WHAT THE **** DID YOU SAY ABOUT OUR LORD PRESIDENT TRUMP!?!?! SEND HIM TO THE BAY!!!!

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

TakeyB0y2:

Zontar:

Don't say that name in my presence. Those people are screwing up /pol/ worst then the shilldogs.

Meh, y'all pretty much just one and the same anyways. *shrug*

Nope, not at all. There's a reason we consider them cancer and how despite complete anonymity they stick out like a sore thumb.

Zontar:

TakeyB0y2:

Zontar:

Don't say that name in my presence. Those people are screwing up /pol/ worst then the shilldogs.

Meh, y'all pretty much just one and the same anyways. *shrug*

Nope, not at all. There's a reason we consider them cancer and how despite complete anonymity they stick out like a sore thumb.

Hmm, nope, pretty much all blurred together. Y'all act the same, think the same, walk, talk and parade about the same. Yeeaaaah I'm just not seeing it.

TakeyB0y2:

Zontar:

TakeyB0y2:

Meh, y'all pretty much just one and the same anyways. *shrug*

Nope, not at all. There's a reason we consider them cancer and how despite complete anonymity they stick out like a sore thumb.

Hmm, nope, pretty much all blurred together. Y'all act the same, think the same, walk, talk and parade about the same. Yeeaaaah I'm just not seeing it.

You obviously aren't a regular user then.

There's a reason why you'll see multiple posters single out a single one on the regular as an outsider: whether your a libertarian, conservative, commie or natsac we can all spot outsiders and /leftypol/ raiders because we actually know how to see through the multilevel irony.

It's why stormfronters don't last long and get chased off the board.

Zontar:

TakeyB0y2:

Zontar:

Nope, not at all. There's a reason we consider them cancer and how despite complete anonymity they stick out like a sore thumb.

Hmm, nope, pretty much all blurred together. Y'all act the same, think the same, walk, talk and parade about the same. Yeeaaaah I'm just not seeing it.

You obviously aren't a regular user then.

There's a reason why you'll see multiple posters single out a single one on the regular as an outsider: whether your a libertarian, conservative, commie or natsac we can all spot outsiders and /leftypol/ raiders because we actually know how to see through the multilevel irony.

It's why stormfronters don't last long and get chased off the board.

Yes, I would fall into the category of "not a user" because good lord, there's a reason most people give up on that stuff once they get a decent foothold into adulthood. The ones that don't, I weep for.

But from the outsider perspective, it truly is nothing more than a toe-may-toe/toe-mah-toe thing. You got /pol/ and you got r/The_Donald. Two boards filled with people who openly and happily celebrate their own destruction as long they bring those liberal snowflake cucks down with them. I look at you and I see no difference in attitude or behaviour than from what I see going on at r/The_Donald. You mesh together with that giant, amorphous blob. Perhaps you may claim your differences, but to the rest of the world you are but one and the same.

TakeyB0y2:
Perhaps you may claim your differences, but to the rest of the world you are but one and the same.

And that's because the rest of the world is wrong. Even r/The_Donald thinks we;re the same. Only /pol/aks truly understand.

openly and happily celebrate their own destruction as long they bring those liberal snowflake cucks down with them

Well if you're going down anyway may as well bring those responsible for it down with you.

Zontar:

And that's because the rest of the world is wrong. Even r/The_Donald thinks we;re the same. Only /pol/aks truly understand.

Oooo careful, that's daaaangerously close to some snowflake/extra-speshul speak there.

Well if you're going down anyway may as well bring those responsible for it down with you.

Hmm, yes, quite, but through my interactions with the average 4chan crowd, I do implore a deep, thoughtful look inside oneself before deciding on who truly is the one responsible for the destruction. While external forces certainly played a role of any manner of size, to wallow in one's misery is a temptation that must be fought against if anyone is to rise. Sadly, the wallowing is 4chan's true essence. It can be a struggle, but it is something one must break free from if they are to truly find happiness.

Zontar:

bastardofmelbourne:

After eight years of Obama being all boring and scandal-free

You're joking right? Just because the left wing media refused to acknowledge anything doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Well, sure. If we're reading Breitbart.

