holy shit what a non interesting topic
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,670
Don't be so picky with your topicspicky picky wrote:
holy shit what a non interesting topic
Been playing Let It Die.
Could get used to this. No option for JP voices though.
Could get used to this. No option for JP voices though.
Actually in this case it's a very bad thingB1rd wrote:
I'm just glad that for once we have a president who actually sticks to his campaign promises and gets stuff done.
This would be a positive for literally any other president <3
Like Hitler. Hail Hitler.Mahogany wrote:
Actually in this case it's a very bad thingB1rd wrote:
I'm just glad that for once we have a president who actually sticks to his campaign promises and gets stuff done.
This would be a positive for literally any other president <3
pretty much the same ppl tbh
Edit: US Federal court blocked donny's request to reinstate the travel ban! (for now) Hallelujah! This is why we have systems of checks and balances. Justice prevails, for now.
Edit: US Federal court blocked donny's request to reinstate the travel ban! (for now) Hallelujah! This is why we have systems of checks and balances. Justice prevails, for now.
I would just like to say that this new bullshit order would have stopped no terrorist attacks if it were in place before
This is a perfect example of checks and balances. God bless.Mahogany wrote:
pretty much the same ppl tbh
Edit: US Federal court blocked donny's request to reinstate the travel ban! (for now) Hallelujah! This is why we have systems of checks and balances. Justice prevails, for now.
I actually found out that a student from my university was stuck in Iran when the ban started. She was stranded there until yesterday!
Thank god for the courts, and the brave, hardworking lawyers who fought for the detainees. Is your friend alright? I'd be pretty shaken up if I couldn't return home and were stuck abroad for a few days.
She's great! she's currently a study abroad here at my school with a valid visa. Everyone was afraid for her. I hate situations like that. :/
As I've already said, checks and balances does not mean straight up blocking an order the President has jurisdiction over.
How do you know it wouldn't have stopped the terrorists before they came into the country? Same as with the illegal immigrant and multiple time felons who murdered someone the tenth time they reentered the country. It's just a temporary ban until a vetting processes is established.ahsoka08 wrote:
I would just like to say that this new bullshit order would have stopped no terrorist attacks if it were in place before
For what it's worth, we won't have to talk much of checks and balances in the next few years, with the government being completely red and all.
Wow how did my team choke wtfff
I'm moving to cali
I'm moving to cali
tbh the only reason I'm this upset is because I don't want to ever see Trump or his prominent supporters (see: Richard Spencer), who all happened to be cheering for the Pats, happy ever again
I mean, look at this bullshit
I mean, look at this bullshit
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/stat ... 2027080704
kek
Why do you have to be so triggered about everything including football teams because some people you don't like are supporting one side? I'd actually like it if we could get along better, but "your side" seems intent on labelling Trump and all his supporters as Nazis, and fighting tooth and nail against everything he does, regardless if it makes sense or not.
An example that I posted in the other thread is trying to make out Trumps inauguration crowd smaller than it really was. It's just useless antagonism, it's not productive and just contributes to this growing culture of divisiveness in the US.
kek
Why do you have to be so triggered about everything including football teams because some people you don't like are supporting one side? I'd actually like it if we could get along better, but "your side" seems intent on labelling Trump and all his supporters as Nazis, and fighting tooth and nail against everything he does, regardless if it makes sense or not.
An example that I posted in the other thread is trying to make out Trumps inauguration crowd smaller than it really was. It's just useless antagonism, it's not productive and just contributes to this growing culture of divisiveness in the US.
Mostly because the game was a complete repeat of what happened in November. These schmucks shouldn't have had the opportunity to revel tonight, but it happened anyway. Also, at this point, any victory, no matter how small, is good. Because everything of actual consequence will end up in defeat.
Not to mention, /r/the_donald is#3 (#2, fuck me sideways) on /r/all because of a Brady post.
EDIT: It's also laughable how everybody supporting the Republicans' hardcore obstructionism the past eight years now wants the Democrats to "start building bridges." And several Democrats are voting to confirm his cabinet picks, as if they'll get something in return in four or eight years -- spoiler alert: they won't.
