Lurker > BlackScythe0

PaddysPub posted...

The stock market is taking a giant dump again.

when the economy is doing well trump says he's doing great. everyone who hates trump ignores it and says "it has nothing to do with you"

when the economy isn't doing well trump says nothing, everyone who hates him goes "OH i thought you were making it better!"

It's a pretty petty thing. Trump is an idiot but the economy has little to do with what he's done so far.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Who does the left call nazis? People marching under swastikas.

Who does the right call nazis? Obama.

Man one of those sides seems more legitimate than the other.

You geniuses must be missing all those instances of sjw/feminist nutcases who are calling basically everyone Nazis. I mean, I am not exactly someone who goes out of his way to keep up with the news, and they're all over the damn place (the sjw idiots, not the Nazis).

I mean, you must be living a pretty hardcore sheltered life if you didn't notice that the word has been thrown around in pretty idiotic fashion these days.

If unhinged, idiotic leftists would actually use the term "Nazi" correctly, which is pretty hard to do these days, instead of labeling ANYONE who disagrees with them as Nazis, maybe they would be taken more seriously.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Extreme right wingers can't debate substance so they argue over semantics. I can't recall right off hand if Zeus has ever done so but I know I have seen extreme right attempt to make the argument that there hasn't been nazis since the 1940s and have arguments about that rather than addressing people marching through the streets under swastikas chanting nazi slogans.

You don't have to be a right winger to know historical facts.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Look at the way this thing makes weak semantics based arguments and tries to turn it into some absolutely insane bull shit.

Who cares when you want an ethnic cleansing, as long as you stand against the left you're fine and don't deserve a "negative" label!

I think "right-wing extremist" does a pretty fine job of labelling them. I prefer to use correct terminology versus erroneous terminology, myself. There's nothing semantic about it. Stop using the wrong words for things and you'll stop getting called out. Also, the more you use a word in general, the less meaning it has.

BlackScythe0 posted...

It was an expression of exasperation and absolute disgust. Don't try to paint it any other way.

The left doesn't handle facts well. They also misuse words such as "nazi" when people simply have different opinions than them.

It's like that word has some deep meaning for them. "Extremist" simply isn't good enough. No. Anyone who does anything to fight the left's agenda must be labelled a nazi.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Jesus christ.

I know. Facts are tough to refute.

I would bet some people also don't know the difference between Liberal and liberal.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Zeus posted...

That said, "Nazis" doesn't mean Nazis anyway, it's just an insult used against anybody they disagree with so fuck her.

Don't defend neo-nazis.

_AdjI_ posted...

Zeus posted...

That said, "Nazis" doesn't mean Nazis anyway, it's just an insult used against anybody they disagree with so f*** her.

I'm pretty sure "Nazi" is an appropriate and accurate label for somebody who spray-paints a swastika over a "Happy Hannukah" sign, and not just being used as a blanket term for people she disagrees with. Well, unless you're just being really anal about people treating the "neo-" as being implicit when the context strongly supports that assumption, which wouldn't surprise me because you seem to have trouble with that concept.

Extreme right wingers can't debate substance so they argue over semantics. I can't recall right off hand if Zeus has ever done so but I know I have seen extreme right attempt to make the argument that there hasn't been nazis since the 1940s and have arguments about that rather than addressing people marching through the streets under swastikas chanting nazi slogans.

That's because that statement is true. The Nazi Party is required for there to be Nazis. Extremists is the proper term for them today. Just because they're using slogans or symbols of the party doesn't mean that party magically exists again.

That said, "Nazis" doesn't mean Nazis anyway, it's just an insult used against anybody they disagree with so fuck her.

Zeus posted...

That said, "Nazis" doesn't mean Nazis anyway, it's just an insult used against anybody they disagree with so f*** her.

I'm pretty sure "Nazi" is an appropriate and accurate label for somebody who spray-paints a swastika over a "Happy Hannukah" sign, and not just being used as a blanket term for people she disagrees with. Well, unless you're just being really anal about people treating the "neo-" as being implicit when the context strongly supports that assumption, which wouldn't surprise me because you seem to have trouble with that concept.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Cruddy_horse posted...

It's disturbing how many people defend Loli stuff whenever this topic comes up.

It's disturbing how many people want to burn harmless deviants at the cross in this day and age.

people who get off to children are not harmless

Isn't GTA just drawn snuff?
Imagine being so much of a moron you think some geek drawing Misty or Stewie having sex is at all equatable to actual real children being violated.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Mead posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

Go over and politely ask them to turn the music down?

At 3 in the morning?

If thats when theyre playing loud music, yeah

Uh... So basically you're asking me to get shot?

Why would you get shot

BlackScythe0 posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

Go over and politely ask them to turn the music down?

At 3 in the morning?

If thats when theyre playing loud music, yeah

Go over and politely ask them to turn the music down?

Rub the spots with a reeeaaally strong magnet.

10. Digimon Survive

What good is making it illegal?

As a non binary gender *****, what derogatory and archaic category do I fall in?

BlackScythe0 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

kangolcone posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Whargarble posted...

Casual observations. Pay me no heed. Carry on.