I don't read Breitbart. I read those pesky left-wing media outlets. Y'know, the ones who point out that Obama's intervention in Libya was illegal under the War Powers Act, or that he had ordered the assassination of a US citizen for working with al-Qaeda, or that he'd massively expanded the Bush surveillance state. Sensible, rational, non-partisan criticisms that are grounded largely in established facts.

Unlike Breitbart, which lists "Obamacare" as a scandal.

Zontar:

Adam Jensen:
They are. Everyone can read r/The_Donald and see for themselves. And no, they're not fooling anybody.

Don't say that name in my presence. Those people are screwing up /pol/ worst then the shilldogs.

Ahah! Yes! At last! We can agree on who we hate!

Unity through hatred, Zontar! Say it with me: fuck those guys! Fuck! Those! Guys!

TakeyB0y2:

inu-kun:

I get what some people don't like, it's the old "anti gay people are actually secretly gay" which... carries some bad implications to be honest. And "Trummp being a weak bitch" seems like a pretty weird statement, it seems he is pretty open to attack countries like the Syria airbase, not much of a russian puppet.

You know, except for the part where he called Russia beforehand so that they could warn Assad and minimise damage.

Considering killing Russian soldiers could kickstart a war it's the better option. It's more important reputation wise, since I doubt Russia will sabotage their own side.

Zontar:

Given how I've seen a lot of places and people blame this on Trump supporters despite the fact there's no way to argue that, it's something that ticks me off.

Edit: if you don't want to talk about this, that's fine.

There's an incredibly easy way to argue it, because it's something I've seen time and time again from the right: attempting to repaint themselves as the true champions of equality. Don't know what I mean? Go to any news story about Milo Y. where he's being criticized and check out the comments. I guarantee you'll find at least ten comments about how "The left is so homophobic because they disagree with a gay man!" Same goes for Christine Sommers or Ben Carson or NotYourShield.

To them, they believe disagreement is what spurs accusations of racism and sexism from the left, rather than the content of a message. "I'm not racist, I just think Obama will destroy us all with his Nazi communist Muslim ways meant to kill white Christians." So when someone disagrees with a minority, it's "Oh, so the left is the REAL racists/sexists/whatever."

How does that apply here? Colbert uses a joke about Trumps sexuality as a metaphor for his submissive relationship with another world power, which he has shown to be extremely sensitive about (this is a man who described his penis in a presidential debate after someone implied it was small after all). Therefore: Colbert is a homophobe and the left hates gay people.

To put it simply: Trump and his supporters are the biggest snowflakes of all. Of course they'd be offended by this

irishda:
To put it simply: Trump and his supporters are the biggest snowflakes of all. Of course they'd be offended by this

Pretty much. I withdrew my earlier comment because I didn't feel like throwing away a few hours with Zontar insisting that he and by extension anyone who agrees with him are persecuted saints and everyone else can fuck off and die.

irishda:

Zontar:

Given how I've seen a lot of places and people blame this on Trump supporters despite the fact there's no way to argue that, it's something that ticks me off.

Edit: if you don't want to talk about this, that's fine.

There's an incredibly easy way to argue it, because it's something I've seen time and time again from the right: attempting to repaint themselves as the true champions of equality. Don't know what I mean? Go to any news story about Milo Y. where he's being criticized and check out the comments. I guarantee you'll find at least ten comments about how "The left is so homophobic because they disagree with a gay man!" Same goes for Christine Sommers or Ben Carson or NotYourShield.

To them, they believe disagreement is what spurs accusations of racism and sexism from the left, rather than the content of a message. "I'm not racist, I just think Obama will destroy us all with his Nazi communist Muslim ways meant to kill white Christians." So when someone disagrees with a minority, it's "Oh, so the left is the REAL racists/sexists/whatever."

How does that apply here? Colbert uses a joke about Trumps sexuality as a metaphor for his submissive relationship with another world power, which he has shown to be extremely sensitive about (this is a man who described his penis in a presidential debate after someone implied it was small after all). Therefore: Colbert is a homophobe and the left hates gay people.

To put it simply: Trump and his supporters are the biggest snowflakes of all. Of course they'd be offended by this

Got to love Right-Wing tokenism.

irishda:

There's an incredibly easy way to argue it, because it's something I've seen time and time again from the right: attempting to repaint themselves as the true champions of equality. Don't know what I mean? Go to any news story about Milo Y. where he's being criticized and check out the comments. I guarantee you'll find at least ten comments about how "The left is so homophobic because they disagree with a gay man!" Same goes for Christine Sommers or Ben Carson or NotYourShield.

