/baw/ - General Discussion

good

Stroke the political penis.

European governments still not doing anything about Russia or the Middle East? No? Excellent, stay the cowardly course.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/joe-biden-and-stephen-colbert-brothers-in-grief/404878/

Joe Biden shined last night.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/11/leading-gamergate-critic-sarah-nyberg-claimed-to-be-a-pedophile-apologised-for-white-nationalism/

Breitbart harassing another transgender white nationalist pedophile.

Why would anyone ever subject themselves to reading Breitbart in the first place?

>>400393

To reinforce their worldview.

>>400393
I dunno, let me go check their main page to see what kind of stuff they have.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/11/obama-staffers-party-smoke-cuban-cigars-on-anniversary-of-benghazi-911-terror-attacks/
Oh, OK. This is too boring to more thasn skim it but sounds like what I would do as president.
I mean I don't smoke, but other than that.

Still looking for an explanation of why nerds are bullies.

>>400407

Back when the adult nerds of today were kids, they were taunted and teased and poked and prodded into creating insular groups of nerds who came together due to their interest in specific “nerd hobbies” (e.g. D&D, vidyagaems, comic books). In time, these kids insulated themselves within those groups and became each other’s support system, which led them to believe those hobbies were meant only for the people willing to devote loads of time and energy towards said hobbies—you know, “true” nerds. When these kids grew up, that “this is only for ‘true’ fans” idea stayed with them; whenever a nerd hobby they were mocked for liking as a kid goes “mainstream”, they leap at the chance to chase the “outsiders” away as a form of “justified” revenge. You’ll often hear stories about female fans of pretty much any nerd hobby being run off by douchebags; that happens because the douchebags believe that hobby belongs to them and them alone.

Fucked up, ain’t it?

>>400415
>>400418
Came here to post this story. Holy fuck I am dying of laughter. Shit's delicious.

>>400417
While I agreed with the majority of your previous post, libertarianism just means that you hate government intervention, not "being nice to people"; the most renowned libertarians in my country are politicians who say Islam and homosexuals will bring about the downfall of society, and columnists who have written articles defending child rapists, regular rapists and Vladimir Putin.

>>400424
Libertarians are, ultimately, about self-interest. Anti-social behavior as a political party.

Some libertarians go for enlightened self-interest, but most are the regular kind of self-interest.

>>400415

Don't claim victory that fast. CNN couldn't prove he was actually black.


Also, that drama work both ways.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/12/daily-kos-founder-claims-contributor-at-daily-kos-is-a-breitbart-writer-arrested-for-terrorism/

Played us all like a fiddle.

>>400429
>CNN couldn't prove he was actually black.
I think the burden of proof was on the guy who claimed King wasn't black. Not that it mattered if he was one way or the other.

>>400415
Man, it's weird how many Gamergate and Breitbart people turn out to be white supremacists or terrorists or other brands of dangerous lunatics.

>>400431
Same with aGG and cyber crime and sexual deviancy tbh.



Pls note that I am not actually defending Gamergate's screwup with this post, I can in fact be against criminals and scumbags of all political agendas--you don't actually have to defend everyone who shares your opinion, which I know may surprise some of you.

"Wow Slowpoke you sure are being all high and mighty hurf durr"
Quit being The Worst and I'll quit acting like I'm better than you. Believe it or not, there was a time when I acted respectfully to people on this site. I'm not the one who changed.

>>400429
>I don't have to worry about dKos writers getting arrested for trying to incite terrorism. That's a conservative thing

What a smug douche.

>>400434
>>400435
what are you even going on about

>>400437
Which part are you confused about, anon?

>>400438
Every bit.

>>400435
>Believe it or not, there was a time when I acted respectfully to people on this site.
I've been here a long time, Slowpoke, and I honestly can't remember that time.

>>400434
>Pls note that I am not actually defending Gamergate's screwup with this post
I mean you are, but sure, tell yourself that's not what you're doing. The only reason you ever post in the Politics thread is to defend Gamergate or attack "aGG" which is apparently a thing that exists in your mind.

>twitterfag with a yumi nikki avatar
>must be gamergate

>>400442
wat

The kid who got arrested would straight up admit to you that he's a GamerGater. It has nothing to do with his avatar.

>>400441
Nah, only reason I post in this thread is to call out hypocrites. I'm a lot more liberal than you'd expect, I just have more fun shooting down people who defend everyone who self identify as feminist than I do call about how at is core feminism is a worthwhile movement. Something something going against the grain.
>>400440
Oh come now, it was only a year or two ago. I even had a couple anons ask for me as a mod, possibly as a counterbalance to the Tyrant Bear.
I think it mostly started going downhill when Larry Tremaine left. That guy's pretty much my conscience.

>>400444
>than I do circlejerking about how at is core feminism is a worthwhile movement
New phone, my autocorrect doesn't have the fun words learned yet.

>>400444
>I just have more fun shooting down people who defend everyone who self identify as feminist than I do call about how at is core feminism is a worthwhile movement

So then the simpler way of saying this is "I'm a contrarian."

