!" Marriage is a good step forward, but does nothing to protect LGBT people in states where they can get fired for being gay. Rainbow crosswalks don't keep homeless queer kids warm at night, and the NYPD tweeting a rainbow-background police badge doesn't keep them from brutalizing LGBT drug users and sex workers.
Man, why can't christians and white people stop raping kids and then covering it up?
>you can't pretend that declaring people who are clearly too unwell to do anything as "fit to work" is bullshit.
I wasn't aware I was pretending that. Did I at any time voice agreement with the action? I recall calling it a mistake, laziness or crime, which would suggest I have a negative attitude toward the event.
>have done nothing but bring misery and death
You have given nothing to support that. By releasing some people from benefits who could work (inb4 your bring up errors again), how many more individuals could get those same benefits?
>You're a garbage troll
And you shouldn't have written such a large post, because no one will read it if you start off with insults.
The only thing people should be talking about with regards to those cases is the severe lack of efficiency in British justice system. I'm of the opinion that the absolute fragmentation (into over 80 bodies!) of UK police forces makes communication between them slow as molasses, that their focus on PR and media appearances prevents them from acting boldly or taking initiative, and finally that the number of laws they are responsible for enforcing outstrips their available manpower by several orders of magnitude.
Write letters to the prince and hope he fixes shit when the old girl dies.
>I can't admit that I'm wrong, so I'll just pretend that I wasn't making excuses for this shit from the start, and demand that the person who's disagreeing with me stop using evidence (which I continue to ignore) to back up his claims
That is what you sound like right now. The government has no intention of letting other people get benefits, it wants to save money in the most cruel ways possible. I honestly have no idea why I'm continuing to debate this with you, because you want to live in this fantasy where giving vulnerable people enough money to survive is "catapulting cash" at them, and people dying is okay because it's nobody's fault, honest!
So you don't think white people and christians should be expected to step up and publically condemn the actions of these people to prove they're "one of the good ones?"
Has anyone received this shit in their inbox?
You would think that would be true about a lot of things, but if a black person or a muslim or a jew or a woman does something, for some reason all the reasonable people in those groups are expected to explain why those people aren't representative of them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
>but if a black person or a muslim or a jew or a woman does something, for some reason all the reasonable people in those groups are expected to explain why those people aren't representative of them.
That's why the UK government covered it up for 20 years, right?
Apparently they put me on it without asking.
Only if it's an easy and effective way to get a load of idiots presuming otherwise to shut up at the time.
Mostly because in those cases people don't hone in on lines of proffesion. In news, white ciriminals get called "coach", "catholic bishop", "teacher", ect. Same ought to be true of anyone, but people are super lazy and will go for whatever trait they can tell differs from their own with the least fact checking. This lack of intelectual effort can lead to errors of judgement in general.
Eugene Volokh covers the whole “religious exemption” idea and relates it to Kim Davis’s current situation. Good read.
That's because a lot of black criminals are unemployed.
>but people are super lazy and will go for whatever trait they can tell differs from their own with the least fact checking. This lack of intelectual effort can lead to errors of judgement in general.
Somewhat, in a way, relevant
They could still just say "unempolyed man".
Regardless of race, pretty much the only valuable correlate of crime is unemployment. The other, somewhat fuzzier, correlate to crime is cultural difference.
For example many middle eastern cultures have FAR lower ages of consent (like 8-12), and their sdanndards of rape are essentially only if the girl is beaten. They don't reckon it's rape if a girl is tricked, drugged or nonviolently coerced into sex.
This is especially true of the Pakistani culture, so when people who grow up in that culture move to a culture that has an age of consent at 18 and different standards for rape..... culture clash happens and people get hurt.
Dude the UK police were shit scared of being accused racist if they tried to arrest a muslim criminal, this is the major contributor to those girls being raped for so long.
