And I'm done

Cyka blyat

Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.

B1rd wrote:

Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.

because if you smoke the good stuff it tastes good and you get a high

lol wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.

because if you smoke the good stuff it tastes good and you get a high

lol

B1rd wrote:

Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.

>whisky
>good taste
lol the pretentiousness. Whiskey tastes like nothing. Literal shit brewed distilled bottled and sold for absurd prices. This wannabe drink that only caters for c00l guy adults should be banned/

You're pretentious for making a post about pretentious people

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age

wine is fine, but whiskey's quicker

Erlkonig wrote:

>whisky
>good taste
lol the pretentiousness. Whiskey tastes like nothing. Literal shit brewed distilled bottled and sold for absurd prices. This wannabe drink that only caters for c00l guy adults should be banned/

You're just butthurt alcohol in haram in your country :^)

Though, I can forgive people for not liking stuff like Jack Daniels, which is pretty disgusting. But good single malt whiskys taste amazing.

I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age

Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.

Mahogany wrote:

I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/

I appreciate your memes, Mahogany x

B1rd wrote:

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age

Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.

Sil is like one of those virtue signaling libtards on reddit. He could just as easily say I hope everyone who drinks dies in a DUI carcrash or that everyone who eats fast food should get a heart attack but he wont because hes probably a hyppocrite about that.

Mahogany wrote:

I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/

Not sure if I should be glad or disappointed for not being a part of your meme

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age

Idc if people smoke or not, as long as they keep a fair distance from me or anyone that doesn't want to get their lungs exploded from smoke exposure

B1rd wrote:

Though, I can forgive people for not liking stuff like Jack Daniels, which is pretty disgusting. But good single malt whiskys taste amazing.

Oh I only tried Jack Daniels because it's popular and shit. Couldn't finish 50cl bottle it's been lying there for months.

On another note I've been trying to spark some discussions or reactions but it always comes to insulting my nationality. Turkey is not a third world shitfest place like middle earth what the hell.

Lord of the Rings is a third world shitfest ITT

Mahogany wrote:

I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/

I like the frame you used for my avatar.

Erlkonig wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Though, I can forgive people for not liking stuff like Jack Daniels, which is pretty disgusting. But good single malt whiskys taste amazing.

Oh I only tried Jack Daniels because it's popular and shit. Couldn't finish 50cl bottle it's been lying there for months.

On another note I've been trying to spark some discussions or reactions but it always comes to insulting my nationality. Turkey is not a third world shitfest place like middle earth what the hell.

they do this for, like, every Turkish, Indonesian or Filipino

B1rd wrote:

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age

Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.

Says the person who supports fascists

I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if you two met in-person.

I'd leave immediately probably
it would be interesting though, considering b1rd couldnt just pretend im not there

Says the guy who thinks calling people out on their bullshit is indicative of facism because those people are the media

No, I fully support calling people out on their lies, regardless of who they are

:thonkang:

I can support this meme

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age

you should try league of legends

B1rd wrote:

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age

Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.

This post proves that you're just trolling. Man you've been fooling us good so far. Before this i wasn't sure yet, but nobody can be this stupid.

Enlighten me to your reasoning, because I have no idea.

don't affect others

meh smoking anything near anyone affects them

Pretty sure that people who overreact and start a fake coughing fits because they got a tiny whiff of smoke are just being retards. Smoking causes caner yes, but even people people who inhale high concentrations into their lungs often live to a ripe old age. I doubt just breathing in a little bit would present a high risk, especially compared to car exhaust and random pollution we're exposed to regularly.

Regardless, being a smoker doesn't necessitate you ever smoke near other people in the first place.

Dawnsday wrote:

don't affect others

meh smoking anything near anyone affects them

Especially near your children.

Parents smoking near their baby should be quarantined. Passive smoking is so harmful yet so common..

Even if you think second-hand smoke is not particularly dangerous, it still smells bad, is annoying, and if you're not used to it, makes you cough and wheeze. People who cough and wheeze are not just faking it.

It's called asthma.
My current boyfriend literally pukes after being exposed to huge amounts of smoke

Hika wrote:

It's called asthma.
My current boyfriend literally pukes after being exposed to huge amounts of smoke

Oh what, you're gay??

Nice, can I be your side chick?

My mom's an avid cannabis smoker (despite her schizophrenia being aggravated by it), I can tell you from experience that passive/second hand smoking is a serious issue, You can cause serious issues by smoking that shit in the presence of people who do not wish to be exposed to it. Obviously this is wildly different to cigarettes but I'm just applying principles here

Ah, even so, I'd really appreciate it if those who smoke would just avoid doing it in public. Designated smoking places are there for a reason. It does affect health if it happens regularly, and if you happen to live in a country like mine which is congested, you're bound to get a whiff of smoke regularly. I don't really fake a cough when I'm around people who smoke, I just give them a really unpleasant look, although I might actually try faking a cough soon, just to imply them that people around them aren't exactly appreciative of the activity in public.

I wish Duterte would just sign the EO that prohibits public smoking. That'd be really nice. I expect him to do so in the next few months, and I'm excited.

Blitzfrog wrote:

Hika wrote:

It's called asthma.
My current boyfriend literally pukes after being exposed to huge amounts of smoke

Oh what, you're gay??

Nice, can I be your side chick?

Hahahahahaha

silmarilen wrote:

This post proves that you're just trolling. Man you've been fooling us good so far. Before this i wasn't sure yet, but nobody can be this stupid.

B1rd wrote:

Enlighten me to your reasoning, because I have no idea.

