@tupsu: I sry
@miney and slimfast: hi he is still alive doing doctor stuff so I am flying in 3 hours to see him yeeee
@miney and slimfast: hi he is still alive doing doctor stuff so I am flying in 3 hours to see him yeeee
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,703
that's a cute
thanks
i miss kanye.
he was like one of 3 people who believed in my ability to click those circles.
he was like one of 3 people who believed in my ability to click those circles.
he said these threads are trash
I still believe in you, my sonTanzklaue wrote:
i miss kanye.
he was like one of 3 people who believed in my ability to click those circles.
Now go and click life’s circles
Steph told me to get on here and tell y’all about how great she is and stuff
But she’s an asshole lol
But she’s an asshole lol
so this is a guy b1rb looks up to? lmao
Do you find something objectionable?
Going through hundreds of hours of content to cherry pick something mildly disagreeable to you, well done.
Going through hundreds of hours of content to cherry pick something mildly disagreeable to you, well done.
That quote is straight retarded, not "mildly disagreeable" lol
Also I didn't go through his stuff, just popped up on my twitter feed from a "hot takes" account that I follow
Also I didn't go through his stuff, just popped up on my twitter feed from a "hot takes" account that I follow
I WILL GIVE IT MY BEST CAPTAIN OH CAPTIAN ;_;7Kanye West wrote:
I still believe in you, my sonTanzklaue wrote:
i miss kanye.
he was like one of 3 people who believed in my ability to click those circles.
Now go and click life’s circles
In your opinion that is.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
That quote is straight retarded, not "mildly disagreeable" lol
Also I didn't go through his stuff, just popped up on my twitter feed from a "hot takes" account that I follow
If you didn't even realise, it's not a statement of fact, it's an example of a question that (as you have shown) it's impossible to pose without getting shouted down by the SJW crowd. And as far as the question itself goes, it's a perfectly valid proposition to put forth. You have to wonder what outlet all of the feminists who are surrounded by no one but beta numales will turn to.
that question doesn't get shouted down by SLWs, but rather by people with half a brain.
like it's such a ridiculous question that ignores facts just to push their own fantasy agenda, it's ridiculous. god it actually makes me kinda ornery.
like it's such a ridiculous question that ignores facts just to push their own fantasy agenda, it's ridiculous. god it actually makes me kinda ornery.
If it were a ridiculous question it would be easy to refute, yet I'm not hearing an argument from you.Tanzklaue wrote:
that question doesn't get shouted down by SLWs, but rather by people with half a brain.
like it's such a ridiculous question that ignores facts just to push their own fantasy agenda, it's ridiculous. god it actually makes me kinda ornery.
Dr. Peterson is a respected psychologist with thousands of citations, I'd estimate that he is smarter and more knowledgeable in this field than both you and Vipper.
any statement based on some sort of generalization is usually a bad statement
to give you a counter argument, the reason many of them probably don't talk so much about Islam is because they live in the West and mostly focus on Western issues
to give you a counter argument, the reason many of them probably don't talk so much about Islam is because they live in the West and mostly focus on Western issues
I just realized my first line is a contradiction in itself lmao
There's nothing wrong with speaking in generalisations. Yes I realise that when you speak about groups you're not necessarily speaking about every individual in that group, but you can observe general patterns of behaviour that is common across the group and is useful to observe.
I was going to say this isn't entirely untrue but then I realized I didn't want to get into another 4 page long argument on here...DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
so this is a guy b1rb looks up to? lmao
It wouldn't be ITT if it didn't continue for an n amount of pages with completely random nonsense.
for all we know, your last name could be "Peterson"!Jordan wrote:
I was going to say this isn't entirely untrue but then I realized I didn't want to get into another 4 page long argument on here...DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
so this is a guy b1rb looks up to? lmao
what do u call a belt made out of watches?
a waist of time!
xd
a waist of time!
xd
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
neither
I'd choose prison, then I have a better chance of escaping.
Sorry, the wording of my question wasn't clear enough and people are going to misinterpret what I wanted them to answer. Allow me to rephrase.Kisses wrote:
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
If a convicted criminal was sentenced to life in prison without parole would you rather have them receive the death penalty? Yes or no, why? If it depends, what does it depend on?
