Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:42 pm
And the shooter was a fucking Australian. Close the borders.
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
I don't care that you're a shitposter, I am too. What's ridiculous about you is that you this and then expect to be taken seriously when it suits.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I have assembled a detailed and comprehensive immediate action.
Mr Dick-Wick and his family should be strung up.
White Australian males should be placed under watch.
Lauren Southern should broom handled.
8Chan should be banned.
Facebook and all other involved social media should be banned.
High capacity magazines should be banned. No. Actually all guns should be banned.
All alt right wingers should be arrested.
Muslims should be escorted to a friendly nation, for their own protection.
Anyone who has ever questioned ethnically diverse immigration policies should be arrested.
Trump should be impeached.
Don’t begrudge me my attempted versatility. I am quite confident my list will cover off a large percentage of the normal and woke response. The fact I don’t know whether I’m shit posting or not (or even if there is a difference here) is what makes this a wild ride.piginthecity wrote: ↑I don't care that you're a shitposter, I am too. What's ridiculous about you is that you this and then expect to be taken seriously when it suits.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I have assembled a detailed and comprehensive immediate action.
Mr Dick-Wick and his family should be strung up.
White Australian males should be placed under watch.
Lauren Southern should broom handled.
8Chan should be banned.
Facebook and all other involved social media should be banned.
High capacity magazines should be banned. No. Actually all guns should be banned.
All alt right wingers should be arrested.
Muslims should be escorted to a friendly nation, for their own protection.
Anyone who has ever questioned ethnically diverse immigration policies should be arrested.
Trump should be impeached.
Perhaps a more rational approach to the problem would be to try to understand why narratives based on prophecies of impending doom instead of trying to find a solution to cultural and value problems might inspire people to insane actions.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Don’t begrudge me my attempted versatility. I am quite confident my list will cover off a large percentage of the normal and woke response. The fact I don’t know whether I’m shit posting or not (or even if there is a difference here) is what makes this a wild ride.
I quite understand if you choose to get off the roller coaster.
Clearly your argument fails as the perfect time for any group to organise as a defensive collective is prior to the actualisation of an existential threat. The trick is properly aligning threat and response. Something of an epic fail occurred here ....Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Perhaps a more rational approach to the problem would be to try to understand why narratives based on prophecies of impending doom instead of trying to find a solution to cultural and value problems might inspire people to insane actions.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Don’t begrudge me my attempted versatility. I am quite confident my list will cover off a large percentage of the normal and woke response. The fact I don’t know whether I’m shit posting or not (or even if there is a difference here) is what makes this a wild ride.
I quite understand if you choose to get off the roller coaster.
Without the need to ban anyone, or arrest anyone for wrong-thinking. But fostering self-reflection.
Perhaps it's time to wonder whether "triggering" people or wanting to get people angry is really productive.
It's not a matter of material support and I'm not drawing any equivalencies to ISIS. The point of the matter is that certain arguments might trigger certain responses, especially if they're based on hyperbolic and apocalyptic narratives like "the Great Replacement".
I think there are ways and means to discuss the cultural implications of demographic change.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑It's not a matter of material support and I'm not drawing any equivalencies to ISIS. The point of the matter is that certain arguments might trigger certain responses, especially if they're based on hyperbolic and apocalyptic narratives like "the Great Replacement".
Imagine someone going on a punching spree in a Republican convention because they were inspired by the "punch the Nazi" memes of the SocJus. Would you say that I was drawing equivalencies to ISIS if I said that the "punch a Nazi" crowd need to tone it down and think about what kind of messages they're promoting?
No. You made a shit argument. Incitement and agitation based on competing collectives is a tool used by all sides and it isn’t going away.
I think you're both right (what an appeaser!). It's not a shit argument (that's why it's controversial) and it's not going away. Case in point: I've been watching some abortion debate youtubes that revisit the topic of George Tiller, the doctor murdered by a pro-life nut. I remember when it happened, the pro-life crowd had a collective "oh-shit" moment, a very, very brief moment of self-reflection. Then, as I remember, they rationalized and got back to business as usual.
