Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#4327 Oct 24 2017 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
Honestly it is a waste of time to explain anything to you. It isn't just this last time or I wouldn't have said anything, but the last several times you've quoted me and said anything were completely nonsensical and I just rolled with it. It should have been perfectly clear when I said "in the comments", and yet, it wasn't.


From the simple fact that it was not clear, it should be obvious that it was not clear.


Actually. I had no problem noodling out that he was bashing people who make the argument that those on "the left" are violent for attacking the poor harmless neo-**** on the bus.

Ironically, I'm in agreement with your response, despite it being a misunderstanding of the original intent. Those on "the left" do kinda set this thing up. Every time you fight to defend someone's right to burn a flag, or depict Jesus guzzing someone else's man juice in an art show, or any other form of offensive speech (often intentionally offensive so as to get a reaction), you're also, for good or bad, defending someone else's right to wear a swastika armband, or wear a "god hates ****" t-shirt, or any other form of equally offensive speech (also, often designed to get a reaction).

That is, if you're actually arguing the issue as a "speech is free, even if, and even especially if, it's offensive to others". The problem with the Left, is that they tend to want speech they like and which doesn't offend them to be free, while speech they don't like to not be free. Which creates a bit of an inconsistency.

I'll provide the exact same statement I made about the riots in Charlottesville. It's possible to condemn violent actions (like punching someone who does not appear to have taken any aggressive action first), while still disagreeing with the speech of the person whom the violent action was targeted. I don't find anything inconsistent about that at all. The guy with the armband was, as much as I disagree with it, still merely exercising his free speech rights. I didn't see anything in the linked article to suggest that he took a single violent action against anyone. He wore an armband and was alleged to have harassed a black man (again though, unless he threatened the person, that's also still free speech).

The guy who walked up to him and punched him committed assault. Period.

Let me be absolutely clear. I'm not defending the neo-**** guy. I'm not defending his opinions. My concern here is the growing perception by some in our society that the correct response to speech that is not liked is violence (it's what antifa is all about). And also a growing acceptance among others of the same. "he had it coming" is a terrible excuse IMO. Why is this a concern? After all, this just happened to a neo-****, right? We don't like them, right? You're not one of them, right? The problem is that once this become acceptable behavior, it creeps out of the obvious "bad people" and into "people we don't like for other/any reasons".

We already see rhetoric on the internet essentially claiming that anyone who is conservative or votes GOP is a neo-****, bigot, racist, hater, etc. See this constantly. How much of a step to say "well, that guy who just got punched had it coming, because he voted GOP, so he's a terrible person anyway"? Not much. Heck, we've already seen cases of this happen (assaults on folks for voting GOP, at least). If the guy had been wearing a Trump MAGA hat, how much different would the comments have been? I'm quite certain we'd have seen similar "he had it coming" comments, laughter about it, etc.

And yeah. That's troubling.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4328 Oct 24 2017 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
Honestly it is a waste of time to explain anything to you. It isn't just this last time or I wouldn't have said anything, but the last several times you've quoted me and said anything were completely nonsensical and I just rolled with it. It should have been perfectly clear when I said "in the comments", and yet, it wasn't.


From the simple fact that it was not clear, it should be obvious that it was not clear.


Actually. I had no problem noodling out that he was bashing people who make the argument that those on "the left" are violent for attacking the poor harmless neo-**** on the bus.

Ironically, I'm in agreement with your response, despite it being a misunderstanding of the original intent. Those on "the left" do kinda set this thing up. Every time you fight to defend someone's right to burn a flag, or depict Jesus guzzing someone else's man juice in an art show, or any other form of offensive speech (often intentionally offensive so as to get a reaction), you're also, for good or bad, defending someone else's right to wear a swastika armband, or wear a "god hates ****" t-shirt, or any other form of equally offensive speech (also, often designed to get a reaction).

That is, if you're actually arguing the issue as a "speech is free, even if, and even especially if, it's offensive to others". The problem with the Left, is that they tend to want speech they like and which doesn't offend them to be free, while speech they don't like to not be free. Which creates a bit of an inconsistency.

I'll provide the exact same statement I made about the riots in Charlottesville. It's possible to condemn violent actions (like punching someone who does not appear to have taken any aggressive action first), while still disagreeing with the speech of the person whom the violent action was targeted. I don't find anything inconsistent about that at all. The guy with the armband was, as much as I disagree with it, still merely exercising his free speech rights. I didn't see anything in the linked article to suggest that he took a single violent action against anyone. He wore an armband and was alleged to have harassed a black man (again though, unless he threatened the person, that's also still free speech).

The guy who walked up to him and punched him committed assault. Period.

Let me be absolutely clear. I'm not defending the neo-**** guy. I'm not defending his opinions. My concern here is the growing perception by some in our society that the correct response to speech that is not liked is violence (it's what antifa is all about). And also a growing acceptance among others of the same. "he had it coming" is a terrible excuse IMO. Why is this a concern? After all, this just happened to a neo-****, right? We don't like them, right? You're not one of them, right? The problem is that once this become acceptable behavior, it creeps out of the obvious "bad people" and into "people we don't like for other/any reasons".