Strike him down and bury him, and so clear me and my father's house of the guilt of the innocent blood that Joab shed. The LORD will repay him for the blood he shed, because without the knowledge of my father David he attacked two men and killed them with the sword. Both of them—Abner son of Ner, commander of Israel's army, and Amasa son of Jether, commander of Judah's army—were better men and more upright than he. May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever. But on David and his descendants, his house and his throne, may there be the LORD's peace forever.Kisses wrote:
Sorry, the wording of my question wasn't clear enough and people are going to misinterpret what I wanted them to answer. Allow me to rephrase.Kisses wrote:
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
If a convicted criminal was sentenced to life in prison without parole would you rather have them receive the death penalty? Yes or no, why? If it depends, what does it depend on?
life in prisonKisses wrote:
Sorry, the wording of my question wasn't clear enough and people are going to misinterpret what I wanted them to answer. Allow me to rephrase.Kisses wrote:
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
If a convicted criminal was sentenced to life in prison without parole would you rather have them receive the death penalty? Yes or no, why? If it depends, what does it depend on?
it's less expensive and still presents the opportunity for some kind of reform
a question to those reading: if you were wrongly convicted of a terrible crime, would you rather your punishment be the death penalty, or life in prison without parole?
suicidal people need not apply obviously
DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
life in prison
it's less expensive and still presents the opportunity for some kind of reform ??? Prison is way more expensive as it requires much more taxes for the occupation of prison, clothing, food, wages of prison wardens etc. Also I can't imagine any man "reforming" after a sentenced to life in prison. Human minds just don't work like that. Also it would be reforming for no reason, you have no freedom and nothing to aspire for once you leave the best you can do is cope with prison
a question to those reading: if you were wrongly convicted of a terrible crime, would you rather your punishment be the death penalty, or life in prison without parole? death
suicidal people need not apply obviously
Lol
How much do you think prison costs for an inmate each year?
hahahaha wtfDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
death penalty costs a shitton, guys.
$31,977 on averageKisses wrote:
How much do you think prison costs for an inmate each year?
if the death penalty will cost the state 1.2m on average then that breaks even with 37.5 years in prison
or 75 years in prison if the death penalty costs 2.4m on average
depends on the state. people who think that the death penalty is cheap are very naive about the legal costs of pursuing and carrying out such things
for the record, the average life sentence in the UK lasts for 15 years before the prisoner becomes paroled
but vipper
it is not the true
does not cost alot
they say the lies to make public think it ok to ban kill people
u think u know
u know not
it is not the true
does not cost alot
they say the lies to make public think it ok to ban kill people
u think u know
u know not
The real question is, are there any crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty? The answer is yes. Leftists are too naive to realise that there are people who are evil and those sort of people deserve to die for their crimes. It's silly how you have mass murders in Scandinavian jails who can complain because they have a PS2 instead of a PS3 and only kids' games to play. That's not what justice is.
I still stand by my point that instead of life in prison and the death penalty, they should introduce torture - not because of the physical aspect of it, but the psychological. I'm quite positive the number of crimes would be significantly reduced were such a thing to be passed in law.
I know, I know, if mere death sentences pose such a problem in legality, this thing would be even more nightmarish, but as a concept it works just fine... it's just sad that general corruption and the very core of capitalism we practice in this day make it an impracticality and thus improbability, if not an impossibility.
I know, I know, if mere death sentences pose such a problem in legality, this thing would be even more nightmarish, but as a concept it works just fine... it's just sad that general corruption and the very core of capitalism we practice in this day make it an impracticality and thus improbability, if not an impossibility.
B1rd wrote:
The real question is, are there any crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty? The answer is yes. Leftists are too naive to realise that there are people who are evil and those sort of people deserve to die for their crimes. It's silly how you have mass murders in Scandinavian jails who can complain because they have a PS2 instead of a PS3 and only kids' games to play. That's not what justice is.
And yet they have the best prison system in the world, when talking about rates of re-offence for example.
Sometimes, solutions are counter-intuitive to your feelings.
Also, re: your video. Ok, Panzram was well and truly evil by the time he went on his crime spree. Execution still wouldn't be necessary, since as a prisoner, he'd therefore been removed from society. Just remember that when the death penalty is an option, many families of victims will seek it, for example, because they want retribution- which can be both very costly and dangerous.