Not to mention, /r/the_donald is
EDIT: It's also laughable how everybody supporting the Republicans' hardcore obstructionism the past eight years now wants the Democrats to "start building bridges." And several Democrats are voting to confirm his cabinet picks, as if they'll get something in return in four or eight years -- spoiler alert: they won't.
time to fire the entire atlanta falcons coaching staff
picky picky_old
That is literally the purpose of checks and balances you dimwit. It's the entire reason the US isn't living under a fascist dictatorship. Yet.B1rd wrote:
As I've already said, checks and balances does not mean straight up blocking an order the President has jurisdiction over.
but hey, at least the satanic lady gaga halftime show was lit
Delayed but
Trump made an executive order (as he can)
A federal judge from 9th, blocked said order (as (s)he can))
Trump appealed block (as he can.)
It's just a legal battle calm down.
Trump made an executive order (as he can)
A federal judge from 9th, blocked said order (as (s)he can))
Trump appealed block (as he can.)
It's just a legal battle calm down.
Thize wrote:
Thank you, we all needed this
So you're only pissed about this because the people you don't like happen to enjoy the team. What a great reason. What about the fact that the Patriots won on overtime and the Falcons horribly choked, while everyone else was expecting them to win because NOBODY every wins on overtime? Are you going to blame it on Brady for doing a great job because he's friends with Trump and Trump openly supported him?Raspberriel wrote:
tbh the only reason I'm this upset is because I don't want to ever see Trump or his prominent supporters (see: Richard Spencer), who all happened to be cheering for the Pats, happy ever again
Hell, I didn't even watch the Super Bowl, but I've been following this kind of shit talk on Twitter for the past day and it has been seriously annoying me.
maybe I'm just a huge goddamn sociopath, but I really do not wanna see Trump supporters happy about anything
Do you even realize what you're saying or are you just so blinded with hate that the only thing you can see and talk about is Trump? Yeah, you sound like a goddamn sociopath. Calm the fuck down. You're no different from the right-wingers who want to see liberal tears all the goddamn time for no good reason.Raspberriel wrote:
maybe I'm just a huge goddamn sociopath, but I really do not wanna see Trump supporters happy about anything
We're gonna see lots of liberal tears whether we like it or not. We've got a lot of winning to do in these 8 years.
big agreee.
Just returning them the favor. If they'll never see eye to eye, what's the point?Foxtrot wrote:
Do you even realize what you're saying or are you just so blinded with hate that the only thing you can see and talk about is Trump? Yeah, you sound like a goddamn sociopath. Calm the fuck down. You're no different from the right-wingers who want to see liberal tears all the goddamn time for no good reason.Raspberriel wrote:
maybe I'm just a huge goddamn sociopath, but I really do not wanna see Trump supporters happy about anything
I should also clarify that I'm only talking about the Internet Trump supporters.
Glad to see that you won't give up being as stubborn as a donkey, then. If you'll never see eye to eye as well, then I don't think you should get the respect you think you deserveRaspberriel wrote:
Just returning them the favor. If they'll never see eye to eye, what's the point?
"Just returning them the favor" pfft, yeah, as if that ever worked
I should also clarify that I'm only talking about the Internet Trump supporters.? ? ?
They're still Trump supporters to me. Why do you feel the need to classify them? You're just gonna give yourself a headache
Mostly because on the internet, they're 10x worse as if you meet with an average one irl. At least you have a chance of having a decent conversation irl than over the internet, where they just say "lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altright"
I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.
I'll probably just deactivate Twitter tbh
I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.
I'll probably just deactivate Twitter tbh
How about we change the subject to something a bit more amicable?
Denim jackets or bomber jackets? And why? If you picked bomber jackets, what do you think is the best color one should get? Personally, I'd have to go with olive green.
i'm trying
Denim jackets or bomber jackets? And why? If you picked bomber jackets, what do you think is the best color one should get? Personally, I'd have to go with olive green.
i'm trying
picky picky_old
lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altrightRaspberriel wrote:
Mostly because on the internet, they're 10x worse as if you meet with an average one irl. At least you have a chance of having a decent conversation irl than over the internet, where they just say "lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altright"
I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.
