Merriam-Webster Word of the Year 2017

[Kaight]

https://imgur.com/JTTNULb.jpg (https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/word-of-the-year-2017-feminism)

https://i.imgur.com/65VVXvR.gif

[hyejin]

reclines in a 8bedroom

[jdmchris]

Is it weird that I had to watch the gif like 5 times to see what she was doing because I was glued to her cleavage?

[Kaight]

Is it weird that I had to watch the gif like 5 times to see what she was doing because I was glued to her cleavage?

YOU ARE WHY WE DID FEMINISM, CUH

[jdmchris]

Don't hayyte the player hayyte the game

[skarlorn]

ok

[mickmoranis]

YOU ARE WHY WE DID FEMINISM, CUH

oh were you part of the womans rights movemnet in the 1960s?

or are you a just another chick on twitch fishing for likes in 2017?

:confused:

[Kaight]

oh were you part of the womans rights movemnet in the 1960s?

or are you a just another chick on twitch fishing for likes in 2017?

:confused:

No, I was the just another chick on twitch fishing for likes in 2016. I haven't streamed for like AT LEAST a year. Check out the link in my signature for my most recent video!

[Lulz~Sect]

https://i.imgur.com/kalHara.gif

[mickmoranis]

how to be a feminist in 2017: objectify women but then clap when you hear the word feminism.

[Cecily]

No, I was the just another chick on twitch fishing for likes in 2016. I haven't streamed for like AT LEAST a year. Check out the link in my signature for my most recent video!

Why did you stop?

[Lammy]

I had heard Venerate was coming back, I was hoping this one would stay on Phinny.

[jdmchris]

2 of those Vod's on yohr twitch made me wet

[Raavak]

https://i.imgur.com/RvxGv9B.jpg

[Kaight]

This one has never played on Phinny, Agnarr, etc.

I stopped because creeps be creepin. Might start again soon, every once in a while. But I've been saying that for about a year so don't trust a word I say (LIKE ALL WOMEN, AMIRITE?)

[Kaight]

2 of those Vod's on yohr twitch made me wet

This one (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/90723111)? Because me too
https://imgur.com/MIgKP4A.gif

[Lulz~Sect]

https://i.imgur.com/qOfPxfz.gif

[bluddyragz]

https://i.imgur.com/UQLIOe0.gif

[mickmoranis]

who is bluddyragz lol

FORUMS ARE LIT

[skarlorn]

I went to a pussy riot concert tonight.
The lesbians and empowered women of thr crowd did not dance.
Why did they stand so still and record the show with their phone devices instead of dancing
Bad crowd

[radda]

I went to a pussy riot concert tonight.
The lesbians and empowered women of thr crowd did not dance.
Why did they stand so still and record the show with their phone devices instead of dancing
Bad crowd

shit crowd indeed.

kayyte, i have the daria dvd box set.

[bilirubin]

I went to a pussy riot concert tonight.
The lesbians and empowered women of thr crowd did not dance.
Why did they stand so still and record the show with their phone devices instead of dancing
Bad crowd

music sucks though so...

[Mead]

thread going well

[maskedmelon]

all praise be unto those ideologies which disparage their charges :rolleyes:

the most offensive aspect of the contemporary practice of feminism is the implicit assertion that gender equality necessitates women be more like men. if ever there is to be equality we must first acknowledge disparity and only thereafter may we celebrate diversity.

[kb2005]

all praise be unto those ideologies which disparage their charges :rolleyes:

the most offensive aspect of the contemporary practice of feminism is the implicit assertion that gender equality necessitates women be more like men. if ever there is to be equality we must first acknowledge disparity and only thereafter may we celebrate diversity.

Well said. 100% agree. Not to say that there aren't inequalities that need to be solved, but taking into account whether or not there's an inherent difference between the sexes that contributes to an apparent inequality should be a factor in determining whether or not it's an actual one. You can't do that if you don't acknowledge that differences exist.

[Pokesan]

which school of feminism is it that says the sexes are identical?

i'd love to know

[mickmoranis]

which school of feminism is it that says the sexes are identical?

i'd love to know

could you explain to me how they are not identical please?

[Shrubwise]

I went to a pussy riot concert tonight.
The lesbians and empowered women of thr crowd did not dance.
Why did they stand so still and record the show with their phone devices instead of dancing
Bad crowd

They were all just paranoid, didn’t want to get kicked in the face by Josh Homme

[Pokesan]

could you explain to me how they are not identical please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans

[Kaight]

I went to a pussy riot concert tonight.
The lesbians and empowered women of thr crowd did not dance.
Why did they stand so still and record the show with their phone devices instead of dancing
Bad crowd

Ummm that's their choice and this is why we need feminism to empower women to make their choices and not assert your mal----

Naw I kid. That's lame as hell, they shoulda danced. I try to keep my phone away at shows, taking it out maybe once or twice for obligatory Instagram shot.

[loramin]

if ever there is to be equality we must first acknowledge disparity and only thereafter may we celebrate diversity.

You can't do that if you don't acknowledge that differences exist.


which school of feminism is it that says the sexes are identical?

i'd love to know

Exactly. Feminism means equal treatment, not "pretend both genders are identical". Now to be fair:

Feminism = equal treatment for all genders ... which does not mean pretending that the inherent biological differences between those genders do not exist

doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker or protest sign, so I can see how that might lead to confusion.

However, you will not find a sane feminist anywhere who says you should ignore biological differences. Just take the issue of public bathrooms: men move through them faster because of their biology and the magic technology of urinals. Feminists want more female public bathrooms to account for the biological differences. They don't want an equal number of bathrooms, with urinals in both.

Same thing with maternity leave/paternity leave. No feminist is saying "men have to push a baby out, they need time off". They're just saying "hey, there's a lot more to this whole baby-rearing thing than just the 'pushing out' part, and men should get the same opportunity for involvement in that as women".

[JurisDictum]

You guys realize that younger Millennials and Gen Z are all basically socially retarded, right? Socializing is scary stuff -- for an elite few these days. Most of it is phone text BS.

[Nexii]

all praise be unto those ideologies which disparage their charges :rolleyes:

the most offensive aspect of the contemporary practice of feminism is the implicit assertion that gender equality necessitates women be more like men. if ever there is to be equality we must first acknowledge disparity and only thereafter may we celebrate diversity.

And the corollary to that is that transgender shouldn't exist.

[JurisDictum]

Same thing with maternity leave/paternity leave. No feminist is saying "men have to push a baby out, they need time off". They're just saying "hey, there's a lot more to this whole baby-rearing thing than just the 'pushing out' part, and men should get the same opportunity for involvement in that as women".

What they do in Sweden is give father only-leave to encourage dads to spend time raising the kids (instead of the mother sometimes).

They understand if they want an equality-based society they need to subsidize that.

9189

In America, we talk equality...or we talk traditionally family values. But when push comes to shove -- the market takes precedence over either one. We don't use the government to support equality or the traditional family. We just let the market pay women less because they have to take time off to have/raise kids. We just let men pull ahead and don't encourage them to help with child rearing. We also don't give mothers checks for having children like in Germany. This encourages them to stay home and have kids instead of working for a more traditional society.

[Nexii]

This one has never played on Phinny, Agnarr, etc.

I stopped because creeps be creepin. Might start again soon, every once in a while. But I've been saying that for about a year so don't trust a word I say (LIKE ALL WOMEN, AMIRITE?)

Ironic isn't it given the original post

[Lhancelot]

This one has never played on Phinny, Agnarr, etc.

I stopped because creeps be creepin. Might start again soon, every once in a while.

What's this mean? ^

If I am right, does this mean dudes pestered you to the point you no longer wanted to log in? That kind of creepin?

If correct, maybe make a character and play it secretly never use voice on that toon and don't tell people who you are. Meet new people, establish new relationships and enjoy p99 whenever you feel like it without any weirdos bothering you.

When people ask "who are you?" Tell them, "I am no one."

[maskedmelon]

And the corollary to that is that transgender shouldn't exist.

no, that is not the case in the least ^^ it is no more reasonable to argue that differences in general propensity are absolute than it is to argue that deviations preclude the existence of a general propensity. The idea that "some women are more aggressive than average man" does nothing to refute the idea that "men are in generally more aggressive than women." Just the same the idea that "men are generally more agressive than women" does not neccisitate that "all men are more aggressive than all women."

the bell curves do not align, but they do overlap. what is offensive is suggesting that more women should force themselves into the area of overlap with the male spectrum. the focus should be on promoting the value of femininity rather than asserting that women are equally capable of expressing masculinity and thereby demanding it of them.

[mickmoranis]

What they do in Sweden is give father only-leave to encourage dads to spend time raising the kids (instead of the mother sometimes).

They understand if they want an equality-based society they need to subsidize that.

9189

In America, we talk equality...or we talk traditionally family values. But when push comes to shove -- the market takes precedence over either one. We don't use the government to support equality or the traditional family. We just let the market pay women less because they have to take time off to have/raise kids. We just let men pull ahead and don't encourage them to help with child rearing. We also don't give mothers checks for having children like in Germany. This encourages them to stay home and have kids instead of working for a more traditional society.

Take the WE out of your post and replace it with I.

None of what you say is relevant in my life at all.

[Mead]

I stopped because creeps be creepin.

This is what you need to start a thread about. Tis the season.

[Pokesan]

What they do in Sweden is give father only-leave to encourage dads to spend time raising the kids (instead of the mother sometimes).

They understand if they want an equality-based society they need to subsidize that.

9189

In America, we talk equality...or we talk traditionally family values. But when push comes to shove -- the market takes precedence over either one. We don't use the government to support equality or the traditional family. We just let the market pay women less because they have to take time off to have/raise kids. We just let men pull ahead and don't encourage them to help with child rearing. We also don't give mothers checks for having children like in Germany. This encourages them to stay home and have kids instead of working for a more traditional society.

this somewhat alludes to the gender wage gap, where there are two arguments talking past each other.

1. equal pay for the same work. i think this is law in most of the west.
2. an equal share of the wealth generation between the sexes, in a broad societal sense.

Most agree with the first, though there is an argument for the second in addressing declining birth rates among certain demographics.

[Raavak]

We just let men pull ahead and don't encourage them to help with child rearing.
This is slowly changing. I know several fathers who stayed home and their wife worked.

I don't see it ever getting to 50/50, and therefore, this will always be a sore spot with some women.

[Rader]

this somewhat alludes to the gender wage gap, where there are two arguments talking past each other.

1. equal pay for the same work. i think this is law in most of the west.
2. an equal share of the wealth generation between the sexes, in a broad societal sense.

Most agree with the first, though there is an argument for the second in addressing declining birth rates among certain demographics.

Your premise is false. The Left wants equal pay. Period. Work or no work. And even then, white straight males need to pay reparations to make up for historical systemic prejudice that will take centuries to purge.

[mickmoranis]

its funny how in libtarded states like california and NY the family unit is degrading and less people are having children. did you know in san francisco there are more dogs than there are children?

while in red states church/family are first and you go to bbq's with people of color.

Meanwhile in blue states, there is the mexican bar, for mexicans, the hipster bar for hipsters and the black bars for blacks.

hipsters may set foot into a black bar for either credit, or irony, but they will never set foot in a mexican bar.

And then you go and call every other state racist and bad parents.

Get overyourself.

[mickmoranis]

side note:

to bad the word of the year wasnt net nutrality instead eh?

lolz

you lose

[Pokesan]

Your premise is false. The Left wants equal pay. Period. Work or no work. And even then, white straight males need to pay reparations to make up for historical systemic prejudice that will take centuries to purge.

i think you misunderstand. im saying feminism can be used to increase revenue, by encouraging growth among positive-revenue generating population segments.

through the wage gap!

[JurisDictum]

WTF does that even mean "word of the year"? -- I just googled it (not before now) -- So it was searched for a lot. You can probably thank guys like mic for that more than anyone.

Maybe the reason its searched for so much -- is because no one sure wtf it is supposed to be anymore. MAYBE feminism is just that damn popular -- it still won't pay any of those womens' bills. Well except for the one selling article about getting spanked and the feminists in the media etc.

[mickmoranis]

no im sure its people googling "how do I not get fired because of feminism"

[Lammy]

What's this mean? ^

If I am right, does this mean dudes pestered you to the point you no longer wanted to log in? That kind of creepin?

If correct, maybe make a character and play it secretly never use voice on that toon and don't tell people who you are. Meet new people, establish new relationships and enjoy p99 whenever you feel like it without any weirdos bothering you.

When people ask "who are you?" Tell them, "I am no one."

I feel like you wouldn't be suggesting that if she were hot

[mickmoranis]

What they do in Sweden is give father only-leave to encourage dads to spend time raising the kids (instead of the mother sometimes).

They understand if they want an equality-based society they need to subsidize that.

9189

In America, we talk equality...or we talk traditionally family values. But when push comes to shove -- the market takes precedence over either one. We don't use the government to support equality or the traditional family. We just let the market pay women less because they have to take time off to have/raise kids. We just let men pull ahead and don't encourage them to help with child rearing. We also don't give mothers checks for having children like in Germany. This encourages them to stay home and have kids instead of working for a more traditional society.

You know what I think is funny about libtards? here you go in 10 ez steps:

1. you love socialist countries like denmark, germany etc... you love europe, you just love em!
2. you cant get enough of their economy, so strong!
3. you love the enviornment, so you shut down pipelines or fracking or any use of american oil you can!
4. you fail to realize that in europe those countries you love, do not shut down oil, in fact they double down on it and sell it to... CHINA! your least favorite poluter.
5. you dont notice that the goverment gives a large % of that money in those countries, to its citizens, in the form of socialism, to pay for all the things we cant in america, because we are not oil rich exploilters.
6. you hate libertarians! How can a country thrive if local municipalities are passing regional laws?!

7. back to europe... wait a minuet, whats the square milage?

8. holy shit its a bunch of countires with a united dollar, that have LOCAL municipalities rulling absolutly over each individual state in an area about the size of the USA!

9 omgosh maybe if we had libertariansim, youd HAVE europe in america?