If you can't understand his motivations the fault lies with you. Next you will be saying that Time CubeTM theory does not make sense.Keating wrote: ↑ I'm having a hard time processing this. I can sort of understand why you'd want to fly a plane into buildings, or kill the children of a political party you disagree with. What I can't understand is why you'd blame name drop someone like Candace Owens, and then tell people to subscribe to PewDiePie before going on an evil killing spree while playing the Remove Kebab song. The entire manifesto is nothing but memes; I can't see the angle that makes sense.
Accelerationism maybe?
Very few people would even get that joke. much less come up with it!Lsuoma wrote: ↑I'm surprised you Droghedad that up!shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Cromwell played by an Irishman? I can't imagine that went down well with anyone.
If he wanted to be really offensive (by which I mean intellectually, rather than physically, obviously) he could have mentioned 'Von Tempsky'.
Mass murder in New Zealand. I’m really glad there isn’t anyone on the blogroll here anymore in overt denial of the reality of islamophobia. I’d like to encourage any readers that still have any question about that in their head to really really interrogate themselves about it.
You don’t have to come as far as I have, to seeing the mainstream atheist movement as a major catalyst of it, but at least see.
The Pewdepie and Candace Owens thing were shitposts.SM1957 wrote: ↑ A deranged terrorist shitposts the name 'Candace Owens' and suddenly she is the inspiration for killing Muslims.
Isn't that as logical as claiming that because Shamima Begum named her baby Jarrah, then ISIS were Islamic and derived their ideology by careful study of the lives of the Companions of the Prophet?
Some of us are. Others here have a predilection for childish & overly graphic insults of other people who are unlikely to ever visit this "den of iniquity", and which seem based on a serious degree of butthurt ...ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: ↑Dude, why are you being so coy? Just call it 'wanking' like the rest of us, we're all adults here.
Whole lotta virtue-signalling going on - "oh woe is us!" - with diddly-squat - largely - in the way of a willingness to address the roots of the problem:free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ From the other side of the spectrum, at FTB the Great American Satanist blames mainstream atheism. He doesn't come out and name Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins but I think you can guess who he means:Mass murder in New Zealand. I’m really glad there isn’t anyone on the blogroll here anymore in overt denial of the reality of islamophobia. I’d like to encourage any readers that still have any question about that in their head to really really interrogate themselves about it.
You don’t have to come as far as I have, to seeing the mainstream atheist movement as a major catalyst of it, but at least see.
Stochastic terrorism - too bad more don''t appreciate the concept of collective responsibility ...
I think that you are probably right. I now see increased calls to tackle Islamophobia, but that is just looking at a symptom not the cause.screwtape wrote: ↑ The wretched events in Christchurch made me have a thought. It's pretty clear that many natives of desirable-residence countries are unhappy about the immigration policies of their governments, rightly or wrongly - it doesn't matter for this thought. It might not be immigration: it could be an issue like Brexit, or any other highly-charged matter where the public and their government don't seem to be on the same page. Some will tolerate their dissatisfaction better than others, but there will be a point at which the least stable, poorest impulse-control, most prone to violence people will say 'enough!' and do something stupid like this. Such individuals are like canaries in a coal mine in the sense that they give early warning of public discontent. For every gun-toting mass murderer there must be many more who feel similarly, but would never do such an evil thing. I don't mean to legitimise such shooters in any way, but if they are a symptom of an underlying and widespread unhappiness in the populace, it raises questions:
1. Should governments take notice of these kind of events as indicators that they ought to reconsider policy?
2. If they do, is that just giving in to terrorism?
3. Should we study the phenomenon? Presumably we can very roughly quantify the level of public dissatisfaction among ordinary law-abiding citizens from the number/severity of such outrages.
Just idle thoughts whilst waiting for the breakfast egg to boil.
A likely story ... ;-)
"Ariana Grande" - learn something new everyday - the Manchester Arena bombing.Bhurzum wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:28 pm... but there are plenty of wired-to-the-moon types out there (left, right, black, white etc) who are itching to let the lead fly. I honestly thought the Arianna Grande (sp?) bombing would have sparked a violent backlash - the lack of retaliation cost me £50 in a wager with my sis-in-law.
Yup, it's a grim state of affairs...
