I never "baited" Maho or Rasp.oh?
In fact, I called both the groups vermin right in that post. Does it trigger you? Do you feel like sharing your legendarily refined point of view with me? :*how is this not bait, Aurani? c'mon.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,223
Identity hiding is done for 2 reasons:
1: might get them in trouble at work if they're seen protesting with bunch of people who are now associated with thuggery etc
2: allows them to commit violence with less chance of repercussion- antifa are usually the ones who physically fight neonazi groups. also exploited to do other bad things like looting
1: might get them in trouble at work if they're seen protesting with bunch of people who are now associated with thuggery etc
2: allows them to commit violence with less chance of repercussion- antifa are usually the ones who physically fight neonazi groups. also exploited to do other bad things like looting
Mocking someone's stupidity =/= baiting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe baiting refers to making fun of someone by provoking them to take you seriously, when you're "joking", which is why I call it cheap fun. "Look at this idiot, he took me seriously! Haha, what a moron!"Foxtrot wrote:
oh?
how is this not bait, Aurani? c'mon.
Yeah, I can agree on that, but I believe that all the people I joke with are mentally developed enough to understand my, at times, admittedly weird and misplaced jokesFoxtrot wrote:
that can be subjective to be fair
@Daddy
So we both agree that such groups are scum?
baiting is just when you do something that deliberately provokes a heated response. You do it all the time, like in foxtrot's example. mocking them is a way of doing that
you "bait" angry responses out of people
as for calling antifa scum, nah. undoubtedly lots of shit people in that movement, but I'm not one to apply sweeping assumptions to smaller groups of them, particularly when the media only covers them when their members do bad things. unlike neonazi groups, I actually agree with the core belief that fascism should not be met with complete tolerance.
granted, I've actually seen an antifa group marching in person as of yesterday, so this is just my experience speaking. none of those people were thugs
you "bait" angry responses out of people
as for calling antifa scum, nah. undoubtedly lots of shit people in that movement, but I'm not one to apply sweeping assumptions to smaller groups of them, particularly when the media only covers them when their members do bad things. unlike neonazi groups, I actually agree with the core belief that fascism should not be met with complete tolerance.
granted, I've actually seen an antifa group marching in person as of yesterday, so this is just my experience speaking. none of those people were thugs
By that definition, any controversial topic is in essence "baiting" people, which sounds about as stupid as it can get.
When I "provoke" angry responses, it's because those people don't share my view. If I say that people who are useless to society by contributing nothing and wasting resources should be killed, I am not baiting anyone, I am presenting my view on the matter. You can see just how retarded that definition of "baiting" is.
I'm not joking around, I'm not saying it for shits and giggles, so how in the world is that baiting?
Mocking someone on a serious thing is also not the same as pulling their pisser, as it was written in serious and should be taken as serious. The example of me mocking Rasp is not valid because I actually WANTED him to give me his half baked view on the matter, so I could tell him why I don't want to talk to him, as I'd be pointing out all the shit in his post.
That is not baiting, it is a general strategy for getting someone off of you.
When I "provoke" angry responses, it's because those people don't share my view. If I say that people who are useless to society by contributing nothing and wasting resources should be killed, I am not baiting anyone, I am presenting my view on the matter. You can see just how retarded that definition of "baiting" is.
I'm not joking around, I'm not saying it for shits and giggles, so how in the world is that baiting?
Mocking someone on a serious thing is also not the same as pulling their pisser, as it was written in serious and should be taken as serious. The example of me mocking Rasp is not valid because I actually WANTED him to give me his half baked view on the matter, so I could tell him why I don't want to talk to him, as I'd be pointing out all the shit in his post.
That is not baiting, it is a general strategy for getting someone off of you.
Aurani wrote:
By that definition, any controversial topic is in essence "baiting" people, which sounds about as stupid as it can get.
political discussion is usually discouraged for this reason
wording matters btw. calling someone a retard isn't the same thing as just disagreeing with them. people rarely give heated reactions simply due to differences in viewpoint, although some are more prone to heated reaction than others
The only people I would ever call "retards" are the people who I don't really appreciate as human beings, which completely invalidates your assumption that I actually want to discuss something with them. If I call them retarded, chances are I'm only talking to them to defend my own point and ultimately show them the door.
Have you ever seen me call Dulcet, Railey, Bird or you retards? No? Well gee, figure out why. It can't possibly be because I respect your opinions and actually want to listen to what you have to say, right?
P.S. If you by any chance think that calling the definition you gave me retarded also somehow brands you as a retard, no, don't connect it like that, as the definition truly is fucky and it can be as retarded as possible without it saying anything about you personally.
Have you ever seen me call Dulcet, Railey, Bird or you retards? No? Well gee, figure out why. It can't possibly be because I respect your opinions and actually want to listen to what you have to say, right?