Yeah, and you'll also notice that most of the comments point out the fact that these people get hatred due to being perceived as race/sex/sexuality traitors by morons who think that those things inherently make you far-left and that anyone who is one and isn't one of them is either defective or actively betraying their group.

To them, they believe disagreement is what spurs accusations of racism and sexism from the left, rather than the content of a message.

Probably because in a good 99% of cases it's true. As in, I would be genuinly amazed if more then 1% of the time the accusation comes up it actually holds any water, I mean for god sake you see it thrown around on campasus at people who literally are only asking for the 1st amendment to be respected. That's a fucking radical stance these days. Which is probably why liberals (actual liberals, the type that follow liberalism in deed instead of just name) are in growing numbers siding with libertarians and conservatives in debate instead of progressives.

"I'm not racist, I just think Obama will destroy us all with his Nazi communist Muslim ways meant to kill white Christians." So when someone disagrees with a minority, it's "Oh, so the left is the REAL racists/sexists/whatever."

That's a nice strawman.

How does that apply here? Colbert uses a joke about Trumps sexuality as a metaphor for his submissive relationship with another world power, which he has shown to be extremely sensitive about (this is a man who described his penis in a presidential debate after someone implied it was small after all). Therefore: Colbert is a homophobe and the left hates gay people.

I'm not sure what the point of this is trying to prove, since outside of a few at r/The_Donald (who are the butt of jokes at this point even for us) pretty much all of the backlash against this has come from the left because it's perceived as homophobic because... well everything is these days and people are just looking for an excuse at this point.

To put it simply: Trump and his supporters are the biggest snowflakes of all. Of course they'd be offended by this

Probably because we weren't so emotionally immature that we broke down in tears when our candidate lost the election and then went on to riot in our own towns to protest that fact. We didn't spurge out and literally act like crybabies because we didn't get our way. There was nothing in 2008 or 2012 that paralleled the way Democrats acted in 2016.

It's actually funny since it reminded me of a good old truth: when Republicans riot, they do it in Democratic cities. When Democrats riot, they do it in Democratic cities.

Zontar:

irishda:

There's an incredibly easy way to argue it, because it's something I've seen time and time again from the right: attempting to repaint themselves as the true champions of equality. Don't know what I mean? Go to any news story about Milo Y. where he's being criticized and check out the comments. I guarantee you'll find at least ten comments about how "The left is so homophobic because they disagree with a gay man!" Same goes for Christine Sommers or Ben Carson or NotYourShield.

Yeah, and you'll also notice that most of the comments point out the fact that these people get hatred due to being perceived as race/sex/sexuality traitors by morons who think that those things inherently make you far-left and that anyone who is one and isn't one of them is either defective or actively betraying their group.

You... you literally just did what he described in the post. You refuse to admit that it's the homophobic/racist/etc talking points/statements they make that cause people to call them homophobic/racist/etc. Instead, you're claiming it's simply because "the left" disagrees with them. Literally what @irishda said right-wing commenters do.

Zontar:

To them, they believe disagreement is what spurs accusations of racism and sexism from the left, rather than the content of a message.

Probably because in a good 99% of cases it's true. As in, I would be genuinly amazed if more then 1% of the time the accusation comes up it actually holds any water, I mean for god sake you see it thrown around on campasus at people who literally are only asking for the 1st amendment to be respected. That's a fucking radical stance these days. Which is probably why liberals (actual liberals, the type that follow liberalism in deed instead of just name) are in growing numbers siding with libertarians and conservatives in debate instead of progressives.

conservative red-meat talking points not backed up by any sources. That also doesn't refute his point in the slightest. You're essentially saying "nu-uh!"

Zontar:

"I'm not racist, I just think Obama will destroy us all with his Nazi communist Muslim ways meant to kill white Christians." So when someone disagrees with a minority, it's "Oh, so the left is the REAL racists/sexists/whatever."

That's a nice strawman.

Minus the fact that such statements were repeatedly thrown around throughout both of Obama's terms and elections. Off the top of my head, see the tape from a John McCain rally with the woman claiming he's an evil Muslim.[1]

Zontar:

How does that apply here? Colbert uses a joke about Trumps sexuality as a metaphor for his submissive relationship with another world power, which he has shown to be extremely sensitive about (this is a man who described his penis in a presidential debate after someone implied it was small after all). Therefore: Colbert is a homophobe and the left hates gay people.

