or maybe it's more like a kidnapping assault. 4 blacks tied up a white 18 year old with special needs and then punched and kicked him and made racial slurs during a 30 minute video and then posted it on facebook.
Edit: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating/
I thought it was interesting that the police aren't sure whether they can classify it as a hate crime. The legal definition of "hate crime" has always perplexed me. A crime is a crime. Why is it necessary to qualify it legally as whether it was motivated by hate. Actually, I think "hate" crime intends to imply "race" crime, but it's got so confusing that even the cops don't seem to know what it is.
QuoteThe disturbing 30-minute video shows a man tied up and his mouth covered, cowering in the corner of a room. His attackers laugh and shout "f*ck Donald Trump" and "f*ck white people" as they kick and punch him. The video shows someone cutting into his scalp with a knife, leaving a visibly bald patch. Police said the victim is an 18-year-old with special needs. Officers found the disoriented young man wandering a Chicago street "in crisis" Tuesday afternoon. He was so traumatized that it took most of the night for him to calm down so he was able to talk to police, Capt. Steven Sesso said.
The suspects, two men and two women, all 18, are in custody awaiting formal charges, which are expected to be filed Thursday. Hate crime charges under consideration. The victim knew at least one of his accused attackers from school, Cmdr. Kevin Duffin said. Though he may have voluntarily gotten into a van with the group, police are considering kidnapping charges.
Because the victim is white and the people in the video are black, police also are investigating whether hate crime charges are appropriate, Duffin said.
The name 'Trump' along with the racial slurs is probably the reason of the police statement. Because that makes it a 'political message'. It's a group. Organised.
OK I first wrote if they didn't know him but at least one of them does. So they just picked the boy because he is white and an easy target. The crucial point is, was the video taken from a public security camera or did the racist group made it themselves?
The thing with the hate crime is that most perpetrators know their victims and it is territorial. 'I don't want gays in my neighbourhood' kinda bullshit. So in a sense, most of the hate crimes are 'personal'. So yea this is a hate crime with a political message.
SGOS, do you have a link? E: Thanks. Yeah they made the vid themselves. I hope this goes down with a serious tag.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 05, 2017, 10:40:21 AM
SGOS, do you have a link? E: Thanks. Yeah they made the vid themselves. I hope this goes down with a serious tag.
Yeah, I added it as an edit after forgetting to include it. In looking for the source again, I'm inclined to think there might be better sources for the article, but since I had already included a quote from an article, I used the link to the same source I first read.
https://youtu.be/W5x42MArLPQ
Quote from: SGOS on January 05, 2017, 10:57:27 AM
Yeah, I added it as an edit after forgetting to include it. In looking for the source again, I'm inclined to think there might be better sources for the article, but since I had already included a quote from an article, I used the link to the same source I first read.
Yes, I wrote that earlier. It's OK. We'll get more info.
This is real bad. If this gets followed by similar examples, it is going to cause 'responses' and a fear of civil war which will only happen as in domestic terrorism.
They need to handle this very well and I think they are trying to do that. Hence the reluctance with the hate crime cliassification. After all, terrorism in the US as a crime coded with completely different connotations.
[pr, get out from invisible mod, lol.]
Yes, if things are as reported, it is a hate crime. It's heinous by any measure: kidnapping and torturing a mentally handicapped teenager.
As I've long said, hate crimes are not one-way streets.
Why people publish their crimes on social media is beyond me, but I'm glad they do it, so they can be caught and brought to justice.
Jesse James eventually wanted everyone to know who was robbing banks. And it was post Civil War political.
Its not a hate crime, the guy was white!
Its not political motivated, they just mentioned trump by accident!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBeO504QfMg&t=23s
I wish someone would burn down the TYT building, with Ana Kasparian inside.
Quote from: Munch on January 09, 2017, 07:29:13 AM
Its not a hate crime, the guy was white!
I don't actually know if "Hate Crime" is a legal description invented (and therefore defined) by politicians or not. If so, it may well have been created to be used to the advantage of selected minorities. Names of laws and acts of congress are very often given names that avoid describing their true intent. To most people, any crime motivated by hate would be a hate crime. Legally, this may not be true. But to me, adding "Hate" to a "Crime" is pointless. Kidnapping is still kidnapping, and assault is still assault. Charge them accordingly.
The same thing is true of "terrorism". Someone randomly shoots 30 people in a nightclub while shouting, "Allahu Akbar," and this gets philosophically dissected for a week over whether it was terrorism or not. Personally, I don't care if it was terrorism. He just shot 30 people. Charge him with murder, and treat him like a murderer, rather than a warrior for Allah.
Black people can't be racist. Whiteys need to suck it up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0Dl3cOX15o
Yeah, no, it's definitely a hate crime.
Double Standards at best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK_I6C12uWM
sums it up pretty well.
Anyone can be hated for their particular way of being in the world, and a crime can be perpetrated against them for the hatred a person has for that particular person. A hate crime is where a crime is perpetrated against a person because they hate other people like them, not that person individually. In some regards, it is rather more scary when it's a hate crime... but, yes, hate is hate.