10. oh but missisipi would struggle? OH WAIT WHAT ABOUT GREESE?

you see libtards.

what you WANT is libertariansim

What you are fooled into thinking is democratic socialism is actually GLOBALIST control of you and the worlds economy

you want socialism? vote libertarian.

a libertarian america = europe = you can have your cuck states that pay for your healthcare while you dont work and smoke legal weed in the name of utopia.

[bluddyragz]

you fail to realize that in europe those countries you love, do not shut down oil, in fact they double down on it and sell it to... CHINA!

LOL the only country in the EU that produces and exports enough oil to be worth mentioning is the UK and we voted to leave the United States of Europe. EU ain't socialist and they're far from libertarian. They're undemocratic federalist parasitic shylocks.

Still though, if you believe what you hear in the papers they're going to be making an example of us. Oh well, we've been through worse.

[Kaight]

Ironic isn't it given the original post

Uh, which part?

If correct, maybe make a character and play it secretly never use voice on that toon and don't tell people who you are. Meet new people, establish new relationships and enjoy p99 whenever you feel like it without any weirdos bothering you.

What a great nuanced idea... one I definitely couldn't have thought up myself and one that I am definitely not currently putting into practice.

Also, dunno what the hell Kerbey's damage is with me. I think we've communicated like once ever in game at a Venerate Rustle raid. I was not stepping on your mod rods, ok.

Anyway....

Exactly. Feminism means equal treatment, not "pretend both genders are identical". Now to be fair:
...
Same thing with maternity leave/paternity leave. No feminist is saying "men have to push a baby out, they need time off". They're just saying "hey, there's a lot more to this whole baby-rearing thing than just the 'pushing out' part, and men should get the same opportunity for involvement in that as women".

Right, yes. Not specifically related, but more as a broad statement to a lot of the comments in this thread: If I were to take the first stance mentioned above as a feminist, and aim my ire at say Men's Rights Activists, I'd label them as chauvinists, bigots, sexist, dramatic, etc. etc. But I, a self-identified proud feminist, understand there are extremes in all groups whether it's a political party, a religion, GAMERS, etc. I know MRA has some reasonable demands (paternity leave, fairer custody litigation that doesn't automatically favor the mother, having a choice over their bodies [circumcision].) Feminism is VERY reasonable. Equality is the foundation. I acknowledge extremists exist that quite frankly, annoy the shit out of me, too. They may be the loudest but they are not the majority.

[mickmoranis]

What a great nuanced idea... one I definitely couldn't have thought up myself and one that I am definitely not currently putting into practice.


lol lancelot mansplaining to the girl, busted.

[fash]

I love what feminist activists are doing nowadays. #metoo

https://i.imgur.com/aFO5bgN.jpg

Can anyone do the math to determine what the numbers are per capita?

[loramin]

Last I checked most Jews were white. But more importantly that is clearly a biased list, as I don't see lots of recent accusations. For instance:


Blake Farenthold (Texas Congressman, white)
Morgan Spurlock (Movie Director, white)
Tavis Smiley (Host on PBS, black)
NFL Network Analysts Marshall Faulk, Ike Taylor and Heath Evans (Black, Black, White)


Finding those took like 2 minutes of Googling. I'm sure I, or whoever compiled that list, could easily have found a ton more ... if they weren't specifically trying to compile a list that made Jews look bad that is.

[hyejin]

Last I checked most Jews were white.

woke

[mickmoranis]

Last I checked most Jews were white. But more importantly that is clearly a biased list, as I don't see lots of recent accusations. For instance:


LIST OF RICH PEOPLE


Finding those took like 2 minutes of Googling. I'm sure I, or whoever compiled that list, could easily have found a ton more ... if they weren't specifically trying to compile a list that made Jews look bad that is.

uh, ill pass on cancling LCK's new tv show in the name of protecting these people.

Also side note, 300 employees that were hired to work on that show lost their jobs.

The best part is, in 4 years, LCK will be back on the top, and those 300 employees will be where they were the day they lost their jobs, working hard for their living.

So all you did was make 300 employees lose their job with this *fox* outrage... you didnt harm LCK, you didnt change anything, all you did is harm innocent people, and then the person you think you harmed will be back on the entertainment map once its all blown over anyway.

If hally berry can hit and run murder people and still get movies, LCK and anyone else you think you dethroned will too.

[Cecily]

What a great nuanced idea... one I definitely couldn't have thought up myself and one that I am definitely not currently putting into practice.


Oh :(

Well... you should consider it!

[loramin]

uh, ill pass on cancling LCK's new tv show in the name of protecting these people.

Who said anything about LCK or rich people? Fash posted an anti-semitic list (also of rich people) and I posted some non-Jewish examples that weren't on the list.

Also side note, 300 employees that were hired to work on that show lost their jobs.
And whichever show the network decided to replace LCK's show with hired 300 employees who got jobs they otherwise wouldn't have. There might even be some overlap between the two groups. That's life in TV production, shows get cancelled.

So all you did was make 300 employees lose their job with this *fox* outrage...

I'm not usually one to pick on spelling, but the word is faux; fox outrage would be something entirely different ...

you didnt harm LCK

While I can't speak to his actual mental state (since I don't know the guy), I'm pretty sure LCK isn't exactly loving life right now.

Also, why are you arguing with Louis CK himself? Even he said he did it, and he said it was wrong:

These stories are true ... The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly. I have been remorseful of my actions ... I also took advantage of the fact that I was widely admired in my and their community, which disabled them from sharing their story and brought hardship to them when they tried because people who look up to me didn’t want to hear it ... There is nothing about this that I forgive myself for. And I have to reconcile it with who I am. ... The hardest regret to live with is what you’ve done to hurt someone else. And I can hardly wrap my head around the scope of hurt I brought on them.

[mickmoranis]

Who said anything about LCK or rich people? Fash posted an anti-semitic list (also of rich people) and I posted some non-Jewish examples that weren't on the list.

did I say that his list was of not rich people? all the people ALL the people your ilk talk about are rich people, im calling you out and saying I dont, nor does america, care about rich people. The same way you dont actually care about poor people. its obvious your feminism is coccodyle tears to help your own rich people get payed more and have more leave of absense when you have a kid, but you wont be helping a single mother fucker that works at waffle house. Youre greedy and corrupted.

And whichever show the network decided to replace LCK's show with hired 300 employees. That's life in TV production, shows get cancelled.

no man, the show was cancled cus your ilk made it seem like he was the devil, not cus "life in TV" the show wasnt being cancled until your ilk made a mountain out of fake news.

I'm not usually one to pick on spelling, but the word is faux; fox outrage would be something entirely different ...

no its FOX because fox news is all you talk about and its ironically all you listen to, only its got a differnet name VOX or CNN or MSNBC etc etc

I'm pretty sure LCK isn't exactly loving life right now ...

did I say he was? NOPE! did I say he would be in 4 years when hes back on top and you have all forgoten about your outrage? YEP!

l2r

[loramin]

you didnt harm LCK

While I can't speak to his actual mental state (since I don't know the guy), I'm pretty sure LCK isn't exactly loving life right now.

did I say he was? NOPE!

You said he wasn't harmed, I was replying that I do think he has been harmed (although not by me, despite your pronoun usage).

[mickmoranis]

You said he wasn't harmed, I was replying that I do think he has been harmed (although not by me, despite your pronoun usage).

youre missing the point of the words though sorry, cant keep this up! but you're still wrong! and actually greedy and evil for your belifes are grounded in good intentions, like those men that built the atom bomb... they just happened to extinguish the lives of millions of innocent people in the process.

oh yea and their invention has put us at great risk and damaged the world in irreparable ways forthwith.. so will modern western feminism.

[AzzarTheGod]

woke

threw up please excuse me

[Pokesan]

I'm pretty sure LCK isn't exactly loving life right now ...


the man has a humiliation fetish. he's said so himself, repeatedly. losing status and being told he's bad and wrong is prime jackoff material for LCK.

[mickmoranis]

the man has a humiliation fetish. he's said so himself, repeatedly. losing status and being told he's bad and wrong is prime jackoff material for LCK.

exactly why I agree he is loving life and he will be fine, and he will be back on top in 4 years, just watch.

meanwhile all the people that worked for him that lost their jobs, libtards are like "THOSE ARE ACCEPTABLE LOSSES FOR OUR PETTY NON PERMANENT OUTRAGE"

[loramin]

youre missing the point of the words though sorry, cant keep this up! but you're still wrong! and actually greedy and evil for your belifes are grounded in good intentions, like those men that built the atom bomb... they just happened to extinguish the lives of millions of innocent people in the process.

oh yea and their invention has put us at great risk and damaged the world in irreparable ways forthwith.. so will modern western feminism.

Wow, it's not often that I find myself arguing against a conservative on the side of causing military casualties! But you're taking a very narrow view if you think the atom bomb only cost the lives of the people of Hiroshima/Nagasaki with no benefit. Had we not dropped the bomb we still would have won the war, but both sides would have lost a ton more people (more than the bombs took).

And that's just USA vs. Japan ... when Japan wasn't even our real audience, the USSR was. Without the atom bomb it's very likely that WW3, between us and the commies, would have followed not too long after WW2. The only reason we had the cold war instead (which certainly cost lives, but nowhere near as many as a "hot" war) was because of the atom bomb.

(And even with it we still almost had WW3 anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov)

Oh and women getting equal treatment under the law to men is going to "ruin the world"? That's like 1940's thinking, but keep pushing it, I'm sure it's popularity will only grow :rolleyes:.

[Patriam1066]

Wow, it's not often that I find myself arguing against a conservative on the side of causing military casualties! But you're taking a very narrow view if you think the atom bomb only cost the lives of the people of Hiroshima/Nagasaki with no benefit. Had we not dropped the bomb we still would have won the war, but both sides would have lost a ton more people (more than the bombs took).

And that's just USA vs. Japan ... when Japan wasn't even our real audience, the USSR was. Without the atom bomb it's very likely that WW3, between us and the commies, would have followed not too long after WW2. The only reason we had the cold war instead (which certainly cost lives, but nowhere near as many as a "hot" war) was because of the atom bomb.

(And even with it we still almost had WW3 anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov)

Oh and women getting equal treatment under the law to men is going to "ruin the world"? Hyperbolize much?

Except that Stalin never wanted to export the revolution and china was against the USSR for a very long time

Also, MAD applied without a demonstration on cities

Finally, Russia, like the soviets before them, could never match western economics and needed nukes to even the stakes. In short, stick to arguments about feminism

[loramin]

Except that Stalin never wanted to export the revolution and china was against the USSR for a very long time

Also, MAD applied without a demonstration on cities

Finally, Russia, like the soviets before them, could never match western economics and needed nukes to even the stakes. In short, stick to arguments about feminism

So are you arguing the cold war didn't happen? Because I'm pretty sure it did. And again, without the bomb it would not have been "cold" at all. As I said, the fact that we very nearly had WW3 even with the bomb just shows how willing the countries involved were to battle each other.

[Patriam1066]

So are you arguing the cold war didn't happen? Because I'm pretty sure it did. And again, without the bomb it would not have been "cold" at all. As I said, the fact that we very nearly had WW3 even with the bomb just shows how willing the countries involved were.

The Cold War would've always been cold

The USSR didn't even have china as an ally and couldn't hope to possibly win an all out conflict with the west

Nukes gave the soviets staying power. So did oil. They've never actually had anything to offer. Cold War would've happened because of natural disagreements between the two preeminent powers given that there were no natural agreements between the two. Even without nukes, why would the soviets risk a war with the US by invading Europe? Maybe they could win, but it's doubtful. In the long run, they were fucked, just as in the long run Russia is pretty fucked today

Nukes keep India and Pakistan from all our war. They prevented nothing between the soviets and NATO, assuming you grant Russians the capacity for rational self interest. Also, you argued that dropping the bombs on Japan was needed to demonstrate our nuclear arsenal. You think a test on a deserted island in the pacific wouldn't mean as much? Human beings didn't need to be incinerated to prove a point.

[loramin]

You think a test on a deserted island in the pacific wouldn't mean as much? Human beings didn't need to be incinerated to prove a point.

I think you and I have a very different perspective on human nature. I 100% disagree that bombing a random island has the same effect as bombing a bunch of people. Now I understand how that's a completely irrational statement: either way you demonstrate your bomb right? But the thing is, humanity is not a rational species, and we react (strongly) to seeing massive numbers of other humans die.

[fash]

Last I checked most Jews were white.

As an Ashkenazi Jew, I take personal offense to your attempt to victimize Jews with your European and Western imperialism. How dare you say something so anti-Semitic!

One is Jewish, not because of religion, but because he is born into the Nation of Israel, a tribe that originates in Judea. Even genetic studies show the tribe's origin is in the Middle East, and in spite of white admixture, they are similar to other Jews (especially Sephardi Jews), Lebanese Arabs, and Palestinians.

Those who wish to deny this for political reasons are no different than holocaust deniers and are spreading propaganda in an attempt to colonizing the chosen people's ancient middle eastern tribal identity.

But more importantly that is clearly a biased list, as I don't see lots of recent accusations. For instance:


Blake Farenthold (Texas Congressman, white)
Morgan Spurlock (Movie Director, white)
Tavis Smiley (Host on PBS, black)
NFL Network Analysts Marshall Faulk, Ike Taylor and Heath Evans (Black, Black, White)


Finding those took like 2 minutes of Googling. I'm sure I, or whoever compiled that list, could easily have found a ton more ... if they weren't specifically trying to compile a list that made Jews look bad that is.

Oops. It misses a couple recent ones because it isn't a recent list.

6th grade algebra pop quiz: How many more goyim would you have to add to that list of 36 Jews outed by #MeToo in order to reduce that 74% Jewish proportion down to 2% in order to be commensurate with the 2% of the US population that is Jewish? Where my autistes at?

[Lulz~Sect]

https://i.imgur.com/GW9cGzA.jpg

[loramin]

As an Ashkenazi Jew, I take personal offense to your attempt to victimize Jews with your European and Western imperialism. How dare you say something so anti-Semitic!