Bonus: Panzram's backstory.
Born in East Grand Forks, Minnesota, the son of East Prussian immigrants Johann "John" and Matilda Panzram, Carl was raised on his family's farm with five siblings. In 1903, at the age of 12, he stole some cake, apples, and a revolver from a neighbor's home. Soon after, his parents sent him to the Minnesota State Training School. While there, he was repeatedly beaten, tortured, and raped by staff members in what attendees dubbed "The Painting House", because children would leave "painted" with bruises and blood. Panzram hated this place of torture so much that he decided to burn it down, and did so without detection.
In late 1905, Panzram was released from the school. By his teens, he was an alcoholic and was repeatedly in trouble with the authorities, often for burglary and theft. He ran away from home at the age of 14. He often traveled via train cars; he later claimed that on one train he was gang raped by a group of hobos.
In 1907, at the age of 15, after getting drunk in a saloon in Montana, Panzram enlisted in the U.S. Army. Shortly thereafter he was convicted of larceny and served a prison sentence from 1908 to 1910 at Fort Leavenworth's United States Disciplinary Barracks. Then-Secretary of War William Howard Taft approved the sentence. Panzram later claimed that any goodness left in him was smashed out during his Leavenworth imprisonment.
...So he had an abusive, awful childhood, exacerbated by the school and prison systems that he'd been to in his youth. A bit hard to see him as just some evil guy that deserves to be judged the same way as anyone else, considering how fucked up his entire life had been up to that point. This is the case for most people who do terrible things.
Aurani wrote:
I still stand by my point that instead of life in prison and the death penalty, they should introduce torture - not because of the physical aspect of it, but the psychological. I'm quite positive the number of crimes would be significantly reduced were such a thing to be passed in law.
I know, I know, if mere death sentences pose such a problem in legality, this thing would be even more nightmarish, but as a concept it works just fine... it's just sad that general corruption and the very core of capitalism we practice in this day make it an impracticality and thus improbability, if not an impossibility.
I'm pretty sure that harsher punishments don't actually correlate with less crime, but that's for either of us to be bothered to research lol.
What does corruption and capitalism have to do with that though? I don't think most people would want torture to be integrated into the justice system, regardless of profit or corruption-driven motives. People have learned as a society that it's quite frankly unnecessary. See the backlash to the Guantanimo Bay torture for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanam ... mp#Torture
I don't like the idea of criminals having it easy in prison either, but if that is what it takes to create the lowest rate of re-offenders and a healthy society, then maybe i should reconsider if my "sense of justice" is worth being pursued. In other words: If your sense of justice doesn't create any utilitarian value, it belongs on the historical garbage-dump, right next to witch-hunts, laws regarding bastards, the opression of women and everything else we got rid of to create a better life for everyone.
So what. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because they do some things right, doesn't mean they do everything right. Whether it is good at reforming petty criminals it a moot point,what is cleat is that it is absolutely lacking in being able to deal justice when people have committed atrocities. How many people does someone have to kill, torture, rape and brutalise before 21 years of playing video games and relaxing in a holiday resort then release for good behaviour becomes insufficient?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
And yet they have the best prison system in the world, when talking about rates of re-offence for example.
Sometimes, solutions are counter-intuitive to your feelings.
..So he had an abusive, awful childhood, exacerbated by the school and prison systems that he'd been to in his youth. A bit hard to see him as just some evil guy that deserves to be judged the same way as anyone else, considering how fucked up his entire life had been up to that point. This is the case for most people who do terrible things.No. Just because one guy has a sob story doesn't mean you can generalise it to mean that everyone who ever did something bad had a proportionately bad earlier life. You have people like him, then you have people like Elliot Rodger who had a perfectly good childhood but just brooded on some minor hardship and then did what they did. People have free will and it's not just all environmental determinism, I'd be willing to bet that serial killers have lives no harder than 1000 other people who managed to lead normal lives.