>>400443
That guy pretended to be GG, anti-GG , a feminist, a Neo-Nazi, an ISIS supporter. If imageboards cannot recognize obvious trolls now...

I think he send bomb threats because "Everyone is too manipulable now , trolling is for casuals. Time for prison hard mode, I need a challenge."

Going back to the Kim Davis story for what will probably be the last big standoff in her anti-gay “insurrection”, the Rowan County, KY clerk goes back to work tomorrow after spending five days in jail and another five soaking in all the attention for being the “martyr” of a lost cause. Her case will linger on in federal court as her appeal of Judge Bunning’s “do your fucking job” court order goes through the motions (she’ll lose it), and that same court said she must go through state courts if she wants Gov. Steve Beshear to change marriage license forms to remove her name. With the exception of her son, all of Davis’s deputy clerks have promised to continue issuing marriage licenses for any eligible couple. Bunning has ordered Davis not to stop them from doing their job, too.

So, who else thinks Davis is gonna play George Wallace—and go to jail for it—again?

>>400447
I dunno, I don't think so. I'm just kind of a moderate who understands that both "sides" of most any issue are made up of awful people, and it frustrates me when people ignore or excuse their side while condemning others for the same exact thing.

That's not contrarianism, is it?

>>400453
Trying to play the middle ground one group is leaps and bounds worse than the other is not needed. Reminds me of people who say, "well, democrats and Republicans are both bad." when one of said groups is largely racist, mysoginistic, and anti-science (conservative republicans, for those not paying attention).

>>400458
Saying that both sides should be held to the same standards and saying both sides should be presumed equal isn't the same thing.

>>400459
Well, they are being held to the same standards, hence one of them being disproportionately worse.

>>400467
And yet when hard evidence of a Big Name from one of those groups comes out, proving her a pedophile, child predator, tax-evader, and white nationalism apologist, the closest thing to a retort any of you guys have is "lel who even reads that website"

I'm sensing some bias that needs correcting.

Also, I'm not "trying to play middle ground."

>>400469
>one of those groups
Which groups are we talking about here? Is there a name for this "AGG" you were referring to, or is it just made up of everyone who thinks GG is dildos?

>>400469
>And yet when hard evidence of a Big Name from one of those groups comes out, proving her a pedophile, child predator, tax-evader, and white nationalism apologist

Literally no one here denied any of this, nor did they excuse it. And if you're talking about Breitbart, there's a good fucking reason people disregard that site. It's on the same tier as the shit Gawker pours out of some of its sites.

>I'm sensing some bias that needs correcting.
No you aren't.

I'm telling you in spite of whatever shit you have to say about one person involved in, uh, "AGG" that GG is still far worse. On that same token, you can point out recent things Democrats have done in recent years. It still does not compare to the amount of sheer stupidity that Republicans have done.

>>400472
>your groups

My groups being what, you massive retard?

>>400472
>your groups
I'm still going to need a definition here. Because it seems you have as much reason to consider people who dislike Gamergate a group with unified opinions or traits as we have to consider you a member of Gamergate yourself.

>>400474
I would consider outspoken opponents of something who socialize primarily with each other about said issue they oppose, speak primarily about said issue, write articles primarily about said issue, and go to the trouble of creating and advertising a blacklist of people from said issue, to be a group themselves. Do you have a retort?

Also, if it's between Gamergate, and The People Who Are Outspoken Opponents Of Gamergate, Socialize Primarily With Each Other About Gamegate, Speak Primarily About Gamergate, Write Articles Primarily About Gamergate, And Go To The Trouble Of Creating And Advertising A Blacklist Of People From Gamergate, I'd say that I do lean more towards Gamergate itself. If you wanna take an Us Or Them approach to it, that's fine, but I think if you do that you lose the ability to harp on for two full political threads about how there is no "us," only Them And Then Everyone Else.

>>400475
If you want to be reductive to the point where you think GG was just "/v/ donating money to charity" I'm not sure what to say to you

Even funnier that you're including "/v/" as some sort of whole entity that was involved with it. moot himself said that GamerGaters, as much bullshit they posted during that period, were a small minority of /v/ posters.

>>400477
You're responding to a retard who thinks the Republican Party is racist, misogynist, and anti-science.

>>400479
no, I'm saying that when fucking 4chan is donating to charity and speaking out against bullying, something is wrong when you look like an asshole compared to 4chan

>>400477
>I would consider outspoken opponents of something who socialize primarily with each other about said issue they oppose, speak primarily about said issue, write articles primarily about said issue, and go to the trouble of creating and advertising a blacklist of people from said issue, to be a group themselves

Can you name any people who fit that description, or are they just hypothetical constructs? Because I don't know of anyone who socializes primarily about Gamergate except for members of Gamergate.

>>400480
>You're responding to a retard who thinks the Republican Party is racist, misogynist, and anti-science.
How is it not?

You know, I'm not even going to bother with the first two, because no one ever wants to admit that they're racist shitheels or that they think foul of women, but how are you going to sit there and act like the same party that largely denies climate change isn't "anti-science"

>>400482
Well, being as how I have only referred to one person in this entire thread as being aGG, and that's Sarah Nyberg, you'd think you could start there, eh?