One is Jewish, not because of religion, but because he is born into the Nation of Israel, a tribe that originates in Judea. Even genetic studies show the tribe's origin is in the Middle East, and in spite of white admixture, they are similar to other Jews (especially Sephardi Jews), Lebanese Arabs, and Palestinians.

Those who wish to deny this for political reasons are no different than holocaust deniers and are spreading propaganda in an attempt to colonizing the chosen people's ancient middle eastern tribal identity.

And as a Jew myself I'm well aware of the Sephartic/Ashikanazi split :) But I stand by my statement: in the US certainly (and quite possibly world-wide as well), the majority of the people who identify as "Jewish" in a religious sense would be considered "white" if you threw them in a line-up and asked average people on the street what race they were.

Also, as a Jew myself, I understand that the term "Jewish" has neither a purely religious meaning nor a purely racial/cultural one. When I say "I'm a Jew" I'm actually referring more to the cultural side in fact, since I'm more of a deist at heart (although technically I was both born to a Jewish mother and had a Bar Mitzvah, so I am a Jewish adult according to the religious part).

6th grade algebra pop quiz: How many more goyim would you have to add to that list of 36 Jews outed by #MeToo in order to reduce that 74% Jewish proportion down to 2% in order to be commensurate with the 2% of the US population that is Jewish? Where my autistes at?

There's a "law" like Goodwin's law (ie. one that's never been proven, but is self-evident to anyone whose spent time on internet forums) called Brandolini's law. It's also known as the law of bullshit asymmetry, and it states:

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

That law is why it's a losing proposition to try to actually disprove everything someone like you or Mick says. I've tried doing it before, and even after spending (literally) orders of magnitude more time disproving something across pages and pages of forum posts, all I got was "ok I was wrong about one thing, but everything else I'm saying is true."

So I'm not going to try to "disprove" your anti-semitic list. Plus even if there was some truth to it (eg. Jews are disproportionately influential in Hollywood, and the movie making industry has had more famous sexual harassment/abuse incidents recently than any other industry except maybe politicians, so it turns out that in fact a higher percentage of recently reported sex scandals do involve Jews) it still wouldn't prove anything, except maybe that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood.

In any case, you were raised Jewish, and it's obvious from your posts that not only are you not stupid, you're actually pretty smart. Too smart in fact for all this bullshit racial superiority and anti-Semitic ideology ... so what's the deal?

[Pokesan]

the deal is you're a fool if you take him at his word

[fash]

the deal is you're a fool if you take him at his word

Why are you on the defensive, Pokes? :(

[fash]

this bullshit racial superiority and anti-Semitic ideology ... so what's the deal?

More slander and attacks upon my character without any evidence. I've never said any race is superior.

If you're looking for antisemitism, look no further than your own words.

Plus even if there was some truth to it (eg. Jews are disproportionately influential in Hollywood, and the movie making industry has had more famous sexual harassment/abuse incidents recently than any other industry except maybe politicians, so it turns out that in fact a higher percentage of recently reported sex scandals do involve Jews) it still wouldn't prove anything, except maybe that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood.

Jews have influence in Hollywood disproportionate to their population? How dare you repeat that old antisemitic canard that the ADL assures is false. Surely, Jews are only about 2% of Hollywood moguls.

[Pokesan]

Why are you on the defensive, Pokes? :(

defensive? im telling loramin he's dumb for engaging with a poster named "fash" sincerely

hey loramin your dumb

[AzzarTheGod]

defensive? im telling loramin he's dumb for engaging with a poster named "fash" sincerely

hey loramin your dumb

legit keks

[loramin]

hey loramin your dumb

Duly noted.

[Kaight]

what the hell happened

[fash]

defensive? im telling loramin he's dumb for engaging with a poster named "fash" sincerely

hey loramin your dumb

You're such a good well poisoner, Pokes.

[fash]

what the hell happened

Off topic happened.

[loramin]

More slander and attacks upon my character without any evidence. I've never said any race is superior.

Yeah, you're probably right. I've only seen you say stuff like "White slave masters in the US were too generous" ...



"It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."

-- Thomas Jefferson
The decedents of the 300k black slaves will forever claim injustice until one race or the other dies out. White slave masters in the US were too generous. They allowed their black slaves to marry, procreate, and ultimately survive to live among them. Compare that to larger groups of white slaves in times past (e.g. 1 mil or more white christian slaves on the barbary coast), which were all were killed, quelling their grievances.

Off topic happened.

Exactly. Just be glad Rants and Flames didn't happen ...

[Pokesan]

Off topic happened.

[fash]

Yeah, you're probably right. I've only seen you say stuff like "White slave masters in the US were too generous" ...

And nothing about "racial superiority", so your attack remains as slander.

Anyhow, the first half of that post puts it in context. It was a reply to someone asking why the n-word is not considered okay to say today by using an accurate prediction by TJ. Those "convulsions" have not yet ended, and the US democracy is divided along racial lines -- a demographic democracy.

[Pokesan]

You're such a good well poisoner, Pokes.

lemme clue ya'll in. the italics subtly reference a specific claim against jewish folks during the time of the black plague - that they poisoned wells to spread the disease.
this, however, is bait.

the next move is to accuse me of hysteria or something, but he doesn't know that i will simply tell him to suck my balls.(you can think of this as an analog to antifa)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-stormer-nazi-style-guide_us_5a2ece19e4b0ce3b344492f2

[fash]

Pokes is a sharp man. :)

(or otherkin. hard to tell on p99)

[skarlorn]

The Cold War would've always been cold

The USSR didn't even have china as an ally and couldn't hope to possibly win an all out conflict with the west

Nukes gave the soviets staying power. So did oil. They've never actually had anything to offer. Cold War would've happened because of natural disagreements between the two preeminent powers given that there were no natural agreements between the two. Even without nukes, why would the soviets risk a war with the US by invading Europe? Maybe they could win, but it's doubtful. In the long run, they were fucked, just as in the long run Russia is pretty fucked today

Nukes keep India and Pakistan from all our war. They prevented nothing between the soviets and NATO, assuming you grant Russians the capacity for rational self interest. Also, you argued that dropping the bombs on Japan was needed to demonstrate our nuclear arsenal. You think a test on a deserted island in the pacific wouldn't mean as much? Human beings didn't need to be incinerated to prove a point.

Excellent stuff here. Most of the US Top Brass was against using the a bomb on Japan, who had been sending out peace feelers for a while. Truman was a pretty weak man who often vascillated between the views of his advisors. Ultimately, anti Soviet oligarchs convinced him to hit the Japanese people. I believe also that Truman yearned to finally feel like HE was the bully. He was a weak piece of shit who only got to Presidency due to DNC corruption and humanity's bad luck. He basically needed the ABombs destruction as a crutch in order to manage his meetings with Stalin.

[AzzarTheGod]

got no beef with fash but did you just cuck out and change your avatar because of pokes?

pushover

[Lhancelot]

got no beef with fash but did you just cuck out and change your avatar because of pokes?

pushover

Pretty sure he had to change it after myself, Pokes and Loramin all drew attention to his offensive posts and BS avatar he thought was clever and cute.

Finally a guide or mod seen it and/or our posts and "dealt" with this troglodyte.

Thank you whoever cucked Fash into changing his avatar, it was well-needed. Glad he has a nice more suitable one in it's place now. Good boy, Fash.

[mickmoranis]

fash your avatar was my favorite of all time! :(

[loramin]

Excellent stuff here. Most of the US Top Brass was against using the a bomb on Japan, who had been sending out peace feelers for a while. Truman was a pretty weak man who often vascillated between the views of his advisors. Ultimately, anti Soviet oligarchs convinced him to hit the Japanese people. I believe also that Truman yearned to finally feel like HE was the bully. He was a weak piece of shit who only got to Presidency due to DNC corruption and humanity's bad luck. He basically needed the ABombs destruction as a crutch in order to manage his meetings with Stalin.

Actually, Truman was misled by his military advisers. He was under the impression that Hiroshima was a military base (with no women and children around) and that the casualty numbers would be much lower.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

Afterwards Truman didn't want to look bad, so he pretended the whole thing was 100% what he intended, which helped compound the historical inaccuracy.

[maskedmelon]

Actually, Truman was misled by his military advisers. He was under the impression that Hiroshima was a military base (with no women and children around) and that the casualty numbers would be much lower.



Afterwards Truman didn't want to look bad, so he pretended the whole thing was 100% what he intended, which helped compound the historical inaccuracy.

it's a good thing we have heartwhisperers to deduce the noblest intents of bland statements devoid thereof to ordinary minds.

[loramin]

it's a good thing we have heartwhisperers to deduce the noblest intents of bland statements devoid thereof to ordinary minds.

Huh?

so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children

What part of that requires "heart whispering" to understand?

Also if anyone is heart whispering it's NPR, because I learned that from a show they did a few months back

[JurisDictum]

Truman, also known as the little man from Missouri, liked to brag a lot. It's all highly irrelivant...But from what I've heard from presidential and history scholars is that the bomb was done as an attempt to scare Stalin. I'm sure Truman was down with that part of the plan.

Yes, ground demonstrations were needed back then. It's stupid argument to say otherwise because the reason we bombed Japan twice is because after the first one they didn't believe we had a second.*

We wanted to show that we had the bombs, would use the bombs, and had more than a few.

Stalin played it cool -- which the West has taken to mean that Stalin actually didn't care and was completely indifferent to the bombs -- retards. Yea that's why Stalin had his pedal on the gas of his own nuclear program, because he didn't care.

The reason Russia never went to war with Europe, is because by they were never in a position to. They lost an absurd amount of fighting age men during World War II. I've heard figures up to 90%.

*Some argue that this was more about Japans cultural refusal to surrender than an actual belief we didn't have another bomb. But to argue we could have just told Stalin we have this new kind of bomb is a bit dumb IMO.

[fash]

got no beef with fash but did you just cuck out and change your avatar because of pokes?

pushover

I don't think Pokes had too much issue with it. Seemed more like Lhancelot didn't like it.

I've had it for like a year and nobody seemed to get the reference, so I was thinking of changing it back to a Hoppe reference before Lhancelot got rustled over it in the other thread. :)

Thank you whoever cucked Fash into changing his avatar, it was well-needed. Glad he has a nice more suitable one in it's place now. Good boy, Fash.

I'll make it a kitty in honor of Lhancelot's avatar.

[Lulz~Sect]

2 avatar changes in a span of day

cuck'd

[loramin]

Truman, also known as the little man from Missouri, liked to brag a lot. It's all highly irrelivant...But from what I've heard from presidential and history scholars is that the bomb was done as an attempt to scare Stalin. I'm sure Truman was down with that part of the plan.

Yes, ground demonstrations were needed back then. It's stupid argument to say otherwise because the reason we bombed Japan twice is because after the first one they didn't believe we had a second.

In no way do I mean to excuse Truman for his decisions, or his bragging afterwards. I'm just saying, the history's a little more complex than "Truman said bomb and we bombed". It's more like the military and Truman were working together (they created some commission for the whole thing) and Truman wasn't exactly 100% sold with completely mindless mass killing, so to get around his reservations details were left out when they asked for his approval. Afterward Truman didn't want to look foolish so he pretended like he had been 100% pro-mindless-killing, and we only even know he was more complicated than that from his diaries and a few other historical sources.

As for bombing twice, I always think of Ender's Game. In the beginning of the book Ender (a child in the future being trained to be a military strategist) gets attacked by a bully. Ender manages to defeat the bully (bomb #1). Then he starts kicking the crap out of the bully as he lies there on the ground (bomb #2). I forget how they explain it in the book exactly, but the idea was that he was sending a message to other bullies.

That message was basically "if you mess with us we will not only mess with you back (and win), but then afterwards we'll kick the crap out of you for no damn reason, because we're freaking crazy ... so don't mess with us". And again, while you could consider that message directed at Japan (and to be fair the Japanese were stubborn and the war might have gone on for years without the bomb), I think most historians see it at least partially as a message to "the commies".

[Lulz~Sect]

Ender's rational for kicking the shit out of Stiltson twice was to win every future battle once. [spoilers redacted]

*Been a few years since reading this. I am due for a reread!

*Google edit - I was close recalling from memory!

1. “I have to win this now, and for all time, or I’ll fight it every day and it will get worse and worse.” p. 7 (Ender, during his fight with Stilson)

[fash]

Devastating bombs to induce surrender was a lot cheaper than their other option of invading the pacific at the time.

"It was to scare Stalin" or "It was to warn the world of the horrors of nuclear war" is post hoc rationalization.

[fash]

2 avatar changes in a span of day

cuck'd

3 times. Now what?

[Lulz~Sect]

2nd one was better than 3rd iMO

*fash's avatar

[Lhancelot]

I'll make it a kitty in honor of Lhancelot's avatar.

It's cute even though you seem obsessed with SS Nazi caps for some reason.

I disagree with Lulz, this third avatar incarnation is better than the second. It's clearly visible and has a nice aesthetic presentation.

[mickmoranis]

2nd one was better than 3rd iMO

*fash's avatar

agree'd but 1 was still the best one.

like every day im like, "did they really have a nazi character on adventure time?"

[Lulz~Sect]

soon it will be a crime to laugh at such things as black humor

[Shrubwise]

dark humor is the best kind of humor

[skarlorn]

Japs were already trying to surrender. Their only issue was they wanted the emperor to stay as opposed to the unconditional surrender initially demanded by USA. We bombed them then let them surrender and keep the emperor.

[mickmoranis]

liberals made the bomb

[JurisDictum]

The Japanese would be a little more of a sympathy case if they didn't:

1) Brutally Rape and Plunder Indo-China and Manchura/Nanking.

2) Refuse to teach that they did this in school, but teach all the tragedies that befell them.

3) Become a huge economic power with the help of the US, getting started right after the War.

[mickmoranis]

being human and on a human planet didnt help

[AzzarTheGod]

liberals made the bomb

[fash]

It's cute even though you seem obsessed with SS Nazi caps for some reason.