>muslim or a jew or a woman
The first two of these are philosophies, ways of life, and parts of culture. If you think its racist to insult or criticize ANY religion or culture, you are part of the problem. Matter of fact the main reason we have fucking language in the first place is to criticize dumb ideas, so I don't know why you're talking if you're a relativist.
Also sex and actual biological race are things people are born with. A man or a black person can't help being what they are. Religions and cultures differ because these are things that people choose to be.
But if they say unemployed woman they're implying that all women are unemployed because they'd rather stay at home and spend their mans money.
A tolerant news headline should be "A Temporarily Nonlaboring Ableperson" or perhaps "Shut up and stop seeing stereotypes everywhere you social justice autist".
>But if they say unemployed woman they're implying that all women are unemployed because they'd rather stay at home and spend their mans money.
Nah, I don't see people arguing for that interpretation, because even it did imply that it'd actually help the crusade of making the workplace more friendly to women by making it look like women who show up for work at all are morally superior for being able to go against the prevailing trend.
You're replying to a bait post.
You're claiming a post is bait because it triggers you.
1/10, you’re not even trying now.
Well, you know Poe's Law: Don't drink the big ones or you can't sell all five for an extra bottle.
Kim Davis has been released from jail and ordered not to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses.
Bets on how long until she quits her job to join the Christian Hate Roadshow and make shitloads of cash for the next six months to a year?
Huh, kind of like gloating when a gay man gets fired for his orientation and has to turn to prostitution to make ends meet, innit?
Gloating over what? Right now, Kim Davis could make a shitload of dosh by quitting her job and lecturing on the anti-gay Christian Hate Roadshow that travels around this country and preaches all about how gay people are gonna goosestep all over the Christians (and somehow only the Christians) in their vile quest to queerify the country and make pedophilia legal and whatnot. And if she quits her job, she’ll never have to worry about issuing marriage licenses to icky faggots ever again, nor will said faggots have to worry about “forcing” her to follow the law. Everyone wins!
Did you somehow miss reading the part in the link you posted where she said as long as her name didn't have to be on the documents she would issue them, or are you just so far up your own ass in making hyperbolic statements that you chose to ignore it?
I think it's retarded she's refusing at all, before you start accusing me of being a homophobe/hobo like a couple of you people here recently have a hardon for doing.
Did you miss the part where she refused to let her deputy clerks issue licenses? The federal judge assigned to her case even asked if she would do that; when she said no, the judge had no choice but to toss her in jail for contempt.
And yes, I happen to agree that making the change to the forms would be a proper and reasonable accomodation for both her and any future county clerk who thinks the icky fags don't deserve marriage. But that change has to go through the state government first. The federal judge in this case can’t make that change for the state; it’s out of his court’s hands. Until the state changes the forms, they have to be issued as-is—and if Kim Davis refuses to issue licenses to any couple (or let her deputy clerks do so) because God, she is refusing to do the job she was elected to do. If she forces her deputy clerks into following her religious beliefs again, she deserves to go back to jail. She can be a Christian and a civil servant, but she can't use her position as a civil servant to put her Christianity above the civil rights of other people.
Journalism is Dead
>This experience, coupled with the extremely one sided coverage of the Gamergate debate for the past year from literally all gaming news outlets makes me genuinely sad to be a part of the games industry. As a developer - and I speak for most of us in saying this - we love gamers. They are the reason we do what we do, both because having millions of people want to buy something you made is intensely satisfying and because, on a much more frank and literal front, without them we would all be without jobs.
Games journalism never existed in the first place. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they talk about what is essentially an advertising mechanism as though it were actual journalism. Journalism isn't about reviews and previews of upcoming games, it's about the labor issues within the games industry, or the psychological mechanisms of how the brain interacts with video games, or--and this is the part that kills me--the sort of criticism that Anita Sarkeesian is doing. That's journalism. People bitching about "journalism being dead" when they're talking about an industry that exists pretty much entirely to sell products, and always has, is absolutely absurd.
Game reviews are advertisement, not criticism. There is not, and never has been, anything noble about games "journalism."