I'm not sure what the point of this is trying to prove, since outside of a few at r/The_Donald (who are the butt of jokes at this point even for us) pretty much all of the backlash against this has come from the left because it's perceived as homophobic because... well everything is these days and people are just looking for an excuse at this point.

Proof other than feelz before reelz?

Zontar:

To put it simply: Trump and his supporters are the biggest snowflakes of all. Of course they'd be offended by this

Probably because we weren't so emotionally immature that we broke down in tears when our candidate lost the election and then went on to riot in our own towns to protest that fact. We didn't spurge out and literally act like crybabies because we didn't get our way. There was nothing in 2008 or 2012 that paralleled the way Democrats acted in 2016.

It's actually funny since it reminded me of a good old truth: when Republicans riot, they do it in Democratic cities. When Democrats riot, they do it in Democratic cities.

Correct. The Right simply threatens civil insurrection, forms armed militias to "take back our fredums," and declares their entire agenda to be stopping the new president from being elected again regardless of how that affects the running of the country. Crying doesn't seem so bad in comparison. As for your truism, perhaps that's because there are nearly no Republican cities? Cities do mean one doesn't have the ability to run out of town anyone who isn't a WASP. Or maybe it's simply because Republicans like to destroy the property of others; why else would they riot in cities they're not from?

[1] McCain actually did take the high road in correcting her. I've always given him props for that.

Zontar:
It's actually funny since it reminded me of a good old truth: when Republicans riot, they do it in Democratic cities. When Democrats riot, they do it in Democratic cities.

Are there any Republican cities?

Avnger:
You... you literally just did what he described in the post. You refuse to admit that it's the homophobic/racist/etc talking points/statements they make that cause people to call them homophobic/racist/etc. Instead, you're claiming it's simply because "the left" disagrees with them. Literally what @irishda said right-wing commenters do.

Yes, I did state the truth of the matter, what's your fucking point?

Tell me, what is it about the statement "I think people who are invited to universities should have a right to speak to the people who invited them" that is racist, sexist and homophobic. Because that is the stance you've just taken, that is the stance irishad has taken, like it or not.

Now defend it.

conservative red-meat talking points not backed up by any sources. That also doesn't refute his point in the slightest. You're essentially saying "nu-uh!"

"Unsubstantiated claim without evidence is dismissed, I shall not complain about the fact that it is being dismissed".

Minus the fact that such statements were repeatedly thrown around throughout both of Obama's terms and elections. Off the top of my head, see the tape from a John McCain rally with the woman claiming he's an evil Muslim.

Yes, there is a fringe that acts like that. I don't see how that detracts form the fact he made a strawman and tried to make a point that doesn't hold up to scrutiny with it. It's like my saying all Democrats are below average IQ unemployable perpetually offended violent antifascists (who are anti in name only) due to the fact some people actually, genuinely believe Trump is a Nazi and that justifies violence against political moderates they disagree with.

Proof other than feelz before reelz?

To be blunt I've yet to see any social media complains about the comment coming from anyone but the left, so I'm the one taking the notion that there is anyone on the right (even if it is just r/The_Donald) who's offended at your word.

Correct. The Right simply threatens civil insurrection, forms armed militias to "take back our fredums," and declares their entire agenda to be stopping the new president from being elected again regardless of how that affects the running of the country.

And yet those words ended up being just that: words. In 8 years under the Democrats the GOP did less then what the Democrats did in a single night. A night which was not an isolated incident.

Actions speak louder then words.

Crying doesn't seem so bad in comparison.

Crying was the least of it, it just made them literal crybabies. What's the real issue was the rioting in the streets.

Cities do mean one doesn't have the ability to run out of town anyone who isn't a WASP. Or maybe it's simply because Republicans like to destroy the property of others; why else would they riot in cities they're not from?

You do realise the reason why the Burbs are GOP leaning isn't because they kicked out the Democrats, but because the Democrats never moved to them, right? It has nothing to do with this far-left delusion of mainstream bigotry that only in reality exists on the fringes and in your own mind.