As Russell Brand says, Hugo Boss uniforms look fashionable and "fucking fantastic".

[Lulz~Sect]

https://i.imgur.com/Elsxdzn.jpg

[bluddyragz]

http://i.imgur.com/o6snO1v.jpg

[Lhancelot]

1) Brutally Rape and Plunder

2) Refuse to teach that they did this in school, but teach all the tragedies that befell them.



What conquering nation of humans doesn't do this during and after wars?

[Lulz~Sect]

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[mickmoranis]

I sreiously fail to understand why libtards are sad that a victor "white washes" (a racist term for, makes their history look good) their past.

1. it makes the new generation feel proud of good things, not proud of rape and pillaging
2. who cares about the old generations "feelings"
3. thinking your nation was founded on goodness and niceness, does not make you more inclined to start wars in the future. id argue that it makes you want to start less.

So whats the deal? I mean if it isnt just lefty IDpolitics designed to shame and argue with people at the dinner table?

[JurisDictum]

What conquering nation of humans doesn't do this during and after wars?

The Japanese were trying to establish a Modern Empire -- that had never been done by Asians. White Euros/Americans responded with a kind of a odd respect for the idea. A big Japanese power to colonize and represent all the Asian Countries.

So they were a little bit more a wider spread and sophisticated then your run of the mill rape and plunder operation. They are in the big boys club with US/Russia/France/UK etc. The Japanese were some of the worst colonists to these smaller Asian countries.

I guess all that warrior training on their Island for thousands of years paid off.

Edit: We teach about how we killed all the Indians after Thanksgiving etc...we don't act like the old chief is telling out children wild tales in 2017. But we were more fucked up in the immediate aftermath of killing Native Americans. The point is: Japan is still pretty silent on how it provoked aggression in WW2 unless you in college politics or something.

[Lhancelot]

I sreiously fail to understand why libtards are sad that a victor "white washes" (a racist term for, makes their history look good) their past.

1. it makes the new generation feel proud of good things, not proud of rape and pillaging
2. who cares about the old generations "feelings"
3. thinking your nation was founded on goodness and niceness, does not make you more inclined to start wars in the future. id argue that it makes you want to start less.

So whats the deal? I mean if it isnt just lefty IDpolitics designed to shame and argue with people at the dinner table?

The reason "whitewashing" is bad is because if you do not consider past errors you have no chance to learn from them and avoid making those same mistakes. Come on bro. Stop pouring out this nonsense, no clue where you get these ideas from.

Fact is the citizens are lead to believe the country is founded on niceness, the ones that run the same citizens into wars know better and are not practicing these benign thoughts of goodness that people are indoctrinated to believe by the modern media and politicians that use this naivety to their advantage. Ignorance is not bliss. It's not.



Edit: We teach about how we killed all the Indians after Thanksgiving etc...we don't act like the old chief is telling out children wild tales in 2017. But we were more fucked up in the immediate aftermath of killing Native Americans. The point is: Japan is still pretty silent on how it provoked aggression in WW2 unless you in college politics or something.

Don't get me started on pointing out the things the US schooling system teaches us as children yet happens to leave out. They teach us nothing about false flags, about how our country undermines and destroys working governments in other countries to further influence the economics to better favor the USA even if that means it ruins said country when we dismantle their governments etc.

So much actual history that is not taught to us as citizens of this country (USA) it's only when you seek out information on your own do you find the truth. If you only read what you are taught in school and what is touted across your TV screens daily you are choosing to live in ignorance because rarely is the whole picture or even part of the picture actually being shown.

The problem with Americans is they only watch channels that say what they want to believe, people by default choose to live in their own fantasy worlds instead of being open to the fact reality just might not be what is shown on their favorite TV channels or written on their favorite extremist websites. If you only read one side of the story chances are you aint getting the whole story.

I see a lot of intelligent people on these forums that are adept at spouting information they believe and think is true but this doesn't make them informed especially when they restrict themselves to only learning from sources that present a narrative that appeals to them.

Basically the majority of what I read on this thread is horseshit that is spouted by one extremist view or another. Not one bit objective purely subjective.

[mickmoranis]

lol are you saying that maybe we might colonize and enslave a population simply because we say Columbus was a cool explorer?

WRONG

We base our behavior on morals of the time not the mistakes of the past. And we base our morals of the time based off civil rights movements from people at that time.

Why did we get rid of slavery? Because we had accurate historical records about Chris Columbus? LOL nope.

Because of morals of the time.

[JurisDictum]

Oh people can totally be sold on colonization in 2017 -- just look at Israel!

[mickmoranis]

Oh people can totally be sold on colonization in 2017 -- just look at Israel!

my point is they are not sold on colinization of isreal, because "well look how great it worked out with columbus!" its obtuse to think they are related in anyway at all.

I seriously fail to see how or why whitewashing history in such a minor way, has a negative effect on society in anyway.

if you yourself cannot remember the history from first hand or even second hand memory, why is it so important that you feel guilty about it?????!!!!!!

[Lhancelot]

lol are you saying that maybe we might colonize and enslave a population simply because we say Columbus was a cool explorer?

WRONG

We base our behavior on morals of the time not the mistakes of the past. And we base our morals of the time based off civil rights movements from people at that time.

Why did we get rid of slavery? Because we had accurate historical records about Chris Columbus? LOL nope.

Because of morals of the time.

This isn't true. The civil war began with no such thoughts of moral reasoning regarding slavery.

Slavery was a point of contention with non-slave states because it granted the slavery states an economic advantage due to the use of slaves powering it.

Northern/Western states viewed this system of operation as one they could not compete with economically and thus it had to be dismantled. Obviously the powerful southern state slaveowners were unwilling to give up their power and riches that were garnered through a system of slavery that had existed for over 200 years. Even if they wanted to, it was simply impossible.

Freeing slaves was simply a second thought and only became a selling point halfway through the war when it benefited the northern states to use this as a way to gain more bodies (freed slaves and those who opposed slavery due to moral reasons) to fight the war.

Don't pretend slavery was abolished purely for moralistic reasons. You are being naive or purposefully ignorant if that's what you really believe.

"Morals of the time." Total bullshit.

[Pokesan]

Edit: We teach about how we killed all the Indians after Thanksgiving etc...we don't act like the old chief is telling out children wild tales in 2017. But we were more fucked up in the immediate aftermath of killing Native Americans. The point is: Japan is still pretty silent on how it provoked aggression in WW2 unless you in college politics or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk

[Lulz~Sect]

we're still in medieval times people

*just with computers now

[Shrubwise]

we're still in medieval times people

*just with computers now

Humans are always gonna kill each other, no matter the century. We’re animals after all.

[JurisDictum]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk

Basically Poke is pointing out -- the reason Europe pulled ahead had to do with them getting start with Horses, Sheep, Chicken, Pigs.

Americas didn't get Jack except Llamas in the south Americas. Everything else was too hard to domesticate. Only Llamas didn't quite cut it though.

So not only did we have bacon and eggs -- we got a dose of the plague when those in the Americas did not. European explorers basically killed a huge portion of the Native population long before England started to colonize the eastern shores of North America.

So maybe we couldn't have done that so easy if it weren't for huge sweeps of plague. But I think North America might have been fucked anyway personally...too much factionalism. It would look like Southeast Asia at best.

[CyricTheMad420]

entertainment value of these off-topics is awesome.

[Pokesan]

entertainment value of these off-topics is awesome.

you're dangerously close to understanding off topic

run

[CyricTheMad420]

hahaha

[Lulz~Sect]

[Post only available for Project 1999® Gold™ account holders]

[CyricTheMad420]

gold account?

[skarlorn]

you can't read his posts? sry pall that 1 was a roaster.

[Lhancelot]

you can't read his posts? sry pall that 1 was a roaster.

[mickmoranis]

2/2 this may keep me online a bit longer tho

[Pokesan]

@fash

https://i.imgur.com/Rfa7uqQ.jpg

[fash]

Nobody messes with the doo!

That was my favorite movie and actor in my childhood.

I liked the Mask too. An innocent little fash won a halloween costume contest dressed up as the mask. My mom's still got the little yellow suit she sewed together for me. :)

[loramin]

In a futile effort to return this thread back to its original topic (sort of) ...

https://i.imgur.com/eLQ0aLW.jpg

[mickmoranis]

Non-citizens are responsible for:

22% of Murder

18% of Fraud

33% of Money Laundering

29% of Drug Trafficking

72% of Drug Possession

About 7% of people in America are non-citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzLwz714ylM

[JurisDictum]

Non-citizens are responsible for:

22% of Murder

18% of Fraud

33% of Money Laundering

29% of Drug Trafficking

72% of Drug Possession

About 7% of people in America are non-citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzLwz714ylM

oh pfft -- 22% of murder...they are just more likely to get caught. They probably almost always kill each other anyway. The rest of shit you listed is non-violent BS. I doubt we are talking serious fraud here.

Edit: not to mention you have a few violent gangs skewing the statistics.

[mickmoranis]

oh pfft -- 22% of murder...they are just more likely to get caught.

yeah, Like I have murdered 3 people and haven't been caught.. I'm sure most people have murdered at least 1 person, but thanks to our white male privlage we're not caught.

Its great to be white and able to literally get away with murder cus I'm not unfairly policed.

Its a shame all those murders that SEVEN percent of the population that make up TWENTY TWO percent of total murders are being so unfairly policed that they get caught for such a petty, insignificant crime.

[JurisDictum]

They didn't put theft up there. And I want to know who's getting killed.

[mickmoranis]

"Men need to shut up and listen." @whereisdaz​ slams the #MattDamon-style responses to the #MeToo movement #TheDrum

https://twitter.com/ABCthedrum/status/943770539172118529

"not all men" BOOOOOOOO!
"not all immigrants" YAYYYYYYY!

They didn't put theft up there. And I want to know who's getting killed.

of course a liberal is going to be OK with non whites being killed. If someone is being killed, someone is being killed. Why do you need to find out "who" is being killed? OH I already know. Because you only care about murder if it's a white person in a public venue like a movie theater or concernt (both places YOU go) but if they are killing minorities? Well that's because of slavery 200 years ago and we should be paying those people money cus it is specifically OUR fault.

[mickmoranis]

Oceans 11 "we came up with a heist movie and cast popular actors who seemed to fit the ideas we had, and that's sexist"

Oceans 8 "we cast a heist movie specifically with only women, and that's not sexist at all"

[JurisDictum]

"Men need to shut up and listen." @whereisdaz​ slams the #MattDamon-style responses to the #MeToo movement #TheDrum

https://twitter.com/ABCthedrum/status/943770539172118529

"not all men" BOOOOOOOO!
"not all immigrants" YAYYYYYYY!



of course a liberal is going to be OK with non whites being killed. If someone is being killed, someone is being killed. Why do you need to find out "who" is being killed? OH I already know. Because you only care about murder if it's a white person in a public venue like a movie theater or concernt (both places YOU go) but if they are killing minorities? Well that's because of slavery 200 years ago and we should be paying those people money cus it is specifically OUR fault.

Well the whole bullshit point is that taking in immigrants will increase bad things happening to people that were here before the immigrants right? So if they have some sub community where murder and violence is more common among themselves -- it doesn't prove that native born Americans are anymore likely to get murdered, does it?

[mickmoranis]

No that is not the point at all. The point is that contrary to liberal talking points, yes illegal immigrants commit more crime than legal immigrants.

If you want to say taking on more illegals will increase crime, you're safe to say that. If you want to say that that wont, there is data that contradicts that opinion.

But that doesn't change your opinion cus, well, you're a libtard :)

[loramin]

When the police don't come (or take hours to come) when there's a problem in your neighborhood you start settling it yourself, by force if necessary ... the exact same way native white people in medieval Europe used to settle things (they didn't have police either).

I imagine this makes immigrant/poor neighborhoods (there's a big overlap between the two) in any country more violent by nature, but it's hard to blame the immigrants for having crappier police protection than more affluent neighborhoods.

Also, immigrants tend to have seen some shit; you don't uproot your entire life and leave the only country you've ever known because things are going great, you leave because everyone around you is starving to death, the government is torturing/raping/murdering everyone, etc. That kind of psychic damage would make any person, anywhere, more violent. But if you have the empathy to say "hey people with shitty lives, why not come live with us where it's less shitty" you should have empathy to understand that people coming from those shitty lives will have a bit more mental shit to deal with.

[mickmoranis]

When the police don't come (or take hours to come) when there's a problem in your neighborhood you start settling it yourself, by force if necessary ... the exact same way native white people in medieval Europe used to settle things (they didn't have police either).

If police do come then someone videotapes them out of context and makes up lies about how the victim was pleading for his life and the cops are raycist. Despite the fact that you seem unaware there is more police presence in minority neighborhoods than affluent ones.

But then again, are you saying that gun control is wrong because the people who live in the boonies have not only a right to own guns but they are a necessity because it takes 20-45 minuets for the police to arrive?

Or are you saying gang violence exists because people in gangland are protecting themselves from petty thieves and not killing each other over turf wars and living in a culture of violence?

[JurisDictum]

Maybe there would be a little less murder if we weren't arresting them at obscene rates for drug crimes and sending them to hardcore pound-me-in-the-ass prisons. Something about lots of prison time seems to make people more aggressive and less successful at parenting their 2-3 kids.

[fash]

Hey, guys. Let's get back on topic, please.

Why have feminists been quiet about the 1,400 girls abused in Rotherham in the UK who were as young as 11?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

In August 2014 the Jay report concluded that an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white girls aged 11–15, had been sexually abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 by predominantly British-Pakistani men.

[snip]

The abuse included gang rape, forcing children to watch rape, dousing them with petrol and threatening to set them on fire, threatening to rape their mothers and younger sisters, and trafficking them to other towns. There were pregnancies—one at age 12—terminations, miscarriages, babies raised by their mothers, and babies removed, causing further trauma.

https://i.imgur.com/elTbuQV.jpg

Why don't feminists speak about Rotherham? It is because that one female accomplice has a feminism-signaling hair-cut, right? That's the only possible reason I can discern from the mugshots.