>the sort of criticism that Anita Sarkeesian is doing
Except all those people do is bitch and whine, and get people fired.
But noooooooooo, those people are perfect, but if you criticize their asshole behavior you are a cyberterrorist. Fucking liberal pussies who didn't give a shit 10 years ago when 4chan was making teenage girls kill themselves now feel threatened if /v/ raises money for charity, how can you take these idiots seriously?
>Except all those people do is bitch and whine, and get people fired.
Who did she get fired?
>Except all those people do is bitch and whine, and get people fired.
That is literally the entirety of film criticism. I am bloody well grateful that video games are finally seeing people willing to treat them as a legitimate enough art form to deserve REAL criticism, but people like you bitch about it because you can't deal with legitimate, scholarly criticism being applied to your fucking power fantasy bullshit. You sound like every director who ever got called a hack or every member of the audience who bitched because he doesn't understand why critics liked Akira Kurosawa more than they like Michael Bay.
Colbert Report still here.
There are in fact game reviews that point out flaws in games.
Criticism isn't just pointing out flaws, and the fact that your idea of criticism is limited to that is part of the problem with the gaming community. Criticism is about dissecting a work of art in a scholarly fashion, to see what it says about the world and the creator, and the human condition.
Anita Sarkeesian is the video game equivalent of Pauline Kael--in fact, the same arguments that are made against Anita Sarkeesian were frequently levelled against Pauline Kael by people who objected to her challenging the popularity of many tropes that were popular with the lowest common denominator (especially white heterosexual males). But in the film community, she's widely recognized as one of the most important figures in modern film criticism (regardless of whether or not you agree with all her opinions), because the film community doesn't allow the fratboy demographic to be the spokespeople for their community.
"Michael Bay's movies suck", is criticism. "Brad Wardell drew racist children books" is not, it's slander. Accusing people of being bigots or sexual predators has nothing to do with their video games, trying to get anyone who disagrees with you non-anonymously fired from their job is not criticism it's being an intolerant douche. And finally, disagreeing with your shitty criticisms is not terrorism, or harassment, it's what happens when you say stupid shit on the internet, a lot of people call you a retard.
>Criticism is about dissecting a work of art in a scholarly fashion, to see what it says about the world and the creator, and the human condition
How does feminist criticism fall under this when every possibility leads back to "Sexism". It's like arguing with creationists.
It doesn't. You just dimiss anything having to do with feminism without thinking about it because you want to have an enemy.
Also, I don't see any evidence that Kael was a SJW, if anything the opposite.
>Even though Kael never identified herself as a feminist, she was a powerful woman whose intelligence and wit swayed readers in an era when this was still unusual.
>A fierce skeptic of all dogmas (including religion, feminism and liberalism)
And she was an actual movie critic, as in she *reviewed movies*, she didn't make youtube videos about her political agenda. How does any of that relate to criticizing "white heterosexual males"?
Most people wouldn't dismiss feminism if they weren't massive fucking assholes, tbh fam.
Well for example, people hated her for her reviews of things like A Clockwork Orange and its rampant sexualized violence, and her calls for less violence in cinema were, much like Sarkeesian's call for better writing of female characters, treated as a call for censorship.
They probably were. Why mince words?
Said the massive fucking asshole.
>It's like arguing with creationists.
That's not really the same thing at all.
Not going to go into it here, but if you can't tell the difference between something that is supported by objective evidence (evolution) and something more subjective (criticism), you're kinda dumb.
Also have you ever stopped to think that maybe she brings up sexist things a lot because we live in a really sexist society? Oddly enough, this doesn't mean it's the end of the world or that the people going with said criticism think it's the end of the world.
Why is it that nerds have the biggest problem with criticism? I'm not saying movies don't have their critics, but man, you people simply can't stand anyone saying anything about your precious toys.
And I'm not even someone easily offended. I'm in line with every GTA release and enjoy Postal 2 (as much of an edgelord simulator game that is--though to be fair, Postal 2 has a number of gameplay issues that stop it from being a legit good game, but that's a discussion for another thread.)