This is the original young turk video.
@Munch @FaithIsFilth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTvOpszn-xY
Where is it in that video Anna Kasparian -or anyone else for that matter- defend these violent, racist criminals?
Where in that video she tells it is not politically motivated?
Where in the video she says this is not a hate crime?
Where in that video she claims or say any of the bullshit you spew here?
Because the fact that the criminals are not connected the to BLM or any other organisation and The Young Turks are pointing this fucking fact and that is buggering you into a point of screaming that you wish someone would burn their buildng down with the female host in it?
Have any of you even watched the video itself? They OPENLY STATE IN THE VIDEO THAT THERE IS A POLITCAL OBJECTIVE AND THIS IS A HATE CRIME.
What do you think this is,
Munch? You think this is the fucking UK and the British police that they are going to piss their pants to be called 'racists', if they discover that a black commited crime has organisational connections and they'll get scared to report it and shut up?
So far there is no organisational back ground to this. Now or after even the case closed, they won't do that
IF there is a conection it is going to be declared.
Quote from: Munch on January 09, 2017, 07:29:13 AM
Its not a hate crime, the guy was white!
Its not political motivated, they just mentioned trump by accident!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBeO504QfMg&t=23s
I wish someone would burn down the TYT building, with Ana Kasparian inside.
I just watched the TYT video. Forgive me if I missed it, but at no point did they suggest this was not a hate crime. What they mainly focused on is the fact that these four perpetrators were not associated with BLM, despite the best efforts of right wing shitbags to tie the two together.
Theres no fucking universe in the multiverse in which it is just to burn down the building with Kasparian inside while Limbaugh is still drawing breath.
Dreamer posted a good definition. The rest of the commentary is tied to SJW fantasy or KKK fantasy. For SJWs the meta-commentary is this is proof that Trump is Satan. For the KKK this is proof that Hillary is Satan. In either case, bringing politics into this is a crime. A small group of people committed a heinous crime, for whatever reason they pull out of their asses. I would agree, connecting this to BLM is a leap of bigotry a KKK person would make.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 11, 2017, 06:04:19 AM
What do you think this is, Munch? You think this is the fucking UK and the British police that they are going to piss their pants to be called 'racists', if they discover that a black commited crime has organisational connections and they'll get scared to report it and shut up?
So far there is no organisational back ground to this. Now or after even the case closed, they won't do that IF there is a conection it is going to be declared.
I think TYT are full of shit and anyone who supports them doesn't recognize the cancer they spread.
You do love slagging off the uk though, might want to bring that up some time, since you seem to care more about it then you guesstimate I do.
Quote from: Munch on January 11, 2017, 06:45:19 PM
I think TYT are full of shit and anyone who supports them doesn't recognize the cancer they spread.
Said the bigot who cannot sit through a 15 mins video, but post a retarded rant made about it based on balatant lies as opposed to what is clearly expressed in the video itself, who cannot even give a response about it when his bullshit is pointed out, who lacks a tiny bit of salt or sincerity to own up to that bullshit, a hypocrite who bitches about freedom of speech in his safe space and express his anger by suggesting to burn down a building with someone in it.
QuoteYou do love slagging off the uk though, might want to bring that up some time, since you seem to care more about it then you guesstimate I do.
Oh yes, I do. Because most of the population is composed of people like you and the way you are trying to look down on the US or other western cultures around you is the hillarious part that gets more pathetic every day. I am just upset about the decent minority. I hope they'll get out OK and you'll drown in your own toxic racism and bigotry in a barbwired land of shit.
My my, such a bad temper. Too much hot sauce on your shish-kebab?
Of course Americans are inferior .. Britain has the Queen, we only have Hillary and Sarah Palin ;-(
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 12, 2017, 07:19:11 AM
Said the bigot who cannot sit through a 15 mins video, but post a retarded rant made about it based on balatant lies as opposed to what is clearly expressed in the video itself, who cannot even give a response about it when his bullshit is pointed out, who lacks a tiny bit of salt or sincerity to own up to that bullshit, a hypocrite who bitches about freedom of speech in his safe space and express his anger by suggesting to burn down a building with someone in it.
Oh yes, I do. Because most of the population is composed of people like you and the way you are trying to look down on the US or other western cultures around you is the hillarious part that gets more pathetic every day. I am just upset about the decent minority. I hope they'll get out OK and you'll drown in your own toxic racism and bigotry in a barbwired land of shit.
Yeah. I'm such a bigot. I hold a disdain for an entire country because of preconceived notions and equate the entire populous on fringe groups and bad politicans rather then thinking outside that box. I also only want to search white people on pornhub, and won't work alongside workmates who aren't white.
Serious for a moment now though, you love making blanket statements of a lot of us here, for anyone who might even remotely think outside your train of thought or opinion. Its funny how religous folks coming here who ranting nonsensical messages get booted but, yet the certain sjw mindsets are allowed to carry on, when i just looked at sjws in the same way i see religious screwballs.
I've never heard anyone accuse me for racism, bigotry, and extreme nationalism before, so must give you kudos for effort there, its creative to say the least.