[JurisDictum]

Hey, guys. Let's get back on topic, please.

Why have feminists been quiet about the 1,400 girls abused in Rotherham in the UK who were as young as 11?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal



https://i.imgur.com/elTbuQV.jpg

Why don't feminists speak about Rotherham? It is because that one female accomplice has a feminism-signaling hair-cut, right? That's the only possible reason I can discern from the mugshots.

Sounds like their all fucked -- what do we add? "there behavior was unacceptable"? Shame on them...whatever

[loramin]

If police do come then someone videotapes them out of context and makes up lies about how the victim was pleading for his life and the cops are raycist. Despite the fact that you seem unaware there is more police presence in minority neighborhoods than affluent ones.

But then again, are you saying that gun control is wrong because the people who live in the boonies have not only a right to own guns but they are a necessity because it takes 20-45 minuets for the police to arrive?

Or are you saying gang violence exists because people in gangland are protecting themselves from petty thieves and not killing each other over turf wars and living in a culture of violence?

I'm saying none of those things.

In general statistics overwhelmingly show that owning a gun does not make you or your family safer. While I don't remember the exact numbers, your chance of protecting yourself against the bad guys does go up by say 10% (or whatever the chance is you'll have your gun ready when you need it, will fire more accurately than the bad guys, etc.)

But, the chance of you even being in a situation where a gun would be relevant are already pretty slim, so really that doesn't increase your safety much at all. However, the chance of you committing suicide goes up, the chance a family member committing suicide goes up, the chance your kid will accidentally shoot someone (or themselves) goes up, etc. and when you add those together you are much less safe.

What I'm saying is that society's resources, including not just police protection but also fire protection, school funding, etc. should all be distributed equally. However (because they tend to be based on property taxes) we instead give the best society has to offer to the rich, the worst we can possibly give without feeling too bad to the poor, and then we wonder why the people who get so much less from society AND started off with so much less in the first place do so much worse.

[fash]

Sounds like their all fucked -- what do we add? "there behavior was unacceptable"? Shame on them...whatever

Oh, I don't know. How about at least a hashtag (like they did with #metoo) instead of silence from the group that claims to fight against abuse against women?

[mickmoranis]

I'm saying none of those things.

In general statistics overwhelmingly show that owning a gun does not make you or your family safer. While I don't remember the exact numbers, your chance of protecting yourself against the bad guys does go up by say 10% (or whatever the chance is you'll have your gun ready when you need it, will fire more accurately than the bad guys, etc.)

But, the chance of you even being in a situation where a gun would be relevant are already pretty slim, so really that doesn't increase your safety much at all. However, the chance of you committing suicide goes up, the chance a family member committing suicide goes up, the chance your kid will accidentally shoot someone (or themselves) goes up, etc. and when you add those together you are much less safe.

What I'm saying is that society's resources, including not just police protection but also fire protection, school funding, etc. should all be distributed equally. However (because they tend to be based on property taxes) we instead give the best society has to offer to the rich, the worst we can possibly give without feeling too bad to the poor, and then we wonder why the people who get so much less from society AND started off with so much less in the first place do so much worse.

you're missing the point though. Up until this broadcast the narritive literally both from the campaign trail straight from Hillaries mouth, was that illegal immigrants do not commit more crimes than non illegal immigrants.

However this study proves that they VASTLY commit more crime than non illegal immigrants or native born citizens.

1. you seem to make up a lot of excuses for reasons why people commit crime but leave out a lot as well.
a. you dont even consider that crime in the country someone is fleeing from having a single iota of effect on said persons ability to justify crime, you blame americans.
b. you dont even consider the fact that the cartel has a large investment in human trafficking because it is so easy to bring illegals in this country and brings not only illegal immigrants over the boarder but surounds them with crime.. agian, instead, you blame americans.

2. You suggest spreading fire and police protection and school funding, but as I have said multiple times, that is NOT the idiology of the people you want to elect. Theirs is one of social change, not economic. Look at democrat run cities all over the country, NY, LA, all of them have worse if not the same crime ratios in poor minority neighborhoods than conservative run cities.
a. if you want to support economic change in these cities then support the police, instead of suggesting that they are murderers.
b. you support changing social constructs, not any of what you suggested above. Infact, if you go through this thread youll see that what you suggest above is what I have been suggesting as a solution to gun violence in this country since the get go.
c. The left wants to sevearly limit the police's ability to stop crime in these areas as well, activists and establishemnt elected officials support BLM which wants to hinder the police's abillity to do what you suggest, I believe even YOU support BLM which is totally contrary to what you suggest in the above post.

no, loramin, what you are saying is that minorities comit more crime because there is a lack of investment in them, and that if we invested more in minorities they would stop commiting crime.

The irony is, by saying that, you are saying that Trump was right when he said they were bringing over rapists and murderers. Something that these statistics prove.

So thanks for the shout out to the god emp. He is right as usual.

[fash]

80% of central american women and girls are raped immigrating into US illegally.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html

Anyone know what % are raped when illegally emigrating from the US? I wonder.

[Jimjam]

Would those immigrants have been more or less likely to be involved with murder if they hadn't immigrated?

[Pokesan]

illegal alien

https://i.imgur.com/t8JjQix.gif

[mickmoranis]

illegal alien

https://i.imgur.com/t8JjQix.gif

unfortunately based on statistics, this gif is not untrue.

[JurisDictum]

Look...everyone knows illegal aliens don't account for what was it?

Oh yes, "72% of Drug Possession"

So the jig is up isn't it? These are obviously just reflections of conviction rates -- which are highly influenced by how policing and due process is done. So Carlson can make that stupid face he wants -- he didn't prove that that we are all vastly endangering ourselves.

I'm sure there is some crime we experience -- I'm just no so sure it isn't offset by benefits. It's easy to blame the economy on people willing to do the crap jobs for cheap...but that is generally a kind of jobs relegated to the underclass anyway.

"No one born in America should have to pick fruit!" Is the attitude. Economies have a social dimension -- sometimes this inflates the wage of some not-useful jobs (consulting) and deflates the wage of useful ones (picking fruit).

Communist societies put more emphasis on everyone putting in their share of labor. They would make sure rich people spend time pick fruit if they put on airs -- labor as punishment is a much better idea than prison IMO.

[Patriam1066]

I'm saying none of those things.

In general statistics overwhelmingly show that owning a gun does not make you or your family safer. While I don't remember the exact numbers, your chance of protecting yourself against the bad guys does go up by say 10% (or whatever the chance is you'll have your gun ready when you need it, will fire more accurately than the bad guys, etc.)

But, the chance of you even being in a situation where a gun would be relevant are already pretty slim, so really that doesn't increase your safety much at all. However, the chance of you committing suicide goes up, the chance a family member committing suicide goes up, the chance your kid will accidentally shoot someone (or themselves) goes up, etc. and when you add those together you are much less safe.

What I'm saying is that society's resources, including not just police protection but also fire protection, school funding, etc. should all be distributed equally. However (because they tend to be based on property taxes) we instead give the best society has to offer to the rich, the worst we can possibly give without feeling too bad to the poor, and then we wonder why the people who get so much less from society AND started off with so much less in the first place do so much worse.

Guns are always relevant in Texas

Keep that California acai berry hippie shit out west

[Patriam1066]

Look...everyone knows illegal aliens don't account for what was it?

Oh yes, "72% of Drug Possession"

So the jig is up isn't it? These are obviously just reflections of conviction rates -- which are highly influenced by how policing and due process is done. So Carlson can make that stupid face he wants -- he didn't prove that that we are all vastly endangering ourselves.

I'm sure there is some crime we experience -- I'm just no so sure it isn't offset by benefits. It's easy to blame the economy on people willing to do the crap jobs for cheap...but that is generally a kind of jobs relegated to the underclass anyway.

"No one born in America should have to pick fruit!" Is the attitude. Economies have a social dimension -- sometimes this inflates the wage of some not-useful jobs (consulting) and deflates the wage of useful ones (picking fruit).

Communist societies put more emphasis on everyone putting in their share of labor. They would make sure rich people spend time pick fruit if they put on airs -- labor as punishment is a much better idea than prison IMO.

What society ever functioned that way lol?

[fash]

Communist societies put more emphasis on everyone putting in their share of labor. They would make sure rich people spend time pick fruit if they put on airs -- labor as punishment is a much better idea than prison IMO.

And the best part is when there isn't enough fruit to go around, you can sell human body parts for food.

NSFW pics of communists: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4076244/Distressing-photos-1920s-Russian-famine-turned-hopeless-peasants-cannibals-five-million-people-starved-death.html

[mickmoranis]

Look...everyone knows illegal aliens don't account for what was it?

Oh yes, "72% of Drug Possession"

So the jig is up isn't it? These are obviously just reflections of conviction rates -- which are highly influenced by how policing and due process is done.

try to say the exact same thing, but about the murder statistic and what you would be suggesting is that white affluent people are literally getting away with murder.

1. do the police arrest more minorities for drugs than whites? maybe, maybe that number should be down to 50%?
2. do the police arrest more minorities for murder? yes. Is that because they are letting white people get away with murder? no.

Illegal immigrants just commit more murder than non illegal immigrants and native born Americans. They also, still, if you lower that 72% by 50% STILL make up for MORE drug possession than white people.

Sorry! next.

[JurisDictum]

What society ever functioned that way lol?

Mao would send bureaucrats out to the countryside if they were getting too conservative or acting stuck up/snobby ("putting on airs").

Of course intellectuals decry this as horrible -- I thought it was great.

Seriously -- why prison instead of labor? It's stupid. Rape in prisons being allowed is stupid. Useless lumps sitting around stabbing each other because they have nothing else to do is stupid.

[JurisDictum]

try to say the exact same thing, but about the murder statistic and what you would be suggesting is that white affluent people are literally getting away with murder.

1. do the police arrest more minorities for drugs than whites? maybe, maybe that number should be down to 50%?
2. do the police arrest more minorities for murder? yes. Is that because they are letting white people get away with murder? no.

Illegal immigrants just commit more murder than non illegal immigrants and native born Americans. They also, still, if you lower that 72% by 50% STILL make up for MORE drug possession than white people.

Sorry! next.

Well who the fuck is going to murder someone if they live in Beverly Hills?* Obviously we should at very least -- control for income when determining if immigrants are more dangerous.

*Probably some guy killing illegal hookers and getting away with it.

[Patriam1066]

Mao would send bureaucrats out to the countryside if they were getting too conservative or acting stuck up/snobby ("putting on airs").

Of course intellectuals decry this as horrible -- I thought it was great.

Seriously -- why prison instead of labor? It's stupid. Rape in prisons being allowed is stupid. Useless lumps sitting around stabbing each other because they have nothing else to do is stupid.

Hmmm

How long would it take to be called slavery if we took our predominantly black prison population and made them pick crops? I don't disagree that he prison system is a joke I'm simply saying communism has never worked and never will. Incremental progress should be the goal

[mickmoranis]

Well who the fuck is going to murder someone if they live in Beverly Hills?* Obviously we should at very least -- control for income when determining if immigrants are more dangerous.

*Probably some guy killing illegal hookers and getting away with it.

look we could debate WHY illegal immigrants commit more crime than non illegal immigrants till the cows come home.

Doesn't change the fact that illegal immigrants commit more crime than non illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately there are millions of reasons why they commit more crimes. And it is impossible to just fix it, in anyway political way at all.

The only way to reduce crime in America, by illegal immigrants, is to not let illegal immigrants into the country, or give them a pass for committing crime.

Immigrants in Germany make up more crime than natural born citizens there. Why? Because the people immigrating are coming from countries that have VASTLY different cultural values on the crimes... They also feel segregated, they also are angry. I bring up germany because they do everything that libcucks want to do with immigrants, make them legal, give them housing, accept them with open arms.. however the crime rates are the same.

We have poor people in this country that are trying to get by, but when you inject a bunch of criminals into those areas, it makes it even harder to get by.

The only reliable solution, end illegal immigration.

It is NOT racist to say, "if you are going to come here, learn how to live here and do so legally"

*also, using the word probubly to defend your argument means you have no clue what you are talking about at all*

[Patriam1066]

It's time for a national minimum income, balanced budget, halved military budget, and ZERO net immigration legal or otherwise

The exception being tall blondes from Eastern Europe of above average IQ

[JurisDictum]

Fine fuck it -- no poor immigrants. I'll get on bored. All Middleclass or up with some hope of bettering our economy -- we still need immigration though.

[mickmoranis]

Fine fuck it -- no poor immigrants. I'll get on bored. All Middleclass or up with some hope of bettering our economy -- we still need immigration though.

We'll have plenty of it, saying no to illegal immigration is not saying no to immigration!

I love food from all over the world, I just love being served by someone who understands the words that come out of my mouth. ;)

but then again the OP of those statistics was simply to show how the narritive from the elected elite on the left, is actually dead ass wrong ;)

Id take illegals over democrats tbh.

[JurisDictum]

The problem is most the left isn't with me and will fight tooth and nail to keep poor South Americans coming in. We feel sorry for them blah blah...

All you have to do is set the IRS up to enforce it. Fine the shit out of business hiring illegals. Police don't want to arrest business owners...IRS have no issue giving out fines most the time.

[loramin]

you dont even consider that crime in the country someone is fleeing from having a single iota of effect on said persons ability to justify crime, you blame americans.

Except that's not what I said at all, I actually said the opposite:

Also, immigrants tend to have seen some shit; you don't uproot your entire life and leave the only country you've ever known because things are going great, you leave because everyone around you is starving to death, the government is torturing/raping/murdering everyone, etc. That kind of psychic damage would make any person, anywhere, more violent. But if you have the empathy to say "hey people with shitty lives, why not come live with us where it's less shitty" you should have empathy to understand that people coming from those shitty lives will have a bit more mental shit to deal with.



The only way to reduce crime in America, by illegal immigrants, is to not let illegal immigrants into the country, or give them a pass for committing crime.

The only reliable solution, end illegal immigration.