We already see rhetoric on the internet essentially claiming that anyone who is conservative or votes GOP is a neo-****, bigot, racist, hater, etc. See this constantly. How much of a step to say "well, that guy who just got punched had it coming, because he voted GOP, so he's a terrible person anyway"? Not much. Heck, we've already seen cases of this happen (assaults on folks for voting GOP, at least). If the guy had been wearing a Trump MAGA hat, how much different would the comments have been? I'm quite certain we'd have seen similar "he had it coming" comments, laughter about it, etc.

And yeah. That's troubling.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4329 Oct 24 2017 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
Honestly it is a waste of time to explain anything to you. It isn't just this last time or I wouldn't have said anything, but the last several times you've quoted me and said anything were completely nonsensical and I just rolled with it. It should have been perfectly clear when I said "in the comments", and yet, it wasn't.


From the simple fact that it was not clear, it should be obvious that it was not clear.


Actually. I had no problem noodling out that he was bashing people who make the argument that those on "the left" are violent for attacking the poor harmless neo-**** on the bus.

Ironically, I'm in agreement with your response, despite it being a misunderstanding of the original intent. Those on "the left" do kinda set this thing up. Every time you fight to defend someone's right to burn a flag, or depict Jesus guzzing someone else's man juice in an art show, or any other form of offensive speech (often intentionally offensive so as to get a reaction), you're also, for good or bad, defending someone else's right to wear a swastika armband, or wear a "god hates ****" t-shirt, or any other form of equally offensive speech (also, often designed to get a reaction).

That is, if you're actually arguing the issue as a "speech is free, even if, and even especially if, it's offensive to others". The problem with the Left, is that they tend to want speech they like and which doesn't offend them to be free, while speech they don't like to not be free. Which creates a bit of an inconsistency.

I'll provide the exact same statement I made about the riots in Charlottesville. It's possible to condemn violent actions (like punching someone who does not appear to have taken any aggressive action first), while still disagreeing with the speech of the person whom the violent action was targeted. I don't find anything inconsistent about that at all. The guy with the armband was, as much as I disagree with it, still merely exercising his free speech rights. I didn't see anything in the linked article to suggest that he took a single violent action against anyone. He wore an armband and was alleged to have harassed a black man (again though, unless he threatened the person, that's also still free speech).

The guy who walked up to him and punched him committed assault. Period.

Let me be absolutely clear. I'm not defending the neo-**** guy. I'm not defending his opinions. My concern here is the growing perception by some in our society that the correct response to speech that is not liked is violence (it's what antifa is all about). And also a growing acceptance among others of the same. "he had it coming" is a terrible excuse IMO. Why is this a concern? After all, this just happened to a neo-****, right? We don't like them, right? You're not one of them, right? The problem is that once this become acceptable behavior, it creeps out of the obvious "bad people" and into "people we don't like for other/any reasons".

We already see rhetoric on the internet essentially claiming that anyone who is conservative or votes GOP is a neo-****, bigot, racist, hater, etc. See this constantly. How much of a step to say "well, that guy who just got punched had it coming, because he voted GOP, so he's a terrible person anyway"? Not much. Heck, we've already seen cases of this happen (assaults on folks for voting GOP, at least). If the guy had been wearing a Trump MAGA hat, how much different would the comments have been? I'm quite certain we'd have seen similar "he had it coming" comments, laughter about it, etc.

And yeah. That's troubling.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4330 Oct 24 2017 at 9:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,405 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ironically, I'm in agreement with your response, despite it being a misunderstanding of the original intent. Those on "the left" do kinda set this thing up. Every time you fight to defend someone's right to burn a flag, or depict Jesus guzzing someone else's man juice in an art show, or any other form of offensive speech (often intentionally offensive so as to get a reaction), you're also, for good or bad, defending someone else's right to wear a swastika armband, or wear a "god hates ****" t-shirt, or any other form of equally offensive speech (also, often designed to get a reaction).


False Equivalency. Burning a flag, or depicting a mythological religious figure blowing another guy don't promote violence, while ****'s and homophobes have a history of violence against other people.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4331 Oct 25 2017 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,826 posts
gbaji wrote:
The problem with the Left, is that they tend to want speech they like and which doesn't offend them to be free, while speech they don't like to not be free.
From the guy that spends weeks ranting about soda commercials, Super Bowl Half Time shows, and protests he was told not to agree with.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4332 Oct 25 2017 at 10:41 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,342 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the guy had been wearing a Trump MAGA hat, how much different would the comments have been?
The fact you're equating a MAGA hat with a swastika is pretty funny...and telling.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#4333 Oct 25 2017 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,342 posts
gbaji wrote:
We already see rhetoric on the internet essentially claiming that anyone who is conservative or votes GOP is a neo-****, bigot, racist, hater, etc.
No, dip. What you are seeing is people claiming that anyone who is supporting Trump is "a neo-Nazi, bigot, racist, hater, etc." ...because he is.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#4334 Oct 26 2017 at 7:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,826 posts
Once someone wins an election and they're not a Democrat then you're supposed to just ignore anything and everything they've ever said and done or will ever say and do or you're just not a patriotic Murkin.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4335 Oct 26 2017 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,405 posts
Smiley: lol.