Sil is just pulling the whole "I have no reason so I'm going to say you're trolling in order to deflect my non existant reasons"

Madvillain wrote:

Ah, even so, I'd really appreciate it if those who smoke would just avoid doing it in public. Designated smoking places are there for a reason. It does affect health if it happens regularly, and if you happen to live in a country like mine which is congested, you're bound to get a whiff of smoke regularly. I don't really fake a cough when I'm around people who smoke, I just give them a really unpleasant look, although I might actually try faking a cough soon, just to imply them that people around them aren't exactly appreciative of the activity in public.

Instead of fake coughing just walk away or tell them directly, don't take the bitch route.

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age

honestly slimfast, to call B1rd a troll and yet writing stuff like this just makes you look a retard. And besides, to say something like that after a friend posts about smoking makes me honestly think that yes, you're retarded.

Oh, walking away is easy.

Unless you happen to be in a jeepney (just look it up) where in that's not a choice anymore. A lot of people here look menacing or do not take such words lightly even if you ask them politely. I'd do the "right" thing all the time if it were practical.

Then what makes you think that fake coughing would help with those kind of people? Even I keep smoking when I hear it but then again I mostly smoke on my balcony so the chances are low

Are you even a real girl though

silmarilen wrote:

This post proves that you're just trolling. Man you've been fooling us good so far. Before this i wasn't sure yet, but nobody can be this stupid.

Nah, he probably just thinks he knows better than the scientists, same reason he's skeptical about vaccination.

It does because I've tried it. But of course, it depends on the person involved. I prefer to just cover or make an unpleasant face though.

Idk when someone smokes in front of my man, I gotta lay my pipe down and let them know I don't appreciate that shit 8^)

Hika wrote:

Idk when someone smokes in front of my man, I gotta lay my pipe down and let them know I don't appreciate that shit 8^)

Get a better one

When I was younger, I had a militant anti-smoker attitude. Probably partly because I had to endure long drives in a van filled with old women who would smoke most of the way, which is not okay by the way. But while I think that smoking near other people is incredibly rude, it also makes my eyes role to the degree in which smoking has become the cool thing to hate these days. I'm sure all these people going on a moral crusade against smoking, constantly lobbying for more sin-taxes, higher age barrier, more disturbing imagery on smokes packages et cetera, could better spend their time on a thousand other issues in our society, rather than trying to stop people making their own choices about what they put into their bodies.

Although, I guess controlling people's lifestyle choices is a priority for liberals, since the consequences of bad decisions are to the cost of the state in a socialised healthcare scheme, rather than to the individual making the bad decisions in the form of higher health insurance premiums.

ITT: We attack Bird because of repressed feelings from our own childhood and because he doesn't respond back with insults we remain safe

im still a child

I don't understand all the hate for B1rd/smoking here. I really don't like smoking, myself, but I think B1rd's right in the "people choosing what to do with their bodies" thing so long as they're not actually affecting other people. Smoking outside isn't a big deal, but smoking indoors outside of smoking areas is a problem, I think most people can agree with that.

I generally don't agree with most of what B1rd says, but you guys are overreacting and making a lot of sweeping statements about smokers that can't really be justified.

It's true anyway. There's nothing bad with smokers that keep their business out of public places and stick to smoking in designated places. There's really nothing bad with that.

It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.

Why smoke when you can vap.... oh wait

People on an anti smoking crusade in this generation have just been indoctrinated to be so since elementary school.

Madvillain wrote:

It's true anyway. There's nothing bad with smokers that keep their business out of public places and stick to smoking in designated places. There's really nothing bad with that.

It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.

Exactly. People doing it where they're affecting other people who don't really choose to be there are shitters, and shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Madvillain wrote:

It's true anyway. There's nothing bad with smokers that keep their business out of public places and stick to smoking in designated places. There's really nothing bad with that.

It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.

^^^^

I don't mind if people smoke, just don't smoke where it says NO SMOKING.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I generally don't agree with most of what B1rd says, but you guys are overreacting and making a lot of sweeping statements about smokers that can't really be justified.

You know, I'd have a higher regard for your opinions and reasoning if you'd agree on such a fairly moderate thing such as the necessity for free speech, rather than what you advocated for, which was a police state outlawing people espousing particular political points of view.

B1rd wrote:

You know, I'd have a higher regard for your opinions and reasoning if you'd agree on such a fairly moderate thing such as the necessity for free speech, rather than what you advocated for, which was a police state outlawing people espousing particular political points of view.

I believe quite strongly about free speech and personal rights, actually. I'm happy to make exceptions when the cost to society is demonstrably too great for it to be worth it, though. Most of the world seems to agree, since practicing Nazism is generally banned.

Saying that the cost is too great is silly, that implies that if you allow free speech then Nazism will suddenly spread like wildfire and everyone will like it. Obviously that's not gonna happen, and all you will do is drive people that hold those beliefs underground, and validate them by oppressing them for their political beliefs.

You're also been hypocritical, signalling out Nazism in particular to be banned. Then when I mentioned communism, you went on defending communism, and when pressed, you finally said that "Stalinist" or whichever it was type of communism should be banned. Well as far as I know, all communism is dependent on the takeover of all private property, which cannot be achieved without violence. Therefore, communism should be banned as well. What about socialism? That's basically a lesser form of communism, in which the means of production, i.e. people's businesses are violently seized. And in the same way any form of ethno-nationalism, should be banned, since it's linked to nazism.