There is no way to "end illegal immigration" without a magic wand. But since I know that facts and logic won't convince y'all, I instead present a "documentary" written by right-wing libertarians (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJGX9UvgvdA) on the topic.

What I will say though is that, since we don't have a magic wand, the next best way to end reduce illegal immigration would be to ... wait for it ... allow more legal immigration.

Guns are always relevant in Texas

Keep that California acai berry hippie shit out west

By " California acai berry hippie shit out" do you really mean "facts" and "logic"? Because the facts about the (lack of) safety given to you by owning a gun are as indisputable as Mick's stats about illegal immigrants committing more crimes.

You can totally have the opinion that guns are awesome, fuck the depressed people that commit suicide with them, fuck the gun owners (or relatives thereof) who go crazy and shoot people (and fuck their victims), and fuck children who shoot each other with their parent's gun ... none of them matter as much as the (comparatively) freak gun owner who successfully defends themselves. Or you could argue that the government will come to get us soon, and that guns (which will do absolutely nothing against tanks, jets, or the bulk of the rest of our military apparatus) are necessary to protect our freedom. Or you can argue that the percentage of gun owners who don't fall into those statistics are the only ones that matter, and everyone else is too stupid and shouldn't be allowed to have a gun (although then you'd probably be pro-gun control ... through IQ tests).

But what you can't argue is that statistically guns make you and the people around you safer, because there is a mountain of evidence that they actually make things less safe.

[Pokesan]

The problem is most the left isn't with me and will fight tooth and nail to keep poor South Americans coming in. We feel sorry for them blah blah...

All you have to do is set the IRS up to enforce it. Fine the shit out of business hiring illegals. Police don't want to arrest business owners...IRS have no issue giving out fines most the time.

spoiler: not gonna happen in a million years

[mickmoranis]

2627730]Originally Posted by loramin View Post
Also, immigrants tend to have seen some shit; you don't uproot your entire life and leave the only country you've ever known because things are going great, you leave because everyone around you is starving to death, the government is torturing/raping/murdering everyone, etc. That kind of psychic damage would make any person, anywhere, more violent. But if you have the empathy to say "hey people with shitty lives, why not come live with us where it's less shitty" you should have empathy to understand that people coming from those shitty lives will have a bit more mental shit to deal with.

1. you make a lot of assumptions here about the quality of person who is "fleeing" their country. Assumptions that this statistic in OP prove dead ass wrong.
2. you dont account for the fact that people "flee" mexico simply because there is money to be made and they want more of it to send home.
3. why should I care about someone who is fleeing their own country, that wants to come here, so you can SHAPE MY COUNTRY to better suit the person who couldnt even figure out how to fix their own?

What I will say though is that, since we don't have a magic wand, the next best way to end reduce illegal immigration would be to ... wait for it ... allow more legal immigration.

it is actually possible to reduce illegal immigration, it is not possible to increase policing like you suggest, because the left is activly trying to reduce policing.

And yes, literally my point is to increase legal immigration, so is Drumphs.

[Patriam1066]

Fine fuck it -- no poor immigrants. I'll get on bored. All Middleclass or up with some hope of bettering our economy -- we still need immigration though.

Why do we need immigrants? Overcrowding and landfills / shit air quality are real issues

[loramin]

spoiler: not gonna happen in a million years

Exactly. Our government is no more likely to (meaningfully) crack down on businesses hiring illegal immigrants than they are to (meaningfully) reduce illegal immigration.

[mickmoranis]

Why do we need immigrants? Overcrowding and landfills / shit air quality are real issues

it is ironic that liberals will cry about overpopulation and climate change then demand we have unfettered population growth.

[JurisDictum]

Why do we need immigrants? Overcrowding and landfills / shit air quality are real issues

If you don't worship at the alter of economic growth -- then you don't need them. But immigration helps build the overall size of the economy by concentrating talented individuals in first world countries like ours. We get the kind of people we need when we need them from a labor supply perspective.

The more hand wavy shit would be about cultural enrichment and the positive effects of globalization.

Basically, if the economy isn't growing -- rich people aren't happy. In America, they are very good at having the lower classes suffer more from economic downturns than other first world countries. But that is starting to wear thin because it has been so long since the lower orders have seen any growth in real wages. Meanwhile luxary for the rich has skyrocketed.

[mickmoranis]

Exactly. There is reality, and then there's conservative fantasy land and liberal fantasy land. The idea of our government truly trying to stop businesses from hiring illegal immigrants isn't a "reality" idea, is a liberal fantasy land idea, just like the idea that we can stop (or even put a truly meaningful dent) in illegal immigration is a conservative fantasy land idea.

there are more illegal immigrants working in California than there is in non coastal states combined.

only in a liberal bubble would you think that this is the case everywhere else.

I moved from california to a non costal state and on the regular a white person fixes every damn thing I call to have someone come out and fix. That goes from gutters to sewage to carpentry

do the same in california and its mexican mexican mexican mexican.

the businesses are actually not as much as a problem as YOU the individual who hires day laborers on the regular.

[loramin]

the businesses are actually not as much as a problem as YOU the individual who hires day laborers on the regular.

Is that a fact or just the usual fear-mongering? I'd love to see some statistics (especially since you now seem to have embraced them).

[fash]

I instead present a "documentary" written by right-wing libertarians on the topic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJGX9UvgvdA).



What I will say though, since we don't have a magic wand, is that the next best way to [s]end reduce illegal immigration would be to ... wait for it ... allow more legal immigration.

This reasoning is very Talmudic.

wrt to that video, American Indians welcomed the pilgrims. They didn't build a wall. Look where it got them today.

Here's how you reduce mestizo illegal immigration from Mexico.

https://i.imgur.com/2ltENtk.png


BTW, anyone know why non-hispanic white population drastically changed from 85% in 1965 to 60% today? Could it be related to the 1965 immigration act that opened the gates to many more immigrants?

[Pokesan]

If you don't worship at the alter of economic growth -- then you don't need them. But immigration helps build the overall size of the economy by concentrating talented individuals in first world countries like ours. We get the kind of people we need when we need them from a labor supply perspective.

The more hand wavy shit would be about cultural enrichment and the positive effects of globalization.

Basically, if the economy isn't growing -- rich people aren't happy. In America, they are very good at having the lower classes suffer more from economic downturns than other first world countries. But that is starting to wear thin because it has been so long since the lower orders have seen any growth in real wages. Meanwhile luxary for the rich has skyrocketed.

growth is the only thing keep mick's apocalyptic sex-fantasy from becoming real

[loramin]

https://i.imgur.com/2ltENtk.png

But there's nothing white supremacist about what you post, right Fash?

(And before you say "I was just quoting history", I'm referring specifically to the highlighting you chose, in the context of your post.)

[Patriam1066]

If you don't worship at the alter of economic growth -- then you don't need them. But immigration helps build the overall size of the economy by concentrating talented individuals in first world countries like ours. We get the kind of people we need when we need them from a labor supply perspective.

The more hand wavy shit would be about cultural enrichment and the positive effects of globalization.

Basically, if the economy isn't growing -- rich people aren't happy. In America, they are very good at having the lower classes suffer more from economic downturns than other first world countries. But that is starting to wear thin because it has been so long since the lower orders have seen any growth in real wages. Meanwhile luxary for the rich has skyrocketed.

I'd be at the top of the pyramid regardless how it was structured. I don't care about that. I passed on values to my children that would allow them to flourish. Investments and constant GDP growth aren't great arguments anymore because automation really is coming. People are more likely to be liabilities as opposed to assets in the future. Our fertility rate is what, 1.8 kids per woman? That's a good pace to decline at. Let all the kids go into nursing to care for the elderly... $15,000 minimum income per annum so that peopl can afford healthcare and education (cut all forms of welfare)

It would work fine. But yeah, I agree that we have to tell Wall Street and Hollywood that they won't call the shots in the future. I'm thinking st some point even corrupt ass holes will realize population growth without decent job opportunities = bad for markets

[fash]

But there's nothing white supremacist about what you post, right Fash?

Did I say any group is superior?

[loramin]

Did I say any group is superior?

Not at all, you merely implied it.

I will say that I'm stoked that I was able to get anyone to watch an episode of Bullshit though :D That show is so amazing (it's made by right-wing libertarians and I'm a liberal and I still like it, it's that good).

[Patriam1066]

growth is the only thing keep mick's apocalyptic sex-fantasy from becoming real

Disagree

The north Europeans will figure out a post growth economy... them or the Japanese. Hopefully at that point we'll have a populace that is smart enough to understand we aren't #1 anymore

Also, we can increase productivity without increasing population

[fash]

(And before you say "I was just quoting history", I'm referring specifically to the highlighting you chose, in the context of your post.)

Are you saying limiting immigration to "free white persons" wouldn't reduce illegal immigration of mestizos?

[Patriam1066]

Not at all, you merely implied it.

I will say that I'm stoked that I was able to get anyone to watch an episode of Bullshit though :D

Get over it dude I'm not white and I prefer white people to my own

[Pokesan]

Disagree

The north Europeans will figure out a post growth economy... them or the Japanese. Hopefully at that point we'll have a populace that is smart enough to understand we aren't #1 anymore

Also, we can increase productivity without increasing population

you're not gonna lock the wheel in place without alot of people getting crushed

[loramin]

Are you saying limiting immigration to "free white persons" wouldn't reduce illegal immigration of mestizos?

I'm saying that the moment you start implying that race matters you're inherently implying that one race is inferior/superior; if all races were equal it'd be as pointless to bring race up as it is to bring up the fact that (almost) all humans have two ears.

[AzzarTheGod]

Well who the fuck is going to murder someone if they live in Beverly Hills?* Obviously we should at very least -- control for income when determining if immigrants are more dangerous.

*Probably some guy killing illegal hookers and getting away with it.

uhhhh marlon brando's son christian brando for starters


what now bitch


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Brando#Legal_issues

[AzzarTheGod]

720

[loramin]

Get over it dude I'm not white and I prefer white people to my own

Great, that's a localized opinion you have based on the people around you. It might 100% be true that the people of any race (white or otherwise) in your area share cultural traits that you consider to be good.

None of that has anything to do with racial superiority. I like Japanese food (real Japanese food, not sushi restaurant Japanese food ... although I like that too) more than I like soul food, but I don't think the Japanese are a superior race.

[mickmoranis]

Is that a fact or just the usual fear-mongering? I'd love to see some statistics (especially since you now seem to have embraced them).

Day laborers search for work in the communities where they live, be they inner cities, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, or industrial-growth areas in cities as diverse as Atlanta; Hempstead, New York; Las Vegas; Phoenix; Portland, Oregon; San Jose; and Seattle. The largest concentration of day laborers is in the West (42%), followed by the East (23%), the Southwest (18%), the South (12%), and the Midwest (4%).

I cant believe I have to explain to you how immigrant workers behave. Do you live in California? Do you know anyone who has a cleaning service?

In non coastal states, its usually poor black families... in California 100% illegal immigration.

*source https://nacla.org/article/immigrant-day-laborers-myths-and-realities

[fash]

Not at all, you merely implied it.

I will say that I'm stoked that I was able to get anyone to watch an episode of Bullshit though :D That show is so amazing (it's made by right-wing libertarians and I'm a liberal and I still like it, it's that good).

Where did I imply it? It's all in your head. You're making up boogeymen.

Also that show was pretty good as I recall. It definitely gave me other perspectives on some issues. I watched many episodes long ago. :)

[loramin]

uhhhh marlon brando's son christian brando for starters


what now bitch


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Brando#Legal_issues

Do we know that his grandson didn't kill hookers? ;)

/duck

[loramin]

Where did I imply it? It's all in your head. You're making up boogeymen.

Also that show was pretty good as I recall. It definitely gave me other perspectives on some issues. I watched many episodes long ago. :)

Like I said, if you bring up X in a discussion you've implied that X matters. You don't bring up people's sense of smell when discussing which athlete can run the fastest, unless perhaps you've read somewhere that a good/bad sense of smell contributes to you being a good/bad runner.

Similarly, you don't interject race into the conversation if you think all races are equal, because then why would you even bring it up (again, it's akin to bringing up the number of ears most humans have in a non-ears conversation).

[JurisDictum]

Once Latinos get on the anti-Immigration bandwagon (i give em 10 years) we'll be fine...they have generational problems too. It's not going to be white snobs leading the way on this one. It also can't be people that look like they may be a member of a white supremacist group.

I should add there is a famous split in Marxist thinking.

Some think we need to solve the whole fucking world all at once. Others believe in the "one country at a time" approach...I like the latter.

[fash]

I'm saying that the moment you start implying that race matters you're inherently implying that one race is inferior/superior; if all races were equal it'd be as pointless to bring race up as it is to bring up the fact that (almost) all humans have two ears.

Pick any two different demographics (could even be race). You'll find differences between the group averages.

Saying groups are aren't equal doesn't imply superiority.

That's different than saying group differences matter.

[loramin]

Saying groups are aren't equal doesn't imply superiority.

Actually that's the very definition of it. If group X and group Y aren't equal by definition one has to be superior to the other (in whatever context you're talking about).

[AzzarTheGod]

Do we know that his grandson didn't kill hookers? ;)

/duck

big plays kid

Brando was initially charged with murder; however, prosecutors were unable to proceed with a murder charge because of the absence of Cheyenne, who was a crucial witness to their case. Marlon Brando had Cheyenne admitted into a psychiatric hospital in Tahiti. After several attempts to get her to return to California, a judge eventually quashed all efforts by the prosecution. Without Cheyenne's testimony, prosecutors felt they could no longer prove that Drollet's death was premeditated. Therefore, Christian was not charged with first-degree murder and was presented with a plea deal.

learn from ur betters. now lets macequest it up i see u already got the barbarian avatar.

[loramin]

*Unrelated Facts*
*source https://nacla.org/article/immigrant-day-laborers-myths-and-realities

Ok, when I said facts I meant relevant facts. I know this was like a whole page or two ago now, but try to remember what I actually said, and what quote of yours I was responding to:

the businesses are actually not as much as a problem as YOU the individual who hires day laborers on the regular.