And given how rioting goes down, how often does anyone destroy their own property? Their own community, that's one thing (the left seems to love destroying that for some reason. You'll have to explain that one to me because it's a foreign concept), but their own property? I can't remember a riot where that happened at a level worth noting.

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
It's actually funny since it reminded me of a good old truth: when Republicans riot, they do it in Democratic cities. When Democrats riot, they do it in Democratic cities.

Are there any Republican cities?

If Forbes is to be believed, Oklahoma City, Mesa, Colorado Springs, Jacksonville, Arlington, Anaheim, Omaha and Aurora are examples. Not sure how they stack up by Us standards, but up here they'd be some of our largest cities if they where moved to here.

I doubt Trump supporters were that upset about this, it's just yet another jab at the president, like the dozens everyone who has a show makes because it's low hanging fruit. They may not like it but it's so routine now it's hard to be surprised anymore.

As for the homophobic thing, Colbert made fun of Trump by insinuating e gave Putin blowjobs, which is a gay act. I don't mind jokes like that because I'm not a humourless snowflake (how would I like Yahtzee for instance?), but obviously someone got upset, because of course they will.

Zontar:

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
It's actually funny since it reminded me of a good old truth: when Republicans riot, they do it in Democratic cities. When Democrats riot, they do it in Democratic cities.

Are there any Republican cities?

If Forbes is to be believed, Oklahoma City, Mesa, Colorado Springs, Jacksonville, Arlington, Anaheim, Omaha and Aurora are examples. Not sure how they stack up by Us standards, but up here they'd be some of our largest cities if they where moved to here.

Mmm...well...Google says Canada has a population of 35 million, which is lower than I thought. The US has a population of ~300 million IIRC. Oh, 321 million. Thanks, Google.

So yeah, I guess those cities would be a big chunk of the population...if they moved to Canada. They'd be an even bigger part of the population if they moved to Australia, which has only 23 million people. Or even New Zealand, which has 4.5 million people.

Actually, let's do some math.

Oklahoma City - 631,000, Mesa City - 471,000, Colorado Springs - 456,000, Jacksonville - 913,000, good show Jacksonville, Arlington (which is not where the Arlington National Cemetary is, apparently) - 388,000, Anaheim (oh hey, that's where Disneyland is!) 350,000, Omaha - 443,000, Aurora - 200,000.

So, by my bad math, that's like...four million, maybe? Let's say four. A little over a tenth of Canada's population. Wow, hey; that's six hundred thousand people less than my home town of Melbourne, which Google informs me (thanks, Google!) has 4.6 million people in it. So apparently, all the Republican-voting cities in America add up to to 0.86 Melbournes.

I'm sure there's more cities that vote Republican. I mean, there pretty much has to be. How else would they win elections...?

Zontar:

Yes, I did state the truth of the matter, what's your fucking point?

Tell me, what is it about the statement "I think people who are invited to universities should have a right to speak to the people who invited them" that is racist, sexist and homophobic. Because that is the stance you've just taken, that is the stance irishad has taken, like it or not.

Now defend it.

You did prove my point because you're not examining what those people were saying. A person speaking at a university is not racist, sexist, homophobic in itself. A racist, sexist, or homophobic person speaking is. You believed it was the act of people disagreeing with that person speaking that spurred those accusations, not the content of their message.

Betsy DeVoss was soundly booed and jeered at a commencement speech at a Florida University this week. Yet there is no public outcry of sexism, racism, etc against the university for inviting her or people defending her. Plenty of people disagree with her, yet there is no -ism condemnation to go with that disagreement because they protest the content of her message.

irishda:
A person speaking at a university is not racist, sexist, homophobic in itself.

That's just it, in the eyes of the modern progressive that is the case.

Zontar:

irishda:
A person speaking at a university is not racist, sexist, homophobic in itself.

That's just it, in the eyes of the modern progressive that is the case.

In your head it's in the eyes of the modern progressive. I literally just gave you an example of why it's not the case and you can't even see it.

irishda:

Zontar:

irishda:
A person speaking at a university is not racist, sexist, homophobic in itself.

That's just it, in the eyes of the modern progressive that is the case.

In your head it's in the eyes of the modern progressive. I literally just gave you an example of why it's not the case and you can't even see it.