Frankly, your attitude just highlights why we need free-speech, so we can actually have rational discussions with Nazis and find out why they think what they do, rather than contributing to this climate of speech repression. This is partly the reason we have kids going out on the streets and attacking "Nazis", because of this conditioning of hating Nazism, and anything vaguely associated with it. There are good points to National Socialism, of course it is too extreme in some areas, but as it is, the pendulum will swing much too far in the other direction and a lot of damage will be done before we can come to a compromise on extreme multiculturalism vs extreme race supremacy.

And also, you seem completely unaware of the way the government can abuse it's power. You say "free speech with this exception". Soon it will be "free speech with this and this exception", and then "free speech with this and this and this exception". Actually, I don't know why I'm even saying this because we don't even have free speech anymore. People have been arrested in many places in Europe simply for having anti-immigrant/muslims etc. opinions on Facebook. 1984, here we come.

But nazism is already spreading like wildfire precisely because nobody's doing anything about it, hence your entire argument is invalid

You're citing RightWingNews, which itself sources Breitbart. Doesn't it ever bother you that the only stuff supporting your views tends to be dogshit tabloid "sources" instead of reputable organisations?

Anyway, onto your post. I don't believe Nazism would "spread like wildfire" or become a problem for society as a whole, but Nazi and other white-nationalist extremist groups commit violent attacks fairly often all over the world. Denying these people a chance to congregate and circlejerk their ideas into reality seems like a decent step for preventing people from turning into violent criminals like that.

I'm not against research into how or why people become Nazis, by the way. If anyone wants to do any decent investigative journalism, psychiatric studies, etc of people who end up in those situations, I'm all for it. I think it's not particularly hard to guess what leads those people into such circumstances, but I can't speak for everybody as if my guesses are facts there. Communism, on the other hand, doesn't see nearly the same level of violence associated with it. The only thing I tend to see from them is discussion. Maybe I'm wrong there, but they just don't seem as bad as people who directly call for violence against people for being who they are- Communism seems to be more about changing the ideology of society itself, which is more to do with personal choices than "Let's take these peoples' property because they're not the right colour of skin". Socialism again uses the same argument, but even more disassociated from violence.

As a society, we've decided to condemn Nazism wherever we can, because Nazis have consistently gone against the good of humanity in general. They've earned a place outside of society as a whole, basically.

I understand the government can abuse its power, but some element is faith is needed when dealing with other people- this is a sad fact of life, and I don't think you can propose any system that removes this fundamental flaw of people managing other people. I do indeed have to trust that the govt won't randomly decide "We suddenly hate X", and I'm happy to try and prevent it using arguments whenever I can if I see people going too far to the extreme left. I debate my leftist friends fairly often about this kind of thing.


edit: looked further into that "RightWingNews" website, and holy hell is that some cancer. Do you seriously read that stuff? I don't understand why alt-righters decry any media if they're immediately going to believe any godawful source that agrees with them.

Mooom they're doing it again

Dawnsday wrote:

Mooom they're doing it again

What mom

I just got the source from a Google search. Why are you so intent on hating sources like Breitbart? Of course only right-wing news sites would publish anything like this, it's not like left-wing sites would publish things that go against their agenda like that. You always demand super-high standards of evidence for anything that supports right-wing ideas.

Your claim that Nazi groups constantly commit terrorism is completely unfounded, and remember, we are talking about speech here, nothing else. Compare Muslim terror attacks vs right-wing terror attacks, you have to admit your bias when you will always defend Muslims when they commit acts of violence, but a tiny amount of right-wingers do any you claim they are committing violence everywhere. Since Islam is so much more violent, shouldn't we ban Islam? Or at least restrict immigration from Muslim countries? Would you be in favour in unlimited immigration from a full-on Nazi country?

Also, saying that communism isn't associated with violence is nothing but ignorance, even regardless of the millions it has killed in the past, there are lots and lots of examples of modern-day communists and left-wingers calling for the same thing, who want to kill nazis and want a violent revolution etc. I see it in 8ch.net/leftypol, on Youtube, and we've seen it recently on the streets like at Berkley. We even have evidence of organised terrorism, granted it's mostly anarchists, but they are still similar in that they're left-winger terrorists.

Basically, your view are just a result of indoctrination, since the Soviet Union infiltrated Western academia there has always been lots of sympathisers of communism, so even though it's an objectively worse ideology than nation socialism, people hate it much more. No, no faith should be given to the government, when it has shown time and time again that it so untrustworthy. You have completely failed to give a convincing argument about why we should not have free speech, besides vague arguments like "we can't let them organise". No. Here's the thing, your right to free speech should not be restricted based on the consensus of the majority at the time. The entire idea behind free speech is to stop minorities being persecuted by the government and the majority, because we have seen many times in the past that the majority has been wrong. If you don't defend the minority, you do not have free speech, and when you exclude any group from the right to free speech, you invalidate it entirely.

I found a better response to b1rd's "muh free speech" argument since last time

The line of Tolerance ends at Intolerance

"The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

B1rd wrote:

I just got the source from a Google search. Why are you so intent on hating sources like Breitbart? Of course only right-wing news sites would publish anything like this

It's not about being right wing, it's about being demonstrably false and outright fabrication. It is not a legitimate news outlet and should not be treated as such by anyone.

B1rd wrote:

Also, saying that communism isn't associated with violence is nothing but ignorance, even regardless of the millions it has killed in the past

Capitalism has demonstrably caused more deaths than communism, yet you describe yourself as an ancap. Hypocrite.

Good morning.

Faust wrote:

Good morning.

You couldn't have picked a worse time to come in.

Actually it's evening in actual good countries :p

jk, good morning!