Okay, it's more like the "Pokemon is Satan" people from the 1990s. It's not scientific, but what they're saying is still so fucking retarded that it can't be seriously. Just replace "Satanic messages" with "Systematic oppression of women".
How is asking for people to provide better writing censorship
You know, just because someone doesn't like something doesn't mean they want it censored. And just because they want it to be gone doesn't mean they call for censorship.
Censorship is when...you know what, fuck it. I'm about to have this discussion with a person who probably talks about "muh free speech" on privately owned websites, aren't I? The short of it is, unless someone is being thrown in jail or otherwise threatened to stop, it's not censorship.
Also you're fucking retarded if you think nerds are bothered by criticism, there's been so many examples of someone trying to make a movie or game or anime and there being nerd backlash. Do you think the people who voted EA worst company in the world are offended by criticism. No. They're just saying you're criticism is retarded. Like Christians.
>The short of it is, unless someone is being thrown in jail or otherwise threatened to stop, it's not censorship.
"The Hollywood blacklist was not censorship"
>Okay, it's more like the "Pokemon is Satan" people from the 1990s.
It's not that either.
>Also you're fucking retarded if you think nerds are bothered by criticism
Top fucking kek.
If they are so "not bothered" by criticism, why was there a meltdown over Twilight Princess getting an 8.8? Why do people send Anita death and rape threats? Why are people sending letters threatening to shoot up auditoriums where she was scheduled to speak?
Even crazier, why do games have such rabid fanbases and company loyalty that lash out at anyone who dare not think their product of choice is God's gift? Go browse /v/ for a day. Some people will defend their game against the tiniest bit of negativity. It doesn't even matter if you like said thing--some people will completely shit on you for not being completely in lockstep with their thoughts.
"Nerds don't care about criticism" is laughable.
>They're just saying you're criticism is retarded
It's "your". And my above examples aren't people saying criticism is retarded.
Actually when you think of it Christian criticism actually sounds less retarded than feminism, since evil people do exist in the world at least, and they're basing it on a book that existed for 2000 years. Meanwhile, feminists steal their arguments from tvtropes, but skip over the "Tropes are not bad" page, and to take their arguments seriously, you'd have to believe that more than 50% of the population is subjugated by the way japanese cartoon games portray them.
This is a really stupid post because the hollywood blacklist DID threaten people by removing their livelihood. Telling someone they don't get to work in entertainment because of where their possible political standings is...well, censorship.
You're not so stupid that you think threats only refer to physical threats, are you? Are you a native English speaker?
The majority of that shit was comments on Youtube saying "wow fucking kill yourself". EVERYONE gets fucking kill yourself comments on the internet. What's rare is to build a political movement around it.
>Even crazier, why do games have such rabid fanbases and company loyalty that lash out at anyone who dare not think their product of choice is God's gift? Go browse /v/ for a day. Some people will defend their game against the tiniest bit of negativity. It doesn't even matter if you like said thing--some people will completely shit on you for not being completely in lockstep with their thoughts.
But /v/ is not one person and you're pretending like thosE critics do not existing. Defending everything and trashing everything is 2 sides of the same coin. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET
And how is political correctness any different than a modern day blacklist?
>since evil people do exist in the world at least, and they're basing it on a book that existed for 2000 years.
Not only do you seem to be implying that the concept of evil is something exclusive to Christianity (it's not--and it doesn't even need religion), but using something as some sort of groundwork just because it's old is silly. Do older things carry more weight than what we have now? Because we can go back to the scientific knowledge we had of, oh, I don't know, 1760 and throw out everything we've learned since then. Because clearly, older is better!
Go back to sleeping on your bench.
>And how is political correctness any different than a modern day blacklist?
Well, for one thing, people in the entertainment industry are not outright told they can't work for being a communist or whatever other political view they had.
Jesus Christ on a cracker, you are really fucking dumb.
