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.

Nazism wasn't "invented" by one man but Hitler is one of them so it still makes vipper's point true

N0thingSpecial wrote:

Not sure what I stopped into but Hitler did nothing wrong

stop

Erlkonig wrote:

What the hell, these news has to be satire.

People believe this stuff
Now you know what's wrong with people like b1rd

Mahogany if you're actually just gay for B1rd, admit it. I see that fucking username in your posts all the time

Mahogany wrote:

Erlkonig wrote:

What the hell, these news has to be satire.

People believe this stuff
Now you know what's wrong with people like b1rd

This is how I feel about the liberal media

Goddamn, how many memes are in the "Walmart Mystery Solved" thumbnail?

Foxtrot wrote:

Mahogany if you're actually just gay for B1rd, admit it. I see that fucking username in your posts all the time

I'm gay for Masala though, b1rd is ew

johnmedina999 wrote:

Goddamn, how many memes are in the "Walmart Mystery Solved" thumbnail?

Obama, Hillary, Soros, that photoshopped Iran missile test in the background, the upside-down Texas flag, whatever that toddler's name is

damn, this belongs in the MoMA for being such a masterpiece

Mahogany wrote:

Foxtrot wrote:

Mahogany if you're actually just gay for B1rd, admit it. I see that fucking username in your posts all the time

I'm gay for Masala though, b1rd is ew

You bring him up more than you bring up anything else. He's on your mind, day and night,

mmmh.....

oooohhhh~

Jesus christ I didn't need this erotic roleplay in my life

´it has a twist

okay i'll be honest that was a pretty good meme

i take it back

Mahogany wrote:

Foxtrot wrote:

Mahogany if you're actually just gay for B1rd, admit it. I see that fucking username in your posts all the time

I'm gay for Masala though, b1rd is ew

I don't think I've seen you talk about Masala even once prior today

Railey2 wrote:

B1rd followed Mahoganies orders

Mahoganies

Off-Topic ERP is something I need more of.

Holy shit Railey
This is top-level posting right here
I love it.

Kisses wrote:

I don't think I've seen you talk about Masala even once prior today

Its relatively recent ever since coldtooth was a jerk to me

Kisses wrote:

Mahoganies

oh

Railey2 wrote:

You bring him up more than you bring up anything else. He's on your mind, day and night,

mmmh.....

oooohhhh~

SPOILER

''B1rd..'', Mahogany whispered, ''can you promise me that we will be together forever?''

''Yes, my sweet little boy,'' B1rd replied with a stern voice. ''We will be together, so i can tend to you every night.''
B1rd's voice started to quiver a bit, as the burning passion within him grew and grew...

Before he could say anything more, Mahogany wrapped his frail arms around him and started to nibble on his earlobe.
''mhhhhh~~~''

''W-what are you doing, Mahogany?'', B1rd cried out while blushing. Even after everything that happened between the two, B1rd still got flustered easily.

''Oh you know what i'm doing, cutie'', Mahogany responded playfully, as his hands made their way downwards towards B1rd's crotch.

''Oh my, would you look at that,'' Mahogany gasped in surprise. ''You're already THAT hard''

''mmmh, i can't help it, the things you say... the things you do to me always drive me crazy'', B1rd uttered under his breath

''You know it, bitch! Now lie down and take it!'', Mahogany commanded.

B1rd followed Mahoganies orders quickly and lied down at the usual spot, an old carpet on the floor.
Next to him, a sizeable stack of papers, which he printed out in advance as he would need to use them all.
Mahogany lowered his body onto B1rd's...




And so the two began a not so formal debate, as they always did.
Mahogany, sitting on B1rds abdomen while yelling profanities.
B1rd, throwing DinA4 papers at Mahogany, on which he printed various incredibly one-sided and biased ''news'' reports that he found on the internet.

They spent their evening in bliss, Mahogany cursing without even drawing breath, and B1rd throwing shitty sources around faster than anyone could read or care. Eventually they both got tired, went to bed, and fell asleep soundly.



The end.

You just went full Allmynameistaken.

Never go full Allmynameistaken.

the thing is that b1rd tries to derail every discussion to muslim terrorism