/baw/ - General Discussion
Please consider donating! Thanks!
Thread stats: 437 posts, 37 files (37 image(s))
Navigation:
Politics. Last one is at 400+.
Replies:>>401867
Clearly-seen bias, yadda yadda yadda, ANYWHO.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/kentucky_clerks_want_different_marriage_license_forms_for_same_sex_couples
(And hey, would you rather I link there, or link to Jezebel?)
Replies:>>401876
>>401868
Thought there was a baw trip who was pro #gg. Must be mixing em up. Sorry Stone.
Replies:>>401881
>>401871
Slowpoke is a #gg sympathizer, I think. Maybe not full blown #gg, but leans more for them than against them. You might be thinking of him.
Replies:>>401879
Now that the dust has settled, can we all agree gamer gate did nothing wrong?
Replies:>>401881
>>401879
I don't see what's so bad about them. SJWs wanted to talk about "politics in gaming, comics, tech etc." but they were only talking about one limited side of it. Of course people were going to get pissed off since you weren't being representative of all views. So they said "we're pissed off" and got called bad guys for it, then how else should they have gone about it?
>>401876
Slowpoke isn't anything. He tries to find a golden mean in literally every discussion, even though there always isn't one. As some Anon pointed out last thread, it's "South Park Politics." Outsiders look at an issue and either think, "Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwhich" without applying any additional thought. There are some scenarios in which both sides are awful, but it gets annoying when it's used in a situation in which one side is *light years* worse than the other. Bonus points of one of the sides didn't actually do anything wrong in the first place and people still take a middle road as some lame attempt to be impartial.
>>401880
Yes, I also don't see what's so bad about rape and death threats. Or the harassing of people who aren't even journalists. Or even worse outright ignoring the misdeeds of large companies, opting to focus on small, independent developers over fabricated claims.
And you can go ahead and type out whatever long response you have, but know that if at any point you try to imply that the threats and harassment *didn't* happen, I will be disregarding anything you say (and just so you know, this means I won't be responding to you) and look at you the same way I look at 9/11 truthers or ding-dongs who don't think we landed on the moon decades ago.
Replies:>>401886
>>401881
Isn't this kinda racist logic, like saying all blacks commit crime simply because more of them do?
>>401881
That isn't really true. I'm pretty non-concrete and don't stand on the polar side of any given argument (I don't really even answer yes or no to basic day-to-day questions, it's mostly "probably" or "I doubt it" or something), but if you want my opinion on something, without me being able to be "contrarian" by just opposing whatever else is posted(not your words, but at least one other anon has said I just argue against whatever someone else says), just ask about something out of the blue.
I do actually have opinions, they're...not really any less valid because they're somewhere between 1 and 10,000 instead of being one or the other.
Replies:>>401885
Consider this: If someone is willing to discuss both sides, and you try to pressure them into "picking one side", they are more likely to side against you. Because even though you swear up and down that the other side is awful, you are the one acting like an asshole.
Replies:>>401887
>>401884
It's not about picking a side. It's about looking for a golden mean when there isn't one.
>>401885
Right... and if you keep saying "the other side is much worse, they are bigots, terrorists, I hate them so much, they cucked my dog" you will look like the bigger asshole. Your hatred backfires on you.
>>401888
Honestly, I dunno why everyone is so extreme about the stuff. I think it's pretty okay. I mean, I personally don't keep it around, but I can see why people would.
Replies:>>401891
>>401887
>you will look like the bigger asshole.
Key word here is "look like"
As long as I know I'm not the bigger asshole, I'll sleep easy.
Replies:>>401894
>>401887
Yes, and hatred backfired on GamerGate. In the eyes of a hell of a lot of people, that name will forever be associated with the harassment of women in all corners of the video game industry—specifically because members of the “movement” targeted women. Hate doesn’t exist without some kind of investment; considering the way lots of GG members still hang on every word Anita Sarkeesian says or writes, they made a huge investment into hatred that they simply can’t rescind without paying a huge cost (i.e., losing their identity).
Think about white supremacists: they invest in the hatred of non-whites to the point where rescinding that investment would rob them of an identity they’ve taken some time (possibly even most of their lives) to create for themselves and open them up to blowback or retaliation from others who shared in that identity. GamerGaters who’ve invested in the hatred of Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, etc. for this long are committed to their hatred—their identity—for the long haul. They can’t pull back on that hatred without destroying that identity and suffering the consequences of doing so.
Hate requires an emotional investment; make it too big, and you risk losing yourself to it. GamerGate as a “movement” made that investment—and lost itself in hatred—way back when it decided to harass Zoe Quinn.
>>401886
Nice reaction image shitposter, do you have a response?
>>401892
Criticism is still not harassment retard.
>>401894
A pithy attempt at a one-liner combined with an insult that doubles as a slur for the mentally handicapped is still not a rational discussion of an issue.
Replies:>>401898
>>401891
I don't really care about being labeled an asshole.
You'd probably call me an asshole for going in on people and politicians who shit on gay people and minorities. If you're going to equate me to the people who actively aim to strip rights away from these people, or are turned off by what I have to say because of my tone and not the content of my message, I got nothing but laughs for you.
>>401896
I'm just sayng, to most people who are not convinced {people you hate} are as bad as Hitler, they will probably be turned off by your sounding like a lunatic. If you insist that there is not a golden mean and one side is worse, that side is clearly you, since you are the one acting like a douchebag.
Replies:>>401901
>>401898
Well, I never called anyone hitler.
>If you insist that there is not a golden mean and one side is worse, that side is clearly you, since you are the one acting like a douchebag.
Since, you brought up Hitler first, tell me, how are your feelings about the Nazi party in direct relation to how they treated Jewish people?
Tone policing is so stupid.
>>401900
You're being judged on your content, not your tone. Most people do not think christians or gamers are lightyears worse than liberals, or responsible for rape threats and death threats, or whatever else.
Replies:>>401907
Also, consider, if they are as bad as you say, how come you look worse compared to them?
Replies:>>401906
>>401898
>If you insist that there is not a golden mean and one side is worse, that side is clearly you, since you are the one acting like a douchebag.
If one side thinks we should build a bridge and the other side thinks we shouldn't, building half a bridge is not really an option. There are in fact such things as binary choices, and sitting on the fence doesn't make you right, nor does it make you rational, nor does it make your opinion more valid in any other way. It just makes you irrelevant to the discussion. If you don't care which decision gets made, then stay out of the argument.
>>401901
>Most people do not think christians or gamers are lightyears worse than liberals, or responsible for rape threats and death threats, or whatever else.
What are you even talking about?
>>401901
>Most people do not think christians or gamers are lightyears worse than liberals, or responsible for rape threats and death threats, or whatever else.
Most people do however think that the majority of abortion clinic bombings and murders are done by Christians, and GamerGate *is*, to non-gamers, "that gamer hate group that keeps trying to rape people."
Replies:>>401908
>>401903
Presumably in this case the middle is, "Both of you stop being angry, open a blog, and talk about your 'big important social issues' without being whiny". Considering one side is tumblr SJWs plus gawker, and the other side is /v/ermin and /pol/acks plus Breitbart, there's no reason why this can't be done, or why one side of a pointless internet argument is "soo much worse" than the other. Except that people make more money from outrage than understanding.
>>401902
>how come you look worse compared to them?
Look worse in whose eyes exactly? That's subjective as hell.
Also can't help but notice that my question about Nazis (which is totally legit given I'm not even the one who namedropped hitler in the first place) went ignored.
Replies:>>401909
>>401906
>"Both of you stop being angry, open a blog, and talk about your 'big important social issues' without being whiny".
You sound a lot like what he just said about the "middle ground" being irrelevant to the discussion.
Replies:>>401911
>>401909
You are literally adding nothing to the discussion and addressing no points that either side has presented.
>>401910
Ok, I am very openly on the "anti-SJW" side and I think SJWs are worse. That said, I see no reason why understanding can't happen. Except, you know, $$$. If the Republlicans and Democrats manage to hold debates with each other, then it's completely embarrassing that college kids on the internet can't act like adults too.
Replies:>>401915
>>401911
Just because you typed more doesn't mean you're adding anything to the discussion. Read what I just said. You've addressed no points being made. You're just saying one side is worse (without giving any explanation) and also calling both sides whiny without actually addressing any points that they made.
You're making "Twinkie" posts. Just like the snacks, they aren't great for you, or very filling. They're just there--and asking to be acknowledged for no real purpose. And a prime example as to why people don't like fence sitters.
Also, you are the one making it about sides. Right now, the sides are "both sides are kinda the same", vs. you, "the golden mean fallacy/anti-SJWs are much worse". To me, both sides are pretty indistinguishable - both sides use boycotts, both criticize media, both are new versions of a "culture war", people on both sides feel they get harassed/threatened, both have their own shitposting bases online. Pretty much the only difference is, before last year, the RW side didn't have any media connections, while now breitbart and others are willing to shill for their views, before only the left side had media connections.
I think SJWs are just going to have to get used to the fact that the "Gaters" are here to say, and hopefully they'll be willing to have a discussion instead of be jerks. Maybe we can be better than the last generation with, Fox vs. MSNBC, Blue vs. Red type of stuff. It's embarrassing.
>>401911
>it's completely embarrassing
/baw/ in a nutshell tbh
>>401912
Why do you care why I think SJWs are worse, you won't listen to anything I say anyway. I don't really care which "side" you are on, I have my personal beliefs, but this bogeyman mentality I think is stupid. How are people so divided again.
Replies:>>401922
>>401913
And it's amazing, you've typed more, but you *still* haven't managed to make a post noteworthy. I've said several times to address something actually said, and you're still going on this "both sides x, y, z" nonsense. You are providing nothing to the discussion. It's like the anon above said. Building half of a bridge is not the solution. You've given no rebuttals to anything said. You've just decided you hate both sides and think that this is a quality addition to the conversation. It's not. If I have two friends debating on where to go eat for lunch, with one saying McDonald's and the other saying Burger King, I am not helping a solution come to a head (or even providing any real insight to the debate) by calling both of them stupid.
And I'm done responding to your posts. I suspect you're the anime dude from last thread. I will continue to ignore your posts. G'night!
Replies:>>401920
>>401914
It's an internet at large thing. The SJW trolls here are kinda annoying, but in general people are unwilling to talk to each other anymore. It's sad, you'd expect that on muh facebook and old media, but you'd think the "geek savvy" people would be more able to get along even though we're polarized.
Replies:>>401919
>>401914
Yes, Slowpoke, you are an embarrassing person. There's not much need for you to remind us. We know.
Replies:>>401921
>>401918
It's flattering that you consider me to be such a big part of the board you enjoy <3
>>401917
>you'd think the "geek savvy" people would be more able to get along even though we're polarized.
Why would you think that? Geeky people have worse social skills than most people, and social skills are one of the key things to coming to understandings or disagreeing without name calling. And they're no less prone to tribalism or hate--if anything, they seem to be more prone to it, in general. Plus geeks are prone to superiority complexes in regards to their intelligence and arguing ability and a lack of self-awareness.
If anything you should be surprised things aren't even worse.
>>401916
How did I add nothing, I made several points
* Both "sides" are similar in all major ways. Both are prolific shitposters, both use "boycotts" and "censorship", both claim the other "harasses" them.
* The only thing "Gamergate" changed is now, the RW side has media shills. This means now, when *chan has a response to some SJW article, that breitbart or some other website will publish it. This could mean both sides have better communication, or it could be bad since the websites have more monetary interest in outrage journalism instead of better communication.
* All in all, we are repeating the mistakes of the older generations. The culture war is not new, but for some reason now our generation is heavily invested in it.
* Our generation should be better than this, not repeat mistakes from the past.
However your post was longer than mine, but you only made one point, "I am ignoring you". So who is the real idiot here.
Replies:>>401925
>>401922
>Both are prolific shitposters, both use "boycotts" and "censorship", both claim the other "harasses" them.
None of those are major ways. And "Both sides claim the other harasses them" is a pretty ridiculous argument. It's like saying gays and Christians are basically the same because, while Christians demonstrably oppress gays, Christians claim they're being oppressed by gays when they're not allowed to prevent gay people from getting married.
>>401921
Luckily, we have so many of you anons to fill that role. :)
>>401925
Because both sides claim to be oppressed by the other. Therefore they are obviously the same.
>401926
Uh.... well Christians and gays are both protected classes so I would say yes? If your argument is that one side is like Christians and one side is like gays.... then yes, I don't see how that hurts my argument. Both are legitimate lifestyles, and a part of society. Of course trying to intimidate anyone because of their lifestyle, is wrong.
If anything, if you think Christians are evil compared to gay people, that would make you the extremist. Most Christians tolerate gays, and most gays tolerate Christians. Most people accept both Gays and Christains. Getting along is not that hard.
Replies:>>401929
>>401927
Is English your first language? Because if so, you need to practice your ability to both communicate and to understand the things people say to you.
Replies:>>401933
>>401928
What is wrong with what I posted? I have adopted some bad grammatical habits from ESL-kun's on imageboards, that I notice but choose not to correct since I think it's cute. But never something that makes my posts hard to understand.
Replies:>>401936
>>401927
Christians have long used their religious beliefs—and still use those beliefs—to oppress gay people by forcing them into the closet and painting gay people as perverse sex fiends who deserve nothing less than a public curbstomping. Gay people didn’t have the political or social capital to fight back against this oppression, so they accepted it and built up that capital until they could fight back and win. Now that gay people have won the right to legally marry each other—a right that does nothing to infringe on a Christian church’s right to refuse marrying gay couples or force a Christian to think gay people are just normal people—Christians see having to do things like allowing gay couples to receive marriage licenses or treating gay people equally in public accomodations as “oppression”.
Both sides can claim to be oppressed, but one side has a far stronger case than the other.
Replies:>>401934
>>401929
You don't seem to understand the things people say to you, and the things you say in response are either completely fatuous or you don't know how to communicate the things you're thinking.
Replies:>>401938
http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/6/8352651/mobius-final-fantasy-sexy-costume-video-gameplay
So it looks like the SJWs successfully censored costume designs from a new game because they were too revealing.