So you're basically saying all those university protesters calling people who want speakers to have the right to *gasp* speak and being called racist/sexist/homophobic for it are all, every single one of them, down to the last, fake?

I'm sorry, but the claims are dismissed without evidence a good 99% of the time because they don't hold up to the lowest level of scrutiny. The far left has overused their insults so much no rational person gives a flying shit when they use it anymore because everyone, left, right and centre, is aware of the fact that the odds of them being right is statistically so small they'd be more likely to be on the right side if they opposed them.

Just because the far left thinks something like the 1st Amendment is inherently racist, sexist and homophobic (something that despite what you claim university protests and riots have shown beyond a reasonable doubt) does not make it so, and moderates treat it as such.

Zontar:

So you're basically saying all those university protesters calling people who want speakers to have the right to *gasp* speak and being called racist/sexist/homophobic for it are all, every single one of them, down to the last, fake?

I'm sorry, but the claims are dismissed without evidence a good 99% of the time because they don't hold up to the lowest level of scrutiny. The far left has overused their insults so much no rational person gives a flying shit when they use it anymore because everyone, left, right and centre, is aware of the fact that the odds of them being right is statistically so small they'd be more likely to be on the right side if they opposed them.

Just because the far left thinks something like the 1st Amendment is inherently racist, sexist and homophobic (something that despite what you claim university protests and riots have shown beyond a reasonable doubt) does not make it so, and moderates treat it as such.

I'm calling your characterization fake because 99% of your posts don't have evidence. Once again, you continue to believe people who find those to be homophobic/racist/sexist are only mad because people are disagreeing with them. And even worse, you believe that people who find the things that people like Milo say to be homophobic or racist or sexist is in the minority. I gotta say, I'd seriously consider sticking your head outside every once and awhile man.

You know what? I laughed. I laughed and it's true. Double points for Stephen Colbert.

irishda:

Zontar:

So you're basically saying all those university protesters calling people who want speakers to have the right to *gasp* speak and being called racist/sexist/homophobic for it are all, every single one of them, down to the last, fake?

I'm sorry, but the claims are dismissed without evidence a good 99% of the time because they don't hold up to the lowest level of scrutiny. The far left has overused their insults so much no rational person gives a flying shit when they use it anymore because everyone, left, right and centre, is aware of the fact that the odds of them being right is statistically so small they'd be more likely to be on the right side if they opposed them.

Just because the far left thinks something like the 1st Amendment is inherently racist, sexist and homophobic (something that despite what you claim university protests and riots have shown beyond a reasonable doubt) does not make it so, and moderates treat it as such.

I'm calling your characterization fake because 99% of your posts don't have evidence. Once again, you continue to believe people who find those to be homophobic/racist/sexist are only mad because people are disagreeing with them. And even worse, you believe that people who find the things that people like Milo say to be homophobic or racist or sexist is in the minority. I gotta say, I'd seriously consider sticking your head outside every once and awhile man.

I do actually stick my head out there once in a while, it's why I know you're wrong because between my eyes and an anonymous guy on the internet telling me to take his word that what my eyes are seeing isn't happening, well 0 points for guessing which is the one I'm likely to believe. For god sake at this point I couldn't even just namedrop Toronto University or Berkeley as examples because that would only beg the question of which incident to use.

Zontar:

I do actually stick my head out there once in a while, it's why I know you're wrong because between my eyes and an anonymous guy on the internet telling me to take his word that what my eyes are seeing isn't happening, well 0 points for guessing which is the one I'm likely to believe. For god sake at this point I couldn't even just namedrop Toronto University or Berkeley as examples because that would only beg the question of which incident to use.

That's ironic saying you don't believe the majority of people find Milo racist or homophobic and then bringing up an incident wherein a large group of people protested him speaking at the university.

irishda:

Zontar:

I do actually stick my head out there once in a while, it's why I know you're wrong because between my eyes and an anonymous guy on the internet telling me to take his word that what my eyes are seeing isn't happening, well 0 points for guessing which is the one I'm likely to believe. For god sake at this point I couldn't even just namedrop Toronto University or Berkeley as examples because that would only beg the question of which incident to use.

That's ironic saying you don't believe the majority of people find Milo racist or homophobic and then bringing up an incident wherein a large group of people protested him speaking at the university.

So you're saying that far left authoritarian rioters who both advocate and perpetuate violence against those who disagree with them are not a fringe minority?