In other words the "right side of history" fallacy.Railey2 wrote:
I don't like the idea of criminals having it easy in prison either, but if that is what it takes to create the lowest rate of re-offenders and a healthy society, then maybe i should reconsider if my "sense of justice" is worth being pursued. In other words: If your sense of justice doesn't create any utilitarian value, it belongs on the historical garbage-dump, right next to witch-hunts, laws regarding bastards, the opression of women and everything else we got rid of to create a better life for everyone.
By no means it it obvious that lack of capital punishment is what's best for society. Japan's prison has capital punishment and a harsh and punitive prison system. It also has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, even compared to Scandinavian countries. But would there be more utilitarian value in letting the convicted of the Nuremburg trials off on good behaviour?
Does determinism scare you, B1rd?
Does free will scare you?
How is everyone's Halloween?
@b1rd: Note that I didn't directly say what judicial system would be most beneficial for society (It's probably highly dependent on what sort of society you work with, although I do suspect that something close to the scandinavian system will work best for a society that is already very healthy).
The main point i was trying to make was that anything pertaining to a "sense of justice" is a non-argument and should be ignored. I don't give a crap about what people think is "fair", as that in itself can never be a valid line of reasoning. People thought it fair to burn people to death based on allegations of witchcraft, so there you go.
A more productive discussion can be achieved if justice as a concept is ignored, and everything is only talked about in terms of policy-dependent consequences.
The main point i was trying to make was that anything pertaining to a "sense of justice" is a non-argument and should be ignored. I don't give a crap about what people think is "fair", as that in itself can never be a valid line of reasoning. People thought it fair to burn people to death based on allegations of witchcraft, so there you go.
A more productive discussion can be achieved if justice as a concept is ignored, and everything is only talked about in terms of policy-dependent consequences.
Not at all, it'd be quite nice to live in a world like that. Unfortunately, I'm not religious, so the concept of "libertarian free will" doesn't exactly match the objective reality that I live in.B1rd wrote:
Does free will scare you?
Nice strawman - my arguments are founded on "religion", whilst you conveniently forget to respond to all the arguments I put forth.
Your cultural marxism is showing through. Oh I'm sorry, "objective left-wing determinism". But no, humans are not putty that is infinitely malleable with social engineering. You may create a system which might influence people in a certain direction, but it's impossible to eliminate free will by changing environmental factors.
Your cultural marxism is showing through. Oh I'm sorry, "objective left-wing determinism". But no, humans are not putty that is infinitely malleable with social engineering. You may create a system which might influence people in a certain direction, but it's impossible to eliminate free will by changing environmental factors.
What? You didn't put forward any arguments, lol.
Your post might as well have just said this^, which I'm happy to respond to.
I'm not saying Scandinavian prisons do "everything right", but they're objectively better at reforming criminals than a more punishment-oriented justice system, proven by statistics.
Elliot Rodger may have been mentally ill, he might've been raised badly, or gotten unlucky enough for his mental state to make sense (to him).
Explain how free will is even possible without the assistance of something non-physical? I'm pretty sure you could predict someone's future choices with 100% accuracy if you knew everything that had led up to that point in their life down to the atom, which means that they wouldn't be able to exercise free will without something non-physical like a soul.
I feel like people executed at the Nuremberg trials might've been disproportionately punished, actually. Plenty of psychological experiments since then have suggested that normal people will commit atrocities as long as an authority tells them to, it's human nature.
You spend too much time reading alt-right content, lol.
B1rd wrote:
[
So what. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because they do some things right, doesn't mean they do everything right.
Elliot Rodger is an example of someone who reacted disproportionately to their life situation, which means that he chose to do so of his own will. People have free will and it's not just all environmental determinism
Would there be more utilitarian value in letting the convicted of the Nuremburg trials off on good behaviour?
Your post might as well have just said this^, which I'm happy to respond to.
I'm not saying Scandinavian prisons do "everything right", but they're objectively better at reforming criminals than a more punishment-oriented justice system, proven by statistics.
Elliot Rodger may have been mentally ill, he might've been raised badly, or gotten unlucky enough for his mental state to make sense (to him).
Explain how free will is even possible without the assistance of something non-physical? I'm pretty sure you could predict someone's future choices with 100% accuracy if you knew everything that had led up to that point in their life down to the atom, which means that they wouldn't be able to exercise free will without something non-physical like a soul.