Oh, wait, that wasn't the SJWs? It was the dudebro gamers who are afraid of people thinking they're gay if they play games about nearly-naked men? Carry on then.
>>401931
Christians have all sorts of different views on homosexuality, and there are thousands of gay Christians too. To act like Christianity only does bad is a pretty ignorant view of the world, when they have done so many good things, for arts, for science, for law, etc. There are way more Christians than gay people so it stands to reason there is going to be a lot more diversity of their views, but to hate Christians over such a minor thing is breathtakingly ignorant.
>>401935
>Japanese devices
and
>Apr. 2015
Come on.
http://kotaku.com/players-say-fatal-frames-new-costumes-are-censorship-1737632217
If you have any serious criticisms of my reading comprehension, or writing, can you please be specific. I laid out my points pretty clearly, and I do believe they are valid points. Simply posting to say you're ignoring me, or insulting my English, isn't a good argument in anyway.
Replies:>>401941
>>401936
1.) >>401937 nailed you worse than Jesus Christ.
2.) I don't hate all Christians. I don’t even hate the Christians who advocate for things like ex-gay therapy or the continued legal marginalization of gay people. What I hate is the idea of a specific set of religious beliefs being used to marginalize gay people. If someone uses such a set of beliefs to justify anti-gay discrimination, I’d take issue with that person and their actions—but it wouldn’t rise to the level of “hate” because it’s too much of an emotional investment and I don’t have that many fucks to give these days.
>>401940
I think we can agree that disagreeing with feminists also does not mean you hate feminists.
Replies:>>401949
>>401936
>and there are thousands of gay Christians too.
This confuses the fuck out of me. I'm sorry but you literally can't be both gay and Christian. You can't just ignore that the bible says it's a bad thing and assume you'll be forgiven anyway. I'm not even Christian, but this ignorant clinging to your beliefs despite you being incompatible with them makes no fucking sense.
>>401943
Actually the laws against homosexuality, being from the Old Testament, are supposed to be voided according to the doctrine of many denominations, since Christ himself cast aside the laws of the OT, and acceptance of him is the only remaining law.
Theology is an immerse complicated subject, hence the billions of schisms.
>>401941
Considering how absolutely segmented and evolved the movement is, its very hard to agree with them all even if you yourself deliberately consider yourself one.
Replies:>>401956
>>401941
Just disagreeing? Yes, I can agree with the sentiment.
Disagreeing, insulting, and doing everything possible to antagonize the people with whom you disagree? Pretty sure that takes some emotional investment.
Replies:>>401960
>>401950
There was a mass stabbing in china with like 50 dead, it just requires some organization. This was a terrorist attack by the Chinese version of Al Qaeda, and it was plenty successful.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/at-least-50-reported-dead-in-september-attack-as-china-celebrates-xinjiang
People also tend to forget the most popular means of mass killing is with fire. Block the nightclub fire exit with a dime, pour some low vapor pressure accelerant, cook at 475 degrees, serve hot.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/16/german-refugee-center-attacked.html
This is what people do in societies with higher gun control, they use other means to kill people they don't like. But media can't sensationalize this as some robocop, 80s style action movie rampage, so it didn't happen.
Replies:>>401957
>>401953
>i cant insult or anger the people i disagree with
What kind of world do you live in dipshit?
Replies:>>401958
>>401956
Okay, uh, I didn’t say that. But hey, I do appreciate the new heaping helping of straw! Omnomnom. So good.
It is possible to disagree with someone and not hate them. It is possible to insult them and not hate them. It is even possible to antagonize someone and not hate them. But when you go out of your way to disagree with, insult, and antagonize someone, that shows at least some level of emotional investment in hating someone who is on the “other side” of whatever issue caused the initial disagreement. Moreover, lobbing insults and antagonism towards someone is a surefire way to derail a reasonable discussion on an issue; I’m more inclined to discuss politics and the like with someone who refuses to insult or antagonize me than I am with someone who feels inclined to call me a dumb furry faggot or poke fun at my life so I’ll blow up at them and “lose” the discussion/argument/whatever. But by all means, be “politically incorrect” and “irreverent” and “disrespectful” all you want—you’re the one who has to live with the consequences of that decision.
>>401955
>The media can't sensationalize a whole building of people being set on fire!
The stupidity really is reflexive for you gun nuts, isn't it?
Replies:>>401965
>>401960
>can't sensationalize this as some robocop, 80s style action movie rampage
Learn to read.
>gun nut
You're the minority here buddy.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/186284/despite-criticism-nra-enjoys-majority-support.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles
>>401964
It's interesting that you choose a meaningless, general poll about the favorability of an industry lobbying group to support your point rather than one that supports the specific initiatives you're arguing in favor of. Especially considering polls consistently show the majority of votes being in favor of common sense gun control initiatives, including the majority of gun owners.
That's the difference between a gun owner and a gun nut. Gun nuts are the wackadoo conspiracy theorists who think the government is run by snake people and their guns are all that protect them from it.
Replies:>>401967
>>401965
>wackadoo conspiracy theorist
Wouldn't that be you?
Those evil gun owners are threatening your life.
>>401966
>Those evil gun owners are threatening your life.
That's not a conspiracy, that's just a fact. The entire purpose of owning a gun is to make yourself more capable of killing.
Replies:>>401975
>>401970
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/22/1437368/-Family-Business-Brigaded-on-Yelp-by-MRA-YouTube-Stars
This whole thing is lol. Spergs sperging spergs sperging spergs.
Replies:>>401977
>>401969
Unless you're someone who aims specifically at inanimate objects (target shooting), how is he wrong?
>>401965
>show the majority of votes being in favor of common sense gun control initiatives, including the majority of gun owners
Debunked in the previous thread
>>401967
>The entire purpose of owning a gun is to make yourself more capable of killing people who attack you.
Forgot to finish the sentence there.
If you intend to attack me, you kind of do have so meting to worry about.
Otherwise, not.
>>401971
>>401970
Laughing witch tried to get Thunderfoot fired by sending slander and libel to his employee, claiming that he's a Nazi with an army and that he hates women.
Protip feminists: He has tenure, firing him is nigh impossible, and even if you succeeded in getting him to quit willingly, he would actually get a pay raise in the private sector.
She also tried to get him swatted by sending all kinds of wild accusations to the local police department, Thunderfoot has accusing them of terrorism, this is illegal in America at least.
Protip feminists #2: This is actual harassment.
She made videos of herself showing the slanderous letter she wrote, then putting it in an envelope, then mailing it. She made videos which could be used as testimony against other people in the campaign as well. Thunderfoot can easily bury her legally, he has no need to send NINE PEOPLE to BRIGADE against her on review websites. Fucking Daily Kos....
>MRA tripe
>Daily Kos using MRA as an insult
I thought feminists were pro-mens rights? Wouldn't that make feminists into mens rights activists?
>>401975
Feminism is anti-patriarchy. Issues such as women getting custody more often than not and men being afraid to report physical abuse at the hands of women are “men’s issues”, but they’re also feminist issues—the idea of women being “better suited” to raising children is a patriarchal idea, and women who physically abuse men should receive the same treatment as men who physically abuse women.
>>401972
>If you intend to attack me, you kind of do have so meting to worry about.
Unless you happen to be one of those maniacs who shoot up schools. Logically speaking, it's safest to assume you are--even if I'm wrong, the worst I suffer from avoiding you is that I don't get to make friends with someone who is probably exhausting to talk to anyway. If I'm right, I avoid getting shot to death by you.
>>401975
>I thought feminists were pro-mens rights? Wouldn't that make feminists into mens rights activists?
No. MRA's aren't in favor of men's rights, they're just an anti-feminism movement. It's one of those branding situations like how the USA FREEDOM act is actually about limiting freedoms or how Right to Work laws are actually about expanding the powers of employers to fire people.
Replies:>>401979
>>401977
>Unless you happen to be one of those maniacs who shoot up schools. Logically speaking, it's safest to assume you are--even if I'm wrong, the worst I suffer from avoiding you is that I don't get to make friends with someone who is probably exhausting to talk to anyway. If I'm right, I avoid getting shot to death by you.
Assuming that someone is a maniac trying to build a police state has a very similar justification.
Replies:>>401981
>>401978
>Assuming that someone is a maniac trying to build a police state has a very similar justification.
Except it doesn't because very few people have the ability to do that, even (one might even say especially) in government. Whereas if you own a gun, the only thing standing between you and shooting up an innocent is your own restraint.
Replies:>>401982
>>401977
>MRA's aren't in favor of men's rights
The mens rights movement isn't in favor of mens rights?
>It's one of those branding situations like how the USA FREEDOM act is actually about limiting freedoms or how Right to Work laws are actually about expanding the powers of employers to fire people.
Or how feminism is actually a female supremacy movement.
>>401979
>Whereas if you own a gun, the only thing standing between you and shooting up an innocent is your own restraint.
Bottom line you would trust the restraint of government rather than that of your fellow Americans, and honestly at that point it's time for you to emigrate to a country with more government. Like North Korea.
>>401980
>The mens rights movement isn't in favor of mens rights?
No, it's not. It is fighting *against* men's rights in most cases. It is fighting in favor only of the patriarchy-approved version of masculinity, which means it's fighting to limit the freedom of men to be who they want to be--and is actively opposed to, for example, trans men, who need their rights protected more than any other class of man.
>Or how feminism is actually a female supremacy movement.
No, I was using examples of things that are actually true.
>>401981
>Bottom line you would trust the restraint of government rather than that of your fellow Americans, and honestly at that point it's time for you to emigrate to a country with more government. Like North Korea.
I would trust a system which is specifically set up with multiple obstacles to individuals operating in that system from abusing their powers more than I would trust a single private individual with access to deadly power and no such obstacles, yes. Accountability is what makes things trustworthy. The government has plenty, you have very little.
>owning a gun = conspiracy theorist
>believing in patriarchy is not
Replies:>>401988
>>401982
Isn't a big part of Men's Rights Activism also Fathers' Rights Activism? How would this ever apply to trans men? Most "father's issues" wouldn't apply to them, do to not having penises.
Replies:>>401987
>>401984
There's no conspiracy involved. It is demonstrable fact that we live in a patriarchy. Women make up 51% of the population and less than 10% of the leadership of our society. That is a patriarchy. Unquestionably. You can question the effects or the goals of the patriarchy, but questioning whether or not we live in a patriarchy just means you don't know what a patriarchy is.
>>401985
MRAs fight for “fathers’ rights” in one specific area: men getting custody of their children in divorce cases. They’re not fighting for paid paternity leave or anything that would genuinely help fathers; they’re fighting for the right to stick it to the evil bitches who want to take kids away from their dads.
>>401988
According to this thing they did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers%27_rights_movement
Maybe you are confusing the fact that some of them are libertarians, with the "movement" overall.
>>401984
The idea of Patriarchy is more just cultural momentum and bias from various sources leading to demographics of employment failing to shift as quickly as they could be on the national level. I don't agree with every supposed cause, solution for, or general framing of the issue, but it's one that exists. I suspect it was purposefully named to make people mistake what it is so those advocating the concept can start off discussions with a semantic correction.
I'm fairly sure one of the actual major contributing factors is sex-segregation of Greek-letter ogranizations, what with dorm communities being such a huge boost to career advancement. Men going to faternities both get connections that make them more likely to run businesses and are mostly sheilded from needing to apply general social skills to interaction with women.
Replies:>>401997
>>401994
That's anger he attributes to other people, specifically the father's right advocate's he's talking about, not what he harbors himself.
>>401996
That's the part that makes him sound angry, putting words in someone's mouth like that.
//youtube.com/watch?v=MngMpoMRu8o
Holy fuck. Some people are monsters.
>>401981
You are just becoming increasingly unhinged as time goes by and you realize that not everybody is cowed by the NRA's almighty talking points.
>>401999
Not him but,
I managed to go 23 years without owning a gun.
Never been shot either.
No desire to own a gun but sometimes I think of getting one since it pisses off gun grabbers like you.
>>402001
You have a bad understanding of anatomy if you think those noses are bad.
Replies:>>402010
>>402008
How do you recommend I replicate the enlarged eyes and overly thin necks?
Or are those fair game.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-flunking-out-on-college-campuses/2015/10/22/124e7cd2-78f5-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html
Fuckin’ PCU, man.
>>402011
What a shitty graph. A woman agreeing with gamergate doesn't make the movement suddenly right. It just makes that woman an asshole like the rest of them.
Replies:>>402018
>It is demonstrable fact that we live in a patriarchy.
lol
>Women make up 51% of the population and less than 10% of the leadership of our society.
Oh man, do you think if a man is elected by mostly female electorate that he's going to support only men because he has a dick? Do you think when a woman is elected, she supports only women? Just like fathers are only parents to their sons and mothers only parents to their daughters. It's impossible for someone to support someone who has the opposite crotch equipment!
SJWs are the most racist, sexist people on the planet.
>>402013
Wow... someone thinks gamergayt is a movement against women....... this place keeps getting more and more retarded.
>>402014
>Oh man, do you think if a man is elected by mostly female electorate that he's going to support only men because he has a dick? Do you think when a woman is elected, she supports only women? Just like fathers are only parents to their sons and mothers only parents to their daughters. It's impossible for someone to support someone who has the opposite crotch equipment!
No, it's simple statistics. In a fair system, the leadership has a similar makeup to the people. If you only had one leader, sure, that's not a reliable thing. But when you're talking about something like the House of Representatives, where there are 435 people to represent the citizens of the country, you can expect to see something at least approaching the makeup of the country. The numbers don't have to be exact, but the difference between the number of women, and the number of minorities, filling the position of a Representative versus the number in the country is statistically significant by any honest mathematical measurement.
Even if your argument is that women are less likely to run for the position, that's still patriarchy.
>>402018
>believing that patriarchy is the evil behind everything
>believing it is good to have perfect 50/50 sex ratio in all professions
Truly, this thread is bizarro /pol/; equally retarded.
Replies:>>402032
>>402019
>>believing it is good to have perfect 50/50 sex ratio in all professions
If your argument is that women shouldn't be the ones making the decisions in government, then you're not arguing that patriarchy doesn't exist, you're arguing that patriarchy is a good thing.