@b1rd
so christian extremists have the highest kill per attack ratio

also while right terror might not be much of a problem in the US, it's a whole different thing in Germany and some other european states
we had cases of systematic murder after all and you can bet that the people who set fire on refugee acommodations werent communists

generally i share your opinion on the free speech thing but please fuck off with dumb statistics like that - such concepts need to hold weight without examples

I really want to stop you right there and point out that yet again you're using completely shit sources to back up your claims. You're just making yourself look retarded when you cite people like THIS as your evidence, dude. Can you please check your sources first before you start throwing them out there, expecting me to just blindly trust them?

And no, I don't "always demand super high standards of evidence from anything supporting right-wing ideas". I demand high standards of evidence from anyone I'm engaging in an argument with unless we're actually speaking on a purely subjective level, which I generally do when I'm not making huge, sweeping statements that SHOULD require well-founded evidence that didn't just amount to "Some random alt-right blog says so". You must surely be able to see that you're hurting your own argument every single time you link someone like that, right? Just try thinking twice whenever you're linking to "OATHKEEPERS.ORG" or "RightWingNews" or the personal youtube channel of some demonstrably fucking insane guy, or Sargon of Akkad, who I have personally lost a lot of faith in after watching him engage in a long debate with somebody on politics. He came across as someone who had no idea what he was talking about, especially regarding things like correlation vs causation in statistics (which, by the way, is a huge fucking issue in just about all right-wing media I see. Feels get prioritised WAY TOO HARD over good usage of statistics. I'm not even joking when I say that I believe right-wingers tend to be more emotional and less rational than left-wingers, although that's probably just because I don't see as much retarded stuff coming from the left in general- their extremists are less vocal, maybe.)

If you want to "compare Muslim terror attacks against right-wing terror attacks, we can just use this graph I found for you.
First off, I recognise that the data is comparing any islam-inspired terrorist attack with any other terrorist attack. From what I've seen, the "other" tends to be far-right extremists, at least recently.

So! You may look at this graph and say: Holy shit, Islam is out of control, look at all these terrorist attacks! But isn't that conveniently ignoring the entire political situation around groups like ISIS? It shouldn't be a surprise that people from that region are directly inspiring others around the world to "fight for them", considering their ideology of uniting a certain type of Muslim in a worldwide war and conquest. Of course something like that resonates with people, and I bet you any money that if the destabilised region was a majority-Christian, you'd be seeing the exact same thing among Christian extremists, especially the ones that felt utterly disillusioned with society.
This opinion is supported by the graph, which clearly shows that Islamic-inspired attacks have been a clear minority until a massive event like the fuckery in the middle-east has been happening.

On top of that, Muslims are generally demonised by a significant amount of people, which would understandably cause feelings of isolation and hatred- there's an obvious cause and effect there, and that's what leftists are generally trying to solve when they preach tolerance of Islam. They understand that painting millions and millions of people with a brush that only describes a tiny minority is ridiculous, and will cause issues with integration and help validate whatever shitty victim complex these kinds of people can have.

I think there's a perfectly valid argument to be made about these not being specifically related to Islam that I have never really heard discussed by alt-righters, just completely ignored: If there are so many Muslims living in the West, such as in America, that believe in this awful violent ideology where they want to kill apostates and such, then why aren't there massive increases in crime from Muslims doing exactly that? Terrorism isn't a particularly big threat to Americans right now, not at all. People suffer from WAY bigger issues than Terrorism if they're in the US. But people are so scared of it, they've had it so hyped up against them in the media, that the government ends up making retarded decisions like the ban in an attempt to appease the people- driving them to feel even further validated in their generally-unjustified hatred of Muslims, and making Muslims go through a lot of shit as a consequence. The demonstrably-not-a-big-deal crimerates of Muslims living peacefully in the West strongly suggests that they're integrating well with Western culture, which I assume is why right-wing websites have become increasingly desperate in their pushing of fake news over the recent years- the "54 no-go zones in Sweden" myth being one I've been particularly involved in researching, and surprise, it's complete bullshit.

But yeah, tl;dr: Terrorists from Islamic extremist groups lots lately sure, but they're definitely not a massive priority and don't seem to be related to the vast majority of Muslims. They seem to be a direct result of global events rather than their religion being evil. Right-wing attacks brought up as a counterpoint not to say "Right-wing are worse!!", just that you're ignoring their statistics in your irrational fear since they're not someone you can demonise as easily. I didn't really express that point very well since I got kind of sidetracked- there's important information about lone-wolf attacks that I can't find an easy graph for you to look at, annoyingly. But hopefully I made an argument there.


For the record, I'm very happy to say I'm in favour of banning ISIS demonstrations and convening of any group like that as well. Are you someone who wants those people to gather, for the sake of free speech, or do you see those people as not being worth it?
Unlimited immigration from a full-Nazi country, that situation REALLY depends on the context, my dude. If Germans in WW2 wanted to immigrate to a neutral country, I wouldn't really see that as a problem, no. Unless they were doing Nazi shit, obviously. Vet them and get rid of the Nazis, I guess? I don't mind vetting in the immigration process at all.
I also don't exactly "defend Muslims when they commit acts of violence", I think all terrorists like that are complete and utter pieces of shit. It's just that I'm mature enough to look past the fact that they share a religion with non-crazy people too, and don't blame the entire religion for their extremist acts.