I feel like people executed at the Nuremberg trials might've been disproportionately punished, actually. Plenty of psychological experiments since then have suggested that normal people will commit atrocities as long as an authority tells them to, it's human nature.
B1rd wrote:
Your cultural marxism is showing through. Oh I'm sorry, "objective left-wing determinism".
You spend too much time reading alt-right content, lol.
This discussion has gone off the fucking rails lol
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4705545216
Nvm I think I found why B1rd is so pro-death penalty, LUL
Nvm I think I found why B1rd is so pro-death penalty, LUL
it always does when B1rd is involved, I wonder whyGreen Platinum wrote:
This discussion has gone off the fucking rails lol
my best bud is gifting me her old mechanical keyboard she no longer needs.
i will become a god in this game when it arrives!
i will become a god in this game when it arrives!
@Tanzklaue I don't know why but your remark reminds me of people who get really expensive tablets to "improve their art" lol
did anyone else get fucked in the ass by hextracoin or bitpetite
bitpetite advertised themselves with the promise of a daily 4,5% return on your capital. If thats not the most obvious ponzi-scheme out there, then I don't know what is. All it takes is one look at their claims, and you know to stay away from it.lol wrote:
did anyone else get fucked in the ass by hextracoin or bitpetite
I don't know how you could be so stupid. Ponzi pulled that shit in the 1920s, and people today are still falling for the same trick, I don't know how anybody in their right mind could go for this.
YOU of all people with all your criminal energy, I'd expect you to be one of the guys behind bitpetite if anything. How did this even happen? Did you gamble that you could make your money back before they take it all and run?
FuZ wrote:
every ot politics posters should get death penalty tbh
A safer bet than investing in health insuranceRailey2 wrote:
Did you gamble that you could make your money back before they take it all and run?
Oh god
Health insurance isn't about getting your money back. It's a deal you make, hoping that you WONT get more than your moneys worth back... because if you do, that will most likely mean that you got hit by a truck. You don't "invest" in health insurance hoping that it will "pay off", lmao.
Health insurance isn't about getting your money back. It's a deal you make, hoping that you WONT get more than your moneys worth back... because if you do, that will most likely mean that you got hit by a truck. You don't "invest" in health insurance hoping that it will "pay off", lmao.
I can't tell if you knew I was joking or not
Railey is ready for everything.
Or maybe he was hallucinating and thought you were Jordan or whoever would actually support that standpoint.
Or maybe he was hallucinating and thought you were Jordan or whoever would actually support that standpoint.
I appreciate Railey taking offhand remarks seriously like that. Several times I have made serious enquires that were taken to be a joke only to be dismissed offhand.
invest in life insurance?
brb gonna buy some rope
brb gonna buy some rope
i didnt lend to bitpetite but some of my group were 20k deepRailey2 wrote:
bitpetite advertised themselves with the promise of a daily 4,5% return on your capital. If thats not the most obvious ponzi-scheme out there, then I don't know what is. All it takes is one look at their claims, and you know to stay away from it.lol wrote:
did anyone else get fucked in the ass by hextracoin or bitpetite
I don't know how you could be so stupid. Ponzi pulled that shit in the 1920s, and people today are still falling for the same trick, I don't know how anybody in their right mind could go for this.
CHILL ur shit pikey
This is basically what im doing with regalcoin and bcc, i am 35k deep in this bitch but bcc seems to be in for the long run so not worriedRailey2 wrote:
YOU of all people with all your criminal energy, I'd expect you to be one of the guys behind bitpetite if anything. How did this even happen? Did you gamble that you could make your money back before they take it all and run?
I have no doubt all my regalcoin money is gone its the dodgiest shit ive ever seen but i fucking love it
that would still be a better investment than a tablet for just osu.Milkshake wrote:
@Tanzklaue I don't know why but your remark reminds me of people who get really expensive tablets to "improve their art" lol
I upgraded to a tablet to improve my penis drawing during song breaks.
I invest in potatos
I bought 250 mini green raptors when they were still available because i knew they would be removed from the loottable as soon as the halloween update was released. They increased from about 1.2g each to over 3g each. I wish i bought like 2k of them, but oh well.