Do we live in a jewocracy?
>>402019
>believing that patriarchy is the evil behind everything
LOLno. But there are inherent issues with a patriarchy - for example, men getting to create and pass legislation that affects women's health (see: abortion legislation) with either minimal or no input from women on the matter.
Replies:>>402024
>>402022
And for that matter, any time almost all the decision makers belong to a certain group, the needs of that group are going to be addressed more than the needs of people from other groups that aren't the same as that first group, just because the people making decisions aren't going to be as aware of those needs as the people who need them. Ovarian health is less of an issue to men than women, so when men have all the leadership positions, men's issues are going to get more attention. When white people make up the majority of the leadership, issues that only affect black people aren't going to be considered as big a deal as issues that affect white people.
This is just human nature. If women made up the majority of leadership, men's issues wouldn't be seen as being as high priority as women's issues, either. That's why it's good for representatives to actually represent the population.
>>402023
If you stop dividing the human race into "groups", everything will look differently.
Replies:>>402027
>Ovarian health is less of an issue to men than women, so when men have all the leadership positions, men's issues are going to get more attention
Replies:>>402028
>>402026
And yet your chart is prostate vs. breast (and men can get breast cancer as well.)
Replies:>>402029
>>402027
And breast cancer awareness/treatment is a “sexier” sell than prostate cancer awareness/treatment.
Replies:>>402041
>>402018
>In a fair system, the leadership has a similar makeup to the people.
No it doesn't. Men and women are free to vote for either gender, not locked into one.
>you can expect to see something at least approaching the makeup of the country.
Why must things be this way?
>Even if your argument is that women are less likely to run for the position, that's still patriarchy.
How is it patriarchy?
You're just making statements, you aren't explaining the methodology behind your conclusions or providing any information to support them.
Replies:>>402033
>>402022
You are stunningly ignorant. Have you considered for a moment that religious Christian or Muslim women have been voting against abortion? They're number one behind organizing pro-life letter writing campaigns, retard. Maybe you should leave your liberal enclave and meet a woman that isn't part of the 18% of feminists in this country
>>402020
>women shouldn't be the ones making the decisions in government
Women systematically turn up in larger percentages to vote, and have larger share of the population size overall. Women have been making the decisions in our society for awhile now, we live in a matriarchy, deal with this.
The fact that women use men to carry out those decisions is besides the point, men have always been the expendable labor and slaves for women.
As evidenced by Mr. Stone and Dude With Money.
It's like saying blacktriacrhy is keeping white people from the cotton fields, which means black people should give white people more power.
Foolishness.
>>402032
>men have always been the expendable labor and slaves for women.
l m a o
m
a
o
Replies:>>402040
>>402033
Who tends to die in war, anon? Who is expected to take deadly risks for the benefit of greater society? Who is expected to die to protect everyone else?
>>402033
It is true though, just because of gender roles.
Men = fight war and do labor.
Women = raise the next generation.
Since 1 sex was more invested in the child being born and fed, they were more often the ones to stay home.
>>402031
>How is it patriarchy?
>
Because patriarchy is a system in which men are the decision makers. That is the definition. There's really no having a conversation with you if you just deny that words have meaning.
Replies:>>402045
>>402041
BUT... you cannot just make any decisions. If you make bad decisions that The People do not like, you will be stripped of your position of power, and replaced with someone The People like more.
Do not buy into the "men are the dictators and women are oppressed" narrative. It will do you no good.
Replies:>>402047
Redirect from the SYM thread:
>>402044
SJWs aren’t the only people who might think rape jokes aren’t really all that funny, y’know.
Replies:>>402058
>>402036
>because of gender roles
Because of the biology of sexual dimorphism.
>>402041
>Because patriarchy is a system in which men are the decision makers.
The point he's making is that this isn't the case.
Men in government aren't the decision makers - they're the REPRESENTATIVES of a pool of decision makers - who happen to be hold 10 million more women than men.
http://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf
>>402049
And the fact that those representatives do not match up with the population they represent is proof that there is a cultural bias toward white rich straight male christian leadership in a country where the majority of people are not all of those things and where many of the people are none of them. Whether it is systemic, intentional, or cultural, it is still a bias and therefore a patriarchy.
Replies:>>402066
>>402058
>is proof
No, it is not.
Women vote for men because women like men. Women poll favorably to deep voices, masculine appearance, to older men... Obama and Clinton were elected largely due to a windfall of female voters for example. This is why Trump is polling better with women than Hillary.
We used to have male majority in power because only men were allowed into politics, right now we have a male majority in power because of natural preferences of women.
If we had a weird situation of less women voting than men, but women still being free to enter politics, we would gradually see an increase in women being voted in by the male electorate until they were the majority representatives.
If you look into British politics you'll find men vote conservative more often while women vote liberal more often. In the case of Margaret Thatcher, she won because significantly more conservative men voted for her. The labor government unseated Thatchers conservatives in 1992 because women voted against her.
Before you bring it up, it's not sexual. I'm a bit fuzzier on this but my professor claimed it tracks back to parental identification. Similar to why voice assist for mostly male pilots is a female soprano instead of a male baritone.
>>402064
>Women vote for men because women like men. Women poll favorably to deep voices, masculine appearance, to older men... Obama and Clinton were elected largely due to a windfall of female voters for example.
Congratulations you have just described patriarchy.
>>402066
>women voting for those who appeal to them is patriarchy
Lol, okay.
>>402067
No, women feeling that men are better leaders than women--and in such great numbers as it actually happens--is patriarchy. It is society teaching us from a very early age that men are in charge, and therefore making the attributes of masculinity the attributes we associate with leadership.
I'm surprised at you, Slowpoke. For all your fence-sitting and apologism for bigots, usually you seem to pay attention to numbers. Do you honestly look at the number of women in congress compared to the number of men in congress, and then look at the actual demographics of the country, and not think "there's something wrong here?" Or are you just intentionally plugging your ears because it's so important to you to believe sexism is over?
>>402073
Of course i don't believe that sexism is over. I was laughing at the ridiculousness of that post
>>402073
It's because Slowpoke is not actually a fence sitter and is in fact straight up a gger.
>>402080
If you're on one side of the fence but think the other side isn't all that bad this guy considers you a fence sitter.
>>402067
Problem: White people have all the money.
Your Argument: "Well clearly black people WANT white people to have all the money because they keep buying things from white people and working at companies run by white people. Why do you hate black people's freedom?"
So what are the chances of a government shutdown over the U.S. debt ceiling?
>>402083
Yeah, that's probably what that mysterious "lol" acronym stood for.
Replies:>>402091
lmfao
>>402087
Extremist progressives created that hash as yet another in a long line of slurs against a race. I'm glad the targets are finally punching up at the neomarxist douchebags.
>>402095
That's voting WITH your wallet, not having money voted into your wallet.
>>402058
>Whether it is systemic, intentional, or cultural, it is still a bias and therefore a patriarchy.
Then the patriarchy, as defined, is insfficient as an indicator for determining what action should be taken. It is a state of bias in which one's demographic details affect one's probability of securing office. By itself, it neither shows what could be done to prevent that trend from contiuing or the effects that result from it. Further, it does not give a particularly useful meaning to "partiarchy-approved masculinity" as used in >>401982, since it's not like the House of Representatives is handing out a list of what it means to be masculine. It's not the legislature itself under question, but the way legeslators are selected.
Replies:>>402110
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/eeoc-wins-discrimination-case-for-muslims-fired-for-not-delivering-beer/article/2574720
Muslims fired for not doing their job awarded $240,000 damages.
>>402106
>Hobby Lobby refuses to pay its employees the full amount they're entitled to because Jesus: religious freedom.
>Muslim refuses to deliver beer because Mohammed: "not doing their job."
>>402113
>Expecting to be paid for working at Hobby Lobby means expecting to be paid not to work.
>>402110
>>402112
Star Transport is the employer, the muslim is the employee. The employer can do whatever the fuck they want unless there's a specific contract between them and the employee guaranteeing certain treatments, due notices, and so on.
They're the guy with the money in hand, they can decide to give money based on whatever criteria, including imaginary friend reasons, otherwise people couldn't be employed by churches. The employees right is to accept the money for a job, or object to the job and leave without any money.
No legitimate law entitles people to not do the jobs they were hired for because their imaginary sky friend told them to, because such a law would be IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, specifically the section on congress not establishing religion.
What these guys got paid for was likely a breach of contract, perhaps they had a leeway clause in being able to deny certain deliveries. In short; Stop being retarded about basic legal realities of the country you live in, buy a copy of the bill of rights and read it.
>>402123
Considering who won the suit it sounds like you're the one that doesn't understand the legal aspects of the issue.
Replies:>>402167
>>402123
"1. Are employers required to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees?
Yes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion."
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.cfm
Replies:>>402129
>Employers are required to respect religious beliefs
>Unless they're Christian
>Then the government sues them
>>402128
Workplace accommodations: "Hey, can you have another driver take this load?"
"My faith says I have to wear this scarf/turban, can I have exemption from that aspect of the dress code?"
"Can I take Yom Kippur/Eid/the Solstice off?"
Using religion as a bludgeon against others:
"I, a government employee, am using my religion to justify barring your access to a government service."
"We, a corporation, a fictitious entity that exists by and of the laws of this supposedly secular nation, somehow have religious beliefs, and based on said beliefs, refuse to provide legally-mandated health care to all our female employees."
"We, a business purportedly open to the public, holding a business license and making use of public roads and utilities, are denying service to entire classes of people, and should be able to do so because religion."
Can you see the difference?
Replies:>>402147
If an employer can accomodate an employee's religious beliefs without having to bend over backwards to do so, said employer is legally required to do so. If an employee asks for a religious accomodation that unfairly burdens the employer, said employer can refuse such an accomodation. How the hell is that hard to understand?
>>402131
In practice, Muslims get rewarded for following their beliefs while Christians get persecuted for it. It's impossible to see that as anything other than an anti-Christian bias on western governments. Show me any Muslim bigot who's been punished by the government, or any Christian who has their religious rights protected - you can't.
Replies:>>402150
>>402147
>any Christian who has their religious rights protected
The owners of Hobby Lobby.
>>402147
Show me the FBI and NYPD infiltrating Christian churches after a Christian bombs an abortion clinic. (http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2012/Newark-mayor-seeks-probe-of-NYPD-Muslim-spying). Show me a single Christian in Guantanamo. But oh no, a Muslim employee not being fired or forced to drive a beer truck, or getting to wear a hijab at Disneyland! We're bending over backwards for those savages!
>>402152
So what you're saying is, it takes Muslims committing acts of terrorism for the government to do anything. While Christians get sued for amounts >$100k for hurting someone's feelings.
Replies:>>402155
>>402153
Christians commit acts of terrorism all the time, and have done throughout history. We just don't automatically consider their religion to play a factor in their terrorism when it's Christians because Christians aren't seen as "other."
>>402154
It's because Christians don't have organized terrorist groups waging war on other countries. Likewise neither is Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist terrorism an issue either. Islam has unique issues other religions don't have.
>>402155
And Christians have organized groups waging sociological and economic war on marginalized communities, thus the need to hit them with fines for all the economic bullying they get up to. You don't get to have this both ways. If it's okay to assume Muslims as terrorists, it's okay to assume Christians as oppressors and bullies.
Replies:>>402161
>>402153
>Christians get sued for amounts >$100k for hurting someone's feelings.
I know what you want to reference here, but since you don’t seem to have the balls to say it outright, let me lay it out for you.
Every Christian business owner sued by gay people was sued for breaking the law—specifically, non-discrimination ordinances that forbid public accomodations from refusing service to gay people for being gay. Kim Davis was sued (and jailed) because she broke the law by denying marriage licenses to gay couples who were legally entitled to said licenses. The point of such lawsuits isn’t to “persecute Christians”, but to show that breaking the law has consequences. If you really think a bakery being told it can’t discriminate against a gay customer who wants a cake for their wedding reception because the Bible said “gays deserve to be killed”, I’d love to hear why.
Replies:>>402160
Dear person who keeps using “Mudslime”: take your casual racism back to /pol/ where it belongs.
Replies:>>402164
>>402158
Why is it only enforced against Christians.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/?page=all
Because it's an anti-Christian law... duh.
Replies:>>402163
>>402160
If you have a point to make, you can make it without using a racial slur. Try doing that next time.
Replies:>>402166
>>402161
>Mr. Williams argued that there has been no media coverage of Muslim bakeries because there have been no complaints filed against them, a point reinforced by Sommer Foster, political advocacy director of Equality Michigan, who said Friday she was unaware of any complaints.
And when there’s a complaint filed against a discriminatory bakery run by Muslims, I’ll say the same thing as I would when complaints are filed against discriminatory bakeries run by Christians: if the law says public accomodations can’t discriminate against customers for being gay, any business owner that discriminates deserves the consequences of their actions.
>>402163
Please, by all means, show me an example of this “hate speech” that you accuse me of espousing.
G’head, I’ll wait.
Replies:>>402168
>>402164
The laws aren't being applied equally now, that much is clear. It is insane to claim Christians are somehow "privileged" considering how much the government persecutes them.
Replies:>>402178
>>402126
>Civil Rights Act of 1964
As well meaning as it is, it's unconstitutional because it was worded in a really shitty way. For example:
>A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion.
In other word, making up a religion on the spot still counts. It's been abused and is rife with corruption, we really need to modify it.
>>402152
>Show me the FBI and NYPD infiltrating Christian churches
They do it right now, protip: when they say domestic terrorist they mean christians not muslims. FBI even had one of its assets bomb a fucking church in 1963, what kind of rock are you living under never to have heard of COINTELPRO.... which actually helped push for the Civil Rights act of '64... Yes, my uneducated christfag and anti-christfag friends ITT, it was christian churches that framed the very civil rights act that is currently fucking them over.
Just goes to show, making laws based on emotion is retarded.
>>402166
Discrimination claims are civil affairs, not criminal ones. For the law to apply to an alleged case of discrimination, the discriminated party must make a formal complaint. Some customers may choose to simply find another business to patronize rather than file a legal complaint against a discriminator.