Indeed.KiwiInOz wrote: ↑I think that you are probably right. I now see increased calls to tackle Islamophobia, but that is just looking at a symptom not the cause.screwtape wrote: ↑ The wretched events in Christchurch made me have a thought. It's pretty clear that many natives of desirable-residence countries are unhappy about the immigration policies of their governments, rightly or wrongly - it doesn't matter for this thought. It might not be immigration: it could be an issue like Brexit, or any other highly-charged matter where the public and their government don't seem to be on the same page. Some will tolerate their dissatisfaction better than others, but there will be a point at which the least stable, poorest impulse-control, most prone to violence people will say 'enough!' and do something stupid like this. Such individuals are like canaries in a coal mine in the sense that they give early warning of public discontent. For every gun-toting mass murderer there must be many more who feel similarly, but would never do such an evil thing. I don't mean to legitimise such shooters in any way, but if they are a symptom of an underlying and widespread unhappiness in the populace, it raises questions:
1. Should governments take notice of these kind of events as indicators that they ought to reconsider policy?
2. If they do, is that just giving in to terrorism?
3. Should we study the phenomenon? Presumably we can very roughly quantify the level of public dissatisfaction among ordinary law-abiding citizens from the number/severity of such outrages.
Just idle thoughts whilst waiting for the breakfast egg to boil.
And like Hunt, I think that Kirbmarc and Brive are both partially correct in their arguments and therefore wrong in totality. Each see a part of a complex system and suggest an answer, which is correct from their perspective but is unlikely to provide a solution that works.
As the modern day prophet Walt Kelly once put it, "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."Toronto van attack: lone-wolf or stochastic terrorism?
.... But while many commentators — including, as noted above, Barbara Kay at The Post Millennial and Jonathan Kay at The National Post, and, most recently Debra Soh at The Globe and Mail — have weighed-in to caution against seeing that tragedy as yet another instance of “lone-wolf jihadism”, against “viewing mass killing as tribal warfare”, against blaming “toxic masculinity”, it seems clear that such instances are the tips of a profoundly dangerous “iceberg”, and that they are the all too common examples of a metastasizing cancer eating away at the body politic. No doubt such individuals are the proximate and direct causes of the carnage they produce when they explode — literally or figuratively, but it doesn’t help at all to absolve those who have stoked the fires which have produced the intolerable pressures that have indirectly contributed to such explosions.
And for which we might all take some responsibility for [by] allowing that latter group to do so — even if only for their crime of “inciting hatred against any identifiable group, [particularly] where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” Not at all a popular opinion, but there seems some justification for arguing that we all should take, or be obliged to take, some responsibility for the actions of other members of our individual “tribes”. As Muslim reformer Asra Nomani put it in a Washington Post article some three years ago:May her “tribe” increase. But for instance, or more prosaically, a Daily Kos article of 2011 argued that such cases were the all too common manifestations of what they called “stochastic terrorism” which they defined as:When Rupert Murdoch recently tweeted, “Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible,” he was criticized for indelicately saying all Muslims were responsible for the acts of a few. But I do believe we bear collective responsibility for the problems in our communities.To reiterate, while those individual “lone wolves” have to bear the lion’s share of the blame for their actions, it seems clear that those other individuals who have contributed to the toxic and corrosive brews of hate that those lone wolves have steeped themselves in have to take a significant portion of that blame. While most individuals are more or less capable of withstanding untenable “incitements to violence”, it is also clear that we have an overabundance of “unstable people” who aren’t and who are too easily pushed over the edge. A state of affairs for which society itself shares some degree of culpability. ....“… the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. ….
The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts.
One or more unstable people responds to the incitement by becoming a lone wolf and committing a violent act. While their action may have been statistically predictable …, the specific person and the specific act are not predictable (yet).
The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability ….”
Seems we don't have to guess.Keating wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:06 amI'm having a hard time processing this. I can sort of understand why you'd want to fly a plane into buildings, or kill the children of a political party you disagree with. What I can't understand is why you'd blame name drop someone like Candace Owens, and then tell people to subscribe to PewDiePie before going on an evil killing spree while playing the Remove Kebab song. The entire manifesto is nothing but memes; I can't see the angle that makes sense.