I was going to talked about how ironic it is having someone from turkey calling me a racist and bigot (based on the country I'm from), given the kind of climate that exists there in regards to gay and transgendered people. I could say I hate turkey because its comprised of bigoted trans/homophobic people too, but thats stupid as fuck to hate an entire country because of those kinds of people.
Honestly, there's little point saying it, because thats just rising to the bate. You get angry at people here shoe because you want to, you don't rationalize, you just hate on anyone disagreeing with you or even having another opinion thats not yours.
Your an sjw and a troll shoe, sorry, though at least I can base that on evidence presented instead of rage filled blanket statements.
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2017, 07:23:56 AM
My my, such a bad temper. Too much hot sauce on your shish-kebab?
Of course Americans are inferior .. Britain has the Queen, we only have Hillary and Sarah Palin ;-(
Oh I don't consider british superiority for much, I'm not my mother. britian going rogue wouldn't lead to much against the major world powers either.
Do you ever read the posts after you write them, Munch? It looks like you don't, because you put so many conflicting babbling in one place, I don't think you could follow it yourself.
Anything I wrote to you here is based on what you demonstrate yourself. You as a person with your posts and the politics demonstrated by your country which you openly support 100 %. I know you are not equipped to make the connection, but just try to flow some blood up and try to get that my position is completely opposite to the culture I live in. Yours IS NOT. It's the mainstream posionous bullshit. Who cares what you shoul -or anyone else for that matter- feel about turkey, couldn't care less.
Those bigotic piece of shits in Turkey are more honest with their own position than you. They are not pretending to be something else or trying to make it look like they are at the good side of something shit as you do. But you do share a trait with them, exactly like you they take a news piece or some sort of material and distort it for propaganda, doesn't matter how clear is.
You are no just a toxic bigot, you are blatant liar. You posted a deliberately distorted version of a video and bitched about a reaction asking perfectly normal questions of the claims you made. It's not just you don't have one reasonable explanation or an answer it is that you are so fucking full of shit, you cannot even own up to it or say something about it, but go with 'someone from turkey is criticising me with sjw mindset but but myeh myeh'.
By the way, your English is terrible. I am not talking about typos or common mistakes everyone makes, but the way you use your mother language. Makes me wonder, if you ever read an actual book in your life that wasn't a school assignment. That would explain a lot.
Oh hi, Hydra. Please stand behind his and your bullshit and make a post on how the TYT reporting is defending the racist black criminals, how is it saying that it is NOT politically motivated and that it is NOT a hate crime. Or just shut up with your usual passive agressive bronie stance. E: Sorry, brony.
Because I assume you can get that regardless of Munch's pathetic response, that was the subject and those questions were asked to him with a standard post, before he got severely butthurt.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 12, 2017, 07:19:11 AM
express his anger by suggesting to burn down a building with someone in it.
People are usually not being serious when they say something like that. I simply took it as another way of saying "Anna sucks".
The SJWs like to claim that blacks can't be racist, so I was mostly just making fun of that. I know TYT agreed that it's a hate crime. TYT also says that blacks can't be racist though, which is pretty damn funny. According to today's SJWs, a white person wears the wrong hairstyle or says they have black friends or says they don't see people as their colour but rather as a human being, and they are called racist. Blacks torture a mentally disabled guy while shouting f white people but that's not racism.
When it comes to BLM, yeah, they didn't order these blacks to do what they did, but the anti-white rhetoric probably plays at least some part in these physical attacks on white people by blacks. If the anti-white rhetoric wasn't so strong, there might be a few less attacks on whites. Blacks have a legitimate reason to be angry though. I'm not saying they don't, and when you have so many angry people, things like this are bound to happen. I want things to improve for blacks so they have less of a reason to be angry in the future.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 12, 2017, 02:28:23 PM
The SJWs like to claim that blacks can't be racist, so I was mostly just making fun of that. I know TYT agreed that it's a hate crime. TYT also says that blacks can't be racist though, which is pretty damn funny. According to today's SJWs, a white person wears the wrong hairstyle or says they have black friends or says they don't see people as their colour but rather as a human being, and they are called racist. Blacks torture a mentally disabled guy while shouting f white people but that's not racism.
When it comes to BLM, yeah, they didn't order these blacks to do what they did, but the anti-white rhetoric probably plays at least some part in these physical attacks on white people by blacks. If the anti-white rhetoric wasn't so strong, there might be a few less attacks on whites. Blacks have a legitimate reason to be angry though. I'm not saying they don't, and when you have so many angry people, things like this are bound to happen. I want things to improve for blacks so they have less of a reason to be angry in the future.
Oh not this bullshit again. I haven't asked your on opinion on sjws, I could care less. I have asked you where and how in that video anyone is saying this is not a hate crime, that it is not politically motivated while defending the racist criminals.
We are talking about a report on a specific crime and a toxic video deliberately made to distort that report.