Replies:>>402170
>>402155
Christians have plenty of organized terror groups, from the small (Nagaland separatists in India, various loose groups in the Central African Republic, the Orangemen, various American right wing militias; there are thousands of the latter (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/us/splc-extremist-groups-report/)) to the global (the US government). And there are violent separatist, nationalist, and radical religious groups in every faith, from Buddhist (http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/) to Sikh ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Indira_Gandhi) to Jewish (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks).
Replies:>>402177
>>402169
"Right-wing militias" aren't terror groups. Owning guns and meeting up on weekends isn't similar to planning acts of mass murder.
Replies:>>402187
//youtube.com/watch?v=Tq4BR5KHuqA
this went viral
Replies:>>402183
>>402170
No, but planning and occasionally carrying out murder is.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/here-are-10-of-the-worst-domestic-terror-attacks-by-extreme-christians-and-right-wing-white-men/
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_(organization)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)
>>402167
That kind of wording is necessary, though, since all religions are made up and only brought up when convenient.
Replies:>>402185
>>402177
>-right-wing-white-men/
Great lets do one for left wing black men now.
>MEMORY OVERLOAD
>SERVER CRASH
http://techraptor.net/content/reddit-problem-judgmental-safe-space
Interesting read, and pretty sad.
>>402183
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/
http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20150709/turns-out-people-get-angry-when-you-say-white-americans-are-terrorists-too
Replies:>>402188
Never understood why liberals are Islamic terrorism apologists.
>>402175
What was she even doing that needed a response like flipping a desk because I see no context in any of the articles I've read beyond "inappropriate behavior"
>>402186
Never understood why conservatives are mass shooting apologists.
>>402187
But wait, there’s more!
http://www.wltx.com/story/news/local/2015/10/27/second-student-arrested-spring-valley-hs-speaks-out/74665360/
>>402187
It looked like she flipped the desk while she was trying to resist
Replies:>>402198
>>402190
If that's true, she shouldn't have gotten in trouble for filming, but I don't see what was wrong with the first arrest. She was under arrest. She had many chances to listen to her teacher and she refused, what do you expect to happen?
Replies:>>402204
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/10/26/thunderf00t-rebuts-charges-he-commands-a-hate-mob-by-unleashing-a-hate-mob-on-a-woman-who-made-this-charge/
Opinions on this? It looks like hypocrisy to me.
>>402196
>what do you expect to happen?
Not violence. I'd expect, at most, her parents to receiive a mailed court summons for her. Unattentive behavior in the classroom shouldn't be a criminal issue to begin with, and should in no case require immediate intervention by law enforcement. As a teacher, I would tell other students that if her actions are interfering with their ability to learn, they could walk up to her and ask for her to stop themselves. This would demonstrate to her that the rules of the classroom are for the benefit of the students, and if none of them volunteer, then either she isn't a distraction or none of them care enough about learning for stopping her to actually make a difference worth arresting someone over.
This type of behavior from authority figures is a demand to display submission for its own sake, a mockery of the whole purpose of law. As an example it refutes the idea that overreaches of authority are impossible. As an example it shows that officers must rely on their own reputation and that of their department, not a universal differance to any position of power.
Replies:>>402200
>>402198
>As a teacher, I would tell other students that if her actions are interfering with their ability to learn, they could walk up to her and ask for her to stop themselves. This would demonstrate to her that the rules of the classroom are for the benefit of the students, and if none of them volunteer, then either she isn't a distraction or none of them care enough about learning for stopping her to actually make a difference worth arresting someone over.
A classroom isn't a democracy. By not leaving when told, she's basically trespassing. The school has to do something to show the students can't overpower the teacher because they're bored.
>>402199
>A classroom isn't a democracy.
It's not a vote, it's letting fellow students show that order in the classroom isn't an arbitrary display of power.
>By not leaving when told, she's basically trespassing.
Even if she is conviced of that, it would be no excuse for the degree of force employed.
>The school has to do something to show the students can't overpower the teacher because they're bored.
Unatentatively sitting in a chair is not an example of trying to "overpower" by any stretch of the imagination.
Replies:>>402211
>>402198
>Unattentive behavior in the classroom shouldn't be a criminal issue to begin with, and should in no case require immediate intervention by law enforcement.
THIS! Since when does high schoolers "not paying attention", "chewing gum" or "bringing a cellphone" lead to police involvement? Teachers act in loco parentis; their kids are their temporary children, they are responsible for discipline. Putting cops on campus turns ordinary juvenile misbehavior into adult crimes. It leads to kids being brutalized, thrown in jail, and sent to juvie or adult prison instead of getting administrative discipline. Shit like this funnels kids right into prison, then back onto the streets, and then our leaders and pundits shake their heads at all the crime and poverty.
Would the pig-defending anon be ok with a teacher responding with violence to nonviolent misbehavior, or does a badge act like an indulgence, absolving all sin?
>>402197
She organized a harassment group against an innocent dude, tried to slander him with a bunch of random stuff with his employer and local media, and tried to SWAT him.
His response was to archive the video of her admitting it, and post it online. He didn't do jack shit except tell the truth and provide video evidence.
>>402198
>Not violence.
We went over this in the last thread, laws can't be enforced through nonviolence. Violence MUST always be the last resort underlying every polite request, in this case violence was used as a last resort after all measures failed so there's no problem with that part.
If you object to what happened in the video, your problem is with the rule system of the school board, not the cop called on to enforce it.
>i am bowser from super mario bros and asgore from undertale. I Am Both. i am literally them and im the only one whos either of them if you think otherwise or associate w/ ppl who claim to be me Please Get Out Of Here
This person is 19.
I'm kind of appalled.
Replies:>>402210
>>402204
>He didn't do jack shit except tell the truth and provide video evidence.
Didn’t he explicitly ask for people to raid the Yelp page of the company that employs her?
>>402204
Oh by the way it should be easy as fuck to point to a clip from his video where he is "encouraging his followers to harass a woman", it would be an easy sound bite they could spam over the net. The reason why this blogger has not done this is because thunderfoot has never done any such thing.
Tunderfoot is the victim here. I've watched his videos without seeing him ever call for any campaign against anyone, and before you form an opinion about the guy you should watch his videos too.
Replies:>>402209
>>402208
I'm an ignorant fuck. What's going on in Sweden?
>>402206
As I understand it, he didn't do anything different than what she did, or what Dave Futrelle (wehuntedthemammoth) did after the fact. Maybe tasteless? Maybe harassment? Maybe valid form of criticism? I dunno, but what bothers me is it's kinda hypocritical. This is what I was saying earlier, if neither side is that different, it doesn't make sense why you'd say one side is much worse.
Replies:>>402225
>>402202
Yeah, I think this is a case for bringing back corporal punishment. Then you wouldn't need to get a cop involved.
>>402200
>Unatentatively sitting in a chair is not an example of trying to "overpower" by any stretch of the imagination.
But what you said is this:
>This would demonstrate to her that the rules of the classroom are for the benefit of the students, and if none of them volunteer, then either she isn't a distraction or none of them care enough about learning for stopping her to actually make a difference worth arresting someone over.
Which is challenging their authority. It sounds like you just hate the idea of school.
>>402210
From what I understand, one side doesn’t have a YouTube following that they could sic on the other side, so…yeah, kind of a weight in favor of that first side being the lesser of two evils here.
>>402212
>From what I understand, one side doesn’t have a YouTube following that they could sic on the other side, so…yeah, kind of a weight in favor of that first side being the lesser of two evils here.
It's the same situation as someone who's trained in martial arts defending himself against someone who isn't. There is a valid expectation that the person with martial arts restrain themselves and use no more force than necessary to repel that attack, because they are basically always armed with a deadly weapon. Someone who has greater power is expected to exercise more restraint. Someone with a large following of mooks to do their bidding has a greater responsibility to show restraint than a random nobody.
Replies:>>402215
>>402212
It seems you are wrong. Her youtube account disappeared, but she also made youtube videos.
//youtube.com/watch?v=OGF-mRTaz-M
>>402214
But did she have the kind of following that Thunderf00t does? That’s kind of the tipping point of the scales here—if she had the kind of following he does and tried to use it in a campaign of harassment against him, they’d both be equally shitty people, but if she didn’t have that kind of following or didn’t encourage her viewers to go after him or both of the above, I’d have to call her less shitty than Thunderf00t.
Do you guys think that we as a society will ever deal with the fact that conservative philosophy has never been right about anything?
Replies:>>402220
>>402217
He's probably talking about the fact that the people who have vehemently been against change have never been the ones who ended up in the history books.
>>402204
>We went over this in the last thread, laws can't be enforced through nonviolence. Violence MUST always be the last resort underlying every polite request, in this case violence was used as a last resort after all measures failed so there's no problem with that part.
If that's his last resort, he must really suck at coming up with ideas. Don't they teach negotiation skills to police before sending them to work iwith children?
>If you object to what happened in the video, your problem is with the rule system of the school board, not the cop called on to enforce it.
A cop should know better than to arrest a child for going against the rule system of the school board. I already said in the very next sentence after "not violence" that the girl could have simply been given a court summons at her parent's house, as the situation is a non-emergency and does not in any practical sense require immediate action. There is such a thing as police discretion, and this officer should be held responsible for failing to use it.
>>402216
I'm pretty sure it was against prohibition, which turned out to be a bad idea.
>>402221
Best according to what criteria? I find it rather lacking.
Replies:>>402225
>>402219
Yes, but you obviously haven't been taught shit about negotiation. Like rule one, it only works if the target is receptive.
>cop should know better
He is being paid not to know any better. A cop that interprets the law is a BAD FUCKING COP, that's not his job, that's the job of the courts.
Again people are misinterpreting the point of a police force in a society.
>>402210
>he didn't do anything different than what she did,
Um, yes he did.
Laughingwitch: Makes a video where she shows writing and mailing to police, media and his workplace a bunch of slanderous/libelous statements, which are verifiably not true. Gets ten of her friends to do it too. Makes a gloat video afterward.
Thunderfoot: Mirrors a video of her doing this thing so she can't take her own down, mocks her for not succeeding.
One of these is not like the other, one of these isn't harassment, libel or slander.
>>402211
>Which is challenging their authority.
Are there state or federal laws against challenging a teacher's authority?
>>402223
>it only works if the target is receptive.
And the criteria for receptiveness is what, following a repeated and vaguely threatening direct order?
>Tell her to leave a few times? Well, there's one attempt.
>Tell her that not leaving is a felony so she knows how serious this is? Best done via wresting moves!
>that's the job of the courts.
The courts that she would have been taken to anyway if her parents were mailed a court summons.
>Again people are misinterpreting the point of a police force in a society.
No, you are. Your whole argumetn about what police should be in the last thread was blown out of the water by >>401706
So why wasn't the principal/vice principal called in again? Do schools regularly call police over a disruption now?
You'd think they could get someone to come talk to the girl instead of calling the police.
>>402226
No idea. I figured the police was in the classroom coincidentally, since some schools are paranoid enough of the possibility of shootings to keep them around, and that he'd steped in just because he was there. That police patrol the classrom at all is bad enough, intervening in things the school staff ought to handle just because it's convenient to do so is inexcusable.
>>402225
>was blown out of the water by >>401706
>german police are le helpers :^)
>police does nothing about break-ins, theft, and vandalism to dozens of churches
>sprays down peaceful protesters with pepper spray
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/muslim-gangs-plunder-german-churches/?cat_orig=faith
That's fucking asinine, I bet you're naive enough to believe American police "protect and serve" as well.
>>402230
You really need to decide what your point is before you argue against other people's points.
>>402225
I thought she kicked her desk over. Where is this idea that the cop just wanted to play Mike Tyson on someone coming from?
Replies:>>402240
Bleeding heart liberals like the ones in this thread whined about corporal punishment and got it banned.
Well now the only recourse a school administrator has is calling the police.
The police chief mandate is to shoot a motherfucka.
Enjoy the fruits of your labor.
>>402230
>I bet you're naive enough to believe American police "protect and serve" as well.
Like that child was most likely taught to beleive by police spokespeople up until that point?
>>402233
I saw the same video you did. Her her legs don't show any follow-through from a hard kick as she lifts up, and the officer is clearly holding the underside of her seat.
>>402237
>corporal punishment
That's another thing, the full gradient of punishment has been removed, now it's either NOTHING or POLICE. There's no middle ground to tell a kid that he's maybe going down the wrong path.
We need to bring corporal punishment back, and if you're scared of teachers being bullies we can simply install a camera in every class. Every time a teacher hits someone, the clip of the event is saved for whenever a parent wants to bring it up.
Yeah, basically, the teacher would get fired if she even lays a hand on a student. So of course she has to escalate it to someone else. She's powerless.
Replies:>>402250
>>402240
>we can simply install a camera in every class
That's way too costly to ever happen outside of a few select (very high income area) schools. I'm no expert, but I've started taking classes on computer networking and cabling and what you propose is a lot more difficult than you're making it out to be.
1. Cost of cameras
-you likely considered this, but if you want to record decent video AND audio then even a single camera in every class will be quite costly
2. Cost of servers and maintenance of network
-servers aren't just storage, a lot of the time they're what actually allows data to be transferred. A recent problem with some California Police Departments is that a bunch of cops out with cameras recording in real time, at the same time, overloaded the servers and almost no information was recorded just because there was too much information traveling over the system at once. This led to the costly and somehow unforeseen process of upgrading to higher end servers. Servers cost money to buy and install, but also continually cost money to maintain and keep running.
3. Cost of labor
-the people who get paid to install this kind of stuff don't come cheap. it's not too uncommon for someone's starting salary to be six figures. Having a team of these people come in to work on every classroom in every school would be extremely costly. Even more so when you consider this type of setup would likely need to be done with cables rather than over wi-fi (because of previously mentioned server strain), and that involves getting into the walls and ceilings to install cabling (which also needs to be bought and paid for).
The only way I could see this working is if it's at a school that already has a computer in each classroom, and the camera sends information straight to that. This would mean the data could be tampered with, which is the same reason we don't use this model for police cams. Even if it's hidden behind a password or administrator account, it wouldn't be too difficult to mess with if you know even a bit about computers. Sure that isn't common knowledge for teachers, but it's enough of a problem that this solution probably wouldn't work.