>>400483
>and it wasn't just a small minority, since how often do threads get over 2000 posts on /v/?
This is going to blow your mind, but
Couple of things

/v/ is a very large board that gets a metric shitton of visitors.

And second, you seem to misunderstand how anonymous imageboards work. All 2000 of those posts aren't from different people.

>>400485
So one person is a group now?

>>400487
Sicknasty moved goalposts, my dude.
>no one exists that matches that criteria
>e-except for that person
;) ;)

>>400489
I never said no one meets the criteria of anything

You're talking to two different people. He asked you for a group...and I'm pointing out that a group consists of more than one person.

>>400488
Ian Cheong actually decided the aGG movement was getting too toxic and hypocritical, and "defected" for lack of a better word.
Hilarious eh

>>400484
Democrats have more anti-vaxxers and anti-frackers. I think it's hard to say that the party with an optometrist and neurosurgeon running for president is more anti-science.

>>400492
>and neurosurgeon running for president
Ben Carson is a fucking retard when it comes to anything not involving neurosurgery. I'm actually impressed that one person can be so stupid and smart at one time.

>>400494
He's not just "a neurosurgeon", he was the youngest director in JHU's history. He knows more about science than you'll ever know know in 3 lifetimes.

>>400489
You're doing that thing where you argue with multiple people but treat it like you're arguing with one so you can look down on them for having different opinions from one another again. I don't personally consider your one example to hold water at all. For starters, your definition of "aGG" requires there to be multiple people in it for it to exist, since it specifically mentions "socializing with each other" about it. Which can't be done by a single person. And I don't know this person you're talking about, and don't honestly give enough of a shit about the people you like to use to try to prove to yourself how much smarter you are than everyone else to research her further, but I honestly doubt she meets most of your other criteria, either--because you worded your criteria in such a way as to try to make it indisputable, but in so doing you also worded them in a way that excludes pretty much everyone. Thus allowing you to continue being a smug prick talking about imaginary enemies you can feel better than without having to actually find a person to mention specifically.

Your entire political philosophy seems to revolve around Golden Mean bullshit, and you invent opposite sides of issues that don't actually have sides so you can be in the "middle" because your political philosophy is so sophomoric as to assume being in the middle is automatically correct. It's what I call the "Trey Parker and Matt Stone School of Politics."

>>400496
And he's a right-wing retard who's also retarded and uneducated on subjects like homosexuality.

I don't know why you're playing a game here. It's possible for someone to be smart in one area and stupid in another. And outside of his given field, Ben Carson is a retard

>>400497
>It's what I call the "Trey Parker and Matt Stone School of Politics."
That Turd Douche/Shit Sandwich episode was hilarious (well, at least it was when I first saw it--but I was a dumb kid then, so who knows), but it is indeed sad to see so many people adopting it as a political standpoint.

>>400496
>He knows more about science than you'll ever know know in 3 lifetimes.
That's a completely stupid thing to say. "Science" is a field which contains countless disciplines and knowing a lot about one branch of science in no way qualifies you in any of the other fields. The most brilliant chemist who ever lived would probably know less about rocket science than a freshman in astrophysics. Even different branches of medicine are so far apart as to make taking the opinion of a psychologist about your pancreatic cancer pretty pointless, and they're at least trained in the same basics.

>>400500
>That Turd Douche/Shit Sandwich episode was hilarious (well, at least it was when I first saw it--but I was a dumb kid then, so who knows), but it is indeed sad to see so many people adopting it as a political standpoint.
Yeah, I actually enjoyed that episode in and of itself, but the thing is that almost every episode about any subject they talk about makes the same point: "Group A thinks we should build a bridge, Group B thinks we shouldn't, so obviously the wisest course of action is to build half a bridge."

>>400497
Once again, I'm not trying to be in the middle of anything. I never actually said I was. I said I'm moderate, and separately from that, I also said that both sides (of most issues) have trash-heaps in them.
What I HAVE said in this thread is that I do have a "side." I even specified which one it was, consider actually reading. I have also said that I call out people on my "side." Like Stone, about most issues he talks about. I actually agree with him about a lot, but I also think he's got hella tunnelvision and ignores the more unpleasant aspects of his sociopolitical views to maintain his "we're the good guys" mindset, which I don't respect.

>>400503
Claiming to be a moderate is claiming to be in the middle.

>>400504
I was under the impression that moderate meant "not extremist/radical"
I might be wrong, I've honestly never looked it up, that's just what I got from contextual usage.

>>400506
Which is the same thing as "in the middle." A moderate republican and a moderate democrat would theoretically be closer to one another than they would be to most of the rest of their respective parties. Leaning in a particular direction but being moderate is saying that you are in the middle compared to the rank and file and might go across the aisle on certain issues. It's what tends to get people called RINOs and DINOs.

>>400415
>>400431
You realize you're proving yourself to be clueless AND part of the propaganda machine?

Daily Kos/Vox shits out disinfo and you eat it.

>>400507
In the middle assumes there's two options to choose from, which is an American mindset. The reality is more complex...