Now, BLM didn't order them to attack, but it is the anti-white rhetoric, eh? What Munch doing and contributing is as disgusting as what you describe there, but more sneaky and dangerous, because it cannot be tracked, it is collective and constantly perpetuated. We can track BLM material. You know why? Because people either follow the specific, offical material on an activist group or not. It's their decision. What Munch is doing, like the piece of shit made that video is spreading, sneaking up with something
that is not said, not done or even claimed on to people in an irrelevant context. Jerking off on fucking people up and pretending to be a victim of some marketed, inflated bullshit, he wouldn't actually recognise if it exploded on his face.
So how about getting off on spreading toxic blatant lies rhetoric, if you are so concerned about influencing people that is. These things are collective acts. When you choose to contribute to it, you are in the same boat with what you are pitching with some anti-white rhetoric influincing people for racist violence. Does that make any sense to you or has it suddenly become obscure? There are countless Munchs out there posting the same shit over and over again, selling it around, imposing here and there and buying it back for themselves and then start to spread again.
QuotePeople are usually not being serious when they say something like that. I simply took it as another way of saying "Anna sucks".
No shit. It's interesting that he seems to think that only applies to him. Esp. when his target is some sort of a female in front of a camera, speaking out loud. From a random celebrity defending refugees to Anna Kasparian. Not to mention that he constantly bitches and bitches about his 'freedom of speech' being oppressed by sjws, muslims, feminists, leftist, liberals, multiculturalists, cultural marxists this and that; insert some random group here while he is offering that someone who doesn't agree with him on some open lie should be 'accused' with 'having a sjw mindset' -which I don't but, what the fuck even if I had- and he offers that she should be banned. He is so fucked up, he thinks if someone is a sjw, he/she should be banned from the forum. AGAIN, this man and everyone like him here in this forum is crying about 'safe spaces'. Are you following?
Quote from: Munch on January 12, 2017, 08:11:30 AM
Yeah. I'm such a bigot. I hold a disdain for an entire country because of preconceived notions and equate the entire populous on fringe groups and bad politicans rather then thinking outside that box. I also only want to search white people on pornhub, and won't work alongside workmates who aren't white.
Serious for a moment now though, you love making blanket statements of a lot of us here, for anyone who might even remotely think outside your train of thought or opinion. Its funny how religous folks coming here who ranting nonsensical messages get booted but, yet the certain sjw mindsets are allowed to carry on, when i just looked at sjws in the same way i see religious screwballs.
I've never heard anyone accuse me for racism, bigotry, and extreme nationalism before, so must give you kudos for effort there, its creative to say the least.
I was going to talked about how ironic it is having someone from turkey calling me a racist and bigot (based on the country I'm from), given the kind of climate that exists there in regards to gay and transgendered people. I could say I hate turkey because its comprised of bigoted trans/homophobic people too, but thats stupid as fuck to hate an entire country because of those kinds of people.
Honestly, there's little point saying it, because thats just rising to the bate. You get angry at people here shoe because you want to, you don't rationalize, you just hate on anyone disagreeing with you or even having another opinion thats not yours.
Your an sjw and a troll shoe, sorry, though at least I can base that on evidence presented instead of rage filled blanket statements.
Yeah nope. Your attempt to set someone you don't like up for a banning has been detected. Better luck next time. Just because you say shes a troll doesn't make her one. Vehemently disagreeing with you and not being gentle about it doesn't make her a troll either. Grow a backbone.
Just for reference, a troll is someone who knowlingly expresses an opinion they don't really hold in the hopes of stirring shit up. Thats not what is happening here. Whats happening here is she is tired of your shit.
Its no fucking wonder too. Everyone keeps spewing that shes an SJW. I know her. She isn't one. Its just that some people on this forum are soooooooo fucking far in the opposite direction of an SJW that the crazy shit you say offers no alternative but to post stuff that sounds like SJW stuff. But it isn't SJW stuff. Its common fucking sense. Add to that the sense of infallibility a lot of you people have and it becomes a recipe for an incredibly frustrated forum member who is part of a rapidly diminishing minority of posters who aren't some sort of counter-culture snobs and closet bigots who have let youtube hate mongers shape their opinions.
I'll put it simply. Every time she posts, its not you putting up with her shit, its her putting up with yours. You just don't realize it because this forum has gradually become an echo chamber for socially right leaning people over the last few years.
Ever notice how few women post here anymore? Back in 2012 and earlier it was nearly 50/50. Wonder why.
Quote from: SGOS on January 05, 2017, 10:18:42 AMI thought it was interesting that the police aren't sure whether they can classify it as a hate crime. The legal definition of "hate crime" has always perplexed me. A crime is a crime. Why is it necessary to qualify it legally as whether it was motivated by hate. Actually, I think "hate" crime intends to imply "race" crime, but it's got so confusing that even the cops don't seem to know what it is.
Motive is a very important factor in court cases.
A hate crime is more than just a crime against a person; it involves a threat against an entire category of people.
And it's not just race. The killing of Matthew Sheppard (sp?) was a hate crime based on sexual orientation. It can be against any arbitrary category of person.