P.S. If you by any chance think that calling the definition you gave me retarded also somehow brands you as a retard, no, don't connect it like that, as the definition truly is fucky and it can be as retarded as possible without it saying anything about you personally.
you don't have to literallly say the words "you are a retard" in order to convey that message
If you can't read betwee the lines to determine tone and intent then you're probably socially inept to some extent :V
Does it trigger you? Do you feel like sharing your legendarily refined point of view with me? :*I.e. "Your perspective is well established as being very stupid, feel free to post it so I can laugh at you." (Goading them into posting)
If you can't read betwee the lines to determine tone and intent then you're probably socially inept to some extent :V
Those kind of people are very much imbeciles and can't otherwise get the point. I have tried, multiple times, to reason with such people, to no avail. The proof is within this very thread, and you are free to go through my posts if you want to discuss it any further, as I will not accept random argumentative stabs in the dark as actual arguments.
As for the second part, you should probably not call me socially inept if you're unable to see the difference between seriously wanting to show someone that they should fuck off, and "baiting" them, as you say.
As for the second part, you should probably not call me socially inept if you're unable to see the difference between seriously wanting to show someone that they should fuck off, and "baiting" them, as you say.
You seriously didn't expect them to post further after you said something like that...?
That's be beauty of what I wrote. If he does not write anything, he will fuck off naturally, but if he does, he will have presented me with the evidence I need to tell him to fuck off, so it's a checkmate. There was no other method of achieving that goal as effective as that line.
What we need to focus on here is you constantly passing it off as me "baiting" or "fucking around with him" or "joking" or whatever you want to say. I was 100% serious when I wrote it, for the reasons stated above.
I mean I see no issue here. We have now proved that it can not be classified as baiting, as long as I took him seriously, and my goal was to get him to sod off, not to get him heated up. What else do you need?
What we need to focus on here is you constantly passing it off as me "baiting" or "fucking around with him" or "joking" or whatever you want to say. I was 100% serious when I wrote it, for the reasons stated above.
I mean I see no issue here. We have now proved that it can not be classified as baiting, as long as I took him seriously, and my goal was to get him to sod off, not to get him heated up. What else do you need?
Posting seriously and baiting aren't mutually exclusive though. I thought marching next to antifa was cool since it's not exactly an everyday thing, but I posted that knowing full well that it'd get funny reactions
I have the wierdest damn dreams sometimes. In my dream I was either a dragon or riding a dragon, and I attacked a fort with spirit soldiers while I stood back and watched. Anyway they all died, and then one of my teeth feel out, prompting all of my teeth (which were growing on the roof of my mouth, not the normal ones) to fall out, which was quite concerning for me. Then it cut to a screen showing multiple corpses of dragons and all of the teeth that I'd lost, showing me the result of my foolish move to attack the fort.
I guess that's what happens when you sleep after playing an MMO for 24+ hours. I've been playing Wurm online, the first MMO I've actually liked. Who were the people telling me that you needed to have a class system in an MMO?
I guess that's what happens when you sleep after playing an MMO for 24+ hours. I've been playing Wurm online, the first MMO I've actually liked. Who were the people telling me that you needed to have a class system in an MMO?
Well I believe they are. You can't try to make an idiot out of someone for shits and giggles (since that's what baiting is all about) AND be serious at the same time. It's either-or.
As for your antifa post, it's easy to classify it. If you posted it exclusively to get cheap fun out of provoking heated responses, then yeah, it's most definitely bait, but if you posted it to show that you marched next to them, then even IF you knew you'd get heated responses, it's not bait. The intent is key here, and there can only be one basis for it. What comes on top does not matter in its classification.
Now, the reason I replied to it as I did was because I actually believed you were serious and wanted to discuss that topic, or at least give me your view on it. Hence, when Dulcet said that all you were doing was baiting, my point of you doing something other with your time still stands. What you do with it does not concern me, as I just gave my two cents on her post.
As for your antifa post, it's easy to classify it. If you posted it exclusively to get cheap fun out of provoking heated responses, then yeah, it's most definitely bait, but if you posted it to show that you marched next to them, then even IF you knew you'd get heated responses, it's not bait. The intent is key here, and there can only be one basis for it. What comes on top does not matter in its classification.
Now, the reason I replied to it as I did was because I actually believed you were serious and wanted to discuss that topic, or at least give me your view on it. Hence, when Dulcet said that all you were doing was baiting, my point of you doing something other with your time still stands. What you do with it does not concern me, as I just gave my two cents on her post.