>>400508
Now we're just arguing semantics here. There are many people who would look at that drawing you did and say that arrow is in the middle. It's not the exact center, but it's clearly in the middle area.

>>400510
No, in fact if there were only two options to choose from, it would be impossible to be in the middle. Being in the middle implies there is a spectrum.

>>400511
Eh. If the options are Extremist 1, Extremist 2, or The Middle, then yeah, I guess I'll take the middle.

>>400513
Gawker doesn't fit his criteria at all, as the vast majority of their content has nothing to do with GamerGate. Same with Neogaf. So you seem to just be including anyone who's ever said anything bad about GamerGate again.

>>400502
You're making the opposite mistake, by assuming Republicans are much worse than Democrats. To most people, hateful Christians like Rick Santorum are just as bad as hateful feminists like Hillary Clinton. That's why trump is so popular, since he's not bought and sold like other politicians.

>>400514
Their commenting sections revolve around it though. Neogaf for example bans anyone who is not "anti gamergate" so it is fair to say this is something that defines them.

Also something that should clearly indicate how full of shit anti gamergate is how biased they are. The gamergate people have diversity of thought, from conservatives to feminists, however there is not a single anti gamergate who is a Republican, libertarian, ideological Christian, etc. So you can tell they are lying when they call gamergate terrorists they simply don't like them because of politics.

>>400516
Reading the comments section of any website is retarded to begin with, but even if it weren't, "doesn't allow commentary by groups they find distasteful" was not listed among Slowpoke's criteria.

>>400518
>Reading the comments section of any website is retarded to begin with
How else are you supposed to judge the community? You are posting in a comments section right now.

>>400519
An image board is different from the comments section in a website. Comments sections on websites are without exception plagues.

>>400517
>however there is not a single anti gamergate who is a Republican, libertarian, ideological Christian, etc.
Curious as to how you obtained this data.

>>400521
>Curious as to how you obtained this data.

When you make up your enemies, you get to make up all the details about them, too.

>>400520
Neogaf is a forum, and Kinja basically is too.

>>400524

To be fair now, that test is hella skewed. It's made so that you'll get put on the left side unless you agree with retarded statements like "My country is always right".

>>400521
>>400522
Can you name one? Maybe I'm wrong.

>>400526
>Can you name one?
Burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim.

>>400526
Given that my assertion is that your enemies are imaginary, no, I can't name any. They are in your head, not mine.

>>400529
>name some stuff he made up about Gawker for example.
literally what are you talking about

>>400531
You claimed he was making stuff up about his enemies.
>When you make up your enemies, you get to make up all the details about them, too.
Name some of the stuff he made up.

>>400529
>"Making up" stuff is your claim, name some stuff he made up about Gawker for example.
Well for example, you say the majority of what they write about is Gamergate. However, I follow Lifehacker, which is a Gawker site, and I can't remember a single Gamergate thing from them in months, maybe ever. Mostly what they write about is, say, "How to use TECHNIQUE X to stick to your budget" or "How to make a raised garden bed" or other shit like that. So your assertion is demonstrably false from the getgo that they even give a shit about your stupid movement other than when you do something newsworthy like threaten to rape and kill women to get them to shut up.

>>400527
>>400528
So you can't think of a single one?

>>400532
>You claimed he was making stuff up about his enemies.
No I didn't. You're speaking with more than one person, dipshit.

Kim Davis issued a statement this morning during which said she wouldn’t issue marriage licenses, but also wouldn’t interfere with (or take action against) the deputy clerks who do. All future licenses (assumedly the ones for straight couples, too) will not have her name on them and will be marked as issued under a federal court order. She still plans to pursue the full “change the form” accomodation in court, while Gov. Beshear has noted that only the state legislature has the power to change the form (for which he won't call a special session) and any marriage licenses issued while Kim Davis was in jail are perfectly legal. Davis’s lawyers (all from noted pro-Christian/anti-gay law firm Liberty Counsel) haven’t said whether they consider this a “victory”, but considering how they were likely shooting for “stop gay marriage” and had to settle for “get her name off paperwork”—which they haven’t even managed to do yet—I doubt they’re eager to keep this shitbird of a case going. Oh, and since GoFundMe changed the rules of their site to disallow crowdfunding campaigns for situations like Davis’s, she ain’t gonna get rich off of her bigotry.

Barring a court win or her doing something monumentally stupid, that should be the end of Kim Davis being anything other than a historical footnote.

>>400539
No one fucking cares, this was a one-off story not something worth weeks of examination.

If a clerk is being a jerk, go to another clerk. If a judge makes a blatantly biased decision go over their head or get them recused.

Our system would have stalled by now if we expected every official to not have a stick up their ass.

>>400541
>No one fucking cares
objectively false

>If a clerk is being a jerk, go to another clerk.
or she could do her job

>>400541

>If a clerk is being a jerk, go to another clerk.