As for your point on communism: I don't really care for extremist Communist discussion. As a culture we are way, way far away from Stalinism affecting us. Democracy and Capitalism are so deeply ingrained in Western society that the only thing I'm really talking about here are well-meaning discussions of Communism as an alternative economic system for the country, etc. Same with Socialism. I don't really let ideas get defined by their extremists if I can help it.

B1rd wrote:

Basically, your view are just a result of indoctrination, since the Soviet Union infiltrated Western academia there has always been lots of sympathisers of communism, so even though it's an objectively worse ideology than nation socialism, people hate it much more.

Things like this is why it's hard to take you seriously- you randomly go full retard in the middle of your mostly-rational posts. Chill with that, yeah?

I'm pretty sure the purpose of law is to stop people from doing shitty things that harm society. That's entirely consensus based and open to some form of interpretation. Free speech HAS exceptions. Here's a list! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... exceptions

I don't think you know what you're talking about when you're speaking of matters involving the American constitution, honestly.

Boy I swear the paragraphs are getting longer

It's all to play for in today's edition of Politics N' Shenanigans

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Things like this is why it's hard to take you seriously- you randomly go full retard in the middle of your mostly-rational posts. Chill with that, yeah?

I'm not gonna respond do your whole post at this time, but If I specifically link you evidence to prove my point, can you lay off with the "it's a conspiracy theory!" claims. The video I linked is literally a interview with a former Soviet spy, Soviet infiltration into America during the Cold War is a well documented fact. I really don't care what other videos are on the channel, I found the video through a search, and it's just a recording of an interview. Stop attacking my sources for no reason.

I mean, are you even aware of McCarthyism and all of it's implications? Because if you were, I doubt you would be so quick to dismiss my argument.

Glad to see other people picking up the slack on rebuking b1rd's utter shit ever since he ejected me from his safe space

Raspberriel wrote:

Faust wrote:

Good morning.

You couldn't have picked a worse time to come in.

Good morning, how are you?

Why are you asking me that?

B1rd wrote:

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Things like this is why it's hard to take you seriously- you randomly go full retard in the middle of your mostly-rational posts. Chill with that, yeah?

I'm not gonna respond do your whole post at this time, but If I specifically link you evidence to prove my point, can you lay off with the "it's a conspiracy theory!" claims. The video I linked is literally a interview with a former Soviet spy, Soviet infiltration into America during the Cold War is a well documented fact. I really don't care what other videos are on the channel, I found the video through a search, and it's just a recording of an interview. Stop attacking my sources for no reason.

I mean, are you even aware of McCarthyism and all of it's implications? Because if you were, I doubt you would be so quick to dismiss my argument.

Your video was also MADE during the Cold War. American propaganda was on-going, another well documented fact. It's ironic that you accuse me of saying it's a conspiracy theory when you're using an interview published during the time American propaganda was being spread to demonise Communism from a source that is not well-known as your evidence that Western academia has been corrupted by Soviet influence ever since that time period. You know that sounds like a conspiracy theory itself, right?

Another thing for the record; I don't agree with Communism. I've just learned more about it and so don't demonise it as much as I used to back when I was less educated and more hardcore pro-Capitalism.

I'm not attacking your sources for no reason. They're VERY OFTEN highly flawed, and you seem to refuse to recognise that.

what the fuck is even going on here

LaryRose09 wrote:

what the fuck is even going on here

Check this t/552578

And look for the names

Raspberriel wrote:

Why are you asking me that?

Good morning, Raspberriel!

I must say it is good to see some quality posting in Off-Topic still.

Tae wrote:

Raspberriel wrote:

Why are you asking me that?

Good morning, Raspberriel!

I must say it is good to see some quality posting in Off-Topic still.

Like this one

Why do you bother repeatedly directing me to this thread? I've posted in it before, and I won't be doing so again.

Tae wrote:

Why do you bother repeatedly directing me to this thread? I've posted in it before, and I won't be doing so again.

I just want you to know my love for you <3<3<3<3
Not expecting you to reply

Blitzfrog wrote:

I just want you to know my love for you <3<3<3<3
Not expecting you to reply

Lmao okay
Sorry to disappoint, but I love another ♡

brutal

I bet Blitz keeps a list of all the girls in FG and picks a random one every week

Foxtrot wrote:

I bet Blitz keeps a list of all the girls in FG and picks a random one every week

t/535729


Also Tae is not grill (
At least not on my list

Blitzfrog wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/535729


Also Tae is not grill (
At least not on my list

You completely missed p/5692232 then

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Your video was also MADE during the Cold War. American propaganda was on-going, another well documented fact. It's ironic that you accuse me of saying it's a conspiracy theory when you're using an interview published during the time American propaganda was being spread to demonise Communism from a source that is not well-known as your evidence that Western academia has been corrupted by Soviet influence ever since that time period. You know that sounds like a conspiracy theory itself, right?

Another thing for the record; I don't agree with Communism. I've just learned more about it and so don't demonise it as much as I used to back when I was less educated and more hardcore pro-Capitalism.

I'm not attacking your sources for no reason. They're VERY OFTEN highly flawed, and you seem to refuse to recognise that.

What, am I supposed to find interviews of Soviet spies during our modern day in which they're all long-dead? Actually prove my sources are wrong, because I'm sick of you dismissing them for completely arbitrary reasons, "it's not because he's communist, he's just insane!", "this news site said this, and so it completely invalidates everything else they have said", "I don't agree withthis one thing Sargon said in his hundreds of videos, therefore everything else is wrong too". This does not prove the sources wrong. You haven't even disproven any of my sources, all you've done is constantly ridicule them. And then, you try and prove your point about right-wing terror attacks by comparing literally every other type of terror attacks to Muslim terror attacks. wtf.