Tradition does carry its own value, so does progress tho, and at least with the Bible you can point out contradictions in their logic. If someone says Pokemon is satanic because of some verse, you can find other verses that prove its not satanic. With feminists they don't explain why their "tropes are harmful", and they don't explain how you can prove something is "not sexist". Essentially, all paths lead back to "Sexism" which allows them to bitch about the problem forever, just like Christians do.
>Do you think the people who voted EA worst company in the world are offended by criticism
Yes, absolutely. Nerds are great at dishing out criticism but can't take any themselves.
That's not a blacklist. That's people using their own free speech to state their disapproval of what someone else used their free speech to say, and a company deciding that it was no longer profitable to keep investing in a person who creates that much controversy. That's just a case of your actions having consequences. It is in no way shape or form censorship, and in fact trying to prevent people from being able to state their disapproval of a person's political stance is far closer to being censorship.
Sounds like it's free speech when it happens to conservatives but censorship when it happens to communists.
No, it's censorship when the government is the one doing it.
First, you're arguing with two different people. Second, the Hollywood blacklists came about because Hollywood was scared into it after Congress, under McCarthy's scaremongering, started putting pressure on them--starting with holding ten directors and writers in Contempt of Congress for refusing to testify at one of McCarthy's witch hunts.
It's a relief nothing like that ever happened again.
Reposted for truth:
>"Michael Bay's movies suck", is criticism. "Brad Wardell drew racist children books" is not, it's slander. Accusing people of being bigots or sexual predators has nothing to do with their video games, trying to get anyone who disagrees with you non-anonymously fired from their job is not criticism it's being an intolerant douche. And finally, disagreeing with your shitty criticisms is not terrorism, or harassment, it's what happens when you say stupid shit on the internet, a lot of people call you a retard.
>The majority of that shit was comments on Youtube saying "wow fucking kill yourself". EVERYONE gets fucking kill yourself comments on the internet. What's rare is to build a political movement around it.
>No, it's censorship when the government is the one doing it.
The government is funding most feminist movements and media outlets out there. The Hollywood blacklist was JUST as informal as the current PC blacklist.
>The government is funding most feminist movements and media outlets
Gloria Steinem was a CIA operative recruited by none other than Cord Meyers, and through the "Independent Research Service" and "Congress for Cultural Freedom" essentially helped twist second into third wave feminism.
The US government directly funded a feminist video game called "HERadventure".
The American president outright lies in advertisements.
The Aussie government spent $73 million dollars on a single feminist advertising campaign that demonizes men.
To check out just some NGOs, you can go to http://www.wango.org/ and narrow the search by "womens status & issues".
…man, you are pissed off about feminism.
>lol u mad
That sure doesn't look like "most" feminist movements/organizations being funded.
Directly funding a video game is not censorship. At worst it's propaganda. Is english your first language?
IS THE HOLLYWOOD BLACKLIST CENSORSHIP OR NOT
I think we already answered this question not even 20 posts ago. Yes, looking back, we definitely did.
>the fact that your idea of criticism is limited to that
It's not, but I think it's enough to make a review more than an ad for the game under review. In any case, the claim of game journalism being dead looks like a surprisingly late reaction to the claim of "gamers are dead" by the sam outlets vgchartz is saying are examples of journalism dying. I'm fairly certain the article takes journalism of games so seriously because other writers are the actual intended audience. It's arguing about the nature of games articles, and meant to change the bahavior of people who write about games. Games writers would like to think of themselves as real journalists, so it uses flattery to sway opinion.
I've no interest in preventing Anita Sarkeesian from criticizing anything, and see those threatening her as at best delusional. It would be nice if more people discussed the relation of games with wider culture, and the best response from those who diasgree with Anita Sarkeesian would be to dissect games themselves as another perspective on them.
>Also you're fucking retarded if you think nerds are bothered by criticism
Or for that matter, any time anyone points out the many ways that various nerd communities are toxic.