Sorry but you make it too fun not to make fun of you.
Though you should probably spend more time worrying about the people who actually voted him for POTUS and not some 12 year old kids on the Internet. They can't even vote!Raspberriel wrote:
Mostly because on the internet, they're 10x worse as if you meet with an average one irl. At least you have a chance of having a decent conversation irl than over the internet, where they just say "lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altright".
Jesus christ, you consider that broken? Lighten the fuck up, please. I've seen this election breaking people down in worse ways than that. You're a very tame case.Raspberriel wrote:
I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.
And how about we drop the "let's drop this subject" meme. If you wanna talk about something, just write it. Don't put other people down for wanting a continued discussion.Madvillain wrote:
How about we change the subject to something a bit more amicable?
Sorry to say, but those aren't just "12-year-old kids on the Internet." People really are that obnoxious.
Also, 10/10 meme B1rd
Also, 10/10 meme B1rd
lol. Hard times living in a first world country rightRaspberriel wrote:
Mostly because on the internet, they're 10x worse as if you meet with an average one irl. At least you have a chance of having a decent conversation irl than over the internet, where they just say "lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altright"
I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.
I'll probably just deactivate Twitter tbh
Whatever suits your safe space, hon.Raspberriel wrote:
Sorry to say, but those aren't just "12-year-old kids on the Internet." People really are that obnoxious.
big suck
big suck
Did I ever say I'm literally struggling like some random third-world child right now? I didn't. Also, JonTron pulled this same shit a few weeks ago.Kisses wrote:
lol. Hard times living in a first world country rightRaspberriel wrote:
Mostly because on the internet, they're 10x worse as if you meet with an average one irl. At least you have a chance of having a decent conversation irl than over the internet, where they just say "lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altright"
I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.
I'll probably just deactivate Twitter tbh
picky picky_old
I never said nor implied you did at all. Damn, I guess I'll back out, I don't want to lose a limb in this strifeRaspberriel wrote:
Did I ever say I'm literally struggling like some random third-world child right now? I didn't. Also, JonTron pulled this same shit a few weeks ago.
big suck
Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA
picky picky_old
o boi u just became the even bigger brutebig suck wrote:
Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA
big suck wrote:
Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA
Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically???Holy shit why would you be this mad at that hahahaha
wtfbig suck wrote:
Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA
Lol, you're being triggered, and going on a tirade about memes. Honestly it's pretty funny. When did memes hurt anyone? I attribute all these liberals being triggered, emotionally shattered, "I'm literally shaking right now", to a thin-skinned, entitled generation that has a severe intolerance for the other side. It's the type of behavior that motivates left-wingers to try and shut down rallies and speeches by people they don't like. Have a bit more tolerance would you.
Also I have no idea who JonTron is or why he is relevant.
Also, I'm pretty sure that most Trump supporters are 16+, just putting it out there.
Also I have no idea who JonTron is or why he is relevant.
All my fallacies are logical. And Foxtrot isn't being angry, just pointing out irrational reactions about Trump. So far there hasn't been any arguments about any specific subjects. But if you find something to disprove, feel free to go ahead and disprove it, you're a big guy.big suck wrote:
Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA
Also, I'm pretty sure that most Trump supporters are 16+, just putting it out there.
big suck
Feel free to go back to Reddit if this place triggers you too much.
Funny how tolerance only entered the picture again once your side came to power.
big suck
im sorry if I ever indicated being triggered, hate to dissapoint you but im not. Youre just hiding behind some lies to try an make me look bad. What does that say about you? Insulting s9me guy for adding his two cent, thats what I call childishB1rd wrote:
Feel free to go back to Reddit if this place triggers you too much.
Hey now, you can't just leave the shitstorm you created just because other people laughed at you. Take responsibility of itbig suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Definitely a more accurate statement than mine. I think saying 12 was a bit exaggerated. Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.B1rd wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure that most Trump supporters are 16+, just putting it out there.