This was actually part of the problem: Kim Davis had ordered her deputy clerks not to issue marriage licenses to any couple, court order be damned. The people of Rowan County literally couldn't go to another clerk unless they went to a neighboring county. No one asked her to participate in a wedding, approve of same-sex marriages, or do anything that would actually violate her religious beliefs. (All that “being complicit in sin” stuff is bullshit.) And yet she put an undue burden on the citizens she swore to serve—and potentially forced five deputy clerks to follow her religious beliefs—all so she didn’t have to sign off on paperwork that said "these gay people are married". Don’t say “no one cares” or “they could’ve just gone elsewhere” when you know both of those statements ring false.

>>400544
I hate John Oliver. He used to be funny, now he spends an hour lecturing America about what it's doing wrong. His liberalism has reached intolerant levels.

>>400545
He has a point though. It's 2015 A.D., how long are we going to put off degrading into the end times?

>>400545

Half-hour, actually.

Trans-Pacific Parnetship: not a good thing
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
https://openmedia.org/censorship
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-huge-tpp_b_6956540.html
https://www.lainchan.org/cyb/res/12806.html
Is it really a good time to get a businessman for president?

>>400549
>Parnetship
Whoops meant to type Partnership

https://medium.com/@srhbutts/i-m-sarah-nyberg-and-i-was-a-teenage-edgelord-b8a460b27e10

I-I was being an i-ironic pedophile

>>400554
>i-I just distributed child pornography as a joke ;(

>>400546
>He has a point though.
How is a year a point? 41% of the countries out there criminalize homosexuality, 91% have discriminatory laws. And even in the 9% West that has equal treatment, lgbt is still considered mental disorders.

John Oliver is attempting to imply that USA is "behind" the rest of the world, when in fact it's leading.

>>400554
Geez what an absolute cunt, can't believe people are protecting her.

>>400566
>John Oliver is attempting to imply that USA is "behind" the rest of the world, when in fact it's leading.

You can't really say it's leading just because there are other countries that are trailing even farther behind than the US is. Many developed nations at this point are far more progressive both socially and economically than the US. The US doesn't really lead in anything.

>>400567
>The US doesn't really lead in anything.
When did this happen anyway?

It seems that after a certain point, the only thing the USA was number 1 in was obesity, and if I'm recalling recent studies correctly, we aren't even number 1 at that anymore.

>>400569
>It seems that after a certain point, the only thing the USA was number 1 in was obesity, and if I'm recalling recent studies correctly, we aren't even number 1 at that anymore.

I think several polynesian countries--most notably Samoa in my mind but probably others as well--have always had us beat on that front, honestly. But that's like a genetic predisposition combined with a culture that doesn't really see fatness as necessarily being a problem thing, so I think the US tends to get the rap because we were, at least at one time, the fattest country that actually gave a shit about being fat.

>>400566
>How is a year a point?
See, that's the joke I was making with "degrading into the end times". An appeal to the current year without any context doesn't convey anything but the speaker thinking that you take too long to agree with them.

Aaaand we find out who's behind the migrant rush into Europe. It's George Soros.

http://news.sky.com/story/1551853/sky-finds-handbook-for-eu-bound-migrants
http://w2eu.info/index.en.html

>>400580
Looking at (arbitrarily picked numbers--this is just for the sake of argument) 25th place out of 100 isn't exactly leading.

Just like being a B student doesn't make you the top of the class.

>>400579

1. Where's the connection to George Soros?

2. Oh no, helping refugees who are going anyway arrive safely, how terrible.

>>400580
Leading implies that EVERY other country is trailing behind you, or at least almost every country. Among developed nations, we are trailing in almost any area you could care to name.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/northwest-dallas-county/headlines/20150915-irving-ninth-grader-arrested-after-taking-homemade-clock-to-school.ece

>>400583

“Leading” also implies we’re paving a road for other countries to follow by showing them how to do something in a way those countries could adapt for their specific cultures. That…really isn’t all that true, either.

>>400586
First the ATHF Boston shit, now this. And this story has an additional nasty layer of racism along with dragging the kid through the mud for nothing.

>>400594
Long time, no see. Why don't you post anymore? This is probably better for the SYM thread, though.

>>400598
This isn't a gun or liberal thing, though. It's a bomb and conservative hate/racism thing. Overreaction, for sure, but if Ahmed had been white we wouldn't even know he existed.

>>400567
>You can't really say it's leading just because there are other countries that are trailing even farther behind than the US is.
That's exactly what the definition of leading is. You can't say the US is falling behind when every country is more backwards.

>>400598
>liberal hysteria
What's that got to do with this case

>>400600
>every country is more backwards.
That's just it, every country isn't more backwards. About 10% of countries are beating us in every area.

>>400604
Let me guess.

Sweden?

>>400606
Pretty much every developed nation. So yes, Sweden is among those.

>>400598

The ability of ammosexuals to make incidents with no guns involved whatsoever all about their gun fetish is really astounding.

>>400616
>Sweden is a shithole mate, rape capital of the west.

Not a true statement. If you do a direct comparison between countries Sweden looks like it has the most sexual assaults, but that doesn't take into account the fact that Sweden has a much broader definition of sexual assault, and its police report their data differently from other western countries, leading to their number appearing inflated compared with other countries.

