Donald Trump

"

Disrupted wrote:

dont know if that twit is real or not, but I wouldnt be surprised, by googling it, I see there's a link but it seems to 404 now. The things I've heard from SJWs make me expect anything.

It's real: https://archive.is/2W36h

"

Disrupted wrote:

...

I think the left needs to realize the monster it has created and how its gradually poisoning society. when people cant even joke without risking losing their job and whatnot (oh yes, Ill never forget how SJWs made a nobel prize laureate lose his job due to an harmless joke) you know there's something real wrong going on.
News like this shouldnt be real (happened just the other day):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/nazi-pug-man-arrested-after-teaching-girlfriends-dog-to-perform/
^I understand how it can offend people, but to arrest someone for that? nice going britbongistan, guess there werent enough kids spreading butter with a dull knife to be arrested that day (and hell yeah, the dog doing the salute its a complete riot, even better that its name is Buddha)



...

Me, Im against censoring of words and for new meaning, as words have more than one meaning, and tend to gain more with time (see that one south park episode about biker gangs to have an idea of what I mean, or the word "fag" and its different usages, internet lingo included), some others tend to fall in use, but I dont believe that actively censoring a word has the effect they desire (streisand effect's a bitch).

...

The thing that disturbs me most about the dog video is this quote in the article:

"

Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities added: "To regard the meticulously planned and industrialised murder of six million people solely on the grounds of their ethnicity as a joke is outrageous, and for someone who does so to claim not to be racist, beggars belief."

It's like, Hitler was responsible for waaay more murder than 6 million Jewish people, but, uh, fuck them, they're not Jewish.

From wikipedia, even though the article also seems to gloss over the fact:

"

Other victims of Nazi crimes included ethnic Poles, Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs, other Slavs, Romanis, communists, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and the mentally and physically disabled.

Now, I know I might be taking this particular person's quote, Mr. Borowski, out of context, I've seen enough similar quotes in my life that it's left a bad taste in my mouth for as long as I can remember.


p.s. I mean, ffs, the pink triangle also came from the holocaust:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle

I gotta ask though, are you against the concept of social justice or just how neo-SJWs go about supporting it? You mention 'regressives' so I'm wondering if you think they're counterproductive, similar to how many liberal/left/etc people view them.

p.s. Another way to put it is: I'm having trouble trying to 'get' how the opposite of a neo-SJW is a conservative.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Disrupted wrote:

dont know if that twit is real or not, but I wouldnt be surprised, by googling it, I see there's a link but it seems to 404 now. The things I've heard from SJWs make me expect anything.

It's real: https://archive.is/2W36h

Hahahahahhaha, thank you.

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

The thing that disturbs me most about the dog video is this quote in the article:

"

Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities added: "To regard the meticulously planned and industrialised murder of six million people solely on the grounds of their ethnicity as a joke is outrageous, and for someone who does so to claim not to be racist, beggars belief."

It's like, Hitler was responsible for waaay more murder than 6 million Jewish people, but, uh, fuck them, they're not Jewish.

From wikipedia, even though the article also seems to gloss over the fact:

"

Other victims of Nazi crimes included ethnic Poles, Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs, other Slavs, Romanis, communists, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and the mentally and physically disabled.

Now, I know I might be taking this particular person's quote, Mr. Borowski, out of context, I've seen enough similar quotes in my life that it's left a bad taste in my mouth for as long as I can remember.


p.s. I mean, ffs, the pink triangle also came from the holocaust:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle

Hmm, while I understand what you mean, I have no problem with them being focused on it since the man clearly trained the dog to respond to "gas the jews" and that comment came from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (I do know that Hitler persecuted more than just the jewish people, but dont think I've ever heard, the pink triangle, more interesting stuff to read, thank you).