There are different reasons as to why some people don't vote other than stubborness, ignorance, ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (god I hate typing this line) etcFoxtrot wrote:
Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.
b1rd claims to be an anarchist yet supports trump who is quite clearly extremely authoritan
I'm pretty sure he has literally no values at all
I'm pretty sure he has literally no values at all
I support trump. Come at me Maho.
fuck off coldtooth
It's not about reason either. It's about adult citizens who complain about their own country and yet they don't go out and vote (and that's how Trump obviously won; a lot of the people were fed up with the status quo and they went out and done something about it. But it seems like no one on the left wants to admit that -- calling everyone racist is much easier). It's sad seeing people wasting away their rights like that, because people in other countries would kill for a chance like that.Kisses wrote:
There are different reasons as to why some people don't vote other than stubborness, ignorance, ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (got I hate typing this line) etcFoxtrot wrote:
Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.
ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (got I hate typing this line)That's pretty ungrateful of you
Anyone who voted trump is either completely ignorant of the candidate they're voting for, or willing to accept racism in exchange for the rest of his policies. Either one is unacceptable imo. And if they wanted a change in the status quo, they're fucking retarded for voting for the billionare businessman.
And yeah, a lot of people were really fucking complacent too. Polls didn't help with that either. The one good thing coming out of this presidency is that it's motivated a lot of youths to get involved with politics.
And yeah, a lot of people were really fucking complacent too. Polls didn't help with that either. The one good thing coming out of this presidency is that it's motivated a lot of youths to get involved with politics.
I never thought it was possible to change the status quo through voting. And if all choices are bad, then there's not much reason to vote. In Australia voting is mandatory, which is pretty shitty because it just forces uninterested and uninformed people make uninformed choices.
I'm still trying to work out why you hate Trump and his supporters so much. Do you think they're genuinely evil, or is it just some intellectual disagreement. Because the hates he's getting really isn't proportionate to anything he's done.
Well, there's "tolerance", as in, being tolerant of Muslims, LGQTBQQ, terror attacks, other liberals, and people and groups you already like. Then there's the tolerance of allowing people you don't necessarily agree or with or like the right to speak, give them basic respect, and not use violence against them. Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side, and have been pretty hypocriticial in things like being tolerant of Muslims, but not Christians. Respecting free speech and such, has mainly been a virtue of the right.Raspberriel wrote:
Funny how tolerance only entered the picture again once your side came to power.
I'm still trying to work out why you hate Trump and his supporters so much. Do you think they're genuinely evil, or is it just some intellectual disagreement. Because the hates he's getting really isn't proportionate to anything he's done.
So, you called us a bunch of idiots, yes I would say that was an insult and yes I would say you are acting triggered. What lies am I hiding behind? Are you actually gonna add something useful to the conversation or are you going to leave like you said you would?big suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Well done, I see your 10,000 hours in MS paint has paid off.Dawnsday wrote:
You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.B1rd wrote:
Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side
You don't protest free speech with free speech, that's how free speech dies. Attempting to deny free speech should not be tolerated under any circumstance.
e; this is a reference to the berkely milo riots :-D
e; this is a reference to the berkely milo riots :-D
big suck
So, you called us a bunch of idiots, yes I would say that was an insult and yes I would say you are acting triggered. What lies am I hiding behind? Are you actually gonna add something useful to the conversation or are you going to leave like you said you would?big suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Well done, I see your 10,000 hours in MS paint has paid off.[/quote]Dawnsday wrote:
You're lying by saying I am "triggered" never once did I express being in the act of "triggered" so really what my point im getting at here is that you have nothing to stand on to try an gather people against me.