Even the people who authored the study which spawned the 'rape capitol of the world' meme say that it's not suitable for making comparisons between countries.

>>400620
Oh gees here come the rape apologists... women there are also polled, EUAFR polled all countries in Europe with the same methodology, and ended up with Denmark, Finland and Sweden at the top of the list.

Is it because women in Sweden magically can't tell when they're being raped? It's a real problem, really happening, and you aren't helping the victims by trying to minimize it.

Also the violent crime rate isn't to do with reporting or with polls, and the definition is stable (crime that is violent).

>>400623

It's not rape apologism to point out statistical inaccuracy. Also, the spoiler text final line makes it obvious you're the right-wing jackass who's been shitting up this thread and its predecessors, so I don't know why I'm bothering to pretend that you're speaking in good faith.

Have you actually read that survey? They draw very different conclusions from 'Sweden is the rape capitol of the west'.

>being against rape is being a right wing jackass
lol

The discussion was about which countries are more advanced, not rape. And the fact that you specifically brought up Sweden when no one else had and then when it was agreed that, yes, among the many countries that have better economy, infrastructure, and freedoms than the US is Sweden, suddenly you go off on a rant about rape statistics--making it clear this was a tangent you intentionally tried to divert the discussion with. You are a troll. Shut the fuck up.

>>400625
> They draw very different conclusions from 'Sweden is the rape capitol of the west'.
If by "very different" you mean confirming that they aren't the utopia you thought they were.

>>400630
You're talking to at least three different people. The guy who brought up Sweden wasn't me (the A-10 guy), and neither was this>>400627

>>400632
It doesn't really matter how many people we're talking to, you're still intentionally trying to shift the subject away from what we were actually talking about toward something incendiary for your own amusement, and that's trolling.

>>400632

No, by 'very different' I meant - actually, you know what? Go read it yourself. You don't even need a JSTOR account for that shit, it is free to download from the Internet.

>>400627

Leaving the last line of your post in pointless spoilertext marks you as a specific right-wing jackass and troll, who uses that as his shtick.

I like to laugh at people who talk about politics without any knowledge how politics or their government works.

And then I remember I don't know much either.

>>400633
>you're still intentionally
>you
Dumbass do you understand the concept of different people?

>>400639
Dumbass, do you understand the fact that "you" can be plural in english? Would you rather I had said "y'all?"

This whole thread:
>there is more than one person that doesn't support your idea!

>>400643
it's hilariously true
me and Moose are basically the only """contributors"" that you can directly call an idiot, everyone else is just all "wasn't me."

>>400640
What are you... DUMBASS YOURE TALKING TO MORE THAN ONE PERSON QUIT ACCUSING ME OF SHIT I DIDNT DO!

>>400645
Sweden is also more than one person.

>>400649

There's no argument to win. There's just one guy smearing feces all over himself, and a bunch of other people milling around and getting feces on themselves by foolishly interacting with him.

>>400649
But I'm not even the guy >>400645 was replying to.

>>400651
I'm not the guy that guy was talking to either, but he's obviously trying to derail the discussion.

//youtube.com/watch?v=lN5Lj_74u38

Why is it so fucking impossible to argue with feminists?

>there should be more female characters in this work of fiction
>well actually there are a lot more than the ones you just named
>yeah but they're just TOOLS to bring more attention to the MALES
>well depending on the situation, there's nothing inherently wrong with that and you're looking way too deep into it anyway. not every character has to be a strong and independent action girl.
>YOU'RE A SEXIST PIG
>everyone else proceeds to side with the radical feminist girl, of course, because all they see is a male making a female upset

Even if you agree with 99% of what they fucking say, they will find that 1% and use it against you in the most passive-aggressive way possible, and ANY argument you throw back will automatically make you look like a sexist bigot. There SHOULD be a middle ground, but there never is. Do libtards just not understand the point of a debate?

>>400672
Maybe you need to stop being so sensitive and getting your panties in a twist every time someone tells you they're not as fully satisfied as you are by whatever you're watching.

>>400672

>[x] sucks because it does [y]
>[y] is really fucking prevalent in other things like [x]
>we should be asking ourselves how we justify putting [y] in [x]

This is what most discussions about questionable/sexist/racist/etc. tropes and trends boils down to…up until the point where you say “there’s nothing inherently wrong with that”. That makes you sound like you’re excusing away the troublesome nature of those kinds of tropes rather than looking for a reason to justify the trope’s usage. Yes, not every story needs a “strong and independent action girl”, but every story that includes a woman who isn’t the protagonist doesn’t need to automatically make said woman an object that exists only to enhance how we feel about the (often male) hero.

On a fundamental level, this is a bit like a “Not All Men” argument: you hear someone complain about this horrible trope or a lack of well-written female characters in a fictional story, but rather than nod your head and let this person complain, you immediately launch into a “Not All Stories” argument in an attempt to bury complaints that person might have about the story. If that person’s complaint contains a fundamental flaw (e.g. their complaint is based on something that isn’t in the story), go ahead and point it out. But if the only reason you want to argue is to launch a “Not All Stories” defense of shitty tropes/trends, you’d probably be better off if you kept your mouth shut.