First of all, even if that were true it wouldn't make the problems with the nerd communities okay. Second of all, I don't think that's true. There's certainly still a lot of the problems of the nerd communities in the mainstream communities, but they don't....I guess "celebrate it" the way nerds do. Nerds these days seem to take joy in being absolutely awful individuals who don't care about the welfare or comfort of anyone but themselves. Which is probably why Libertarianism is sweeping nerd communities so much--the very essence of Libertarianism seems to be not giving a shit about anyone but yourself.
From what I can tell most nerd communities dismiss worse nerd communities as "not really nerds", so when nerd communities in general get bashed they get taken aback at the idea of being associated with who they see as distinctly separateg groups. But instead of distinctly articulating this, nerd communities dance around the issue because they expect that directly confronting it would paint their own group as some kind of inter-community police, setting then up both with the heightened standards of any source of authority of moral guidance and as a target themselves or the group causing trouble to begin with. Nerd communities tend to shy from confrontation when they can avoid taking it personally, so of course they don't see the opporunity to stand up as a beacon to wider society as an inticing one. But when they do take an issue personally, they go full boar in an attempt to end it quickly and decisiively, which as you can tell by looking at any technology board ever can often just make an argument bigger, louder, and less coherent.
That's the thing--yes, many people in nerd communities avoid conflict. But there is a sizable minority that enjoys starting shit, enjoys bullying people, and enjoys making other people feel worse about themselves. And the conflict-averse nerds don't want to get involved for much the reasons you said. Which means the worst people in a nerd community pretty much always have a great deal of freedom and, unfortunately, tacit approval for their behavior. Nerds are unwilling to call out or criticize their own for bad behavior, and that means that toxic behavior gets a positive feedback loop going--it might well be that the majority of the people in the community disapprove of that behavior on the inside, but they refuse to make that disapproval known, and that means they are effectively saying to these people "Your behavior is acceptable."
Thus the problems with sexual harassment at cons and growing incidents of sexism, racism, homophobia, and what have you in any nerd community you care to name. The "good" nerds say nothing and the bad nerds do whatever they want. And what's worse, the conflict-averse nature of those "good" nerds means that they *will* discourage the few nerds who *do* openly criticize the behavior of the bad ones for starting conflicts.
You asked me for source, I provided it, and your response is seriously "…man, you are pissed off about feminism."?
I guess you can't admit I'm right and completely change your worldview overnight.
The only "toxic" thing here is individuals who use words like "toxic" to describe groups of people.
>You asked me for source, I provided it
Except you didn't provide any sources for the statement you made. You provided sources for a tangentially related, but meaningless, factoid.
So basically, nerds are "assholes" since they are mean to bullies instead of being mean to nice people, for example "libertarians".
Man..... how fucking RETARDED can normalfags BE?
>So basically, nerds are "assholes" since they are mean to bullies instead of being mean to nice people, for example "libertarians".
Nerds aren't mean to bullies. Mostly nerds are either bullies themselves or are unwilling to challenge bullies for bullying. Meaning they're either actively evil or they engage in the banality of evil that comes from otherwise unobjectionable people tacitly approving of evil behavior by not doing anything to prevent or discourage it. There are relatively few who are willing to actually call out bully-nerds for their bullying. And when they do, they get called White Knights or other such insults specifically designed to prevent people from discouraging bullying and alpha male bullshit.
Seriously... your whole argument makes NO SENSE
You say nerds are "bullies"... and you want nerds to "call out the bullies", yet they already do this. The definition of SJW is being a bully, it is "someone who hates others who disagrees with them and wants to make them suffer". You say it is unfair for nerds to criticize SJWs, or that they are somehow "unable to take criticism" since they call out mean people. SJWs get people fired, harass them and their family, simply for disagreeing with them, yet you call this simply just criticism, not bullying.