I will, continue with the rest of your group ignoring salient information to create a nonsensical strawman you can burn with your buddies.

You are making the claim that bathroom policies lead to higher sexual violence. Prove this claim.

Yet another strawman.

Not at all.

Yeah, no, that's not how reality works. You can't decide the words other people have said mean what you want.

kangolcone posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Whargarble posted...

Casual observations. Pay me no heed. Carry on.

I will, continue with the rest of your group ignoring salient information to create a nonsensical strawman you can burn with your buddies.

You are making the claim that bathroom policies lead to higher sexual violence. Prove this claim.

Yet another strawman.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Whargarble posted...

Casual observations. Pay me no heed. Carry on.

I will, continue with the rest of your group ignoring salient information to create a nonsensical strawman you can burn with your buddies.

You are making the claim that bathroom policies lead to higher sexual violence. Prove this claim.

It's expressing a concern, a prediction, something that's the basis for beginning basically all testing. You returning inconclusive data does nothing to dull the concern.

In circumstances of limited data, err on the side of stasis, in this incidence people have made the change without sufficient data, and afterward failed to gather evidence again. I don't particularly care one way or the other as it doesn't effect me, but I really dislike mindless pandering trying not to hurt fee-fees.

wwinterj25 posted...

For asking to see a students penis? Yes. Doesn't matter if they have one or not.

How can you ask somebody that doesn't have a penis to show it to you?

I feel like I have no grasp on what an attractive man looks like because I think he looks ugly

BlackScythe0 posted...

No way he's a changed man. Prison isn't big on reforming people.

...maybe if he was a career criminal or did stuff like this on a regular basis, which is the only time that statement really applies.

BlackScythe0 posted...

He led a terrorist attack

Given the complete lack of attacking in what amounted to little more than an unlawful occupation during a protest against land seizures, those are some fine mental gymnastics. But hey, I'm sure you labeled the Occupy Wall Street crowd terrorists as well.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I'm not putting people anywhere. I believe in individual liberty.

But not national sovereignty which serves as the collective use of individual liberty to determine the direction of their nation.... well, at least, you don't believe in it where *white* nations are concerned.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Istillhateyou posted...

why is "white nationalism" some giant evil in the first place? Everyone that's not white seems to hate white people (despite being so desperate to live in there countries) so it makes sense that white people would want there own countries, and it makes sense that non whites would want whites to live in there own countries so they wouldn't have to associate with evil whitey, everyone wins

First of all Everyone that's not white seems to hate white people is a disgusting fucking lie.

Second off white nationlists are an extreme minority. They don't have the power to seize property and land from those who own it and the sovereign nation that rules it.

Third off why would anyone be willing to give up territory and seize the property of the people who live there just to allow a nation of extremists with a history of violence and various ideologies of ethnic cleansing to sit on their borders and brew potential terrorists?

Stop posting disgusting stuff. *spit*

there's not necessarily anything "extreme" about wanting to live amongst your own people, you don't have to get violent or cleanse ethnicitys to exist separately, and if that where the case, why in the fuck would you even want the races to live together? If separating the races leads to genocide, then how in the hell is putting everyone everywhere going to fix things?

He was a man trying to protect his land and livelihood. What's so far-right about that? Wouldn't *every* ideology -- except maybe communalists -- feel the same?

BlackScythe0 posted...

The administration stated the only way to apply for asylum was through official ports of entry.

The violence happened because they also refused to process any applications at official ports of entry.

I got upset too when I first saw the footage and was in a very "they deserve it" point of view when people were crying about children getting gassed. But then I learned the conflict was intentionally set up by the administration. We have procedures and processes to deal with these situations, instead he halted those procedures and lined up people on the border to try getting some friendly photo ops to help him with his racist message.

You say that now, but we know that you wanted them walked across the border and set up in five-star hotels at taxpayer expense =p

why is "white nationalism" some giant evil in the first place? Everyone that's not white seems to hate white people (despite being so desperate to live in there countries) so it makes sense that white people would want there own countries, and it makes sense that non whites would want whites to live in there own countries so they wouldn't have to associate with evil whitey, everyone wins

BlackScythe0 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

The administration isn't against illegal immigration. They are against immigration. And no I'm not being sarcastic. What Stephen Miller? Or one of the other white nationalist advisors of him who are advocating cutting the amount of people we allow in legally.

It's pretty slanderous to reference his advisor white nationalist in this context when anti-immigration is just classic nationalism.

I'm not calling him a white nationalist because of that, and I don't understand why you are attempting to make it sound like I am. Stephen Miller is a white nationalist and uses his position as advisor to push for a cut in legal immigration.

Let me put it this way:

When people talk about Stephen Fry and his work, they refer to him as an actor or a personality, they do not call him gay man Fry. They use the descriptor that is relevant to the topic at hand.

In this instance, border control is a nationalist thing, there is nothing inherently racist about protecting borders.

BlackScythe0 posted...

The administration isn't against illegal immigration. They are against immigration. And no I'm not being sarcastic. What Stephen Miller? Or one of the other white nationalist advisors of him who are advocating cutting the amount of people we allow in legally.

It's pretty slanderous to reference his advisor white nationalist in this context when anti-immigration is just classic nationalism.