N0thingSpecial wrote:
I invest in potatos
what's your point, we should overlook it because he said that he's not perfect before?B1rd wrote:
Do you have something against Jordan Peterson?
https://youtu.be/GJJClhqGq_M?t=54m35s
We should like him more because he's such a humble person?
Some people manage to be humble while also sometimes saying stupid things?
That's all nice, but that doesn't change the fact that the tweet is dumb af. His reaction was hysterical and probably uninformed, all the criticism he gets for that is justified, whether he proclaimed to be fallible beforehand or not.
What was hysterical? I'm not particularly informed on the incident but it seems like a classic case of censorship to me.
And if he were to say something stupid, what criticism does he deserve? Certainly not a "ha look at this thing you said, therefore everything else you said is invalid" type remark. It is cowardly behaviour used by people trying to discredit someone because they can't battle with him in the intellectual arena. That type of low behaviour deserves more criticism than someone making an uninformed remark. People make mistakes all the time, as long as someone is willing to admit they were wrong there is nothing bad about that.
In other words, it's just an asinine social media circlejerk that doesn't bear paying any attention to. When you criticise someone you should take in their main points, not attempt to undermine them and assassinate their character over trivial things.
And if he were to say something stupid, what criticism does he deserve? Certainly not a "ha look at this thing you said, therefore everything else you said is invalid" type remark. It is cowardly behaviour used by people trying to discredit someone because they can't battle with him in the intellectual arena. That type of low behaviour deserves more criticism than someone making an uninformed remark. People make mistakes all the time, as long as someone is willing to admit they were wrong there is nothing bad about that.
In other words, it's just an asinine social media circlejerk that doesn't bear paying any attention to. When you criticise someone you should take in their main points, not attempt to undermine them and assassinate their character over trivial things.
Accusing someone who took down a twitter account for 10 minutes of committing a "treasonous act" is ridiculous. That's my critique, and it should need no spelling out. Vipper said "lol" to that, and thats also exactly my reaction. Lol, this is stupid. "Censorship", as if this was some sort of planned attack on Trump and his supporters? Ridiculous. It was resolved after 10 minutes.
And no I don't always have to attack their main points, I can criticise someone for whatever I want to criticise them for, as long as it's justified. It clearly is justified here, because as I said before, his tweet was more than silly.
Nobody here said anything about him therefore being wrong as a whole. I agree doing that would be dumb as well. Overall I actually like Peterson more than I dislike him, sometimes he says things that I think are pretty outlandish and unfounded, but he seems mostly alright. He clearly is an intellectual in every sense of the word and I mean that as a compliment, no doubt about that.
And no I don't always have to attack their main points, I can criticise someone for whatever I want to criticise them for, as long as it's justified. It clearly is justified here, because as I said before, his tweet was more than silly.
Nobody here said anything about him therefore being wrong as a whole. I agree doing that would be dumb as well. Overall I actually like Peterson more than I dislike him, sometimes he says things that I think are pretty outlandish and unfounded, but he seems mostly alright. He clearly is an intellectual in every sense of the word and I mean that as a compliment, no doubt about that.
Still real talk here fuxck
What does he say that's outlandish? He talks a lot in metaphors and symbolism, it only sounds outlandish if you take it literally.
If he doubled down on the statements, that would be silly. As it is, seems he deleted it quickly after posting, and that's not something to make an issue over. But it's not a criticism in good faith, just look at the Twitter account, it's just a bunch of left-wingers having an obnoxious circlejerk making fun of people they don't like. Just look at the crap on there https://twitter.com/21logician/status/9 ... 0138731520. And obviously when you engage in character assassination, you don't spell out what you're doing. It's implied.
If he doubled down on the statements, that would be silly. As it is, seems he deleted it quickly after posting, and that's not something to make an issue over. But it's not a criticism in good faith, just look at the Twitter account, it's just a bunch of left-wingers having an obnoxious circlejerk making fun of people they don't like. Just look at the crap on there https://twitter.com/21logician/status/9 ... 0138731520. And obviously when you engage in character assassination, you don't spell out what you're doing. It's implied.
I find it hysterical that these people believe they are all so vilified that they perceive anything to be a malicious attack on their personal freedom. Of course this is true for those who land on both sides.