Also, hate crimes are bidirectional: a gang gays singling out a straight person for attack based solely on his straightness would be committing a hate crime.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 12, 2017, 06:17:39 PM
Its no fucking wonder too. Everyone keeps spewing that shes an SJW. I know her. She isn't one. Its just that some people on this forum are soooooooo fucking far in the opposite direction of an SJW that the crazy shit you say offers no alternative but to post stuff that sounds like SJW stuff. But it isn't SJW stuff. Its common fucking sense.
Yes. "Common sense." You know what's also common sense?
Lowering taxes causes job growth.
Life and the universe are too complicated to arise naturally.
The free market will always optimally distribute goods fairly.
From every worker according to their capabilities; to each worker according to their needs.
The earth is flat.
The sun goes around the earth.
Vital force.
It snows, therefore global warming is bullshit.
Contrails are laden with chemicals.
Organic foods are healtheir for you than conventional foods.
Statistics is easy.
Mexicans are stealing our jobs.
Fire can't collapse steel buildings.
Firewalkers must be using magic to walk on hot coals.
Diseases are caused by bad smells.
The pyramids could not have been built by the Egyptians.
Out of place objects are proof of the Atlantis civilization.
God.All of the above have been touted as "common sense." However, we know all of these really don't hold up under close scrutiny. Common sense is nice and all, but it's by no means a reliable way of deciding truth. Testing and verification needs to be done on all claims, and the more untested a claim the more it needs to be tested.
Most of shoe's claims are like the above. They sound compelling only if you don't examine them closely; once you do, they fall apart pretty quickly. I've known this for several years now, and whenever I have confronted shoe on what I think are errors in her reasoning the conversation invariably turns to accusations on her part that I'm a repulsive individual and stupid besides. I don't put up with that, so of course I return in kind. Last year I made one last attempt to see if I could have a constructive discussion with shoe and tried my best to keep it civil, never insulting her, yet the same pattern played out. She's now on my ignore list because, quite frankly, I'm not going to repeat that experience ever again.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 12, 2017, 06:17:39 PM
I'll put it simply. Every time she posts, its not you putting up with her shit, its her putting up with yours. You just don't realize it because this forum has gradually become an echo chamber for socially right leaning people over the last few years.
Everything is relative. At work I'm known as the loony leftist, but I guess here I'm the bigot from the right lagoon.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 12, 2017, 06:17:39 PM
Ever notice how few women post here anymore? Back in 2012 and earlier it was nearly 50/50. Wonder why.
Nearly 50/50? I don't think it has ever been that high. It's always been kind of a sausagefest in this place. Back in 2012, I could count the regular female posters on one hand. Maybe two. There have been plenty more posters that are male, even back in 2012.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 12, 2017, 09:52:16 PM
Yes. "Common sense." You know what's also common sense?
No, common sense applied here is very simple. It's is not to post toxic, false material on some topic and if you do, at least trying to stand behind your opinion in doing it.
This is not about some given argument or some offered opinion and not being able to agree on it. This is not something to be tested.
So making a random list of common sense ongeneral understanding of certain thing is not refuting or testing anything.
QuoteMost of shoe's claims are like the above. They sound compelling only if you don't examine them closely; once you do, they fall apart pretty quickly.
Shoe is talking about what she thinks on a given material. She is not making threads and offering home cook ideas or arguments to sell. When she posts something with one claim she follows and posts another thing that conflicts or refutes it into the same thread. She is merely writing, at that time what teh given material makes her think.
Because she is aware that's how an internet forum works. You don't get to 'refute' something here or make a 'claim' that will be discussed in some way that will change somebody's idea, but you can ask questions or expect them to follow basic rules.
Contrary to your common belief, she knows that you don't make debates here to accomplish something. Oh of course you can, but they are for regulars and people with already at the same place with you and want to support you for someone they don't like. Like what you are exactly doing with this post about Shoe.
QuoteI've known this for several years now, and whenever I have confronted shoe on what I think are errors in her reasoning the conversation invariably turns to accusations on her part that I'm a repulsive individual and stupid besides. I don't put up with that, so of course I return in kind. Last year I made one last attempt to see if I could have a constructive discussion with shoe and tried my best to keep it civil, never insulting her, yet the same pattern played out. She's now on my ignore list because, quite frankly, I'm not going to repeat that experience ever again.
She told you that you are unable to have a conversation, because you see the person as an opponent to defeat, doesn't matter what the topic is, even when without an actual claim being made. She told you were insincere, cold and unapproachable, operating from the idea that your the most intelligent person in a given crowd. Shoe doesn't even have a problem with being talked at, lectured at when she doesn't know something, actually she enjoys it and listens like a stunned kitten to get it. But then she doesn't jump on to something she doesn't have something to say or know about in any way.
But she is annoying isn't she? She keeps posting all around, she is loud, uncouth, agressive. So you need to shit on her. Shit away.
She was translating a series of good research on socio-linguistics and as she had to read a lot of things as you may guess and she made a thread about various opinions discussed on it in academic level, because it astonished her how far did it go. All you did was blaming Shoe with linguistic determinism while she kept saying that she is trying to have an conversation and not a debate because clearly neither you, nor Shoe has the facility to offer a conclusion on linguistics or socio-linguistics or where the paradigm of social science is going. All they can do is to have a conversation about it. She wanted to send you two PDFs, you cannot post certain material you buy on public forums, it is illegal. After realising that you blocked her she dropped it. But that is 'I confronted Shoe'.