Accelerationism maybe?
Clearly a monstrous stochastic terrorist that is inciting people to commit suicide.As the modern day prophet Walt Kelly once put it, "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."
And he really needed to get out more. Never met a man he didn't like, indeed.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Steersman wrote:Clearly a monstrous stochastic terrorist that is inciting people to commit suicide.As the modern day prophet Walt Kelly once put it, "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."
I think the "anywheres versus somewheres" framing is a big part of the puzzle. I'd definitely be a somewhere, others here are probably anywheres.screwtape wrote: ↑ The wretched events in Christchurch made me have a thought. It's pretty clear that many natives of desirable-residence countries are unhappy about the immigration policies of their governments, rightly or wrongly - it doesn't matter for this thought. It might not be immigration: it could be an issue like Brexit, or any other highly-charged matter where the public and their government don't seem to be on the same page. Some will tolerate their dissatisfaction better than others, but there will be a point at which the least stable, poorest impulse-control, most prone to violence people will say 'enough!' and do something stupid like this. Such individuals are like canaries in a coal mine in the sense that they give early warning of public discontent. For every gun-toting mass murderer there must be many more who feel similarly, but would never do such an evil thing. I don't mean to legitimise such shooters in any way, but if they are a symptom of an underlying and widespread unhappiness in the populace, it raises questions:
1. Should governments take notice of these kind of events as indicators that they ought to reconsider policy?
2. If they do, is that just giving in to terrorism?
3. Should we study the phenomenon? Presumably we can very roughly quantify the level of public dissatisfaction among ordinary law-abiding citizens from the number/severity of such outrages.
Just idle thoughts whilst waiting for the breakfast egg to boil.
Neither Dawkins or Harris ripped up a page from the Koran for a silly stunt, like PZ Myers did, nor did they ever come out with the sot of vitriol that CJ Werleman and Dan Arel came out with.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ From the other side of the spectrum, at FTB the Great American Satanist blames mainstream atheism. He doesn't come out and name Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins but I think you can guess who he means:Mass murder in New Zealand. I’m really glad there isn’t anyone on the blogroll here anymore in overt denial of the reality of islamophobia. I’d like to encourage any readers that still have any question about that in their head to really really interrogate themselves about it.
You don’t have to come as far as I have, to seeing the mainstream atheist movement as a major catalyst of it, but at least see.
I was almost surprised that PZ hasn't come out and blamed Dawkins, Harris, or anyone else that didn't let him into the horsey cult by name for planning the shooting. Maybe the big lawyer's bill that keeps coming in the mail has damped his enthusiasm for trashing his betters.CommanderTuvok wrote: ↑Neither Dawkins or Harris ripped up a page from the Koran for a silly stunt, like PZ Myers did, nor did they ever come out with the sot of vitriol that CJ Werleman and Dan Arel came out with.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ From the other side of the spectrum, at FTB the Great American Satanist blames mainstream atheism. He doesn't come out and name Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins but I think you can guess who he means:Mass murder in New Zealand. I’m really glad there isn’t anyone on the blogroll here anymore in overt denial of the reality of islamophobia. I’d like to encourage any readers that still have any question about that in their head to really really interrogate themselves about it.
You don’t have to come as far as I have, to seeing the mainstream atheist movement as a major catalyst of it, but at least see.
You can put me firmly in the 'Somewhere' camp too. .. At 51:10. he says "you don't want a winner takes all Brexit either" Why fucking not, that's how it works. That's like saying we don't want a winner takes all cup final, if our team only win 2-1 we'll let them put the cup in their trophy cabinet. :roll:
I'd unload my mags all over her kisser. Maybe we could arm-wrestle on her back as we tag-team her? Loser gets the beers in...
You're fucking wierd. :?Bhurzum wrote: ↑I'd unload my mags all over her kisser. Maybe we could arm-wrestle on her back as we tag-team her? Loser gets the beers in...
It could be worse - we could do a "Newton's cradle" with her.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑You're fucking wierd. :?Bhurzum wrote: ↑I'd unload my mags all over her kisser. Maybe we could arm-wrestle on her back as we tag-team her? Loser gets the beers in...