You seem to simply have a different definition of what bait is then, I suppose
It's like you're trying to create an new identity of "good" antifa. Why on earth would they cause trouble at their own event? You've seen maybe a couple events of nazis disturbing these homosexual pride events? You can be rest assured that these fuckers will use violence and intimidation tactics to inhibit freedom of speech and freedom of assembly for those they don't like. If you tried to have a White Pride even in the same way you had gay pride events you'd pretty much have to form up battle lines. Ironically, the only real persecution of gay people are in the Muslim areas of Sweden where homosexuals aren't safe.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
"Black bloc" is when antifa dress entirely in black and hide their faces. It's done to both hide their identity and to appear as a powerful collective when they protest
also yeah they were actual neonazis- such groups are more popular in Scandinavia than you'd expect
edit: you bait people all the time aurani, not sure why you'd say otherwise
And you really need to stop misusing the word "baiting"
I imagine that'd be because white nationalism isn't an ideology favoured by anyone intelligent or reasonable and tends to attract fascist thugs, but you do you, B1rb.
Nonsense. If you don't have anything substantive to say, don't say anything at all.
I'd say that's a fair counter argument to "why no white pride???", so it's not insubstantial
Any "anti" movement on the political scene is as extreme as it is cancerous and needs to be removed alongside its members.
I don't think we're operating on the same level.
It's like you're trying to create an new identity of "good" antifa.Why do you need to create a new identity for that? Antifa is already good. Fascism is a bad thing!
>throwing molotov cocktails on policemen is goodMahogany wrote:
It's like you're trying to create an new identity of "good" antifa.Why do you need to create a new identity for that? Antifa is already good. Fascism is a bad thing!
k den
So you are openly calling for the killing of cops via radical groups because of the actions of a few? You're no better than the "american niggers matter" then.
So you are openly calling for the killing of copsNope, I don't want anyone to die. But using "assaulting cops" as proof that a group of people are bad makes no sense.
How can you be a leftist if you think that assaulting a certain group of people is justifiable just because some of them are bad apples. It stinks of Goebbels' rhetoric.
I did say that every anti group on the political scene is preaching disorder and violence under all the fluff, and that only proves my point.
I did say that every anti group on the political scene is preaching disorder and violence under all the fluff, and that only proves my point.
How can you be a leftist if you think that assaulting a certain group of people is justifiable just because some of them are bad apples.Because I believe in equality for everyone and ending oppression?
Yup, definitely Goebbels.
You surprised me, mate, but at least now I know that you aren't a puppet and you do have some colour to you.
You surprised me, mate, but at least now I know that you aren't a puppet and you do have some colour to you.
Not defending an "overall anti-cop mentality" here, but to be fair, the same can be applied to your views on those kinds of groups. Wishing that all members of antifascist organisations are killed just because of the actions of a few of the radicalsAurani wrote:
How can you be a leftist if you think that assaulting a certain group of people is justifiable just because some of them are bad apples. It stinks of Goebbels' rhetoric.
I did say that every anti group on the political scene is preaching disorder and violence under all the fluff, and that only proves my point.
Discriminatly Attacking black people is ok because a few of them have committed murderMahogany wrote:
Oh yes, these poor innocent policemen
'Oh yes, these poor innocent black people'
Hello
o no poor criminalsMahogany wrote:
Oh yes, these poor innocent policemen
also taking amerifat police as a generality
molotov cocktails throws happened in paris
There are more "anti" organisations than just antifa, you know? Also, I said "remove", not "kill".DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Not defending an "overall anti-cop mentality" here, but to be fair, the same can be applied to your views on those kinds of groups. Wishing that all members of antifascist organisations are killed just because of the actions of a few of the radicalsAurani wrote:
How can you be a leftist if you think that assaulting a certain group of people is justifiable just because some of them are bad apples. It stinks of Goebbels' rhetoric.
I did say that every anti group on the political scene is preaching disorder and violence under all the fluff, and that only proves my point.
Aurani wrote:
Two nukes would be even better! It's called a joke, no matter how fucked up it is.
A nuclear strike would devastate the land, leaving it desolate and uninhabitable for decades to come. Merely executing them would suffice.
That being said, I would love to execute you, Daddyboy. :^)Aurani wrote:
It's called a joke, no matter how fucked up it is.
Man you really love your "not all of them" meme. If antifa, not even antifacists they're just a radical left-wing agitators. The thing is being a member of antifa is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY, therefore it follows that all of the member of antifa condone what the others do otherwise they wouldn't identify with them.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Not defending an "overall anti-cop mentality" here, but to be fair, the same can be applied to your views on those kinds of groups. Wishing that all members of antifascist organisations are killed just because of the actions of a few of the radicals
Kisses wrote:
Discriminatly Attacking black people is ok because a few of them have committed murderMahogany wrote:
Oh yes, these poor innocent policemen
'Oh yes, these poor innocent black people'