She also doesn't understand why would you get into a 'debate' with someone you blocked so happily then, OR now why do you get out of your way and write something about her, but definitely not about the subject here, but about her. See, this is very simple, Hakurei. "I don't like this woman, who cares what is going on, soomebody is defending her and I want to shit on her too. Weeee" Don't tell me not to put words on your mouth.
Other ones were about your own displays of 'common sense', mainstream following of a certain group; gender and age, I assume you are you are young, on specific events and issues. FYI, pointing out someone is young and that makes a difference in their outlook is not an insult, nor it is promoting the elder opinion. It's given for description of a frame of mind here.
One was about her claim on rape crimes associated with football players and athelets in American culture. She said there were too many examples and it looked like a pattern happened under certain circumstances you said there wasn't. This was your idea. There isn't, shut up. It's not a confrontation. A good example of common sense too. A foreign woman is saying American culture is bad and she is from a muslim country, fuck that.
One was about the rape accusation against Micheal Shermer. Her point was that denying and supporting whatever has happened is equally stupid under this circumstances and you guys here just supported a team as usual. Example of common sense: A group of feminist women falsely accused a scientist, because he is a man and they are of course feminists and they are trying to ruin him. Because that is what feminists do. Common sense. Most rape accusations are likley to be false, esp. coming from women in certain groups. Common sense. It would be good if one of his friends actually defended Shermer or if Randi didn't say those things. But hey, common sense. He is a famous atheist, scientist. If a rape victim doesn't have bruises or if she-he didn't report the crime just after it, it is a false accusation. Common sense. In any case, there was a lot to carry on with that topic but all you did was screaming they do nothave any evidence when noone even claimed he should be convicted without it.
One was about Rebbeca Watson, Shoe's point was who she is or what she did or say really didn't matter, because most people in the world in that position would react exactly the same in real life. You know what was your position? That she is a cunt telling men what to do and she deserved to get all the thtreats she had. Common sense. You also told a story from your personal life that you sat down with a dangerous -Japanese- group in that conversation against that idea: there are very strict simple ways people act in real life and doesn't matter whatever they might defend in an internet forum, that's not what they do when it comes down to it. And yes I can make generalisation. Human behaviour is simple, exceptions do not hold any shit.
There was one about army rape epidemic in the US. Which you 'discussed' that it didn't exist. Rape in army under the nose of officials who are trained to protect people, can't be. Common sense. You also had the same 'discussion' with TomFoolery who is a veteran by the way and she wasn't even being agressive about anything untill you started to attack her, you accused her with same usual bullshit, displayed same approach you have on the topic. Because you know, Common Sense. Right now army rape epidemic is a much open ground and the picture gets worse and worse as more people decide to speak.
Your reaction on this specific topic of gender issues is based on your description of common sense and common place opinions. And while it can be discussed, carried on with a conversation with everyone, you can never do it, because it is coming from being included in a group. You can't have a conversation about any of it. You cannot tolerate it. There is some hyoed up black and white end for you.
QuoteEverything is relative.
No. For example if something is written as ABCDE or pronounced as ABCDE in an original source, if I see someone is deliberately pushing/imposing that it is EDCBA I will say, "No, it is not. Explain yourself." This is the situation here with
Munch, almost always with
pr126,
Baruch and a few others most of the time. There is not even an opinion presented, but just posting unwarranted constant toxic, emotionally abusing material. Yes that is putting up with bullshit if you post this forum often as I do. I am putting up with them.
QuoteAt work I'm known as the loony leftist, but I guess here I'm the bigot from the right lagoon.
When it comes to interacting with American individuals, experience points out that as most of the concepts are turned upside down or bastardised, it is safe to judge their opinions according to clear statements they make and in time according to the consistency of those and repetition that could be looked on as some sort of pattern, the picture they paint, rather than what they say they are. Shoe also knows this from the culture she lives in; same bullshit. Considerng the general political circumstances and their recent results in America, clearly it doesn't matter much either. Republican, Democrat...whatever. So it is not a reference point.
QuoteNearly 50/50? I don't think it has ever been that high. It's always been kind of a sausagefest in this place. Back in 2012, I could count the regular female posters on one hand. Maybe two. There have been plenty more posters that are male, even back in 2012.
But a sausage fest of an atheist forum fits common sense, doesn't it? That's the usual norm. There is nothing wrong with this forum's general reaction to female posters, they are scarce, because they always are, always been. Common sense. On the other hand, they'd be sweethearts provided they should learn
how to use the board; provided they don't post certain material or disagree with a certain understanding that makes the common sense of this forum.
So, yes never that high, but there have been a lot and they kept leaving. The forum is agressive against female posters and in return if a female poster wants to post here they need to be agressive about it. And when they are agressive, that's a bigger offence. Posters here always get as agressive as Shoe, but it pokes in the eye when she does that. If you constantly tell someone they are this and that in every thing they post they make instead of what is in the post, eventually that is what everyone sees. And it is never the situation or what she says, but what she is. When she disagrees with something, the answer is about her. But yeah, considering she annoys a lot of people, common sense tell us that this must about her.