Also that is a lovely photo <3
Yes you doDawnsday wrote:
You don't protest free speech with free speech
That's literally the point of free speech
Making voting mandatory is stupid, but it should be a right regardless. People have the right to throw away their rights, so I can't exactly do anything about it but except have an opinion on their character. Unfortunately, there's always going to be all kinds of misinformed people who are gonna vote, but we can't exactly throw democracy out of the window because of that.B1rd wrote:
I never thought it was possible to change the status quo through voting. And if all choices are bad, then there's not much reason to vote. In Australia voting is mandatory, which is pretty shitty because it just forces uninterested and uninformed people make uninformed choices.
Out of curiosity, but why do you keep quoting one sentence out of an entire paragraph and make an argument out of that, instead of just answering to the paragraph itself?Mahogany wrote:
You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.B1rd wrote:
Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side
That's some good stuffDawnsday wrote:
Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works
picky picky_old
You missed theMahogany wrote:
Yes you doDawnsday wrote:
You don't protest free speech with free speech
That's literally the point of free speech
Attempting to deny free speech should not be tolerated under any circumstance.
The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entitiesDawnsday wrote:
Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works
If the college wants to shut down mr snowflake's hateful speeches, they can absolutely do that for any reason they want. Perfectly acceptable
If trump says people can't protest, or starts threatening them with defunding, THAT is an attack on the right to free speech, because now the government is influencing what people say. Which he did, by the way - much more serious than anything the college or protesters ever did.
Free speech never came into the berkley situation at all. The alt-right just wants an excuse to spread hate, and then cry "muh rights" when it doesn't even apply to them.
As always, xkcd explains this better than I ever could
Maybe we're skimming over the fact the talk Milo was going to give was not boycotted, it was outright destroyed. Riots took place, Communist propaganda was spread, Free speech boundaries were crossed.
As always Sargon of Akkad explains this better than me because my english is too shaky to give a /full/ speech here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyC80feMcgU
As always Sargon of Akkad explains this better than me because my english is too shaky to give a /full/ speech here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyC80feMcgU
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by. They had it to shut down because the riots were getting out of hand. Even the chancellor of the university defended Milo and his right to free speech. It wasn't the university that drove him out, it was the students themselves. How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him, as you claimed lmaoMahogany wrote:
The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entities
If the college wants to shut down mr snowflake's hateful speeches, they can absolutely do that for any reason they want. Perfectly acceptable
If trump says people can't protest, or starts threatening them with defunding, THAT is an attack on the right to free speech, because now the government is influencing what people say. Which he did, by the way - much more serious than anything the college or protesters ever did.
Free speech never came into the berkley situation at all. The alt-right just wants an excuse to spread hate, and then cry "muh rights" when it doesn't even apply to them.
Also, I'm pretty sure the right to free speech also applies to private entities, or we must have pretty different ideas about "free speech".
big suck
And those disguised attackers are despicable.Dawnsday wrote:
Maybe we're skimming over the fact the talk Milo was going to give was not boycotted, it was outright destroyed. Riots took place, Communist propaganda was spread, Free speech boundaries were crossed.
Doesn't change the fact that the peaceful protestors have a point, and it was the uni's choice to shut it down based on reaction. Yes, it was a boycott/complaint type of "we don't want to listen to you".
Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.Foxtrot wrote:
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.
If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.Foxtrot wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure the right to free speech also applies to private entities, or we must have pretty different ideas about "free speech".
He didn't get an event there though, precisely because the university didn't want him. They outright protested his talk.Foxtrot wrote:
How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him
Do you have anything to disprove my point other than rhetoric of what you think free spech means?
>unis choice
i dont think they were given much choice, it was a state of "if this goes ahead we will continue to loot, assault and generally be a nuisance to not only the university but the outside communities"
The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time, Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same. The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.
Peaceful protest would just be not going, in fact the ENTIRE logical approach from libs to this situation should've been, not going and not caring, it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical
i dont think they were given much choice, it was a state of "if this goes ahead we will continue to loot, assault and generally be a nuisance to not only the university but the outside communities"
The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time, Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same. The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.