And after all this trouble, it probably wouldn't help much. Whatever the teacher does that they shouldn't be doing, they can probably find a way to do it outside of the classroom. You could try bodycams, but that would require both the expensive cameras and a wi-fi network that can handle that much data.
I'm not going to get into corporal punishment or if I agree/disagree with it, but cameras are absolutely not a practical solution.
Maybe this lengthy post was overkill, but recently people want to throw cameras at problems without considering it practically and this has been building up in me for a while. Still totally worth it to put cameras on cops, though. That was pretty damn necessary.
Replies:>>402254
>>402243
>doing it for millions of years
>zero problems in adulthood
>"no one should ever spank a child for any reason!"
>stop doing it
>discipline drops like a rock
>suddenly a bevy of mental illnesses for young adults
>suddenly they think theyre special fruitflake asexual pangender boeing-747-kin
le postmodern child psychologist face
Meanwhile some countries like China and Japan still practice it to no detriment in education.
>>402244
>cost
>teachers getting school issued laptops with cameras
>students getting school issues laptops with cameras (that spy on them sexting)
>government splurging 600 millions on non functioning website
>billions spent on non functioning aircraft
>trillions thrown at bankers
The cost argument is disingenuous and you know it, but OK, I can play the game by your rules and still win.
Wholesale bluetooth antenna 16 cents, storage is 2 dollars per cam, CCD sensor is dollar seventy five. Matches nicely with some form factor security cams which can be as low as $3.40, although I wouldn't buy one under $5 myself. You can even splurge and fit every camera with a micro solar panel and battery for an extra $1.20.
It's solid state, no maintenance required, just paste it in every room. If it doesn't work throw it in the trash and buy a new one for the price of a fucking candy bar.
Total cost to equip EVERY room (I didn't have pure classroom data) in EVERY public school is $50 million, which we can agree is a pittance for the federal budget.
BUT WE DONT EVEN NEED TO DO THAT
There's already a camera in every classroom, there's no need to install new ones.
There are in fact dozens of cameras in every classroom.
We just need to allow them to be activated.
New info:
>"When the officer puts his hands on her initially, she reaches up and she pops the officer with her fist," he said.
He should have shot her dead on the spot.
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/ontario-high-school-halloween-costume-can-t-appropriate-your-own-culture
Replies:>>402257
>>402250
>doing it for millions of years
Man, you are the worst troll.
Do you know what appeal to tradition is? Sad thing is, someone is actually going to respond to your post like you ever type anything worthwhile.
Replies:>>402257
>>402253
>no offensive costumes!
>cant wear lederhosen it insults germans
>cant wear wide brimmed hats it insults mexicans
>cant wear any cultures costume
>cant wear animal costumes because it offends furries
>cant wear witch costume because it insults wicca
>cant wear werewolf costume because it offends people with ambras syndrome
>cant wear vampire costumes because it offends romanians
What the fuck is left, batman? Oh but that offends womyn because it has the word "man" in it.
Replies:>>402258
>>402251
"Kenny said the officer moved the girl's laptop off her desk.
"He grabbed her arm, and he put his arm around her neck at first. So that's why you actually see her -- if you get the right video -- then you'll see her trying to swing at him," Kenny said.
"And at that point, he just flipped the desk back and grabbed her out of it and threw her. And that's when you see her rolling across the floor."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/28/us/south-carolina-school-arrest-videos/
The officer initiated force against a nonviolent individual. He responded with disproportionate force when she reacted violently to his force. Both the initiation and escalation were inappropriate. You must really get off on seeing black orphans get murdered.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/black-teen-attacked-by-south-carolina-cop-has-a-cast-on-her-arm-and-neck-and-back-injuries/
Replies:>>402260
>>402254
You're claiming that corporal punishment for children causes catastrophic damage.
The question being asked is why the fuck this "damage" can't be detected for the majority of human history.
The question being asked is why did we only start seeing a massive increase in teenage mental illness after we stopped using corporal punishment.
Neither of these questions are appeals to tradition, you ingrate. The only premise for appeal to tradition is "its been done before", whereas neither question is resting on only that premise.
>>402255
The point of a costume is to disguise yourself as someone else, and there exists a possibility (in SJW minds) that the "someone else" you're disguising yourself as will be offended. Therefore Halloween is cancelled.
Basically anyone who uses the phrase "cultural appropriation" without mocking it is deranged, but they're generally not violent enough to end up in a mental institution, which means they can be safely ignored.
Replies:>>402261
>>402256
>The officer initiated force against a nonviolent individual.
That's allowed, police officers are specifically taught pain compliance techniques for people who are not cooperating. By the way the moment she struck back at him, she opened herself up to deadly force, so >>402251 is right in the legalities of it at least.
In order to not be roughed up the suspect has to be cooperative, in order to not be shot the suspect has to be nonviolent.
I'm predicting it now, the cop will get off scot-free once an inquiry finds he did nothing wrong and followed proper procedure.
Replies:>>402261
When a cop says "you're under arrest" or "you're being detained", you are not talking to a person any more.
The police officers actions from that point on are scripted by the lawmakers of the country, from that point he becomes the justice system itself in a way, or at least its limited executive.
If you resist at that point, you're not resisting the dude you were talking to a moment ago, you're resisting the entire justice system.
Which is foolish.
This is why every lawyer will advise you to do exactly what the police officer says, because from that point on public servants are specifically forbidden from hearing you out.
You likely won't get a chance to have your side heard by anyone until you get to court.
The reason why shit is set up this way is for fairness, it cuts down on corruption if the only people who judge you are a jury of your peers.
>>402257
>You're claiming that corporal punishment for children causes catastrophic damage.
All I said was that hitting kids what shit punishment. No more.
And with that, I'm done responding to your stupid, strawman-making ass. I'm not even sure why I am responding to you--you seem perfectly content coming up with arguments for the other side and arguing against them, so I might as well let you have a go at that alone.
>>402259
>>402258
Jfc you are blind fucking fascists.
>http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/welcome.aspx
>Law enforcement officers should use only the amount of force necessary to mitigate an incident, make an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force, and lethal force.
>Use of force is an officer’s last option — a necessary course of action to restore safety in a community when other practices are ineffective.
Tennessee v. Gardner (1985): "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."
So no, dammit, any use of force does not activate a cop's "I get to dump a magazine of hollowpoints into your face" trap card. Not legally. In real life, yeah, it does, because cops are violent thugs, but legally it doesn't, and by no stretch of reason should it do so.
Cops are not magical beings carrying out "THE LAW" © inerrantly as God's angels carry out His Will. They are flawed human beings enforcing flawed laws written by other flawed human beings. Their actions only have legal legitimacy when they are acting within the law, something they fail to do with startling frequency. And, all too often, they're racist, bloodthirsty brutes who get off on beating up minorities and getting away with it, and all too often, they get away with it because they're responsible for upholding the very system which is supposed to hold them accountable.
Is it wise to resist a cop? No, because that just gives them an excuse to engage in their sadism, and gives the D.A. another card to play against you ("resisting arrest" if not "assaulting a police officer") so you either plead to one or two big things or go to trial and go down on five or six big things. And it could leave you dead, especially if you're not white, and doubly so if you're black. But we shouldn't be living in fear of a domestic army of brutes, and we shouldn't be discussing whether an unarmed sixteen year old should have been legally beaten by an armed goon just for bringing a cell phone to class!
Replies:>>402265
>>402261
You're proving yourself wrong.
>Law enforcement officers should use only the amount of force necessary to [...] make an arrest [...] physical restraint.
He used verbal, it didn't work, then he used physical. His actions are fully scripted, and I'm sorry but he did follow the script.
If anything he went easy on her. When she punched him he could taze her, or tazer absent, shoot her.
>>402261
>especially if you're not white, and doubly so if you're black
White people are shot more often than black people, and for less reason.
Also
>Jfc you are blind fucking fascists.
>says the guy who votes democrat and wants gun control
>>402262
And you have no reading comprehension and a monomaniacal obsession with seeing unarmed teen girls shot dead. She was not armed. There was no threat of death or grave bodily injury to the officer or others. She had brought a cellphone to class and did not leave when asked. Lethal force was not justified, no matter what your kill boner says.
And, again, this was a school disciplinary issue. The girl was having trouble at home; she had recently lost her mother. Her initial crime was bringing a cell phone to class, and then not leaving when asked to. In a sensible world, you'd respond to that as a mental health issue, compassionately. You'd have her shot dead and the cop given a medal. But then you're clearly a sociopath so there's no point in further discussion.
Anyone see the debate last night?
Funny how the SJWs who want classrooms to be free-for-alls draw a line at Halloween costumes.
Replies:>>402292
>>402273
>someone defending themselves from you = them assaulting you
Seriously?
>>402272
I don't need to agree with nonsense springing from a misnderstanding of what the word costume means or is derived from to think that any "cop script" that prescribes forcing an unarmed person simply sitting when told not to onto the ground is in need of a rewrite.
Replies:>>402289
>>402278
How is that a strawmanning you?
No one directed it at you, unless you consider yourself SJW, in which case you ARE trying to ban halloween.
Replies:>>402291
>>402288
He never said who it was strawmanning, just that that post was a strawman.
Go take your meds. And before Slowpoke gets triggered, I'm medicated.
Replies:>>402293
>>402287
But she wasn't "simply sitting", when people tried to get her out of her chair, she fought back. It's not her chair, so yeah that's assault.
>>402292
>she fought back
Even though the video doesn't show her fighting back and statements from several students in the classroom all say she didn't fight back?
Replies:>>402300
>>402291
>it's not a strawman but i'm not going to point out who ii'm talking to in particular
okey-dokey kiddo
Replies:>>402302
>>402293
Plus, the cop in question has a history of excessive force on students. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/us/south-carolina-who-is-ben-fields/). Evidence points to him being yet another hot-headed cop who gets off on violence.
And, even if she did take a swing, we're talking about a disturbed and unarmed 16 year old girl, and school officials acting in loco parentis. A parent would get charged for child abuse if they put a choke hold on their kid and then slamming them to the ground for not putting their phone away at the dinner table and then not going to their room when they refused to obey. And a teacher shouldn't leave a kid in a cast for failing to obey an instruction.
Cops shouldn't be in schools. Cops shouldn't use force on non-violent minors. School disciplinary issues, short of serious felonies like bringing guns to school, shouldn't implicate the criminal justice system. And cops should be held accountable for their misconduct.
Replies:>>402297
>>402293
>statements from several students
Witnesses are notoriously unreliable excepting general details.
The entire assault took less than three seconds, its a rare person in the population that can get useful information from that event, its on the level of fighter-pilot image processing.
The only thing people in that classroom noticed and remembered is that the policemans body was roughly higher at all times, which gives a subconscious appearance of superiority, and that he dragged her out of the desk, which seems like excessive power given the previously established false sense of superiority.
The video shows her punching him, you can run it frame by frame in VLC.
//youtube.com/watch?v=Tq4BR5KHuqA
The moment he approaches her she pulls back her left hand and pops him one (1.8s), hes unbalanced by it, grabs the hand that hit him, and pulls that hand towards him. She then arches her back, and uses her right hand to try and pop him a second time (4.6s), but the angle is wrong and it whizzes by his head.
Just because the much stronger, trained guy ended the fight before it really started doesn't mean the chick wasn't the bad guy here.
>>402296
You see a punch, I see her trying to shove him away. The video is too blurred and the camera too far away from the action to definitively see what she did.
>Just because the much stronger, trained guy ended the fight before it really started doesn't mean the chick wasn't the bad guy here.
"Just because the police officer used excessive force and broke the arm of a non-violent teenage 'offender' doesn't mean she didn't have it coming."
If you're going to use the good and evil dichotomy, don't be shocked when it's turned around on you.
i like how we're arguing whether or not the girl did anything back as if there's any reason for a grown ass man to manhandle a little girl like that
i also know retard-anon is drumming up some sort of strawman to goad me into responding to him as he reads this. i'm not going to respond and neither should you.
Replies:>>402303
>>402297
>You see a punch, I see her trying to shove him away.
Which is still assault. If you are under a legitimate arrest, you are endangering people by violently resisting. The cops aren't going to wait until you reach a certain threshhold to put handcuffs on you.
Replies:>>402306
>>402295
>School disciplinary issues, short of serious felonies like bringing guns to school, shouldn't implicate the criminal justice system.
So you draw the line at someone bringing a pea-shooter to school. Why am I not suprised?
>>402300
>retarded semantics
Big fucking whoop. Fact is, a man that big had no business manhandling a child like that, especially one that did very little to him.
Replies:>>402309
>>402303
Also I wonder how you people would feel if a grown ass man started slinging YOUR daughter around like that.
>in b4 well my kid would never
>>402302
If you're going to strawman I might as well too.
>anon thinks school shootings are ok, kids with cellphones deserve death
>>402297
If frame by frame video evidence isn't going to convince you, nothing will.
Regardless of what you see, fact is she resisted arrest and assaulted an officer.
Replies:>>402311
>>402303
>>402298
>>402305
>any reason for a grown ass man to manhandle a little girl
>no business manhandling a child
>grown ass man started slinging YOUR DAUGHTER around
>like that
>like that
>like that
Man you're really trying hard aren't you.
If my daughter assaulted a police officer.... I'd want him to treat her in the exact same way - use nonlethal force, stop her from hurting herself or getting into any more trouble than she already is.
But my daughter would never do that because she's freakin nine and has more sense than the dumb bitch in question. My daughter would leave when her teacher told her to, not sulk and resist teacher, principal, administrator and police.
>>402309
>I'd want him to treat her in the exact same way
You are a fucking liar, but I'm not sure if it's us you're lying to or yourself.
>>402311
>but I'm not sure if it's us you're lying to or yourself.
Why not both?
Replies:>>402317
>>402311
You'd rather he taze, pepper spray or even shoot your daughter, as some cops would do? This guy used main force to control a violent suspect.
>>402316
I think they'd rather not have any of the above.
lmao you are remedial as fuck
After bingeing on a fucktonne of news and history videos on youtube I was reminded that I can't wait to live on Mars.