People's impression about Shoe is built on criticising America and American culture, international American politics. Because 7 years ago, saying what has become normal to say in this forum today was enough to make someone out of this culture a 'villain'. Yeah this is what you were then. ALL of you, without any exception. What she was talking about then is common place now. This is also your first impression. Interestingly enough, you even told her -several times, for specific posts- that she wasn't listened because the way she wrote. Remember that? Well that is about how a female poster 'should' use this forum if she wants to talk about a series of subjects or just shouldn't do at all.
You know what Hakurei, you are intellligent and I always read your posts when it comes to certain fields, obviously you enjoy and know about them. But you are a typical part of the same mainstream flow when it comes down to hyped up, inflated, toxic bullshit part of American culture that is painfully ignorant, destructive that cannot tolerate anything; defines compromise and tolerance as defeat and treat everything as it is something unique to itself. Special. And if you don't agree and support that you are the enemy. :lol: If you are not an apple, you must a banana.
Well, I am not going to apologise for annoying you or others in this forum or for being agressive, there is a reason for it and it is natural one. I don't give a fuck if you can get my situation; or wether it is not something I chose or not. Yeah I am an ass, so are you, get over it. I know you have certain ways of seeing people as 'we', 'you' or 'them', but all of us are just a bunch of ordinary people, and you should nail into your head that includes you.
Thank you, Nonsensei. I think although we used to cut each others throats before, we jumped to another dimension of communication together doesn't matter what we agree on or not. We can yell at each other and communicate at the same time and carry on a conversation together.
What is going on here is completely different. It's about groups and clubs supporting each other, it is a traditional 'Shoe is baaaad' event. It's forum politics.
Quote from: Hakurei ReimuYes. "Common sense." You know what's also common sense?
Lowering taxes causes job growth.
Life and the universe are too complicated to arise naturally.
The free market will always optimally distribute goods fairly.
From every worker according to their capabilities; to each worker according to their needs.
The earth is flat.
The sun goes around the earth.
Vital force.
It snows, therefore global warming is bullshit.
Contrails are laden with chemicals.
Organic foods are healtheir for you than conventional foods.
Statistics is easy.
Mexicans are stealing our jobs.
Fire can't collapse steel buildings.
Firewalkers must be using magic to walk on hot coals.
Diseases are caused by bad smells.
The pyramids could not have been built by the Egyptians.
Out of place objects are proof of the Atlantis civilization.
God.
All of the above have been touted as "common sense." However, we know all of these really don't hold up under close scrutiny. Common sense is nice and all, but it's by no means a reliable way of deciding truth. Testing and verification needs to be done on all claims, and the more untested a claim the more it needs to be tested.
Hey wow cool. That sounds like a really effective argument. I'm sure you're about to explain in detail how any of that has any relationship to what she says.
Quote from: Hakurei ReimuMost of shoe's claims are like the above. They sound compelling only if you don't examine them closely; once you do, they fall apart pretty quickly.
Oh. Naked assertion using unrelated examples. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Quote from: Hakurei ReimuI've known this for several years now, and whenever I have confronted shoe on what I think are errors in her reasoning the conversation invariably turns to accusations on her part that I'm a repulsive individual and stupid besides. I don't put up with that, so of course I return in kind. Last year I made one last attempt to see if I could have a constructive discussion with shoe and tried my best to keep it civil, never insulting her, yet the same pattern played out. She's now on my ignore list because, quite frankly, I'm not going to repeat that experience ever again.
Yeah. Thats what happens when someone who isn't invested in a controversial topic argues on the opposite side of someone who is invested and effected by it. The reality is that the people on these forums have never actually been directly effected by many if not all of the social topics we discuss that invariably generate accusations of someone being an "SJW". Its very easy for you to sit there atop your ivory tower and pretend you can discuss these topics that don't directly effect you calmly and logically and actually come up with the correct position. Once you have established that thought trap, anyone who displays anger or passion about the topic and also disagrees with you instantly becomes some sort of toxic troll.
It makes sense right? You arrived at your position using what you consider to be cool logic and an unbiased mind. Anyone who disagrees with you and gets angry must be irrational or trolling.
Ever consider the possibility that your conclusions are not infallible because you are not directly effected by the issue, and that your ability to calmly discuss some of these things stems from the fact that you are not forced to give a fuck?
For a lot of these issues, she has been forced to give a fuck. Discussing them calmly is just ridiculous. Its like calmly discussing the nuke next door thats 3 seconds from detonation. You're basically sitting there from 5000 miles away laying out your cold and rational evaluation of the casualties when it goes off and expecting someone in the blast zone to be just as calm as you.
Do you get what I'm trying to say here?
Quote from: Hakurei ReimuNearly 50/50? I don't think it has ever been that high. It's always been kind of a sausagefest in this place. Back in 2012, I could count the regular female posters on one hand. Maybe two. There have been plenty more posters that are male, even back in 2012.