Zontar:

irishda:

Zontar:

I do actually stick my head out there once in a while, it's why I know you're wrong because between my eyes and an anonymous guy on the internet telling me to take his word that what my eyes are seeing isn't happening, well 0 points for guessing which is the one I'm likely to believe. For god sake at this point I couldn't even just namedrop Toronto University or Berkeley as examples because that would only beg the question of which incident to use.

That's ironic saying you don't believe the majority of people find Milo racist or homophobic and then bringing up an incident wherein a large group of people protested him speaking at the university.

So you're saying that far left authoritarian rioters who both advocate and perpetuate violence against those who disagree with them are not a fringe minority?

you should take that trump cap of your head it's clearly constricting blood flow to your brain. since that is in no way shape or form what he said. it's so far fetched you could give it a leek and call it a pokemon. or do you honestly belive everyone that disagrees with somone has to go out and riot? if you argue with a friend do you feel the compulsion to smash a few car windows?

Zontar:
So you're saying that far left authoritarian rioters who both advocate and perpetuate violence against those who disagree with them are not a fringe minority?

Yeah! Like that guy who shot a guy outside a Yiannopoulos protest!

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
So you're saying that far left authoritarian rioters who both advocate and perpetuate violence against those who disagree with them are not a fringe minority?

Yeah! Like that guy who shot a guy outside a Yiannopoulos protest!

Which was deemed a justified act of self defence by the police (which is probably why the guy who got shot isn't pressing charges). Given the barbaric violence we saw at Berkeley's riot, where a man was chased down and beaten by rioters amongst other things, is it really that shocking? The answer is no.

Zontar:

That's just it, in the eyes of the modern progressive that is the case.

Therefore, in the eyes of the modern progressive, Dave Arnold speaking at a seminar on 'Science and Cooking: New Understanding, New Tools, New Foods' is racist, sexist, or homophobic? I mean, it's someone speaking at a university, and apparently modern progressives feel that just speaking at a university is at least one of those things, so...

Now, your bizarre over-generalization aside, I do half-agree with you. Well, one third. In essence, I do feel that anyone should have the right to speak at a given function to their preferred audience, but that peaceful protestors also have the right to stand in, or outside the event. I do also think that there is ample wiggle room for raising issue with whatever establishment organized the talk if it happens to be something like 'The Final Solution Part Two: Why Nazism Is Still Totally Viable In The Twenty-First Century.' In other words, trying to determine whether the guest is invited just to introduce an, er, uncommon viewpoint, or if the university's own establishment endorses the underpinning message to some extent.

That being said, shit like Berkeley, of course, was decidedly not peaceful, and for that matter proved counterproductive to even its supposed aim, while similarly serving to delegitimize an entire viewpoint by creating an unavoidable association between those who resort to violence and aggression, and those who oppose the ideas directly. =P Unfortunately I think that largely stems from a very immature belief that 'doing' something is automatically more productive, and more effective, than sissy talking, leading to folks doing some very stupid, self-destructive shit cause YEAH, WE'RE GONNA GET STUFF DONE!

In Milo's case, protestor baggage of some kind (at the very least peaceful,) was kind of inevitable, though, the man thrived on antagonism, and I found a number of his views and attitudes pretty repugnant. =P I don't think he should have been prevented from speaking at a function, and certainly shouldn't have been physically assaulted or threatened; whatever noxious viewpoints he happened to bring in with him should have been exposed to people in an academic setting, if only so they could be ironed out and either expunged the right way, (dialogue and reasoning, though probably after Milo left since constructive dialogue doesn't seem to be his schtick either,) or wherever useful used as a new lens on existing issues.

Unfortunately, again, YEAH, WE'RE GONNA GET STUFF DONE, SET FIRES, WHOOO, WE'RE BEING POLITICAL MAN!

Zontar:
Which was deemed a justified act of self defence by the police (which is probably why the guy who got shot isn't pressing charges).

No, the police are indeed pressing charges. The victim doesn't want to press charges, because he also doesn't believe in prisons.

...hey, I'm not saying I agree with the guy. But I don't think he deserved to get his gall bladder and half his liver shot out of him by a pair of people who literally went there looking for a fight.

Edit: Also, cops don't determine whether or not a shooting was "a justified act of self defence." Courts do that.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here