Peaceful protest would just be not going, in fact the ENTIRE logical approach from libs to this situation should've been, not going and not caring, it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical
Yes they were.Dawnsday wrote:
i dont think they were given much choice
They could've said no
They could've called in police
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches
They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?Dawnsday wrote:
The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time
Trump didn't denounce the quebec shooter after it became known they weren't muslim. Does that automatically mean trump supports the shooting of muslims? As much as I hate the man, no, it doesn't mean that, and it's a stupid argument to make.
"These two things are the same because I say they are"Dawnsday wrote:
Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same.
Hey - you don't get to decide this, buddy. Otherwise, I can turn around and say "All trump supporters are the same as that quebec shooter and want to exterminate all muslims"
They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.Dawnsday wrote:
The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.
That's a boycott, not a protest. There was a sizable peaceful protest going on, with a separate rogue element doing their own thing.Dawnsday wrote:
Peaceful protest would just be not going
"Hey guys ignore it and it'll go away"Dawnsday wrote:
it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical
Inaction is the entire reason Trump got elected, you dolt. I don't give a shit if this gives Milo attention, nor should anyone else. He's drawing attention to the worst side of the alt-right, and sabotaging his own movement - which is great. I hope he keeps doing his thing, people keep protesting him, and he keeps getting shut down, like the rest of his shitty movement.
This is not what free speech is about, and has nothing to do with free speech. Great job showing that you're absolutely clueless as to what that means.
Jesus, why do you have to make it so hard to reply to you. Is this another tactic of yours
But by your logic, private entities don't apply to free speech. So if the university wanted him there for a conference, the students had no right to be opposed to that.Mahogany wrote:
Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.Foxtrot wrote:
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideasMahoganyt wrote:
If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speechesThey also rely on the students financially, so yeah, no shit they'd follow their best interest.
Having to do a full reponse in 2017
alright let's do it
You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech (even though they were destroying shit lmao), Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here??", You all held your tongues because antifa's views aligned with yours.
Lol.
alright let's do it
Yes they were.They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down
They could've said no
They could've called in police
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches
They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?
Trump didn't denounce the quebec shooter after it became known they weren't muslim. Does that automatically mean trump supports the shooting of muslims? As much as I hate the man, no, it doesn't mean that, and it's a stupid argument to make.
You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech (even though they were destroying shit lmao), Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here??", You all held your tongues because antifa's views aligned with yours.
"These two things are the same because I say they are"Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues, there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo"", all that happened was people sat idly by and egged on Antifa as Antifa rampaged through center street.
Hey - you don't get to decide this, buddy. Otherwise, I can turn around and say "All trump supporters are the same as that quebec shooter and want to exterminate all muslims"
They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.No, the mayor told them to stand down. Eventually the choice was changed and the police forcibly dispersed everyone with rubber bullets and teargas, sadly the event was already cancelled by this point.
Lol.
Thanks.
Ahh, so the mayor is the smart one. Credit to themDawnsday wrote:
They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down
Nah fam I denounced the violent rioters as much as the next guy. The peaceful protestors were fine thoDawnsday wrote:
You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech
I did, and that proves your shit wrong right thereDawnsday wrote:
Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here?
I didn't. I voiced my opposition to the violence, you fucking dolt. Don't speak for shit you can't prove, or don't even know about.Dawnsday wrote:
Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues
There were, you dolt. There were both peaceful and violent contingents. I stand fully against the violent ones, and fully behind the peaceful ones.Dawnsday wrote:
there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo""
thats an odd way to spell "thankfully"Dawnsday wrote:
sadly
The students are what make up the university. A university isn't "just" the management, students are an important part of the school identity. So yea, they had plenty of right.Foxtrot wrote:
But by your logic, private entities don't apply to free speech. So if the university wanted him there for a conference, the students had no right to be opposed to that.
Also, the uni could've just ignored them, too. That'd have been fine.