Hey technically correct is the best kind of correct right? The reality is that the female presence on this board has dwindled to practically nothing. AFAIK DS is the most prolific female poster left.
Thread hijack much? So the Pharaoh or the Proletariat .. which is responsible for the Chicago incident?
Thanks, Obama
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 13, 2017, 05:10:37 AM
Hey wow cool. That sounds like a really effective argument. I'm sure you're about to explain in detail how any of that has any relationship to what she says.
The point, you nimrod, is that calling something "common sense" doesn't actually make it sensible. Common sense is based upon a very biased set of data. You are not the whole world. You have no assurance that your "common sense" actually is coincident with reality. Each and every one of the assertions I stated were thought of as "common sense," yet they did not hold up under scrutiny. Thus, I do not take anyone at their word when they call something "common sense."
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 13, 2017, 05:10:37 AM
Oh. Naked assertion using unrelated examples. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that they're unrelated. You used "common sense" as the only grounding for shoe's assertions. It is a poor support indeed.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 13, 2017, 05:10:37 AM
Yeah. Thats what happens when someone who isn't invested in a controversial topic argues on the opposite side of someone who is invested and effected by it. The reality is that the people on these forums have never actually been directly effected by many if not all of the social topics we discuss that invariably generate accusations of someone being an "SJW". Its very easy for you to sit there atop your ivory tower and pretend you can discuss these topics that don't directly effect you calmly and logically and actually come up with the correct position. Once you have established that thought trap, anyone who displays anger or passion about the topic and also disagrees with you instantly becomes some sort of toxic troll.
No, that's the excuse you use to dismiss my point. The reason why I have her on ignore is because there's no useful discussion between her and me. She keeps trying to lecture me... no,
prosthelytize to me on her particular gospel, and then gets mad at me when I answer that I'm skeptical.
I've dared to fact-check her on particular points. Like on the psychological background on Marc Lépine and Elliot Rodger, which shows them not to be anywhere near what would be called a picture of mental health, and so their attitudes could not be considered "typical" in any way. Or on our last confrontation where her arguments directly intersected with fields that I have studied, either as an undergraduate or as a graduate student (linguistics and logic), and found her arguments to be wanting.
Being "infested and effected[sic]" by some controversial topic does not give you
carte blance to steamroller over people who do not have such investment. If anything, you
need people not invested in your controversial topic to keep you from derailing, precisely because they are disinterested in the topic so that they can inform you when you have gotten things factually wrong, so you can correct yourself and keep your views married with reality. Once you depart from reality, you are not helping anyone, even yourself.
As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 13, 2017, 05:10:37 AM
It makes sense right? You arrived at your position using what you consider to be cool logic and an unbiased mind. Anyone who disagrees with you and gets angry must be irrational or trolling.
Anyone whose fact-check does not clear is not to be taken entirely seriously.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 13, 2017, 05:10:37 AM
Ever consider the possibility that your conclusions are not infallible because you are not directly effected by the issue, and that your ability to calmly discuss some of these things stems from the fact that you are not forced to give a fuck?
Yes. I am, in fact, open to the possibility. However, when a person advancing a position gets their facts wrong when checked, it's only natural to start to be suspicious of the positions veracity, even if the other party is invested and affected by it.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 13, 2017, 05:10:37 AM
For a lot of these issues, she has been forced to give a fuck. Discussing them calmly is just ridiculous. Its like calmly discussing the nuke next door thats 3 seconds from detonation.
No. No, it's not. If there were really such an imminent threat to your life, you would not be on the internet at all, discussing calmly or histerically. You would be running the fuck away, for all the good it'll do you. Believe it or not, there
is time to calmly discuss these things because it's not going to be resolved in a day or a week or even a year even if you begin now. There's time to find a right solution, and a right solution requires above all being informed of the
facts of the matter.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 13, 2017, 05:10:37 AM
Do you get what I'm trying to say here?
Yes, I'm getting your bad analogy, but it's still bad.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 13, 2017, 05:10:37 AM
Hey technically correct is the best kind of correct right? The reality is that the female presence on this board has dwindled to practically nothing. AFAIK DS is the most prolific female poster left.
I'm not changing my posting behavior on account of anyone short of a moderator telling me I'm out of line, and neither you nor drunkie is on that list. One of the reasons I come here is because I get to be my skeptical, atheist self, with no pretense or false civility. If you make a claim I find contentious, I'm going to call upon you to back it up. Drunkie is very poor at backing up her claims. She'd better thank her stars she's here and not on stardestroyer.net; she would have been booted long ago back there, because being able to back up your claims is part of the stated rules.
Who are you really angry with, Hakurei? What are you really angry at? Whatever, whoever it is, it is clearly not me. Noone can harbour this much of bitternes or vicious anger for someone he has ignored for a long time, just because she 'couldn't back up' her opinions on an argument related to linguistics over a year ago. Esp. in a forum people throw around every bullshit they come upon just for kicks and giggles, every fucking material they like to masturbate about. Or may be you have the observation skill of a cow, who knows.
Go back to that post again sometime, step back and take a look at it. And then try to think a little what are you really talking about up there.