Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - SexWarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 161  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 21, 2017, 09:58:08 PM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41003929

The meme president gives no shits about your health advisories. Ain't no sun fuck with Trump.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 21, 2017, 07:44:36 AM »
yeah all the people who said bannon implanted a mind control chip into trump's brain to dictate his feelings and actions must feel pretty dumb right now
I know, right?! Especially since they're largely the same people who said Putin was doing the same thing! Did the chips get into some sort of cyberwar????

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 19, 2017, 08:58:13 PM »
They'd probably think someone else got ahold of the strings
Yeah, I guess expecting them to think something plausible would be silly

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 19, 2017, 06:34:05 PM »
I wonder what the #PresidentBannon crowd are thinking right now. The puppetmaster who was clearly 100% in charge of Trump got fired.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 18, 2017, 04:53:58 PM »
Most of his supporters think he is reasonable about Islamic terrorism, and this his responses to them are justified. It's probably one of the main reasons they voted for him.
Allow me to correct myself: I don't think anyone in this conversation thinks he's reasonable about Islamic terrorism.

I don't see this as a separate subject just because of the race or ideology of the attacker.
It's completely irrelevant what you do or don't see as separate subjects, unless your point is that you wouldn't make the statements Trump made if you were in his position (lol no shit).

To remain internally consistent (not right, just not self-contradictory), you'd have to propose that it is impossible for a person to view the two as separate subjects. I propose that it is possible, and that Trump is likely to perceive it so.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 18, 2017, 02:43:18 PM »
Well, it didn't take long for Trump to prove me right on this.
How does this prove you right? I don't think anybody is questioning the idea that Trump is batshit insane when it comes to radical Islamic terrorism. That doesn't mean he can't be semi-reasonable on other subjects.

Actually, thanks for bringing this back up. I should have pointed out how retarded your post was when you made it. Generally speaking, people aren't universally right or universally wrong, Saddam.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 17, 2017, 02:31:29 PM »
Next stop: the media acknowledging that antifa is a terrorist organisation.
Hnnnnngh, so close! They've stopped just short of it. But hey, at least they're "militants".

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155015816377217&id=228735667216

And how do you even begin to talk about or rectify that problem without some people thinking you're racist?
It's going to be a long process, but all we can do for now is keep challenging the "if you disagree with me you must hate black people" rhetoric. Eventually, the scales will tip and it will stop working as a strategy.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 17, 2017, 01:09:07 PM »
And unless I'm mistaken, the Nazi party did NOT take over via violence.  They were elected in a fair and open democratic election on a platform in which the economic hardships of the people were blamed on Europe and Jews, gypsies, gays, etc.. (it was totally Europe's fault though) and that together, they could rise up and become stronger.
Yes, you are mistaken. It's not so much that what you've said is completely incorrect, but it's extremely incomplete. The Nazis obtained the extent of power they did through staged violent activities which they blamed on "the enemy", thus justifying the strengthening of the government and the elimination of political discourse.

The violence against Jews and minority groups in Germany wasn't the result of the government saying "Go kill those Jews" it was the result of the government figure saying "Jews are the reason you're all poor!"
No, Dave, concentration camps were not a side-project of a private citizen who was convinced the Jews are making him poor. The violence was systemic, organised, and largely centrally controlled.

But are they?  I mean, I've just started reading it and even I knew that both sides were ready to fight.
This is the problem with you talking before you've done your reading. The original media reports were appallingly skewed, and are now (nearly a week after the tragic events) finally moving from "violence was one-sided and oh no how dare Trump say otherwise" to "yes, there was violence on both sides, but..."

This BBC video is a good example of this new, revised narrative: https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/10155014210312217/

This situation perfectly illustrates why we should continue to oppose media spin. It actually works. Next stop: the media acknowledging that antifa is a terrorist organisation.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 10:36:51 PM »
Then of course there was violence on both sides.  The only way there couldn't be is if one side either wasn't there or was purely passive.  So yes, there was violence on both sides.
Yes. It really is that obvious. Now, certain subsections of the media are trying to deny this, despite it being so obvious. In my mind, news organisations should not cover up facts.

And perhaps I'm not being clear:
Defensive Stance, is like defending a fort.  You stand at a spot, wait for the enemy to come to you, and kick their asses.  THAT is what I meant.  Not just some ideology (though that's there) but also "We're gonna be here.  When you come, you're gonna try to fight us and we're gonna fight back" instead of "We're gonna march towards you and attack"
And now you've returned to claiming that antifa were exclusively attacked by the white supremacists. This is not what happened. Each side started some of the clashes. Undeniably, the far-right started more of them, but to pretend that antifa was only there waiting to be attacked is disingenuous.

Also, let me remind you once more what your claim was: Your claim was that there is no evidence that antifa were violent.
The problem is that he condemned violence from both sides in one statement but there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.
Now you're talking about them waiting to kick someone's asses. It is blindingly obvious that you made your original comment without any understanding of the situation, and that you're trying to retcon your words into anything other than utter nonsense.

That is literally how America became independent.
Really? America became independent because a group of people with baseball bats decided to bash in the heads of an anticipated and public protest? I think it was a little bit more complicated than that, but perhaps growing up in a country with a semi-functioning education system has just blinded me to the woke truth.