>>400672
It's mostly impossible to argue with anyone who has a sociopolitical opinion.
Source: I argue with everyone constantly

"Impossible to argue with [X]" is code for "[X] doesn't capitulate properly when I try to bully them into agreeing with me."

>>400677
Nah it's code for "even when presented with evidence, they pull some lame excuse to justify continued unfaltering belief in their worldview," and everyone who pledges allegiance to a group instead of an idea does it.

>>400678
And I imagine when you refuse to budge on an argument despite being presented with evidence it's rationality rather than stubbornness.

>>400673
Maybe people shouldn't accuse me of supporting rape when I say their opinions are wrong

>>400682
Your attitude still makes it seem like you're someone who takes things out of proportion because you like to be offended. Like someone said "That scene is a little rapey" and your response was "WAIT, I LIKED THAT SCENE! YOU JUST SAID I SUPPORT RAPE!" Maybe if you didn't come off so butthurt about feminists people wouldn't assume you're in the wrong in your arguments so much.

>>400684
>7. It's sexist to cut off parts of female baby genitals. It's not sexist to cut off pieces of male baby genitals.
Are you seriously comparing intentionally removing a woman's ability to have an orgasm with a purely cosmetic removal of the foreskin?

>>400680
Naw, I budge plenty.
>>400685
Yeah man, comparing genital mutilation to genital mutilation is so ridiculous.

>>400688
>Yeah man, comparing genital mutilation to genital mutilation is so ridiculous.
You're becoming a parody of yourself, man.

>>400688
>Yeah man, comparing genital mutilation to genital mutilation is so ridiculous.
Come back to me when circumcision involves:
- the removal of several parts of male genitalia besides the foreskin.
- increased risk of getting infections, chronic pain, cysts, or the inability to conceive children.
- the explicit purpose to control men's sexuality.

>>400690
I don't think there's much point with arguing with him at this point. He's reached the point that he's effectively making the argument that rape is no worse than being given a wet willie.

>>400689
Dude, I am 100% serious when I say this, circumcision is legitimate genital mutilation. I am not playing devil's advocate or being in "the middle," this is an issue I feel pretty strongly about. You all have my oath here, that for the rest of This Post(tm), I am going to be completely serious and try my best not to just sneer at you guys down my nose.
>>400690
>- the removal of several parts of male genitalia besides the foreskin.
Are you saying that minor examples of female genital mutilation are okay? It's fine to just remove a bit? If this is NOT what you're saying, elaborate.
>- increased risk of getting infections, chronic pain, cysts, or the inability to conceive children.
Actually, having an open wound on an infant's penis, such as from a circumcision, is pretty prone to infection, due to the fact that it frequently gets covered in poop.
>- the explicit purpose to control men's sexuality.
I distinctly remember reading a cited study on why circumcision became so widespread in western cultures, to the point of it being the "default" in America. It was to prevent boys from masturbating, because it significantly dulls the penis's sensitivity.
>>400685
Back to you, while I'm being serious.
Are you implying that "cosmetic" genital mutilation is acceptable? Because I know in some examples of female genital mutilation, it's just the labia that are removed. In fact, let's make a hypothetical: if a girl has prominent labia minora, they are surgically removed without her consent, as an infant or child, for the purpose of aesthetics, and because rumors say that it helps them not get so many yeast infections later in life. Is this ethical or acceptable? Please explain why, or why not.

>>400693
>It was to prevent boys from masturbating, because it significantly dulls the penis's sensitivity.
As someone who still has his foreskin: that is complete bullshit. The only "fun" sensations my foreskin is ever responsible for is getting my pubes caught in the folds and nearly crying from the pain of having my pubes pulled out by my own cock.

Note: This is something I am willing to reasonably debate rather than just laughing about how I'm better than the other people on this board. If you have no retorts or counterpoints, that's fine, but if you do, please refrain from just being like "OH LOOK, SLOWPOKE IS IN THE DEBATE THREAD AGAIN."

If you have something to reply with, please do so. I'm even willing to look for an online version of that study I mentioned in my last post, if you don't feel like looking for one yourself.

>>400694
Mate, the foreskin containing a ton of nerve endings, especially at that bit on the bottom side of the glans where it all gathers in one place, is...common knowledge? I can google "foreskin nerve endings" if you want, but I kind of feel like everyone knows this? Do they not? Honest question, do people think that it's just a bit of extra skin like those moles that grow outwards like tiny tumors?
(in my region we call those moles "skin tags," not sure if that's universal)

>>400696
Oh also, having the head of the penis constantly exposed dulls the nerve endings in it as well, for the same reason that manual laborers don't have a lot of sensation in their hands.