Talking about political stuff, it's been really funny seeing the SJW gaming forum Neogaf disintegrate. It's poetic justice that the owner of a site that advocates for the automatic presumption of guilt in cases of rape accusations loses millions due to a sexual assault allegation that he denies. And in terms of repression of speech, that place put Stalinist Russia to shame.
Behaviour like this is basically straight out of Rules For Radicals. It's subversive and insidious, not something you should underestimate.
That entire group is out for the repression of personal freedom, no doubt about it.Green Platinum wrote:
I find it hysterical that these people believe they are all so vilified that they perceive anything to be a malicious attack on their personal freedom. Of course this is true for those who land on both sides.
Behaviour like this is basically straight out of Rules For Radicals. It's subversive and insidious, not something you should underestimate.
it's pretentious enough that you can't make a NeoGAF account with a "free" email adress like gmail for some stupid elitist reasons
did that guy just tell someone who was born in the UK and lived there all his life that "the UK isn't really your home"B1rd wrote:
https://twitter.com/21logician/status/927971960138731520
uw0t
like, of course I agree that african americans benefit from living in a 1st world country compared to 3rd world countries. That's obvious, as he said. Whether or not africa as a whole benefitted from white supremacy is a very complex question that probably nobody can answer (what's history's alternative course? Who knows.. but Africa certainly wasn't a paradise before the white man came around and fucked it up either)
but wtf is the rest of the video?
"you will never be an Englishman" Lmao
I'm sorry B1rd, but that guy doesn't need to have his character assassinated, he's already brutally murdering his own character in plain view for everyone to see.
What a shitty "interview" though, the black dude is doing a bad job as well. What a trainwreck. And all of that in less than 4 minutes.
White Nationalists believe in a spiritual "sense of being" related to race. They're nutjobs, pretty muchRailey2 wrote:
did that guy just tell someone who was born in the UK and lived there all his life that "the UK isn't really your home"B1rd wrote:
https://twitter.com/21logician/status/927971960138731520
uw0t
like, of course I agree that african americans benefit from living in a 1st world country compared to 3rd world countries. That's obvious, as he said. Whether or not africa as a whole benefitted from white supremacy is a very complex question that probably nobody can answer (what's history's alternative course? Who knows.. but Africa certainly wasn't a paradise before the white man came around and fucked it up either)
but wtf is the rest of the video?
"you will never be an Englishman" Lmao
I'm sorry B1rd, but that guy doesn't need to have his character assassinated, he's already brutally murdering his own character in plain view for everyone to see.
What a shitty "interview" though, the black dude is doing a bad job as well. What a trainwreck. And all of that in less than 4 minutes.
Green Platinum wrote:
I find it hysterical that these people believe they are all so vilified that they perceive anything to be a malicious attack on their personal freedom. Of course this is true for those who land on both sides.
Something worth saying: Every time you say "Obviously this is both sides" in an attempt to stay away from being too accusational about a certain political "wing", the radicals will simply assume you're talking about their enemies and not themselves. See B1rd's response as the perfect example of this, lol.
There is nothing crazy about having a collective identify related to ethnicity. Go to any other country in the world, you will find this facet of human nature. Just go to Japan and see how easy it is to "become Japanese". White people are notable out of all the races because they are the ones with the least in-group preference. And that's a bad thing because you have to find a balance between collective identity and "tolerance", and at the moment White countries are so far to the latter that they don't even have a preference for their own race, culture and values when accepting immigrants. People like Spencer are more in the extreme end, but its inevitable when there is such a repression of viewpoints as is going on now. I admire his bravery in being able to come out and say stuff despite being a target of vilification from all sides.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
White Nationalists believe in a spiritual "sense of being" related to race. They're nutjobs, pretty much
The lack of self-awareness is apparent here.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Something worth saying: Every time you say "Obviously this is both sides" in an attempt to stay away from being too accusational about a certain political "wing", the radicals will simply assume you're talking about their enemies and not themselves. See B1rd's response as the perfect example of this, lol.