Is that a fact or just the usual fear-mongering? I'd love to see some statistics (especially since you now seem to have embraced them).

In other words, I was asking for facts that proved that "businesses are actually not as much as a problem as YOU the individual who hires day laborers on the regular", not facts about the geographic areas people look for work. And I asked that because while I know immigrants do a lot of home cleaning and other independent jobs, they also do A LOT of farm work, meat processing work, etc. which benefits the business owner, and I suspect there is more of the latter than the former.

[mickmoranis]

Like I said, if you bring up X in a discussion you've implied that X matters. You don't bring up people's sense of smell when discussing which athlete can run the fastest

hmm yet here we see you bringing up random strawman arguments about gun ownership to discuss illegal immigration. :confused::confused::confused::confused:

I'm saying none of those things.

In general statistics overwhelmingly show that owning a gun does not make you or your family safer.

you're a serial out of context moving goalpost straw man poster. :o

[Pokesan]

[I]

In non coastal states, its usually poor black families... in California 100% illegal immigration.



are you saying the underclass is chiefly non-white?

[mickmoranis]

In other words, I was asking for facts that proved that "businesses are actually not as much as a problem as YOU the individual who hires day laborers on the regular", not facts about the geographic areas people look for work.

ahh moving the goalpost again.

[loramin]

big plays kid

Brando was initially charged with murder; however, prosecutors were unable to proceed with a murder charge because of the absence of Cheyenne, who was a crucial witness to their case. Marlon Brando had Cheyenne admitted into a psychiatric hospital in Tahiti. After several attempts to get her to return to California, a judge eventually quashed all efforts by the prosecution. Without Cheyenne's testimony, prosecutors felt they could no longer prove that Drollet's death was premeditated. Therefore, Christian was not charged with first-degree murder and was presented with a plea deal.

learn from ur betters. now lets macequest it up i see u already got the barbarian avatar.

Normally I'm pretty serious in these discussions, but as I hoped my ";)" and "/duck" indicated, I was just messing around on that. Because, you know, hooker murder is totally a joking topic ...

(That's one thing I'm with the libertarians on: even the blackest of black humor can be funny to someone and deserves protection.)

[mickmoranis]

are you saying the underclass is chiefly non-white?

Yes, more often than not. Do you even know what you've been arguing about politically for the last 3 years on these boards? everyone knows that black people are suffering in this country. Specifically you.

You and I just disagree on why, you think it's your fault, I think it's theirs.

[loramin]

hmm yet here we see you bringing up random strawman arguments about gun ownership to discuss illegal immigration. :confused::confused::confused::confused:
A) This is off topic, and the real discussion wasn't illegal immigration it was feminism. That's ok though, because again this is off topic.
B) I was only responding to others' comments on guns, I in no way brought in that topic myself.

you're a serial out of context moving goalpost straw man poster. :o
ahh moving the goalpost again.

I literally quoted EXACTLY what you said directly above my asking for facts. How is saying "please try reading the thing you're responding to before you respond to it" moving the goal post?

Heck I even re-quoted exactly what both of us said. Here I'll do it again:
the businesses are actually not as much as a problem as YOU the individual who hires day laborers on the regular.
Is that a fact or just the usual fear-mongering? I'd love to see some statistics (especially since you now seem to have embraced them).

[fash]

Actually that's the very definition of it. If group X and group Y aren't equal by definition one has to be superior to the other (in whatever context you're talking about).

Because some racial group is 5% taller than group Y doesn't mean group X is "racially superior". Calling out a group difference isn't racial supremacy.

Sure you aren't the racist one? :)

[Pokesan]

Yes, more often than not. Do you even know what you've been arguing about politically for the last 3 years on these boards? everyone knows that black people are suffering in this country. Specifically you.

You and I just disagree on why, you think it's your fault, I think it's theirs.

thanks for finally acknowledging it! :)

[JurisDictum]

You have to go to the south in specific areas to find white underclass -- but it is there and real. Big on that born-again religion that's very otherworldly and rhetorically performative...very authoritarian and repressive of any that don't fit in.

There is long history of exploiting poor white people in the south. If you are a poor white kid with a southern accent, there is significant baggage there that a California middle class kid does not have.

[Pokesan]

I've been here, I've just been trying to limit my off-topic/RnF posting after realizing how true Brandolini's Law (http://ordrespontane.blogspot.com/2014/07/brandolinis-law.html) is. It's been great for my free time and sanity ;)



Well now I feel obligated to watch Bad Santa out of fairness. Hopefully it's on HBO/Hulu/Netflix/Amazon/...

find the cookies, lor. eat them.

[Pokesan]

Because some racial group is 5% taller than group Y doesn't mean group X is "racially superior". Calling out a group difference isn't racial supremacy.

Sure you aren't the racist one? :)

well, being taller on average makes their height -generally- "superior".

including this sort of factoid in an economic discussion is the strange part!

[mickmoranis]

You have to go to the south in specific areas to find white underclass -- but it is there and real. Big on that born-again religion that's very otherworldly and rhetorically performative...very authoritarian and repressive of any that don't fit in.

There is long history of exploiting poor white people in the south. If you are a poor white kid with a southern accent, there is significant baggage there that a California middle class kid does not have.

pfft there are poor white people all over the country, but consistently liberals focus only on white southern culture, because deep down all of your problem really comes from that 1990's Marilyn Manson angst of being told to go to church as a white kid growing up in the suburbs and to not paint your fingernails black.

go to riverseide, its a huge whtie population of poor people, orange, outside PDX, basically ALL of northern California, all the way up to Seattle.

anywho, the truth is all socialists are just still upset about how they were treated as goths in the 90s and that's why you have so many hangups on atheism and Christianity.

[loramin]

Because some racial group is 5% taller than group Y doesn't mean group X is "racially superior". Calling out a group difference isn't racial supremacy.

Sure you aren't the racist one? :)

Again context matters. If you're talking about basketball-playing ability, where height is relevant, and race X tends to be taller, then it's absolutely a statement of racial superiority (a true one) to say that race X with taller members than race Y will (as a group) start with a biological advantage in basketball. Height is relevant there, so you bring up a racial relationship to height. It might not be PC, and it might be considered racist by some people I guess, but it's just basic facts and a logical conclusion derived from them.

Similarly if you bring up a race's height in a conversation about knitting, you must be implying that height somehow matters for knitting ... or that you're a brainless racist who spouts out racial facts unrelated to the current conversation. If you bring up a race without a specific attribute (eg. height), then you're implying that there is an unspecified racial factor that somehow matters for knitting.

The conversation we were having was like knitting; there were no obvious factual race-based differences, so if someone brings up race they're implying that there is a race-based difference, ie. that one race is superior ... or they just like to spout stuff unrelated to the conversation.

[fash]

well, being taller on average makes their height -generally- "superior".

So you're a racial supremacist if you think one race taller than some other race? :)

including this sort of factoid in an economic discussion is the strange part!

Off topic is on topic in the off topic forum? I think I'm doing it right.

[mickmoranis]

In a context where there is no obvious factual race-based differences, the same holds true: if you bring up race you're implying there is a (non-obvious) race-based difference ... or you just spout nonsense.

race = culture in America these days. So by bringing up cultural phenomenon YOU libtards are going to think that someone is bringing race into the conversation.

[Pokesan]

So you're a racial supremacist if you think one race taller than some other race? :)


?

[AzzarTheGod]

Normally I'm pretty serious in these discussions, but as I hoped my ";)" and "/duck" indicated, I was just messing around on that. Because, you know, hooker murder is totally a joking topic ...

(That's one thing I'm with the libertarians on: even the blackest of black humor can be funny to someone and deserves protection.)

not to worry friend ATG is known for very cool and normal posts and likes posting with his cool and normal friends online

*daps mickmoranis*

[loramin]

So you're a racial supremacist if you think one race taller than some other race? :)

Yes! You are saying that the taller race is superior at things related to height, which is a logical conclusion to draw from the fact that race A tends to be taller than race B. Again, not the most PC thing to say, but it's a fact based statement of racial superiority.

However when you don't mention height, then you're implying there is some unspecified attribute that race X has which makes them superior in whatever you were talking about. Like if you are having a conversation about illegal immigration and suddenly someone starts saying that (I'm paraphrasing here) we wouldn't have as many problems with immigrants if we only kept the non-white ones out ... that's implying that race X ("whites") have some racial attribute which makes them less likely to commit crime.

... ie. you're making the argument one race is superior to the other, because of an unspecified attribute(s), in the arena of not committing crimes. You don't have to literally say that, the very fact that you're bringing up race in a conversation about immigrant crime inherently implies that you're saying it for a reason, and the only reason to do so would be to express race X's superiority (at not being criminals).

[skarlorn]

i like blaks i like jews i like chinese jappies too

[mickmoranis]

its a shame people like loramin have such a hang up about race that a white person cant just increase their odds of having a tall kid by having one with a black person without having to commit to the cultural "rules" of that race.

Fun fact, libearals are racist, sexist and wont stop talking about the two non important issues.

there is 1 race, the human, there are just some that are darker than others and half of them are born with a vagina.

the great thing about earth is taht everyone can do whatever they want (despite liberals saying that you cannot) (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/26/rachel-dolezal-white-woman-who-identifies-as-black-now-jobless-may-soon-be-homeless.html)

[loramin]

its a shame people like loramin have such a hang up about race that a white person cant just increase their odds of having a tall kid by having one with a black person without having to commit to the cultural "rules" of that race.

Fun fact, libearals are racist, sexist and wont stop talking about the two non important issues.

there is 1 race, the human, there are just some that are darker than others and half of them are born with a vagina.

the great thing about earth is taht everyone can do whatever they want (despite liberals saying that you cannot) (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/26/rachel-dolezal-white-woman-who-identifies-as-black-now-jobless-may-soon-be-homeless.html)

Huh? None of what I was saying about race was addressed at you (if it helps I tend to quote you when I respond to you). It was all directed at Fash's claim that he's not an advocate of racial superiority (and I don't mean height/basketball skills) even though he posts racial stuff in non-racial conversations.

I certainly did not (and would not) say that races shouldn't mix or that Rachel Dolezal was black.

[mickmoranis]

everything that you are saying is so racist and ignorant it's hilarious. race race race, if there was a word cloud for your posts it'd be BLACK race WOMAN man

maybe try to judge a person based on their behavior for once and see where that gets you.

[fash]

So you're a racial supremacist if you think one race taller than some other race? :)

Yes! You are saying that the taller race is superior at things related to height, which is a logical conclusion to draw from the fact that race A tends to be taller than race B. Again, not the most PC thing to say, but it's a fact based statement of racial superiority.

Love the dynamic goal post that moves between accusations of "white supremacist" and then basic definitions of "superior".

Now tie that back to why you claim I'm a "white supremacist" when I state limiting immigration to only group X will reduce illegal immigration from group Y.

(wew, Brandolini’s law is in full effect here. The amount of energy required by me to refute the bs is an order of magnitude greater than that required to produce it.)

I'm curious whether you think common sense immigration policies like those in Poland or Hungary are "supremacist".

[loramin]

Ok, so if that wasn't a post about white racial superiority, why don't you explain exactly what non-white-supremacist idea(s) you were trying to communicate when you brought up race in this post:

wrt to that video, American Indians welcomed the pilgrims. They didn't build a wall. Look where it got them today.

Here's how you reduce mestizo illegal immigration from Mexico.

https://i.imgur.com/2ltENtk.png


BTW, anyone know why non-hispanic white population drastically changed from 85% in 1965 to 60% today? Could it be related to the 1965 immigration act that opened the gates to many more immigrants?

For instance, if all races are equal, what was the significance of that third highlight? Do you simply like people being free, and the word "white" just happened to be in-between?

Also (and this is just for bonus points) I'd still love to understand your angle. Have you gotten banned for posting racist stuff before, so now you toe the "I'm not posting racist stuff" line because you are a racist but don't want to be banned? Are you just looking for attention and you know bringing up race (and picking the handle "Fash") will do that?

It's undeniable that you make racialy-tinted posts and like nazi-themed avatars than most people, but you go to lengths to argue that you're not racist. I would love to know why.

[mickmoranis]

loramin?!!!! why do you have to insist that any disscussion is about one race being superior to another?!??!! what is your sick hangup?

this is how libtards are bringing back racism, by revealing how racist they really are.

thanks obummer (though they blame trump :rolleyes: )

[fash]

We need a little more feminism in Sweden.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-22/swedish-gang-rapes-hundreds-protest-after-third-attack-weeks-leaves-17-year-old-hosp

the most recent [gang rape] of which took place in a playground last Saturday and left a 17-year-old girl hospitalized.

Authorities haven't disclosed the identity of the suspect(s) and have offered scant details of the attack - though it has been described by authorities as particularly brutal, with unconfirmed reports on social media claiming the victim had lighter fluid poured in her vagina and set on fire.

Police say that there is no obvious connection between the incidents

[snip]

[Swedish authorities told] local women "These predators focus on single women who move themselves outside, adding 'It's about common sense. We are not warning people not to be outside, but to think twice and maybe not walk alone late at night and instead go with others or take a taxi,' said Nilsson.

After a national backlash, Malmo police retracted their statement, with Mr Nilsson saying he had been 'clumsy' choosing his words.

Yep. Don't worry about the recently imported demographic that coincided with a surge in gang rapes in Sweden. Women, just don't go out alone, and you'll be fine. Nothing to see here.

[skarlorn]

i LIKE blacKS i lIkE JEWZ CHINESE JAPPOS WHITIES TOO

[loramin]

loramin?!!!! why do you have to insist that any disscussion is about one race being superior to another?!??!! what is your sick hangup?

this is how libtards are bringing back racism, by revealing how racist they really are.

thanks obummer (though they blame trump :rolleyes: )

Ummm ... I'm not the one that brought race in, Fash did (and I think we all can agree he is not a "libtard"). The only thing I've been trying to do on that topic is get Fash to admit he posted something racist (and really one could see the whole thing as a larger campaign spanning multiple threads; myself and others saying that Fash is racist and him saying he isn't goes beyond this thread).