Why do so many women want equality, yet still want to be the submissive one in the relationship, get asked out instead of them taking initiative, be the little spoon, and be kissed on the head and told they're beautiful?
Replies:>>402324
>>402321
Why do you resent giving women equality and still treating your girlfriend the way she wants to be treated regardless of her political equality?
>>402323
Because women don't feel any obligation to treat their boyfriend the way they want to be treated.
Replies:>>402339
>>402324
Then either you're dating the wrong women or "how you expect to be treated" is unreasonable.
Also, I suspect you're dating wrong anyway, if your relationship is about keeping score of who's doing favors for whom, you're not dating, you're engaging in two-way prostitution.
>>402324
I kiss my boyfriend on the head all the time and tell him he's beautiful. He's also almost always the little spoon unless I ask otherwise.
But what a woman or any other human wants in a romantic relationship should have no bearing at all to how she wants to be treated politically and socially in the public sphere.
>>402327
jesus liberal women are so unattractive
>>402326
>>402327
Here's the thing though. When you want equal payment and opportunity for jobs, and you still expect your boyfriend to buy you stuff all the time and be the one to pay for meals, that's legitimately unfair and selfish to want to be treated that way. The only reason that behavior existed for so long is because of the long-standing tradition of the man being the one bringing home the bacon. Now there's no excuse, and I'm fucking tired of dating girls that expect me to do everything for them.
>>402339
>Now there's no excuse, and I'm fucking tired of dating girls that expect me to do everything for them.
I can only guess that these would be the aforementioned wrong women. So yeah, don't date them. Maybe find a different way to seek courtship, to attract different people. I would suggest one that involves asking for expectations of behavior before comittment to fufulling them is established.
>>402342
Again, why are we treating such behavior as just "things girls do" when it's a legitimate problem with our society when it's so common?
Replies:>>402350
>>402345
>Again, why are we treating such behavior as just "things girls do" when it's a legitimate problem with our society when it's so common?
Just for the record, have you ever actually had a girlfriend in the first place, or is your experience with relationships based entirely on what you've overheard from redpillers?
>>402345
>Again, why are we treating such behavior as just "things girls do" when it's a legitimate problem with our society when it's so common?
I'm not, you're not, no one else in this thread is. Who is it telling you to accept that sort of behavior, why haven't you stopped paying attention to them, and what do you expect to solve by telling us about them? Anyone can whip up some "It's just what <something I am>s do." excuse for their behavior, just up and leave them if you won't put up with it.
>>402346
Or, based entirely on the contents of bland sitcoms.
>>402342
>the aforementioned wrong women. So yeah, don't date them
This.
Stop dating feminist women retard, find a religious one, they are 10/10.
>>402369
i don't think you read that guy's post
anyway here's your response, retard-kun
Replies:>>402373
>>402371
What part of it did I miss, the guy is having trouble with progressive, feminist women engaging in their standard hypocrisy, we're all suggesting he stop dating those kinds of women.
>anyway here's your response, retard-kun
You really need to adjust your trolling to the post instead of just re-posting the same spam junk over and over.
>>402372
>What part of it did I miss
everything besides the part you quoted tbh fam
also, this woman, if she exists, where did she touch you, m8
>>402375
I haven't changed my tactics at all, you mental midget. You make a ridiculous post, then I mock you. It's the same thing regardless of how I decide to phrase it.
And tell me more about these women who put boo-boos on your heart.
>>402373
>>402371
I actually wrote >>402342 and think >>402369 read well enough that I didn't feel like bothering them about it even though I wouldn't make that exact same recocmendation. Sure, just going away from women who call themselves feminists and towards those proffessing relegious faith could cause one to skip over some perfectly fine women, but it does change things up enough to find a different crowd with different predominant tendencies.
Also, they're not even the same person who posted >>402345, because they're obviously responding to that exact post while agreeing with me, not responding to me. Actually try to read before claiming someone else can't.
Replies:>>402385
I'm sorry but are these the people we're supposed to trust with collecting the guns when the time comes?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/feds-paid-a-teen-to-get-a-neck-tattoo-of-a-giant-squid-smoking-a-joint/282279/
>be ATF
>open a head shop as a front
>convince mentally disabled teenager to get headshop's logo tattooed on his neck
>its a squid smoking a joint
>use teen-tard to set up gun buys near schools and churches
>sell guns to felons
>let felons possess firearms for months
>lose track of some machine guns
>give teenagers weed and booze because why not
>get a bunch of shit stolen from them
>completely fuck over the landlord of the building they were renting to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars
It seems like the only people funding and arming the criminals in this country are the fucking COPS!
4 senators are part of the kkk
Replies:>>402389
>>402381
As unsurprising as that would be, we should probably wait until Anonymous posts at least the tiniest shred of evidence.
>>402379
>In Portland, attorneys for three teens who were charged said a female agent dressed provocatively, flirted with the boys and encouraged them to bring drugs and weapons to the store to sell.
>And agents in Albuquerque, N.M., gave a brain-damaged drug addict with little knowledge of weapons a "tutorial" on machine guns, hoping he could find them one.
>In other stings, agents ran fake pawnshops and readily bought stolen items, such as electronics and bikes—no questions asked—spurring burglaries and theft. In Atlanta, agents bought guns that had been stolen just hours earlier, several ripped off from police cars.
>In Wichita, agents suggested a felon take a shotgun, saw it off and bring it back—and provided instructions on how to do it. The sawed-off gun allowed them to charge the man with a more serious crime.
Jesus Christ... It's a god damn miracle we don't have warlords taking over states by now.
This reminds me of the time ATF classified a 7 inch piece of string as a machine gun.
Replies:>>402387
>>402381
Even if it's true it's not a big deal. The president is part of the BPP and his two democrat replacements rubbed shoulders with the weatherman underground.
Replies:>>402393
>>402386
>The president is part of the BPP
The Black Panthers are nothing like the KKK.
Holy shit, I have read some dumb things on this board, but you people just have to keep digging. And
rubbing elbows" with members of a terrorist organization isn't even the same as being a MEMBER of a terrorist organization.
>>402382
Official Anonymous accounts on Twitter—as official as that sort of thing can get, that is—are denying the validity of the list.
>>402381
If that's true, then it's people's fault for voting them in (assuming you see it as a fault).
How many politicians do you think fap to deviant shit?
How many politicians do you think browse /pco/ and make comments that look like a 12 year old wrote them?
>>402390
>assuming you see it as a fault
There is a point when "trying to appear balanced" becomes self-satirical. This is that point.
>>402390
>How many politicians do you think fap to deviant shit?
Speaking of government figures and erotica:
http://www.politicspa.com/first-judge-identified-in-porn-email-scandal/60789/
http://www.politicspa.com/castille-fires-warning-at-judges-snared-in-pornography-scandal/60719/
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/10/16/pa-high-court-judge-sorry-for-porn-email-but-says-its-vindictive-pattern-of-attacks-against-him/
I'm not really sure what opinion to have of this. I'd say misusing office machines is probably dumb just because this is probably the kind of thing that should be done at home, but I think this brings up questions on how far we're willing to restrict communication for the sake of preventing conflicts of interest. Also, of email encryption and how hardly anyone uses it.
>>402387
>The Black Panthers are nothing like the KKK.
There is a point when "trying to appear balanced" becomes self-satirical. This is that point.
>>402393
You can't just repeat phrases and sentences from people that are smarter than you in order to appear smarter.
I'm pretty sure that whites have never been lynched en masse by Black Panthers. I'd recommend reading up on the history of the group, from a source that's not Stormfront or the 1960s FBI.
And because I know how stupid people work, I know you're going to go dig up a news article in which a black man was responsible for a white person's death, as if that proves me wrong somehow. Mentally deficient people like you are why I wonder why Slowpoke always comes to cape for morons in the politics thread. You know nothing of the real world and expect people to treat your ideas with any amount of respect. You might as well be pushing creationism right now.
Also, I'm not even the guy who made the self-satirical comment in the first place, so lol @ u
>>402393
That's not "trying to appear balanced". That's "knowing history."
Black Panther Party:
-formed by a historically oppressed minority group
-arose following inner-city decay after WWII, when the jobs that drew rural blacks to the north fled with the whites from the cities to the suburbs
-created to protect against police and white racist violence and to combat poverty
-patrolled the police, holding cops accountable and deterring the harassment of black citizens
-offered free breakfasts to black children
-provided legal education and self-defense classes
-self-policed black communities, deterring crime
-their *legally* carrying rifles in their protest at the California Capitol is why St. Ronny Reagan banned open carry in California
-was violently dismantled and smeared by the that closet-case J. Edgar Hoover and COINTELPRO, because how dare *those people* take control of their own communities, stand up to racist cops, and exercise their right to bear arms
The Ku Klux Klan:
-First Klan formed by butthurt racist southerners following Civil War; second Klan formed by a bunch of butthurt southern racists after "Birth of a Nation".
-First Klan was response to Reconstruction-era blacks achieving political and social stature; second was response to white protestant anxiety over immigration, rising economic success and social prominence of blacks and other minorities, social change ("the jazz era", legalized divorce, and resistance to prohibition), and the lionization of the first Klan by D.W. Griffith
-carried out lynchings, church and home bombings, and political assassinations to deter blacks from voting, owning property, or even thinking of touching white women
-also targeted white Republicans, Mexican/Latino landowners, Jews, Catholics, Chinese immigrants, labor unions, and "ethnics"
-was entirely about preserving and furthering white supremacy
- Presidents Truman and Harding and SCOTUS Associate Justice Hugo Black were klansmen, as were several senators, congressmen, and state governors
So, in short: minority group advocating minority rights and protecting minority community =/= majority group working to violently suppress already downtrodden minorities. "Trying to appear balanced" is impossible.
>>402395
Uh okay so broadly this is all correct but where in the world did you get the idea Truman was a Klansman? He was an extremely pro-civil rights Democract serving under and after FDR, his civil rights stances were one of the biggest reasons conseevatives hated him.
>>402394
I'm pretty sure that blacks have never been lynched en masse by KKK. I'd recommend reading up on the history of the group, from a source that's not Reddit or the 2000s FBI.
And because I know how stupid people work, I know you're going to go dig up a news article in which a white man was responsible for a black person's death, as if that proves me wrong somehow. Mentally deficient people like you are why I wonder why Tora Dora always comes to cape for morons in the politics thread. You know nothing of the real world and expect people to treat your ideas with any amount of respect. You might as well be pushing patriarchy right now.
>>402395
>That's "knowing history."
Ku Klux Klan:
-formed by a historically and currently oppressed minority group
-arose following rural decay after the civil war, when the jobs that drew southerners to the rural areas fled with the arrival of carpetbaggers
-created to protect against police and yankee fascist violence and to combat poverty
-patrolled the police, holding cops accountable and deterring the harassment of southern citizens
-offered free breakfasts to southern children
-provided legal education and self-defense classes
-self-policed southern communities, deterring crime
-their *legal* assembly was deemed "terrorist" by st. Lincoln
-was violently dismantled and smeared by the red bastard Ulysses S. Grant and black militias, because how dare *those people* take control of their own communities, stand up to fascist cops, and exercise their right to bear arms
BPP
-First BPP formed by butthurt racist blacks following WWII; second BPP (BLA) formed by a bunch of butthurt northern marxists after KGB started shipping in Maos "Little Red Book"
-First BPP was response to post depression-era south achieving economic stability; second was response to blacks migrating en masse to the inner cities, rising economic success and social prominence of whites, social change ("the rock era", widespread drugs, war on poverty), and the spread of marxist literature by the KGB
-carried out lynchings, church and home bombings, and political assassinations to deter whites from voting, owning property, or even thinking of prospering and inventing things
-also targeted black Republicans, Mexican/Latino landowners, Jews, Catholics, Chinese immigrants, labor unions, and "ethnics"
-was entirely about preserving and furthering black supremacy
-the current president himself used them to force people into voting for him
Replies:>>402399
>>402394
>why I wonder why Slowpoke always comes to cape for morons in the politics thread
Notice i haven't said anything about this. I don't defend everyone with conservative opinions, just the ones who are kind of right.
>>402399
Good show, lad.
Anon, you know you fucked up when slowpoke won't defend your ass.
Replies:>>402414
>>402397
>Ku Klux Klan:
>-formed by a historically and currently oppressed minority group
L M A O
M
A
O
Replies:>>402413
So it sounds like thanks to this whole Kim Davis kerfuffle, the majority of Americans are now opposed to "religious freedom" loopholes in laws. Thank you Kim Davis, for helping kill that lumbering beast.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/us/in-planned-parenthood-fight-texas-searches-records-unrelated-to-abortion.html?_r=2
>Three days after Gov. Greg Abbott announced his decision to end Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, state health department investigators showed up on Thursday at Planned Parenthood health centers in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Brownsville with orders to turn over thousands of pages of documents, including patients’ records and employees’ home addresses and telephone numbers
>Some, but not all, of the extensive records sought by the state related specifically to abortion.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
>For example, Planned Parenthood South Texas was told to produce five years of records — whether electronic, paper or ultrasound — concerning any patients billed to Medicaid who had an abortion in which any part of the fetus was removed or preserved for research use. Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast was to turn over a complete copy of certain patients’ records, including doctors’ orders, nursing notes and lab tests, as well as the center’s appointment books, patient sign-in sheets and contracts.
Party of Small Government, get the government out of my life, muh liberty, etc.
>>402409
I wouldn’t go that far. I think a lot of people wouldn’t be opposed to “religious freedom” protections in the law if such protections weren’t positioned (intentionally or not) as “get out of the consequences of discrimination in the public sphere” cards. Kim Davis’s campaign to make the legal system say she can legally impose a religious test upon people seeking marriage licenses is the kind of bullshit that opponents of “religious freedom” loopholes don’t like.
>>402402
Are you saying south wasn't oppressed? It was brutally destroyed by the north and then forcefully colonized for fucks sake.
>>402411
Planned parenthood gets medicaid funding on the presumption that it is non-profit, considering recent rumors and investigations into them selling fetuses for profit, demanding that they provide records to the contrary is exactly what a fiscally concerned government should do.