Of course, I know what you're actually trying to say there. The USA became independent through violence. Therefore, violence is good! Of course, the Nazis also took control of Germany through violence, so if we apply the same reductionist logic, antifa are literally nazis. And, as we've established over the course of the last year, it is okay to punch a nazi.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 06:37:41 PM »
Well, yeah, people don't really equivocate BLM and Nazis.
It's less uncommon than you'd think, especially when the "Nazis" you're referring to in this case are not of the Weimar variety, but rather the "literal nazis!!1!" that liberals are trying to over-hype for some reason.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 01:56:20 PM »
I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
Well, that's certainly a bizarre thing to bring up. We were discussing whether or not there was violence on both sides. You said that "it seems like the counter protesters were in a defensive stance and the white nationalists were more offensive." Now you're saying that you weren't actually referring to their stance in the clashes, but rather the motivation behind their violence. While not incorrect (I'm sure they thought they were doing a good thing - they wouldn't be doing it otherwise), it's quite irrelevant to what we were talking about.

[again] I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
[...]
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.
Are you saying you support domestic terrorism as long as the ideas behind the terrorism sound nice? Because that's honestly how that's coming across, and the only way I can respond to that is with strong personal judgements.


12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 11:50:11 AM »
1. Posting a single image of a person in a helmet and holding a bat does not mean anything.
Yes, perhaps I should have clarified that this is a widely circulated photograph of an antifa "member", taken in Charlottesville at a time that strangely coincided with the clashes.

2. Assuming that's a legitimate picture of a counter protester... I'm failing to see your point.  Defensive does not mean you hunker down with a shield and pray they don't have guns(They did).
Yes, they armed themselves went to a location where they expected armed people to hang out, many of them travelling from out of state. All in self-defence, of course. I, too, regularly arm myself and go looking for fights in order to best defend myself. Sometimes I even go abroad to get some diversity in who I'm defending myself from!

If cops need to defend someone from being killed, do they carry only riot shields or do they have batons as well?  Or even *gasp* guns?
Now you're comparing domestic terrorists to law enforcement officers. You're about to go full BLM. Never go full BLM.

3. I say defensive based on movement patterns, not armaments.  The counter protesters were largely stationary while the white supremacists marched towards them.
This contradicts witness accounts.

Violence and hate and blood, that’s what I saw. What happened in Charlottesville this past weekend wasn’t a rally. It was a riot.

I was on Market Street around 11:30 a.m. when a counterprotester ripped a newspaper stand off the sidewalk and threw it at alt-right protesters. I saw another man from the white supremacist crowd being chased and beaten. People were hitting him with their signs. A much older man, also with the alt-right group, got pushed to the ground in the commotion. Someone raised a stick over his head and beat the man with it, and that’s when I screamed and ran over with several other strangers to help him to his feet.

Naturally, many of these accounts come from the far-right domestic terrorists, and it's in their best interest to say that antifa were violent. But even the antifas readily admit that they were not just defending themselves:

We were coming off a hard won victory. Before the attack occurred, we chased the Nazis out of their park, removing their platform. They were on the move towards a community with many people of color. We mobilized to intercept. We were at our most powerful, all of us together chanting with enthusiastic support from the people of Charlottesville. That was the moment that we were attacked.

The "Anti-Facists" are being labeled as bad.  Yet... why?
I believe terrorism is illegal in America, and illegal things are commonly described in a negative light. I'm also not convinced that domestic terrorism in the name of anarchism and/or communism is particularly worthy of your apologia.

I mean, if any group deserves to be actually resisted with physical force, it's the god damn Nazis.
No. Nobody deserves to be physically assaulted for protesting the idea of removing a statue. Not even the 50-ish Nazis that may have somehow found their way to that rally.

The way Trump talks, it's bad to punch Nazis
The way trump talks, it's bad to punch anyone. He's been pretty explicit and direct about that recently.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 11:05:32 AM »
Sure. Defensive.



Look, I don't think anyone is denying that the far-right were the primary aggressors here who deserve an overwhelming majority of the blame. It's just that some extremists are trying to push it much further, and are receiving tacit support from some media outlets in doing so.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 08:23:38 AM »
there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.
Wait, what? Where on Earth did you get that idea? There was violence on both sides, and I struggle to find any coverage that denies this. The only question here is that of the extent of the violence on each side (spoilers: the protesters were much more heavily armed than the counter-protesters, so when the clashes erupted it was a bit one-sided)

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 07:10:47 AM »
So you would agree that if this weren't Trump we're talking about, his statements would be fine?
See, the problem here is that you're not reading Trump's mind correctly. We're all experts at knowing exactly what's going on in other people's minds, especially if we never spoke to said people. You'll have to step up your game if you want to roll with the FES lefties.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 09, 2017, 12:32:16 PM »
And those who say they fear the president might strike first, I personally find the prospect of Kim striking first much more frightening.
Given that North Korea is only furthering its arsenal, it would probably indeed be better if the USA set the timing of any hypothetical war.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 09, 2017, 12:14:07 AM »
Trump's body language has always been a very strong indicator of what he's thinking. Look at him when he makes his threats. Arms crossed almost too tightly to be comfortable, his eyes are going all over the place trying to lock in on someone. As far as I can tell, this is the first time since he took office that he's shown himself to be legit scared.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: No Religion= Peace
« on: August 08, 2017, 12:06:23 PM »
As a representative of the hard-core-left, I can say that I really don't care
"As a representative of the group that Dawkins upsets most, I am not troubled by him being censored by my group."

Yeah, you're basically confirming Boodidlie's point here.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 03, 2017, 07:57:58 AM »
Trump Enemies...
Trump Enemies are the best enemies there are, and I'd know! Believe me.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 01, 2017, 10:38:23 AM »
I don't think anyone here needs 8 different uncut election coverage videos. Most of us are likely to know by now that Trump won.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 161  Next >