Hope you're not talking about J. Peterson like I was, the only thing I was referring to with the Tweet was the praising of violence against people they don't like.Railey2 wrote:
did that guy just tell someone who was born in the UK and lived there all his life that "the UK isn't really your home"B1rd wrote:
https://twitter.com/21logician/status/927971960138731520
uw0t
like, of course I agree that african americans benefit from living in a 1st world country compared to 3rd world countries. That's obvious, as he said. Whether or not africa as a whole benefitted from white supremacy is a very complex question that probably nobody can answer (what's history's alternative course? Who knows.. but Africa certainly wasn't a paradise before the white man came around and fucked it up either)
but wtf is the rest of the video?
"you will never be an Englishman" Lmao
I'm sorry B1rd, but that guy doesn't need to have his character assassinated, he's already brutally murdering his own character in plain view for everyone to see.
What a shitty "interview" though, the black dude is doing a bad job as well. What a trainwreck. And all of that in less than 4 minutes.
Feels bad about Rhodesia though http://puu.sh/yhwM3/f115b83e69.webm
Railey was directly quoting the interview with Richard Spencer for his entire post. How the fuck would you not notice that, B1rb? Did you not actually check out the video that you were discussing?
Btw, how can you think race identity is real when races didn't even really exist (socially) before nations' borders became more clearly defined? It's a modern phenomenon, you can't even argue this from a biological perspective except for certain "us vs them" rationalisations, which we should quite frankly be above as a species.
Btw, how can you think race identity is real when races didn't even really exist (socially) before nations' borders became more clearly defined? It's a modern phenomenon, you can't even argue this from a biological perspective except for certain "us vs them" rationalisations, which we should quite frankly be above as a species.
Did collective identity form because of borders or did borders form because of collective identity? Seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. And I'd like to see you try to prove that historic societies were "colour blind". It's the opposite, it's just that before borders were on the tribe/region level and collective identity was predicated on even smaller differences than races.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Railey was directly quoting the interview with Richard Spencer for his entire post. How the fuck would you not notice that, B1rb? Did you not actually check out the video that you were discussing?
Btw, how can you think race identity is real when races didn't even really exist (socially) before nations' borders became more clearly defined? It's a modern phenomenon, you can't even argue this from a biological perspective except for certain "us vs them" rationalisations, which we should quite frankly be above as a species.
Also, on another topic, I've got some bad news for you and your worldview.
https://pjjonasson.files.wordpress.com/ ... landet.pdf
Online translated: http://puu.sh/yhUQN/03c9ac3b48.pdf
you guys have such stimulating conversations while im awayB1rd wrote:
Did collective identity form because of borders or did borders form because of collective identity? Seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. And I'd like to see you try to prove that historic societies were "colour blind". It's the opposite, it's just that before borders were on the tribe/region level and collective identity was predicated on even smaller differences than races.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Railey was directly quoting the interview with Richard Spencer for his entire post. How the fuck would you not notice that, B1rb? Did you not actually check out the video that you were discussing?
Btw, how can you think race identity is real when races didn't even really exist (socially) before nations' borders became more clearly defined? It's a modern phenomenon, you can't even argue this from a biological perspective except for certain "us vs them" rationalisations, which we should quite frankly be above as a species.
Also, on another topic, I've got some bad news for you and your worldview.
https://pjjonasson.files.wordpress.com/ ... landet.pdf
Online translated: http://puu.sh/yhUQN/03c9ac3b48.pdf
I thought you had forsaken us. Are you back to show us the path to eternal redemption?
With any luck, yes. Stay tuned.B1rd wrote:
I thought you had forsaken us. Are you back to show us the path to eternal redemption?
I completely disagree. Societies had a cultural identity based on where you grew up or what norms you adapted. If you moved to Rome and successfully integrated into Roman society, you were treated as a Roman, for example. There was still discrimination of physical features but it wasn't the same as defining people by certain "races", that only came a lot later (beginning in the 1600s by German and British scientists, but moreso looked into during the 1800s). Before the 1800s, nation-states didn't exist- instead, there were empires containing subjects of many different ethnicities.B1rd wrote:
Did collective identity form because of borders or did borders form because of collective identity? Seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. And I'd like to see you try to prove that historic societies were "colour blind". It's the opposite, it's just that before borders were on the tribe/region level and collective identity was predicated on even smaller differences than races.
You'd think the supposed inherent racial differences would've been picked up on if such a thing was real.