>party of big government robs people and showers corrupt private companies with the money
>party of small government questions this
>turda durrra complains
>>402414
>It was brutally destroyed by the north and then forcefully colonized for fucks sake.
what term did your teachers in grade school use to refer to the united states conflict that took place between 1861 and 1865
Replies:>>402424
>>402414
>Planned parenthood gets medicaid funding on the presumption that it is non-profit, considering recent rumors and investigations into them selling fetuses for profit, demanding that they provide records to the contrary is exactly what a fiscally concerned government should do.
Planned Parenthood receives reimbursement from the government for specific healthcare services, not a “lump sum” form of funding where the government says, “Here’s your money, do with it what you want.”
The rumors about PP profiting from the alleged sale of fetal body parts are just that. In the unedited versions of those “gotcha” videos, no one from PP talks about selling fetal body parts or fetal tissue for a profit—the organization did what it is legally allowed to do by requesting reimbursement for the storage and transportation of those things (and now it no longer makes such requests, thanks to everyone throwing a bitchfit about it). Every investigation into PP has shown no evidence of wrongdoing or cooking the books or whatever the anti-choice crowd wants those investigations to find.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/houston_voters_reject_hero_after_despicable_bathroom_scare_campaign
Fuck.
>>402417
That is annoying, even if one presumes that what bathroom or lockerroom you're assigned is based solely on puritanically preventing people from maybe seeing types of gonads they don't have without providing actual privacy, rather than anything to do with personal identity.
>>402416
What does that matter? The transport authority receives subsidies for gas and maintenance, that doesn't mean they can start abandoning bus routes or taking part in demolition derbies.
The representatives of the public, the people whose pockets are being emptied for PP, have the right and the duty to demand accountability.
>are just that
Then the records will prove it, the fuck are you whinging about.
Replies:>>402427
>>402424
>The transport authority receives subsidies for gas and maintenance, that doesn't mean they can start abandoning bus routes or taking part in demolition derbies.
I actually don't see why they couldn't do the latter as long as it's with decomissioned vehichles that'd go up for auction at a comparable or lesser value than what they gain from participating the derby.
>>402417
>that would allow transgender people to use the bathroom or lockerroom assigned to whatever sex they identify as
That was a stupid part of the legislation. Anyone who says they identify as transgender gets access to womens toilets. ANYONE. Including random creeps who want to bring a minicam in there, and actual rapists.
Why not simply easily fix it to only allow transgender people with SRS, which most people see as women anyway.
>>402425
It's up to you to vote representatives into office that will allow that, or write letters to them then. Although get ready for democracy where someone will do the opposite of you.
Replies:>>402430
>>402424
>The representatives of the public, the people whose pockets are being emptied for PP, have the right and the duty to demand accountability.
And that’s why PP heavily audits itself and is as open with that information as it can be—to ensure that what it does is on the up-and-up and prevent the sort of invasive fishing expeditions that several state governments are going on.
>Then the records will prove it, the fuck are you whinging about.
I’m not comfortable with the government peeking into the medical files of women who’ve had abortions without a proper reason—especially given how every other state-sponsored investigation into PP has turned up no evidence of wrongdoing.
>>402411
No but for real why do you think Truman was a clansman, do you not actually know anything about US history?
>>402414
Please stop making it look like all Southerners are uneducated hill people like you. If you actually want to be all "lol the cops should be shooting whoever, they're criminals so who cares" then you certainly can't complain about the rebellion being crushed.
Replies:>>402432
>>402428
Self audits are pointless, sorry.
>I’m not comfortable
If you're comfortable with the government providing subsidy to a business, you are comfortable with the government auditing that business.
By the way why not lose the subsidy and consist purely on donations from liberals? That would neatly solve the problem.
>>402429
The reason why not all southerners are uneducated hill people is because the north opened borders to Mexican immigration, and conveniently sent all the blacks from the north to the south when no one was looking.
Replies:>>402434
>>402426
What is more plausible: perverts putting on drag to spy on ladies, or just plain spying on them? Donning a wig and dress in order to rape a woman in a bathroom stall, or just barging in and doing it? This is as much about "protecting women and children" as the PP business is about "making sure our tax dollars are spent appropriately" and mass phone and email surveillance is about "keeping us safe".
>srs
Expensive, until veryrecently not covered by most insurance, requires one year of "real life experience" and a letter from a psychiatrist and psychologist. Also, it's not always medically possible (hemophilia, diabetes, heart conditions etc.), desired (not every trans person is dysphoria about their genitals) or satisfactory ( mtf surgery, with the right starting parts and a competent surgeon comes out ok; ftm...not so much.). A person's safety, recognition of their identity, shouldn't depend on a $20,000 surgery.
>which most people see as women anyway
If freaking only.
>>402429
Tom Pendergast. When Harry S was first getting into politics in Jackson County, Missouri, he paid the $10 membership fee for the KKK so he'd have the backing of that constituency and access to the right connections. How involved in the Klan beyond that payment and using those connections in his early career is unknown, and his later actions (desegregating the armed forces, recognizing Israel) show that he either evolved away from extreme racism (or at least didn't let it interfere with professional decisions too much. Still, being a KKK member, espousing white supremacy in his personal correspondences and double-nuking an already broken non-white nation = Klansman president for all practical purposes.
Replies:>>402445
>>402430
>The reason why not all southerners are uneducated hill people is because the north opened borders to Mexican immigration, and conveniently sent all the blacks from the north to the south when no one was looking.
What the actual fuck are you talking about
Replies:>>402441
>actually for killing 120,000-25,000 Japanese civilians (and few dozen allied POWs)
smdh
>>402426
>That was a stupid part of the legislation. Anyone who says they identify as transgender gets access to womens toilets. ANYONE. Including random creeps who want to bring a minicam in there, and actual rapists.
You're not fooling anyone with this hand-wringing and concern trolling, you realize.
Replies:>>402442
save fileimage:144662097300.jpg(32kB , 601x601 , 1378646_411282918996277_1125559941872956105_n-1.jpg)
>>402426
This is Aydian Dowling. He is a transgender man. If he were to walk into a women’s restroom, he’d probably be assaulted, arrested, slandered with labels such as “possible rapist” or “pervert”, or any combination of the three—and yet the women’s restroom is where he’d be forced to go if he were legally barred from entering the men’s restroom based on his birth sex. The risk for assault (both sexual and non-sexual) would be higher if it were a trans woman entering a men’s restroom.
So tell me again why we shouldn’t let trans people use the restroom that matches the gender with which they identify?
Replies:>>402444
>>402435
Yes because as been shown by historians in numerous occasions, it was by far the cheapest option in terms of human life to end the war. The Japanese were also offered surrender and warned about the bombs multiple times but held fast even as they were the last Axis power left so yeah.
>>402437
He very clearly has the appearance of a man, why not simply go to the mens toilet? No one would know any different. Same for a transgender person with the appearance of a woman, they could go to a womans toilet and go to a stall, no problems.
But this legislation is purely for people who IDENTIFY as transgender.
NOT people who were diagnosed, which could be a verifiable thing to check.
NOT people who went through HRT.
NOT people who got SRS.
It's bullshit legislation, and that's from someone who's girlfriend is trans.
>>402442
>He very clearly has the appearance of a man, why not simply go to the mens toilet?
This is my exact point: if he were somehow barred from using the men's bathroom at, say, his place of work—something that could legally happen in Houston now that HERO is defeated—he would have to use the women’s bathroom, and that would open up all those issues I raised.
>But this legislation is purely for people who IDENTIFY as transgender.
…and? Why should someone need to show you their goddamn medical charts to use the fucking toilet?
Replies:>>402449
>>402441
Japan was ready to and had made offers of surrender through the Soviets. The thing was we wanted unconditional surrender; they hoped to avoid occupation and humiliation. But we were out for revenge for Pearl Harbor and frankly thought the Japanese less than human. we did not, to my knowledge, have a "G.I.'s sending home German skulls and refusing to accept German soldiers surrendering" problem; in fact, we made efforts to call the "Nazis" not "Germans", while the entire Japanese people were caricatured as yellow, buck toothed vermin. None of this is to excuse any of the fascist Japanese Empires numerous atrocities. But to think, by any stretch of morality, that attacks on civilians are justifiable, and that ten of thousands of bodies getting vaporized is an acceptable price for a geopolitical objective, is abhorrent.
>>402442
It is identical to the legislation in some 17 states and 200 cities and counties. Nowhere has it produced an epidemic of rape. And what, you want an armed guard checking people's papers and/or genitals at the door of each bathroom? Are only "passing" trans people to get to pee safely in public, while the obviously trans, even if they're post-op, need to hold it?
Replies:>>402446
>>402432
After the Civil War, the north sent the people who were supposed to be the masters of the south from then on (carpetbaggers) to exploit the southerners.
This is what initially created the KKK, their prime goal was hanging the. Contrary to popular belief it was regardless of race.
Replies:>>402448
>>402445
"Former Confederate Brigadier General George Gordon developed the Prescript, which espoused white supremacist belief. For instance, an applicant should be asked if he was in favor of 'a white man's government", "the reenfranchisement and emancipation of the white men of the South, and the restitution of the Southern people to all their rights.'"
http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gz580/his101/kkk.html
But yeah, those poor downtrodden Southerners cared nothing about race and were just defending themselves from exploitation. Just like they started the war to protect "States' Rights".
Replies:>>402450
>>402446
They only started caring about black people after the north started using black people as a weapon against the south.
If the south managed to rouse the downtrodden of the north, I'm pretty fucking sure the northerners would form their own organizations to defend against them.
>>402444
The problems with POWs (or lack thereof from case to case) ran both ways on the Pacific Front, and yeah no that's not how that works. You bomb cities in modern warfare, especially in that era, the only difference is that Japan was bombed a lot more efficiently than most other countries (you will recall that Europe was a series of smoking craters at this point). Civilian losses were considerably lower in Japan than the other Axis nations relative to their population (or period, in Germany's case).
The Soviets are a nonfactor, they entered the Pacific war in the final stages and lazily destroyed the Kwantong army, they had no grounds to accept surrender, and no, a conditional surrender would not be justified and I am baffled at revisionists like you who try to argue that Imperial Japan of all things should have been treated with kid gloves.
Or, for that matter, that you would argue that their actual fate as a nation was somehow unusually harsh. Oh boo hoo, you were occupied in an orderly fashion and rebuilt as a stable democratic government with a strong economy. The notion that Japan's treatment was in any way unfair or unwarranted has no business being peddled by anyone who isn't a Nanking denier.
>>402448
Irish fought on both sides in special brigades.
Also motherfucker Virginia specifically mentions slavery in its decision to secede and the Confederate Constitution makes allowance for it, I know you are doing your Lol I Am A Wacky /pol/ User thing but fucking stop it.
>You bomb cities in modern warfare
>Article 25 of the Hague Convention (1899)
>The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
>Article 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
>Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
There was, of course, the ample wiggle room of "defended". The Germans bombed London and Paris with zeppelins; the Allies returned the favor. Post-War, there was much discussion, and two attempts, to ban all aerial bombing of civilian centers. Second World War broke out, didn't happen, lots of civillians were killed. After all that (and failing to convict Axis leaders who ordered it because it was technically legal) we banned aerial bombing of civilians (Protocol 1, Geneva Convention, 1977).
Even when it was legal, it was immoral, contrary to...God's law, human decency, reason, whatever. Nothing justifies indiscriminate killing of civilians, not the crimes of their leaders, not geopolitical objectives (realpolitik was all about; Russia wanted to move into Manchuria and Korea, hence their making sure the Japanese delegates med mid-level nobodies and their overtures went unheard; America wanted control of the Pacific and to be in striking range of China and Russia in the next war) and not "Hey, Joe, look at these awesome bombs I got!"
>The Soviets are a nonfactor
They were western allies, had not yet declared hostilities on Japan in June, and were right next door to Manchuria. They were the best avenue for sending out feelers for a peace deal, and they, wanting to get in on that juicy plunder, said "yeah, I'll make sure they Americans get this."
>kid gloves
Not killing 300,000-500,000 civilians is not "handling with kid gloves." Imperial Japan was, as a regime, as bad as the Nazis: Nanking, Unit 731, Bataan, comfort women, building their factories in small villages to use their own people as human shields, etc. But the crimes of the leaders of a nation do not impute to their people or justify their deaths. Nazi Germany was one of the most horrifically, almost sureally evil regimes ever, but that doesn't mean the children of Dresden deserved to burn and suffocate. Saying "civilians shouldn't be intentionally killed, especially by particularly horrific means" isn't being a fascist sympathizer or historical revisionism.
Another mass shooting, this time by a black guy so it won't get reported as much.
Replies:>>402460
>>402454
what fantasy world do you live in in which the media hesitates to report on the criminal activity of black men
nvm, you're still doing your /pol/ thing
>>402454
So, you're saying that attention from reorting is an incentive for further shootings, and thus that it's a good thing this one won't be reported much and only bad that other shootings are?
>>402458
You serious?
He's probably living in the world where media can't even say the race and has to use code-words like "urban youth". In the world where last year in America 3300 European-americans committed murder, compared to 5375 African-americans.... despite African-americans making up only 10% of the population. In the world where if minority crime is ignored, America has the crime rate of Finland.
Maybe in the world where he sees people on twitter talking about how psychopathic European-americans are, because they just aren't seeing the violence by other ethnicities on TV.
>>402447
>it
Say that to my face not online motherfucker, see what happens.
Replies:>>402463
Replies:>>402475
>>402462
>FYI I'm not this guy
No shit. It's why I said, "m80s"
>why do you make a post if you're not going to put anything in it?
Stupid people need to be told they're being stupid.
>I mean its completely devoid of content.
And your post was full of shit. People don't focus on how "crazy" European Americans are. That's paranoid bullshit.
>>402460
>Say that to my face not online motherfucker, see what happens.
You misunderstand. I'm not calling your "girlfriend" it, I'm saying you are lying about the relationship in the first place to score debate points.
Name the 5 most powerful countries.
I'm interested in the 4th and 5th especially.
Replies:>>402484
>>402479
Probably China, the US, the UK, France, and either Germany, Canada, or Japan, if I had to guess.
>>402482
Canada, really?