I know that America was pushing "propaganda", they were literally fighting an ideological battle in their home country, which if they lost America would basically fall to communism. But for some reason leftists only focus on American "propaganda", but completely disregard the fact that the Soviets were the ones to start, on American turf no less. And what "propaganda" did they need to push? All the Americans needed to do was expose the oppressive dictatorship, the millions dying, to show had bad communism was. God bless the people who actually fought back against communism during those times, a lot of whom by the way, were Christians, since atheists are, with exceptions, almost always cosy to left-wing ideology no matter how abhorrent or veritably wrong, as you have demonstrated.
"oh but it's just it's just an economic dialogue, they're not violent", I hear you say (even though I have provides sources and examples to prove otherwise), guess what, so is national socialism, a large part of the ideology is about economics, it's a form of state-controlled capitalism. And just like nazism, communism has boogeymen that are responsible for all the bad in society, in this case the "bourgeois", "porky", etc., who are fair game to kill, according to lots of communists. You separating communism into "normal" communism and "extremist" communism is just another leftist tactic to differ all criticism of an ideology to the supposed "extremist" version.

But anyway, I've already said said everything I have had to say about free speech. My original point still stands, I find it sad that you can't agree to such a simple thing as the sanctity of free-speech. About your list of exceptions, free-speech isn't just the first amendment, it's an idea. And anyway, as you will note, all of the 'exceptions' are things like "incitements to imminent violence", obscenity, libelousness etc. There is not a list of "this political ideology is covered, this one isn't", which is what you are advocating for. So... it seems I am advocating for the status quo, while you want change in favour of less free speech? If that's the case, don't tell me you value individual rights when you're arguing for less than already exist in America.

I don't know why you've turned the whole discussion about Muslim since it was only a side point for me. Obviously I completely dispute the fact that immigrants don't cause crime, that is easily disprovable just looking at crime stats from Sweden. But obviously any sources that I can find in less than a half dozen hours will be instantly dismissed by you, so I'm not gonna even try at the moment when obviously no conversation can be advanced in that area without a super large amount of proof.

Endaris wrote:

@b1rd
so christian extremists have the highest kill per attack ratio

also while right terror might not be much of a problem in the US, it's a whole different thing in Germany and some other european states
we had cases of systematic murder after all and you can bet that the people who set fire on refugee acommodations werent communists

generally i share your opinion on the free speech thing but please fuck off with dumb statistics like that - such concepts need to hold weight without examples

I'm not sure what to make of Christians having a higher kill per attack ratio other than it's a completely irrelevant statistic.

How are statistics dumb? They are either correct or incorrect, and the statistics that I have shown prove that right-wing extremism is nowhere near as bad as Muslim terrorism. And you can have anecdotal examples of people burning down refugee shelters and assume it's done by right wingers, but that's hardly comparable to thousands of people killed. I can give you plenty of anecdotal examples of refugees killing people as well. You've hardly proven the claim of widespread right wing violence.

Agree or don't agree, it's up to you, you can agree on some things and not others.

You're very quick to dismiss my complaints about your sources as "arbitrary". You've been linking to complete shit what, 80 or 90% of the time? The interview was one of the better things, but I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that it's not the most relevant thing in the world if it was published in the US during the Cold War. There's obviously a conflict of interest there, they wouldn't want to publish something that wasn't vehemently anti-Russia at the time.

Again, Sargon is one of the less-shit "sources" you have, I really personally dislike him though. This is coming from someone who used to follow his stuff, I feel like he's gone off the deep end.

America WAS pushing propaganda, plain and simple. No air quotes about it. You think they were in the right because you dislike Communism, sure, but I don't think it's worth defending their content as if it's 100% accurate just because they happened to agree with you. (I'm noticing a pattern in what evidence you choose to believe, I wonder if you've noticed it too :^). )

I don't think you particularly know about Russian history, nor about Communism, honestly. I hope you understand that you're a bit of an extremist Capitalist yourself. Most people who believe in capitalism don't believe in an unregulated free market.

Free speech isn't sacred, it's something that should exist to ensure people can function in society without repression. I think it fits that purpose just fine, even if hate speech is explicitly banned. There are many exceptions to free speech within the Constitution for this very purpose. Nazism incites imminent violence. Stalinist Communism incites imminent violence. ISIS propaganda is inciting imminent violence. I'm not okay with any of these, but you've been seemingly defending them the entire time under the guise of "free speech being sacred".

I turned the issue about Muslims just because I've seen a lot of stupid arguments coming out of the right-wing about Islam and that annoys me, I guess. Your little point about crime stats from Sweden just proves mine even further, that you don't actually pay attention to decent sources and just believe the shit that you happen to agree with. I know you already mentioned I'd call you out on it, but just to let you know, you can read this article by The Telegraph, containing actual data in context. Notice the public perception of immigrants linked to crime massively difference from the reality seen in the statistics. Also, a couple of facts- there are no such thing as "no go zones" in Sweden, none at all. You're reading Fake News every single time you see them cited as evidence of anything. Secondly, Sweden reports rapes very differently to other countries. Every single time someone is raped within the same year as the reported crime, each of those incidents is counted as a seperate rape. Sweden also, iirc, makes no distinction between rape and some other forms of sexual assault.

Feel free to verify those yourself if you actually want the truth, it's not hard to find good evidence for things that are proven with statistics and facts.

B1rd vs Viper

Cast your votes now!!