You outright admit you were wrong yet you keep spouting bullshit about how you still feel justifiedFoxtrot wrote:
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas
why are you so delusional
You two don't even begin to understand the very basic concepts of free speech and it's honestly embarassing. People like yous are part of the problem with democracy
If he's actively pushing Nazism i.e. in a speech then... eh? It's not THAT bad- it's forcibly stopping him from spreading hate speech-, although I'd prefer him to just get arrested. Vigilantism is a dangerous road, and hate speech is illegal already, so.Dawnsday wrote:
is it ethical to punch a nazi
If he's just existing in the street? Fuck no, get out
btw Mahogany PLEASE stop doing the line-by-line quote responses please. Just respond normally, it allows much better conversation than splitting everything into easier-to-argue-against quotes.
good advice thank you 
Jesus christ.Mahogany wrote:
You outright admit you were wrong yet you keep spouting bullshit about how you still feel justifiedFoxtrot wrote:
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas
why are you so delusional
I'm comparing those forums to the way businesses have their right of free speech. For example, they can deny service to any customer they want, for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that the denied clients stop having that right as of that moment. That's the point I was trying to make because you said private entities shouldn't uphold right of free speech. And besides, businesses are also private entities, and so are forums, but that's another point.
The students are what make up the university. A university isn't "just" the management, students are an important part of the school identity. So yea, they had plenty of right.Kind of hard to ignore riots.
Also, the uni could've just ignored them, too. That'd have been fine.
Dawnsday wrote:
Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues, there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo"", all that happened was people sat idly by and egged on Antifa as Antifa rampaged through center street.
You're wrong here. If you watch any videos of the violence, you'll see plenty of people shouting at the antifa extremists to stop, and that violence is wrong. There were plenty of lawful peaceful protesters doing fine.
Also, it's not actually bystanders' responsibility to intervene when stuff like that happens, generally.
Fuck anyone who was encouraging or participating in those actions though. They're cowards.
By no means is there a separate type of speech called "hate speech" that isn't covered under free speech. Is someone inciting violence? Then that is not covered under free speech, which is rather for the exchange of ideas. But simply giving a speech advocating for Naziism is not something that isn't protected by free speech.
"There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."B1rd wrote:
By no means is there a separate type of speech called "hate speech" that isn't covered under free speech. Is someone inciting violence? Then that is not covered under free speech, which is rather for the exchange of ideas. But simply giving a speech advocating for Naziism is not something that isn't protected by free speech.
Nazism explicitly incites violence, so it's not protected by free speech, iirc.
It's definitely banned here and elsewhere in Europe, although I'm not entirely sure about America. Legality of stuff over there seems pretty random
Dawnsday wrote:
Islam explicitly incites violence
We're not talking about Islam
Don't even.Dawnsday wrote:
Islam explicitly incites violence
There is nothing about National Socialism that inherently advocates for violence. You can't just say that it does in some vague, disconnected sort of way and then claim that it is justification to shut down that entire political scene. Using that justification you could shut down pretty much any political group, or even pastors giving a sermons because the Bible 'incites violence' in some passages, therefor the entire religion does.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuesti ... n/ddbrmny/
In Islamic faith, it is not believed that Quran was given to Muhammad in entirety like Ten Commandments. Rather, it was gradually told by God to Muhammad over many years in response to the situations he and his followers were facing at the moment. It is, to make an analogy, a collection of case laws rather than a constitution. However, this collection often only has the verdicts, not the whole proceedings.This seemed pretty legit to me
There is an entire field of study dedicated to learning the history of Arabia at the time, understating the context at which a ruling was made and got included in Quran, and trying to figure out how it applies to the situations one can face today. Quran verses in isolation don't mean much. You have to consider which enemy they were at war with at the time the verse was added to Quran and what had they done to make God so angry to understand the ruling. At least that is the Islamic tradition followed by most Muslims. Contextual interpretation as opposed to literal. And that is why the Islamic world does not agree with ISIL's interpretation, which is basically trying to follow ancient case laws instead of interpreting and adapting them to a modern setting.
For example, there are more than five categories of kafir, and the only way to know which one a verse is referring to is to know its context. More progressive clergymen have interpreted that this word in the above verses refers to a category (kafir mo'aned harbi) that basically means those who are currently at war with Muslims because of their (Muslims') religion. Even conservative ones generally do not believe that it refers to all non-muslims.