With that said, looking at the context, I dont think the intention was to make the holocaust a joke, but rather the dog responding to it and the prank the guy was playing on his girlfriend .
and even then... its a freaking joke, perhaps one in poor taste (though certainly not the worst as there's a concept of "too soon" and one should care where and to whom they say it (sure you wouldnt do a 9/11 joke right when it happened to someone who lost family or friends there, there's being a jokester, and there's being a complete prick), and ofc I dont think someone should ever be arrested over a joke.
Dark humour is like food, not everybody gets it.
You can not like it, but to demand imprisonment over it? I would like to see someone properly justify that.

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

I gotta ask though, are you against the concept of social justice or just how neo-SJWs go about supporting it? You mention 'regressives' so I'm wondering if you think they're counterproductive, similar to how many liberal/left/etc people view them.

p.s. Another way to put it is: I'm having trouble trying to 'get' how the opposite of a neo-SJW is a conservative.

Overall no matter the cause,I tend to find activists annoying.

That said, I am not against social justice per se (if by social justice you mean just being for equal treatment of people), I am against both the way social justice goes about supporting and often WHO they support (though that depends on the situation ofc). BLM for example has shown to have no qualms with supporting thugs just as long as they are black (how to spot a supremacist group).

Current type of neo-feminism (third, fourth, fifth wave? not sure by now) that is getting more popular nowadays seems to be filled with man-hating victim complex liars who have no qualms with destroying peoples lives over false rape accusation and believe that first world countries live under a big bad feminist boogeyman, the oppressive patriarchy.
as the poster child of that kind of feminism, Anita Sarkeesian unironically said in a panel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA0aKjY8K50). I do think they are counterproductive, and to that extent, I dont think the right is as bad as some like to imply nowadays (far right another story, but I see a lot of equating right as far right, nationalist as supremacist, etc). and in the LGBTQ community you can often find some of the most bathsit insane people being defended simply because they fall under that umbrella and to criticize them as a person is a cardinal sin to an SJW.

To me the opposite of an SJW simply someone with common sense (lets not dwelve into philosophy here, u know what I mean :P) and the ability of critical thinking, both the right and left have some, but the left's common sense is slowly being degraded by unwillingness to fight the disease it currently has.
SJWs are the biggots of the left, they create new definitions and ideas to disguise it. They create segregation and say its a "safe space", they use minorities/tragedies as shields, they redefine racism/sexism to not apply to them (see this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9uMArSeg38 especially at 1:46) and they are what I would call a reverse santa claus, you wont believe they exist and when you realize they are real, you wish they werent.

Sorry for the long post, I dont write much nowadays, but when I do write, I write! (though not as a much as I used to in my younger more passionate years, and definitely not as well as I used to, Im kinda ashamed by how poor my current writing skills are, but what are you going to do?)

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

I gotta ask though, are you against the concept of social justice or just how neo-SJWs go about supporting it? You mention 'regressives' so I'm wondering if you think they're counterproductive, similar to how many liberal/left/etc people view them.

p.s. Another way to put it is: I'm having trouble trying to 'get' how the opposite of a neo-SJW is a conservative.

They absolutely are counterproductive. Google "intersectionality". The idea is that unless you're the most oppressed person in the room, your opinion is invalid.

The regressive part comes from the fact that they are actually regressing into past states of stupidity; "safe spaces" are very quickly turning into neo-segregation. (This is a Black-Only space! We need Women-Only buses! Fats Only! Trans Only! Whites need not apply!) There are also some very regressive stances on basic American concepts of freedom and justice... Mainly, tossing out Innocent Until Proven Guilty, particularly in cases of sexual assault (which is starting to become things like "looked at me", "Talked to me")

This isn't just relegated to Tumblr, either. It's starting to infect colleges. Real life.

"

Antnee wrote:

This isn't just relegated to Tumblr, either. It's starting to infect colleges. Real life.

Are you sure that's real life?

Maybe they aren't thinking because their programmers didn't allow for it in their code?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mrzay6y_ko

While the first one is amusing, the next two are a bit more telling of what the USA will get if it elects the Hillary Machine:

"You guys are the first to realize that I’m really not even a human being. I was constructed in a garage in Palo Alto"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BizU-u7RPcY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK2K5v5bm0Q

Sanders needs to somehow gain enough momentum that the super delegates switch their allegiance.