>>400696
>Mate, the foreskin containing a ton of nerve endings, especially at that bit on the bottom side of the glans where it all gathers in one place, is...common knowledge? I can google "foreskin nerve endings" if you want, but I kind of feel like everyone knows this? Do they not? Honest question, do people think that it's just a bit of extra skin like those moles that grow outwards like tiny tumors?
Okay, well I have foreskin, and again--it doesn't have any nice feelings to it. I don't know what to tell you. You can cite all the research you want, but you're still trying to tell someone who has a body part you don't how it actually feels to have that body part. The head is where all the enjoyable sensation is regardless of whether or not you have foreskin. Unless the feeling you're wanting to have is that you'd like the chafing from holding it wrong to hurt more. Maybe it does that? Because I get some wicked scabs if I'm not careful. You want my scabs?

>>400698
>Unless the feeling you're wanting to have is that you'd like the chafing from holding it wrong to hurt more. Maybe it does that? Because I get some wicked scabs if I'm not careful. You want my scabs?
As someone who has a foreskin and used to spend hella time jacking off, I have no idea how to respond to this. I am replying to your post because I don't want to seem like I'm ignoring you, but I have never ever chafed or gotten scabs, and the fact that you have is giving me sympathy cringes and also making me feel like uh, something might be wrong there.

I am elaborating that I do have a foreskin since I get the idea that you don't think I do, but otherwise uh, I'm just wishing you the best.

So you're saying you honestly believe that young circumcised men who were circumsed as infants have been as badly wronged as women who have had their clitorises removed as infants, and that you don't see why people might take this as an absurd statement to make?

>>400700
Fam, I'm saying that chopping off parts of babies' reproductive organs is MAD messed up, period.
I'm not gonna say whether someone who was stabbed to death has it worse than someone who was shot to death or not, I have no idea, but what I am saying is that innocent people being [x]ed to death needs to stop.

I wouldn't have said anything at all, except for the fact that (for the sake of this analogy), someone said
>some people think that it's an issue to get stabbed to death. Those same people think it's a non-issue to get shot to death.
And someone else replied
>Are you seriously comparing the pain of being stabbed to death to that of a quick shooting?
That is JACKED, my dude, there shouldn't be a contest of any sorts there, it should be universally agreed that cutting off parts of infants' genitals for aesthetics is plain-out wrong.

>>400701
No, you saw someone saying it was irrational for women to treat female genital mutilation as a feminist issue because circumcision exists, and when I called him out on it you came to his defense because, one can only assume, you agree that it is irrational to consider female genital mutilation to be a higher priority for sexual politics than male circumcision.

>>400702
See, you're not really addressing any of the points I made here, you're just reframing the summary of this conversation.
Like I said, if you have no counterpoint, it's fine, but I am trying to have an actual discussion, not talk about what it might mean to have a discussion.

>>400704
You're the one who is moving the goalposts, Slowpoke. This was a conversation about the irrationality of feminism and how X MEN'S ISSUE was the equivalent of Y WOMEN'S ISSUE. The only way your entire argument works is if you agree that this men's issue is the equal of y women's issue. The conversation was never "Men should absolutely be circumcised!" The conversation was "Men being circumcised is just as bad as women having their clitoris removed." And you took the "agree" position on that argument.

Stop moving the goalposts.

>>400683
No, I was only talking about how they claim to get harassed when someone calls them out on being wrong.

>>400685
FGM includes labia removal, or removal of the clittoral hood. It's not just clit removal dumbass.

>>400721
And according to sources it will be as effective as the "nudge" known as Obamacare. So doing the exact opposite of the intended result.

>>400721

Its no surprise that Google and Facebook are weekly regulars for meetings at the white house.

>>400721
He's been making vines and Daily Show appearances to brainwash the youth into thinking he's hip and cool, to distract from when he does shit like this.

>>400728
he's never really been cool, just highly managed and filtered and never really been happy he can't rule by decree officially, though by the way the other branches have behaved they might as well go home. This is just a rehash of the old 50-60s era stuff because people have lost all trust in the government, don't see how this will help any of that.

So I was just reading about it--the Breitbart guy who did the Sarah Nyberg hitpiece is the same guy who, over the past year, has done similar hit pieces on everyone who criticizes GamerGate and has consistently been either wrong or lying about everything he said, right? Why are we still treating him as an actual news source?

>>400731
Sarah Nyberg herself confirmed it?

>>400736
I guess even a broken clock is right if the dice roll well.

>>400731
Why is his bias relevant? If Sarah admitted to being a pedophile herself, then the facts are true regardless.

>>400742
I just find it amusing that GamerGate counts among their heroes an absolutely absurd yellow journalist with zero journalistic integrity.

>>400738
Mmmmhm.

>>400743
It's not yellow journalism by definition if it's true and well-researched.

>Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news

>>400749
>It's not yellow journalism by definition if it's true and well-researched.
That is precisely my point. His work is 90% false and poorly researched. Like his "outing" of Shaun King as "not black."

>>400721
The article stops abruptly with "The desired choices almost always advance the goals of the federal government…" without going into any specifics, and given that the RINO propaganda machine would say every last bad thing about Obama that it possibly could, I'm guessing those goals are fairly benign and this is tinfoil hat material.

>>400753
He has weekly meetings with Google and Facebook so it's pretty much just adjusting according to social media stuff. So its much ado about nothing. And even it it was malicious "nudge" brainwashing great Britain shows its effectiveness to be quite low.