Screenshot
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4336 Oct 26 2017 at 11:41 AM Rating: Good
******
49,826 posts
There's a whole comic book based on his tweets called, unsurprisingly, "Sh*t My President Says." It's exactly as entertaining as the title suggests.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4337 Oct 26 2017 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We already see rhetoric on the internet essentially claiming that anyone who is conservative or votes GOP is a neo-****, bigot, racist, hater, etc.
No, dip. What you are seeing is people claiming that anyone who is supporting Trump is "a neo-Nazi, bigot, racist, hater, etc." ...because he is.
Uh, what I see is pretty much exactly as gbaji wrote in this quote. Come across as Conservative and you're a racist, bigot, etc. Come across as Liberal and you're a special snowflake, Libtard, etc...

The name calling is there, in spades, by both sides. Why? Because imbeciles are on both sides.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#4338 Oct 26 2017 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,569 posts
Quote:
The name calling is there, in spades, by both sides. Why? Because imbeciles are on both sides.

No, YOU'RE a hooker!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#4339 Oct 26 2017 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,569 posts
+1

I guess.

Edited, Oct 27th 2017 8:43am by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#4340 Oct 27 2017 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
******
49,826 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Why? Because imbeciles are on both sides.
Well, mostly because it's the internet. You can find anything on the internet, so saying "This is true because I saw the opinion on the internet" makes it a pretty empty counterpoint.

You stupid hooker.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4341 Oct 27 2017 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,405 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Well, mostly because it's the internet. You can find anything on the internet

Rule 34
lolgaxe wrote:
You stupid hooker.

POIDH
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4342 Oct 27 2017 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,826 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
You stupid hooker.
POIDH
I read it on the internet.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4343 Oct 27 2017 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,405 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
You stupid hooker.
POIDH
I read it on the internet.


Having viewed the P with my own i's, I can attest that IDinfactH

ETA: ed. Because ed was missing.

Edited, Oct 27th 2017 7:55am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4344 Oct 27 2017 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,440 posts
So apparently a bunch of documents regarding the JFK assassination were released which revealed... absolutely nothing new.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#4345 Oct 30 2017 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
******
49,826 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
So apparently a bunch of documents regarding the JFK assassination were released which revealed... absolutely nothing new.


Edited, Oct 30th 2017 9:20am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4346 Oct 30 2017 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
You stupid hooker.
POIDH
I read it on the internet.


Does it mean you is famous now?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#4347 Oct 30 2017 at 10:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ironically, I'm in agreement with your response, despite it being a misunderstanding of the original intent. Those on "the left" do kinda set this thing up. Every time you fight to defend someone's right to burn a flag, or depict Jesus guzzing someone else's man juice in an art show, or any other form of offensive speech (often intentionally offensive so as to get a reaction), you're also, for good or bad, defending someone else's right to wear a swastika armband, or wear a "god hates ****" t-shirt, or any other form of equally offensive speech (also, often designed to get a reaction).


False Equivalency. Burning a flag, or depicting a mythological religious figure blowing another guy don't promote violence, while ****'s and homophobes have a history of violence against other people.


It is late. I can no longer tell ironing from non-ironing.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#4348 Oct 31 2017 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,405 posts
Just ask yourself how many genocides were led by american people whose main form of protest was burning flags, and compare that to the number of genocides perpetrated by Nought-sies and Christians.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4349 Oct 31 2017 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
******
49,826 posts
Our flag, of course. They don't seem to have much issue with burning other peoples' flags and books.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4350 Oct 31 2017 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,909 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Our flag, of course. They don't seem to have much issue with burning other peoples' flags and books.


Does Slavery count? I mean, I've never heard or actively looked up how many slaves were murdered and/or died during the duration of the whole slavery ordeal, and I imagine that since they weren't exactly counted as people at the time the records that would be used for such information just don't exist. Or does it not count because it was spread out over such a long time period?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4351 Oct 31 2017 at 8:47 AM Rating: Good
******
49,826 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Does Slavery count?
3/5ths of the time.

I've seen estimates between 6,000,000 to 150,000,000 depending on whether you're talking just the transatlantic trade or the entirity of the 15th to 19th centuries. I think the conservative estimates (marked by moderation or caution, not political party) puts our involvement between 12,000,000 and 15,000,000, but even then I kind of doubt they're counting anyone that died while being hunted or being tossed overboard for dying on the way.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 4 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (4)