As soon as the nomination is a done deal and there isn't enough time for a replacement candidate, the indictments will come down. It is almost as if Barack secretly detests Hillary and when Benghazi fell apart, he made sure there would be a republican (Comey) in charge of the FBI so that Hillary could take the full blame.

I wonder if Comey will wait until October 3rd, so that a lone wolf federal judge or district court can't try to stop the indictments and prosecution.

Then again maybe Hillary is right and robots can't go to jail?

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-12/hillary-clinton-jokes-she-was-built-in-palo-alto-garage

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Maybe they aren't thinking because their programmers didn't allow for it in their code?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mrzay6y_ko

I had an eerily similar phone call the other day;

The voice on the other line asked for a 'lou', i live alone and my name is not lou.

"Who are you trying to reach?"

'Is the man of the house there?'

"Who are you trying to get a hold of?"

'Is the man of the house there?'

"Oh, is this a computer?"

'This is a real person, i just use a computer for quality assurance.' Disconnected on the other end.

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

Obama explains many of the issues with US politics.

"

SkyCore wrote:

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

Obama explains many of the issues with US politics.

Gerrymandering (which is what Obama references first) began over 100 years ago. The extreme partisanship occurred in the last 30 years, and it had very little to do with redistricting, so his analysis doesn't jibe with reality.

His second point, about negative ads predominating, was partially caused by campaign finance reform. Simply put - you could be a political and not technically or legally a supporter of a given candidate by simply saying your were against his opponent. The biological fact that people's brains are wired more strongly for threats and danger, allows for an easier access to a strong emotional response based off of dislike.

"By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate." <-- this was probably the kick starter for the serious negative campaigning, partially because of the very lopsided loss Dukakis suffered.

As to where the internal decisions for each party to wage complete war on the opposing political party began, I haven't seen anything conclusive yet.

As a general rule of thumb, whenever an ideal starts getting a codeword adjective, it's usually a bad sign. If someone is a fan of "justice," that's great, I'm a fan too. When people start saying "social justice," that raises the question: how is this different from the vanilla kind? Isn't "justice" already rather social?

So then the mission becomes: figure out what the modifier "social" means.

Justice is defined as "behavior or treatment in accordance with what is morally right and fair." Social justice, however, tends to have its sight set on stopping discrimination. Social justice advocates ask us to stop discriminating based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, socioeconomic status, nationality, mental health, prior felonies, furries, or anything else they feel like throwing under their umbrella of protection at the moment.

The thing is that discrimination isn't an entirely bad thing, despite the rough shake we've given the word "discrimination" over the past few decades. Some things, like ignorance, criminality, poor performance and negative attitude are 100% valid, just things to discriminate against. Unlike things like race, religion and sexual orientation, which have virtually no effect on someone's real viability as an employee or as a customer, it is actually unjust to prevent people from discriminating against others based on those things.

It seems to me that the end goal of the social justice agenda is socialism. They want it to be taboo to discriminate against people based on anything whatsoever - including merit.


But Scrotie, you're saying some discrimination is good and some is bad. Who are you to decide which is which?

You're right; I can only justly decide for myself.

I believe that if an employer discriminates based on race, they run a risk of having inferior talent as a result of that decision, so that's dumb; on the other hand, I think discriminating against prior felonies is a good way to mitigate risk and not stupid. If I'm right, then my views on discrimination are practical - with nothing more than free market forces acting, those who discriminate properly tend to be rewarded for it, those who don't punished for it. No enforcement agency is required.

And if you disagree with me, then what that should mean is: you do you differently. And you should be free to do so; your bigotry will be your own weakness, and the dangers you tolerate will be at your own risk. What it should not mean is: government dictates which people you interact with, and how.

A business should be able to reject or accept customers and/or candidates for any reason(s) whatsoever, regardless of how mind-bogglingly asinine you or anyone else believe those reasons to be. Even when - especially when - a majority believe it to be so.

So yeah, I figure I'm about as anti-SJW as possible, without having an irrational hated towards people different than me.