I vote for my left foot! *throws popcorn everywhere*

Voted none.

zzz I'd like it if this was an actual forum type forum, but it seems there's the popcorn gallery of shitposters and then two people in text wall wars.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

SPOILER

You're very quick to dismiss my complaints about your sources as "arbitrary". You've been linking to complete shit what, 80 or 90% of the time? The interview was one of the better things, but I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that it's not the most relevant thing in the world if it was published in the US during the Cold War. There's obviously a conflict of interest there, they wouldn't want to publish something that wasn't vehemently anti-Russia at the time.

Again, Sargon is one of the less-shit "sources" you have, I really personally dislike him though. This is coming from someone who used to follow his stuff, I feel like he's gone off the deep end.

America WAS pushing propaganda, plain and simple. No air quotes about it. You think they were in the right because you dislike Communism, sure, but I don't think it's worth defending their content as if it's 100% accurate just because they happened to agree with you. (I'm noticing a pattern in what evidence you choose to believe, I wonder if you've noticed it too :^). )

I don't think you particularly know about Russian history, nor about Communism, honestly. I hope you understand that you're a bit of an extremist Capitalist yourself. Most people who believe in capitalism don't believe in an unregulated free market.

Free speech isn't sacred, it's something that should exist to ensure people can function in society without repression. I think it fits that purpose just fine, even if hate speech is explicitly banned. There are many exceptions to free speech within the Constitution for this very purpose. Nazism incites imminent violence. Stalinist Communism incites imminent violence. ISIS propaganda is inciting imminent violence. I'm not okay with any of these, but you've been seemingly defending them the entire time under the guise of "free speech being sacred".

I turned the issue about Muslims just because I've seen a lot of stupid arguments coming out of the right-wing about Islam and that annoys me, I guess. Your little point about crime stats from Sweden just proves mine even further, that you don't actually pay attention to decent sources and just believe the shit that you happen to agree with. I know you already mentioned I'd call you out on it, but just to let you know, you can read this article by The Telegraph, containing actual data in context. Notice the public perception of immigrants linked to crime massively difference from the reality seen in the statistics. Also, a couple of facts- there are no such thing as "no go zones" in Sweden, none at all. You're reading Fake News every single time you see them cited as evidence of anything. Secondly, Sweden reports rapes very differently to other countries. Every single time someone is raped within the same year as the reported crime, each of those incidents is counted as a seperate rape. Sweden also, iirc, makes no distinction between rape and some other forms of sexual assault.

Feel free to verify those yourself if you actually want the truth, it's not hard to find good evidence for things that are proven with statistics and facts.

If you don't want to call your dismissals arbitrary, THEN STOP ARBITRARILY DISMISSING THEM WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Like seriously, stop. "Oh I care so much about statistics, my statistics are the holy grail of truth, your evidence is FAAAKE NEEEEWS, because reasons."

I'd like to note that when I'm talking about Nazism, I'm not talking about extremist Hitlerist Nazism, I'm talking about moderate Nazism :^)

Alright, if you think America was pushing propaganda, then prove it. Give me proof that America went on a campaign to intentionally make out the communist regime to be something it wasn't. I'll be waiting. And you better not use any fake news for sources btw, which will be determined by me ; )

I like how you talk about how free speech is against repression, but you advocate for the repression of certain political groups. Stop trying to make out the constitution to be what you want it to be, I've already debunked your claims on the "exceptions" of free speech. Free speech talks about the freedom to advocate political ideas, it doesn't literally mean any sound that comes out of your mouth is protected by the government. However, YOU want free speech to exclude some political beliefs, therefore you completely invalidate the idea of free speech. Call it something else, call the law that you want "safe speech" or something like that, because it sure as hell isn't free speech.
Also, I'd go on to tell you how illogical you are being saying that advocating a political ideology constitutes advocating imminent violence, and that you really need to research the meaning of imminent, but at that point I feel we'd be coming a full circle.


Now I have plenty of sources about how bad Sweden is, but of course you would just dismiss all of them as FAKE NEWS without evidence. And for the rest of the hard statistics, showing that Sweden, being the country that has accepted the most immigrants, and is now the rape capital of Europe, you will give some contrived excuse that I've heard a million times before like "they report rape differently" or "it's a more progressive country so they report rape more". And I don't completely disagree that you disregard statistics, since things like that are extremely susceptible to being influenced by the agenda of whomever commissioned them, and it's extremely hard to find out the validity of the statistics. Like, I like how your graph shows something like 1000 deaths by Muslims terrorists in the recent years, and mine is like 10,000. What is the difference? Who knows. I'd rather not getting into a squabble determined by who can't shout "fake news!" the loudest.

But actually looking at the statistics in your article, it actually shows a correlation between crime and immigration. In around 2004, when immigration started exploding, we see a steady increase and acceleration of crime rates. Why they have dropped off recently, I couldn't say, it could be many reasons, perhaps lots of crime is committed in ghettos where the people being surveyed didn't go. Perhaps, since this is pretty much the official state statistics service, they are tweaking the figures to suit their agenda. "Conspiracy theory!!". Oh wait, weren't you before going on about how America made up heaps of propaganda to suit their agenda? I suppose that was different though because that suited your ideology better while this time it doesn't.

But something that did catch my eye, is that your article directly stated that immigrants are a burden on the welfare, and that they have much higher unemployment rates than native citizens. And this is directly contrary to claims you have made before about immigrants not being a burden on a country economically. What, are you gonna call your own article fake news now? Lol.