Heck, I haven't even tried to disabuse him of his racism. It seems pretty strongly embedded and would likely require an American History X experience to remove anyway ;)

[AzzarTheGod]

i LIKE blacKS i lIkE JEWZ CHINESE JAPPOS WHITIES TOO

bars

future career in writing hooks right here for CSPAN Records artists

[mickmoranis]

Ummm ... I'm not the one that brought race in, Fash did

You brought up race as a way to describe someone, you keep bringing the conversation back around to it, and you keep insisting that there are identities about race that can indicate whether someone is superior to another.

[loramin]

You brought up race as a way to describe someone, you keep bringing the conversation back around to it, and you keep insisting that there are identities about race that can indicate whether someone is superior to another.

Once again, all of those racial posts were directed at Fash, not you, and were heavily contextual to that specific conversation (the one where Fash fails to explain how his racist post wasn't racist).

I was only trying to make points about language and the meaning of words in all of those posts to "prove" that Fash can make racist posts adding race to a non-racial conversation, even when he doesn't literally say "white people are superior". In none of them did I actually comment about race or racism (unless you count the "thought experiment" of saying a tall race has a superior advantage as a group when it comes to basketball).

[mickmoranis]

U(and really one could see the whole thing as a larger campaign spanning multiple threads; myself and others saying that Fash is racist and him saying he isn't goes beyond this thread)

fyi, this is how liberals skirt around the issue that they are racist. They try to imply that there has been a "longer dialgue" which is "why I keep bringing race up" and that "I know that person is racist, which is why I keep bringing up race, or pointing out the differences between race"

its the same with the sexes.

you guys have clear issues about racism that are deeper than you let on, infact I wouldnt be suprised if when you were on the subway you definitly look out the corner of your eye to "observe" another race. You do it in a way that you think is innocent, but the fact that your radar pings everytime you are around, or hear the word race in conversation, i can only emplore you to realize, indicates that YOU are a racist.

And further more, the fact that you argue with people who litearally give zero shits about other races & sexes, so much so that they feel comfortable calling them out for cultural bullshit, indicates that you want to argue with NON racist/sexist people about how RACE drives a persons behavior and not their upbringing/culture. Which is a category 5 racist storm.

Just think about it for a bit. Take some time and let it sink in over the holidays.

[mickmoranis]

that said lor I love you with the entirety of my heart.

but work on the liberal racism plz.

[loramin]

I don't know why you're making this into some thing about liberals in general. There is nothing more to that entire conversation then a single person (Fash) making racist statements, and a single other person (me) pointing out that they were racist ... plus a few other people in other threads also noting that Fash makes racist statements (based on other posts he made long before he made the one in this thread).

We're talking two people in one thread, plus a few more in another, all arguing about language not race. There are no great truths about liberals.

that said lor I love you with the entirety of my heart.

<3 you too!

[Pokesan]

next time it comes up let's just skip to libs are the real racists we're wasting air time

[mickmoranis]

I don't know why you're making this into some thing about liberals in general. There is nothing more to that entire conversation then a single person (Fash) making racist statements, and a single other person (me) pointing out that they were racist ...

im trying to point out that he wasnt making racist comments, but your inner racist dialgoue turns them into racist comments.

its like if I were to say, "there is no such thing as the pay gap" a liberal would say "that is sexist!" when in reality, the pay gap actually is a myth.

Or for example if I said, "black people commit crime at a disproportionate rate" if you were not as woke as you were (thanks to our amazing dialogue) then you would say that is racist. But it is, however a fact.

It has taken us a long time to not look at the statistics I shared that got the discussion going today, about illegals committing more murder than non illegals by a large margin, a racist statement. *edit* I mean this studdy hasent even been done because liberals that work in the CDC think that they're racist!

The fact that the left turns any actual discussion about race, into "thats raycist!" or for example, you wanted more policing as a solution to immigrant crime, however, that is ironic because more policing in migrant communities, would be considered racist because at that point we would be profiling minorities.

Its all fucked up, but the thing is, if you notice racism in someone else's words, then YOU are the one that has the hangup on race.

It is something the left really, really needs to come to terms with.

[skarlorn]

thanks azzaR that's probably the Best Hook I've Ever Written

*Daps hammer gently with tears in his eyes as he signs a multi trillion dollar hook-writing propaganda gig*

[loramin]

im trying to point out that he wasnt making racist comments, but your inner racist dialgoue turns them into racist comments.

If the post wasn't racist, and it's just my inner dialogue, kindly explain why Fash still hasn't explained what he did mean to say (thus far all he has talked about is what he wasn't trying to say). Or perhaps you'd care to offer a non-racial interpretation of the post?

[JurisDictum]

Culture plays a role and all...I'm not sure if we are ever going to get to the point where out-groups criticizing in-groups helps all that much. Example:

Chinese Guy: You white guys can't keep up in math because your parents are too soft and think them being bad at math makes it ok for you to be as well. Not to mention your kids are disobedient to their teachers. You guys need to up your respect academics and get your kids to do more math.

White Guy: You're right -- it's a real problem with white culture that we think it is OK to be disrespectful to older people and teachers. We need it to be a bigger deal if our kids are getting C's in math too.

[Patriam1066]

I have no black friends

[skarlorn]

Same basically I'm mostly into Jews whites and Asians these days. Had some blacks and musalman friends back in h town tho

[fash]

Ok, so if that wasn't a post about white racial superiority, why don't you explain exactly what non-white-supremacist idea(s) you were trying to communicate when you brought up race in this post:

For instance, if all races are equal, what was the significance of that third highlight? Do you simply like people being free, and the word "white" just happened to be in-between?

Your antecedent is incorrect. Races aren't equal. People aren't equal. You aren't equal to the bum on the street. Heck, you aren't equal to yourself from a year ago. :)

Anyhow, to spell it out, immigration from Mexico was already brought up before my post. Around half of illegal US immigration is from Mexico, hence why it's an important US immigration issue and why it was already in the conversation.

That post points to a prior US immigration policy that successfully limited immigration, illegal or otherwise, more effectively than today's due to those highlighted parts you ask about. Surely, you would agree that the 1790 Naturalization Act was more effective at restricting mestizos immigrating from Mexico. It doesn't suggest Mexicans are "superior" at crime, it doesn't suggest blacks are "superior" at basketball, nor does it suggest whites are "supreme". Nowhere does that post advocate colonizing, enslaving, or otherwise dominating Mexicans or any other group, directly or indirectly.

Nobody else has brought up supremacism in this discussion. You have repeatedly brought it up (here and other threads) because it's a demon floating around in your mind, and it's as misguided as the claim that origin nation is irrelevant in a discussion on who you allow to immigrate into your nation.

Also (and this is just for bonus points) I'd still love to understand your angle. Have you gotten banned for posting racist stuff before, so now you toe the "I'm not posting racist stuff" line because you are a racist but don't want to be banned?


You're getting rather personal there, loramin.

Also (and this is just for bonus points) I'd still love to understand your angle.

My angle is I'm not racist (at least not in how "racist" is commonly defined by your average working class person. Not emerging definitions (https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/dictionary-definition-racism/) from critical theory in academia.). In fact, I'd wager I respect the differences between peoples more than most.

Also, I've never been banned either! I have the cleanest whistle.

Have you gotten banned for posting racist stuff before, so now you toe the "I'm not posting racist stuff" line because you are a racist but don't want to be banned?

How dare you accuse me of racism, sir! I have token black friends! At work, I get along well with my one black intern and the one mexican guy as well as the hordes (~50%) of asians and indians. I was pals with members of various races at my culturally enriched schools. I have nothing against people on an individual relationship level based on race.

Are you just looking for attention and you know bringing up race (and picking the handle "Fash") will do that?

Nope, just drawing attention to contradictions or absurdities some people believe to be true e.g. all races/genders/people are equal, "diversity is our strength", multiculturalism is a net positive for societies, Islam is a religion of peace, feminist activists are genuinely fighting against abuse against all women (see my Rotherham post earlier), etc.

It's undeniable that you make racialy-tinted posts and like nazi-themed avatars than most people, but you go to lengths to argue that you're not racist. I would love to know why.

wrt to arguing I'm not a racist, that's because recently you and lancelot have been frequently making those accusations without any legitimate evidence in an attempt to ignore and distract others from my posts' content. It's also fun to role-play as the villain in your narrative. To my recollection, nobody else has made similar slanderous accusations (besides some fun Poke-quips).

Mostly, I like to get people questioning the truthiness of their bad assumptions by pointing to group disparities, cultural differences, historical inaccuracies, hypersensitivity to race, and so forth. Sometimes that causes a little hysteria in those who don't venture outside of their bubble. Conveying all that as a super-villain boogeyman avatar has been fun too thanks to the occasional rustled jimmy. "OMG! The nazis are everywhere!!"

[Lhancelot]

I have no black friends

Ohh ohh! I have many black friends!

Glad we talking about friends and their races, so I can share with everyone what color my friends are. :rolleyes:

[Patriam1066]

Ohh ohh! I have many black friends!

Glad we talking about friends and their races, so I can share with everyone what color my friends are. :rolleyes:

I'm just trying to be tongue in cheek with loramin who is very butt hurt about being an SJW

try not to be so serious pussy. It's 40 degrees and I'm grilling out down here in Texas

[Patriam1066]

Same basically I'm mostly into Jews whites and Asians these days. Had some blacks and musalman friends back in h town tho

That's an interesting group. My neighbor is a white MD married to an aZn nurse, so I guess I have an Asian friend. I know tons of Muslims though. I give them shit but they're mostly good people, plus I still know many Persians and always will

[skarlorn]

lhancelot i hate your posts recently

[loramin]

Your antecedent is incorrect. Races aren't equal. People aren't equal. You aren't equal to the bum on the street. Heck, you aren't equal to yourself from a year ago. :)

Anyhow, to spell it out, immigration from Mexico was already brought up before my post. Around half of illegal US immigration is from Mexico, hence why it's an important US immigration issue and why it was already in the conversation.

That post points to a prior US immigration policy that successfully limited immigration, illegal or otherwise, more effectively than today's due to those highlighted parts you ask about. Surely, you would agree that the 1790 Naturalization Act was more effective at restricting mestizos immigrating from Mexico. It doesn't suggest Mexicans are "superior" at crime, it doesn't suggest blacks are "superior" at basketball, nor does it suggest whites are "supreme". Nowhere does that post advocate colonizing, enslaving, or otherwise dominating Mexicans or any other group, directly or indirectly.

Nobody else has brought up supremacism in this discussion. You have repeatedly brought it up (here and other threads) because it's a demon floating around in your mind, and it's as misguided as the claim that origin nation is irrelevant in a discussion on who you allow to immigrate into your nation.




You're getting rather personal there, loramin.



My angle is I'm not racist (at least not in how "racist" is commonly defined by your average working class person. Not emerging definitions (https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/dictionary-definition-racism/) from critical theory in academia.). In fact, I'd wager I respect the differences between peoples more than most.

Also, I've never been banned either! I have the cleanest whistle.
were


How dare you accuse me of racism, sir! I have token black friends! At work, I get along well with my one black intern and the one mexican guy as well as the hordes (~50%) of asians and indians. I was pals with members of various races at my culturally enriched schools. I have nothing against people on an individual relationship level based on race.



Nope, just drawing attention to contradictions or absurdities some people believe to be true e.g. all races/genders/people are equal, "diversity is our strength", multiculturalism is a net positive for societies, Islam is a religion of peace, feminist activists are genuinely fighting against abuse against all women (see my Rotherham post earlier), etc.



wrt to arguing I'm not a racist, that's because recently you and lancelot have been frequently making those accusations without any legitimate evidence in an attempt to ignore and distract others from my posts' content. It's also fun to role-play as the villain in your narrative. To my recollection, nobody else has made similar slanderous accusations (besides some fun Poke-quips).

Mostly, I like to get people questioning the truthiness of their bad assumptions by pointing to group disparities, cultural differences, historical inaccuracies, hypersensitivity to race, and so forth. Sometimes that causes a little hysteria in those who don't venture outside of their bubble. Conveying all that as a super-villain boogeyman avatar has been fun too thanks to the occasional rustled jimmy. "OMG! The nazis are everywhere!!"



Ok, ignoring the absurdity that immigration policies in a completely different time can be directly applied now (despite immigration issues and the very make-up of the immigrant population being dramatically different), you highlighted "free white men", and included the image in the first place. Why? What were you trying to communicate about free white men as opposed to other immigrants?

If we're talking about immigrants and I quote something about how some are overweight, or have a bigger shoe size, or whatever, I'm not just doing that without a reason. By raising the topic of obesity/shoe size/whatever when it wasn't part of the conversation before, I'm suggesting that obese/big-footed/whatever immigrants are somehow different from other immigrants (and that the difference is somehow relevant to the conversation).

You play a game. For any given post where no one is talking about race you drop thinly-veiled racist remarks while scrupulously avoiding saying anything directly racist. This lets you explain why any given quote out of context isn't racist.

making those accusations without any legitimate evidence

But what you don't seem to be able to explain is why you frequently make such "borderline"-racist posts in threads where no one had been talking about race, why you've had three different avatars and they were all nazi-themed, why you picked the username "fash", why you included an image with "free white men" highlighted without explanation, etc. You don't stand behind and defend your own words (or name or avatar), because if you did you'd have to admit that what you were trying to communicate was in fact racist.

And if it's "personal" for me to call you out and ask you stand behind the words (and images) you've posted, then I'll freely admit I'm being personal, but honestly I'd do the same to anyone else being as disingenuous. All I'm asking is for you say "I'm Fash, I picked a name that means fascist, I picked three Nazi-themed avatars, and I add racial stuff to threads where no one is talking about race. I also claim not to do it out of racism, and the real non-racist explanation for all those things is _______".

[mickmoranis]

next time it comes up let's just skip to libs are the real racists we're wasting air time

Libs gentrify the area around their all white webpage buzz news companies then call home and call their dad living in the middle of nowhere who happens to work with 17 people of color racist for going to church.