however, you say that nerds should call out "libertarians".... the definition of "libertarian" is "freedom and being nice to people". It just means you get along with a lot of different people, a diverse amount of people from different backgrounds and ideas can be in a single group. 4chan is basically libertarianism in action since a lot of the boards wouldn't get along with each other, like /lgbt/ and /pol/, or /int/ where they roleplay as countries that hate each other, or /sp/ with sports teams, yet they still get along with each other. In fact even though /pol/ hates fags and many homos hate religion or conservatism, /polgbt/ became one of the most popular board memes after that board was made. And real life libertarianism is like that too, they have people who are "conservative Christians" or "libertine progressives" who are nice to each other and friends. You can't name anyone like that in SJWs, there are no Republican or libertarian SJWs, you can't name a single rightleaning person who writes on Gawker or other liberal blogs... they are mean to anyone they disagree with. They try to get people fired and attack their reputations. How is that not bullying? It's "just criticism" you say but how is that "criticism" less "bullying" than the "being nice to people" of libertarians"?
So by calling out SJWs and other bullies, but not libertarians they are actually doing exactly what you say you want. They are calling out mean people in the group. However instead you want them to "exclude nice people" and never criticize "mean people aka SJWs". Your argument makes no sense essentially and is extremely wrong.
In truth, nerds are the most intolerant of bullies of ANYBODY. That is because of how nerds were usually bullied themselves. If they weren't it is because they were completely alone anyway. Look at the Kokoro Connect seiyuu scandal, or the backlash against the Gawker writer who said "Gamergate is evidence we should bring back bullying". However, they disagree with stuff like 0-tolerance against bullying policies in school... this is because they punish the victim and bullies equally, since the victim defended themselve. Sometimes they are designed to unfairly target Christians, which is also unfair. Nerds are mostly atheists but they also have compassion for Christians who are the unfair victims of hateful SJW types. Also for example I read a manga the other day, where the heroine got bullied by male students. They were mean to her, insulted her family and name origin, and inflicted physical harm designed not to leave marks. When her brother got involved and beat the shit out of them, he got suspended longer than they did. However when the father sued the school, his suspension was alleviated and the students got expelled. That to me is an allegory for "anti-bullying". Anti-bullying is just a codeword for more bullying against the victims. Another example is that South Park episode where they "make bullying kill itself". It was obviously a satire of how anti-bullying advocates are huge bullies. In my opinion the "tolerance", "diversity", and "anti-bullying" people are what bullies look like when they grow up, they use these nice concepts as an excuse to be mean to people, like you people do.
I predict I'm only going to get a "lol" response for this though like I got when I explained how Zoe Quinn is a bully earlier in this thread. I don't get why I get ignored all the time. You claim to be against bullying yet you use that as a way to bully the true victims. It is really unfair and cruel in my opinion. Why can't you just see niceness in people instead.
I mean I fucking love seeing different people come together, like the /polgbt/ thing, it is subsersive and you make new friends. Yet SJWs apparently do not want this since they try to get people like Brendan Eich fired or Paula Deen or Anthony Cumia. And they are very active banning people from their forums, speech codes in college, and other examples of "not wanting to associate with different people". So how are people who are nicer to others bullies while SJWs are not. You can say that SJW is "just criticism, not censorship are bullying", but then you are a hypocrite to call nerds and libertarians bullies for being nicer and more tolerant than SJWs. It literally makes no sense.
Or TIm Hunt or Brad Wardell or Max Temkin or Josh Mattingly or shirt guy. Okay I'm not saying they were bullied or censored. I just don't get why you think it is "just criticism" what happens to people like this. The worst thing nerds have ever done is Gamergate which is where they applied that political correctness handbook back at them, they criticized Nick Denton and other bloggers and tried to ruin their businesses. So the worst you can say about nerds is "they are just as bad as SJWs, but only after the SJWs were that bad in the first place", however, it does not make any sense to say "it is just criticism when the SJWs did it but it was evil bullying when the victims did it". That makes no sense, it is hypocrisy, your argument is contradictory.
I'm not going to read your three walls of text in a row, so I hope you didn't say anything important in them.
Fuck you too, then.