Not sure what I stopped into but Hitler did nothing wrong

If you don't want to call your dismissals arbitrary, THEN STOP ARBITRARILY DISMISSING THEM WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Like seriously, stop. "Oh I care so much about statistics, my statistics are the holy grail of truth, your evidence is FAAAKE NEEEEWS, because reasons."

Holy shit dude, you pick your fucking sources as a hill to die on? You didn't seem like it was such a big deal earlier when you were defending yourself by saying you randomly found them from Google or whatever. I didn't even argue against that, but you're being incredibly sensitive about your awful quality sources of information. You're literally asking me to prove that Cold War propaganda existed in some nonsensical attempt to prove me wrong, like it's incredibly hard to get that kind of information without having to go to retarded blogs or other shady websites. Here's a couple of pages from a design blog, showing many different designs used by either side from the Cold War:

http://www.designer-daily.com/10-amazin ... sters-2901
http://www.designer-daily.com/examples- ... ganda-2918

And here is one from another blog about propaganda in general.

https://manspropaganda.wordpress.com/the-cold-war/

Notice how even linking blogs is okay as long as they don't have some ridiculous political bias or other dubious-quality information and claims.

Big wikipedia page about the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_d ... e_Cold_War , detailing the widespread use of propaganda from both sides as they were indeed fighting an ideological war, as you pointed out earlier. Of course both governments would want to use propaganda to promote themselves and demonise the enemy.


Now, let's show a few examples from the "sources" you've been providing. RightWingNews.com:

"I guess the Stasi are alive and well these days. If you think this won’t happen in the US, think again. The left is already working towards it. There is no free speech outside of the US anymore and if Obama and his cronies get their way, it won’t exist here much longer."

Sounds incredibly balanced and competent as a journalistic piece. This is from the exact page you linked me to to prove one of your points.

The next source you posted, markhumphrys.com, saw no issue in publishing the baseless claim:

"With the rise of endless Islamic terrorism in the West, there has been a psychological need to portray a similar "Christian terrorism" in cinema and TV."

And seems generally unafraid to mix in random emotive shit while pushing what seems to be legit data:

"One of the worst examples of the left blaming the wrong people was when a Jew-hating neo-Nazi carried out a terrorist attack on Sikhs in Wisconsin in 2012.
Leftists blamed anyone and everyone on the right, including more or less the entire GOP. They even blamed Jew-loving, anti-jihad, Israel supporters, who a neo-Nazi skinhead is hardly likely to be reading!"

I can't exactly respect "factual reports" that go out of their way to emotionally appeal to the reader, sorry.

Your next source is some Sargon of Akkad video that I don't care about. It's whatever, I don't feel like watching it through to see if it's BS or not. Let's just assume he has legit information there at least.

The next source: "OathKeepers.org".

"Global Warming is About Destroying Capitalism?"
"Friendly Reminder: Obama Selected The List Of Muslim Countries in Trump’s Executive Order"
"n cities across America and as far away as Madrid, women were out in force to protest someone they clearly know nothing about. What was it about his inaugural speech that set them in motion? What caused these women to identify themselves as mere vaginas? Who is behind the so-called women’s rights operation? Why were they protesting Donald Trump?"

"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association" <-- lol

And finally your last source is David Vose's youtube channel, which looks like this.


He posted an interview that was filmed and published during the Cold War, when America wanted the USSR to look bad. I'd be a lot less wary of it if it was filmed after that was over, y'know.


So! Out of 5 sources you've posted, 2 have been completely bullshit (OathKeepers and RightWingNews), two have been very questionable (markhumphrys.com and the interview with the Russian), and one has been something I haven't bothered to check out properly. Seems to fit my evaluation of at least 80% of the stuff you've been using as evidence being crap.

I just don't get why you want me to specifically criticise this, as if they're utterly baseless claims until I spell out all the evidence for you. Are you that fucking blind to right-wing propaganda and emotive BS that you don't even see how ridiculous the sites that you link me to are? You got so defensive that it sounds like you really wanted them to be true.

B1rd wrote:

Also, I'd go on to tell you how illogical you are being saying that advocating a political ideology constitutes advocating imminent violence, and that you really need to research the meaning of imminent

Weren't you trying to argue that Communism calls for violence, citing its open call to violently seize property and reallocate it to the state? That sounds "imminent" to me, yes.


I was talking about the Cold War, as you should have already been able to understand, when mentioning ANYTHING relating to American propaganda. I think Trump's White House has been shitting out a lot of it since he came into power, but it's not entirely permeated in media and society like any wartime propaganda was.

What an earth are you talking about with your line about the steady increase of immigration since 2004 directly causing crime to rise? If the charts of immigration to Sweden and crime don't match in their trend, then that proves that there's not a very strong connection, my dude. I also don't understand your point about disregarding statistics. I don't disregard statistics if they come from a good source. Is yours correctly showing information relating to *terrorist* attacks, attacks that explicitly link to terrorist organisations instead of lone-wolf attacks? Is your data specifically for Western Europe?
And it sounds like people may have already told you the reasons why Sweden is "the rape capital of Europe". I don't understand why you ignore them so easily, they explain the situation entirely. Nice buzzword title for the country, though.

Of course immigrants are a burden on the welfare system to some extent. It doesn't mean their total output is less than their total input, it just means that money has to go to more people via the welfare system than if they weren't there. You're purposely ignoring the definitions of words to suit your argument here.

I'd like to note that when I'm talking about Nazism, I'm not talking about extremist Hitlerist Nazism, I'm talking about moderate Nazism :^)

Hitler invented Nazism. No comparison.

Didn't Anton Drexler 'invent' Nazism

What the hell, these news has to be satire.