Russia belongs on the list. They're have the ninth largest population, tenth highest gdp, the largest nuclear stockpile, have oil and gas (enough so that they can pressure other European powers to let them be or get cut off), a permanent spot on the Security Council, and exert significant influence in numerous regional conflicts.
>>402484
I (question asker) would definitely have US, Russia and China in the top three (which I find hard to dispute) but the rest is less defined.
>>402479
If liberals had their way, UK, Germany, Iran, Russia, China.
>>402484
I don't know if population matters much--India has the largest population period I think (Unless China's still barely beating them--I know India was supposed to surpass China at some point but I don't know if it's happened yet) and it's not as powerful as the UK for sure, which has a fraction of the number of people. And tenth highest GDP isn't that impressive if we're talking about the top five most powerful nations.
https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership
Here is the Nasty that is the TPP. Ignore the bullshit about it protecting the American worker. Aren't many of those left that aren't employed by foreign business all to eager to swap them out for international labor and its not like the small businesses will be allowed to survive.
Because a rider to the "Fast Track" that would secure a payoff to the first line of workers that would lose their jobs to this surely means good things. But hey that's just been part of every trade deal which has caused a shift the the labor force and loss of jobs so that cannot be bad..right. That isn't including talk of the IP chapter which strips everything from the little guy and give it to big business.
You said that was your work? Nah some that big corporations had a judge sign off that its like theirs so its not yours anymore, and its its Trade Secret you aren't allowed to sue and be lucky you aren't charged with something.
All part of this broadly written nightmare.
Replies:>>402499
>>402491
Wow it's almost like smaller countries are subsidiaries of larger ones. It's no wonder that China and America wanted to have this deal over all the little guys.
>>402479
In terms of economy - military - political power, in that order:
1. China - Russia - USA
2. USA - USA - China
3. India - France - Germany
4. Japan - China - Russia
5. Germany - UK - Saudi Arabia
"Powerful" is a subjective measure, but military, economy and politics are three main ways international power is applied among the larger players.
An addendum: EU as a whole has a larger economy than USA or China, but their combined military is just shy of Russias. At least a few years ago when I checked.
>>402491
The good news is that if it's passed, we'll be one step closer to capitalism bringing about its own demise. Revolution soon, comrades!
Replies:>>402498
>>402491
>TPP is one of the best tools we have to fight forced labor and human trafficking. It requires countries like Malaysia to prohibit forced labor, and we’ve already seen Malaysia take critical steps to make progress by passing anti-trafficking legislation this year.
Then I guess you don't actually need the trade agreement to get that done.
>>402497
Baloney. The demand for cheap labor, which TPP will only increase and further incentivize, is the source of forced labor and human trafficking. TPP elevates corporations beyond the status of individuals to almost sovereign powers, granting them the ability to challenge national regulations they find inconvenient before tribunals staffed corporate lackeys.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?_r=0
>planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.
>http://www.citizen.org/tppinvestment
>Foreign corporations would be empowered to bypass domestic courts and directly "sue" the U.S. government before a tribunal of private lawyers that sits outside of any domestic legal system. These lawyers would be authorized to order the U.S. government to hand millions of our tax dollars to the corporations for laws that they find inconvenient.
>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/right-and-left-decry-trade-pacts-secret-tribunals/
>That's the system of secretive tribunals that allow foreign corporations to sue governments if they believe a country's laws unfairly diminish their profits. Called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) model, the tribunal system has raised red flags from economists including Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz as well as the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
>The TPP, which would cover America and 11 Pacific Rim countries, would double the exposure of the U.S. to potential lawsuits from foreign corporations, according to Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, recently called the system "rigged pseudo-courts" that favor business interests. The tribunals tend to be run by a handful of highly paid attorneys, with the awards to corporations -- and the number of cases -- surging dramatically in recent years, a 2012 study from Corporate Europe Observatory found.
Something similar has already been happening under NAFTA. Canada has been sued numerous times, at great expense to the Canadian people, by foreign corporations unhappy with their environmental and consumer protection laws.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html
>There were 12 cases brought against Canada from 1995 to 2005, while in the decade since there have been 23...The 35 claims brought against Canada comprise 45 per cent of the total number of claims under NAFTA. That’s significantly more than Mexico’s 22 or the 20 brought against the U.S.
>Canada has lost or settled six claims paying a total of $170 million in damages, while Mexico has lost five cases and paid out $204 million. The U.S.,meanwhile, has won 11 cases and has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.
>In 1997, the Ethyl Corporation, a U.S. chemical company, used chapter 11 to challenge a Canadian ban on the import of MMT, a gasoline additive that is a suspected neurotoxin and which automakers have said interferes with cars’ diagnostic systems. The company won damages of $15 million and the government was forced to remove the policy.
>A year later, U.S.-based S.D. Myers challenged Canada’s temporary ban on the export of toxic PCP waste, which was applied equally to all companies. Canada argued it was obliged to dispose of the waste within its own borders under another international treaty. However, the tribunal ruled the ban was discriminatory and violated NAFTA’s standards for fair treatment.
>There are currently eight cases against the Canadian government asking for a total of $6 billion in damages. All of them were brought by U.S. companies.
>>402499
They have the most nuclear weapons, that's literally the only military power that has any value in the 21st century.
USA, the largest conventional military in the world by a huge margin, got humiliated by a bunch of cave dwelling spear chukers.
Replies:>>402505
>>402500
Nuclear weapons are a political tool, not a military one, hth.
Your... let's say "limited," understanding of the differences between counter-insurgency and open combat barely merits a response but I guess I will throw you a bone and point out that those "cave dwelling spear chukers" also humiliated the Russians when they were larger, more disciplined, and working with cutting edge tech.
Replies:>>402505
>>402500
>They have the most nuclear weapons, that's literally the only military power that has any value in the 21st century.
Only two nuclear weapons have ever been used in war. If a country used a nuclear weapon today they would be shithammered by the international community. In 2015, the only purpose nukes serve is to make other nuclear powers too scared to use nukes against you.
Replies:>>402508
>>402501
>Nuclear weapons are a political tool, not a military one, hth.
All weapons can be used as leverage and influence by politicians, that doesn't prevent the weapon from being a weapon.
>that those "cave dwelling spear chukers" also humiliated the Russians when they were larger, more disciplined, and working with cutting edge tech
In those times the Mujaheddin had access to jets, tanks, missiles, and two times the manpower of the Russians.
Currently the Taliban have access to none of that, and yet still manage to defeat a force three times their size.
But thanks for proving my point about conventional armies being useless.
>>402502
lol is that so? If USA nuked... Afghanistan. Do you think Russia could do anything?
World population during WWII was two billion people. The major powers fielded armies five to fifteen million strong, and it was still hard as all hell to conquer anyone.
Do you think today, when world population is 7 billion, and the largest military in the world is one million, do you seriously think that conventional power is useful? It can barely be used for policing duties.
Replies:>>402509
>>402505
>Do you think today, when world population is 7 billion, and the largest military in the world is one million, do you seriously think that conventional power is useful? It can barely be used for policing duties.
Conventional power is the only power that has been used since then. One could make an argument about whether war is EVER truly useful, other than defending yourself against an aggressor, but inasmuch as we accept that war is a useful thing to do, conventional warfare is as useful as it's ever been.
Replies:>>402511
>>402508
>Conventional power is the only power that has been used since then.
That doesn't mean anything.
Replies:>>402523
Nukes are effectively unusable in modern warfare. It's like how chemical weapons were used in WWI, then virtually never used again (Saddam/Iran and Assad/ISIS notwithstanding). In WWII, all the major players had stockpiles of gas and nerve agents but didn't use them, knowing that it'd lead to every other nation unleashing their chemical weapons and things going to hell. Hitler, of all people, ordered them not be used, having seen their effect in the first war. Japan, even on its last legs, didn't use them, since they knew the Americans wouldn't hesitate to use them on the homeland (and since their last line of defense were massive tunnel networks, that would have meant all of Japan suffocating underground like gophers.)
The only use of nuclear weaponry in war was by the then sole nuclear power against a non-nuclear nation well past the point of retaliating by conventional means. Any non-strategic use against another nuclear power (as was contemplated during the Korean War after the Chinese got involved and in Vietnam when the French were getting btfo'd) would trigger in-kind response, and quickly escalate into a full nuclear exchange. Any use by a nuclear power on a non-nuclear power would be met with international condemnation and sanctions if not relation by the non-nuclear power's nuclear allies (e.g.: North Korea v. South Korea).
In short, nukes are only good for making sure no one fucks with you; that's why it was foolish for Gaddafi, South Africa and Ukraine to give up theirs.
Replies:>>402524
This song is political as fuck
//youtube.com/watch?v=EuQLMXyGQOE
>>402518
Human beings will not stop until they develop the biggest baddest weapon possible, and with how curious we are, will not hesitate to use it, JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. Intelligence is a blessing, and a curse.
Replies:>>402527
>>402523
>Human beings will not stop until they develop the biggest baddest weapon possible, and with how curious we are, will not hesitate to use it, JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. Intelligence is a blessing, and a curse.
We have much more powerful nuclear weapons than the ones that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and those have never been used on humans. So you're kind of wrong about us not hesitating to use them.
Replies:>>402529
>>402524
The only reason nukes aren't used is because everyone knows everyone else will use them. Your kind of attitude is what will, ironically, lead to the use of nuclear weapons.
>>402527
I don't see how? My comment is only that people are hesitating to use them, in stark contrast to what Mister Twister said.
What makes Gamergate worse than SJWs again?
>>402533
They’re technically more organized.
Replies:>>402546
>>402534
Can't say it isn't, given that GG is an explicit movement while "SJW" is a derrogatory term reffering to people who take a detrimentally warlike approach to promoting social justice, and thus defined by its adversaries.
Replies:>>402546
>>402533
"SJWs" isn't an organization based on harassing people. They also aren't a group so...yeah.
What makes the Tea Party worse than Occupy protests?
Replies:>>402547
>>402541
The fact that the Tea Party's primary unifying purpose is selfishness and antisocial behavior, and the majority of the people who belong to the tea party are racist homophobes who believe religious discrimination should be legal as long as it's against non-Christians.
Replies:>>402565
save fileimage:144705713000.jpg(80kB , 600x600 , SJW clique vs Normal People social connections.jpg)
>>402534
>>402535
>>402537
>has never head of gamejournopros
SJWs are a far more insular and organized attack mob.
>>402542
>selfishness
>antisocial
>racist
>homophobes
>religious discrimination
Holy shit do they eat babies too? Wait a sec, let me try to translate that from privilege-ladder language....
>less government spending
>antisocialist
>more diverse than occupy
Oh ok.
>>402541
>What makes the Tea Party better than Occupy protests?
Fixed. And to answer: The fact that they open carry guns prevents the police from abusing their power.
Aside from that, they're fighting the same enemy, just in different ways.
>>402547
They don't want to pull their weight, they want all of the benefits of society to go to themselves and no one else, they claim they want less government spending but throw shit fits any time someone cuts a program because they don't have the strength of their convictions. It is an entire movement based on the idea that you should be able to enjoy the privileges of society, such as roads and police, without having to pay for them--and from day one it was manipulated by the ultra-rich to make sure that any reductions in government spending they actually did help reduce just happened to take place in areas that were preventing them from rigging the system to their own favor, such as bank deregulation and the Bush Tax Cuts.
I'm realizing, as an adult, how truly fucked up our society is. It just now dawned on me recently how elections are treated like a fucking football game, and it's all simplified to whoever "wins" or "loses". People are still talking about who won the October 13 democratic party debate. It's a debate, not an argument. Why does someone have to win?
>>402550
The open carry is and extension of that privilege. It doesn't "prevent police from abusing their power", their whiteness does. Cops aren't going to beat up a bunch of old white people who can afford lawyers for advocating policies most of them agree with. The open carry is just posturing and ego-boosting. Left-wing and minority demonstrations, meanwhile, lead to states banning open-carry and the Feds destroying and discrediting those groups.
>>402547
That image and the thinking behind it is stupid. Further up that building is the single marquee of "WEALTH" (call it "Capital" or "Mammon", depending on your philosophy and/or religion). It controls both legs of the Colossus, government and big business (the banks are just a particularly large toe on the Titan's foot). Neither side is trying to destroy the head.
The conservatives are not fighting the colossus. They think that government is a separate entity to the wealthy, one hostile to rather than subservient to it, and believe all the evil wealth commits is due to government. They would either it do nothing but serve their interests (conservatives) or cease existing and cede all authority directly to the wealthy (right "libertarians" and ancaps). The left, by and large, vainly hopes that the government created by and run by the wealthy for their benefit, can be made to work for the average folks, while not destroying the business leg, keep it from crushing so many helpless people; the market, like humanity, is salvageable via endless regulating.
>>402550
>Bush Tax Cuts
Tea Party didn't even exist then... it started about a year after Obama was elected, when it became clear he was going to keep feeding trillions of taxpayer money into the banks.
>>402555
>their whiteness does
I wonder why the OWS protests didn't enjoy that protection, considering they were almost 100% rich, privileged, white college students. You know, Russel Brand types.
Oh wait you're full of shit!
The police doesn't give a mules bollocks about lawsuits because the payoff money comes out of the taxpayers pocket anyway.
>Left-wing and minority demonstrations, meanwhile, lead to states banning open-carry and the Feds destroying and discrediting those groups.
Considering how much effort the cops and government put into preventing it, maybe that's a fucking clue that the right to bear arms is an important deterrent.
Minorities don't protect themselves from government oppression and racist lynchings by "raising awareness" in a goddamn drum circle, they do it by shooting their oppressor.
To prevent further identity politics and privilege-ladder shitposting by TD...
According to Gallup, key Tea Party stats are: 79% are White, 55% are men.According to Statisticbrain, key OWS stats are: 81% are White, 61% are men.
>>402546
Witchunting is okay when you're a "professional" journalist, apparently. If you want to get away with what Gamergate does, say you're being a journalist and don't work for Fox News, that's all it takes for liberals to defend you apparently.
Replies:>>402575
>>402550
Aren't all of those just issues you disagree with them on? That's how politics works. How does it make them worse?
