Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Anyone up for some poetry?
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
This is pretty much where I stand, too. I don't think that simply theoretically denying the legitimacy of the government should a prosecutable action. Openly inciting open rebellion to governmental authority is a different matter: depending on the context it could be constructed as subversion or treason (especially if it's a call for violently overthrowing the government). And of course the argument "the government isn't legitimate" shouldn't hold much water as a justification for disregarding laws.Old_ones wrote:I've been following this discussion for a bit without commenting much, and here is one of the things that makes me skeptical of your take, and more inclined to agree with Service Dog. You speak of this distinction between "not PC enough" and "prosecutable", but I don't see much of a distinction here. If what makes the content "prosecutable" is that it is "hate speech" (i.e. "not PC enough") then I don't see a distinction at all. Maybe the distinction you are trying to make is between the speech of hardcore Neo-Nazi agitators and internet edge lords, but its not clear to me how that distinction is made under German law. If the distinction is really in who the government is choosing to prosecute, as opposed to what can be legally said, then I see a major problem there.Aneris wrote:Your emphasis was on actual censorship (of not PC enough views), but the sources speak of "prosecutable content" or even "clearly" illegal content.
Furthermore, its not clear to me why "Anti-Holocaust [denial]/Nazi laws" should be beyond criticism and not a legitimate topic of discussion. I get that our countries have different views on free speech and that said laws aren't controversial in your country, but I still find them worthy of criticism. In the US we have "sovereign citizens" (essentially extremist right wing libertarians) who are similar to Reichsburgers in that they deny the legitimacy of the government, and we don't prosecute them for saying so. I think there is room to ask why disloyal speech should be considered a form of treason, or should be inherently prosecutable or beyond protection. The German government could presumably still go after the Reichsburgers for disregarding laws related to action, or for acting against the government, if they choose to take it that far.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Hate Speech (US): local rules at universities and other places based on political correctness.Old_ones wrote:I've been following this discussion for a bit without commenting much, and here is one of the things that makes me skeptical of your take, and more inclined to agree with Service Dog. You speak of this distinction between "not PC enough" and "prosecutable", but I don't see much of a distinction here. If what makes the content "prosecutable" is that it is "hate speech" (i.e. "not PC enough") then I don't see a distinction at all. Maybe the distinction you are trying to make is between the speech of hardcore Neo-Nazi agitators and internet edge lords, but its not clear to me how that distinction is made under German law. If the distinction is really in who the government is choosing to prosecute, as opposed to what can be legally said, then I see a major problem there.Aneris wrote:Your emphasis was on actual censorship (of not PC enough views), but the sources speak of "prosecutable content" or even "clearly" illegal content.
Hate Speech (Germany): Volksverhetzung, incitement to violence, defamation, libel etc, hence prosecutable content.
Alt Right Narrative: confuse the two, throw a lot of smoke and make it seem as if the Campus SJW Rules as seen on a YouTube channel are applied to everyone in Germany/Europe, suggesting the government is kicking in your door and throw you in jail if you don't follow them properly. And that way promote the idea why it's good to have the Brexit, Trump etc. Neo Nazi Extra: discussing the laws (laws!) without saying so, out of cowardice, out of dog whistle politics, or code, while avoiding to make the case why libel, defamation, incitement to violence, and holocaust denial should be made legal.
My point was that some other topic in a fearmongering fashion was used (again) as a "hook" to lead to a different subject, as you see here. If Alt Righters, Reichsbürger and Neo-Nazis -- usual subjects -- want to have a go at anti-Nazi laws, they can discuss this as long as they want. I just want no part in it.Old_ones wrote:Furthermore, its not clear to me why "Anti-Holocaust [denial]/Nazi laws" should be beyond criticism and not a legitimate topic of discussion. I get that our countries have different views on free speech and that said laws aren't controversial in your country, but I still find them worthy of criticism. In the US we have "sovereign citizens" (essentially extremist right wing libertarians) who are similar to Reichsburgers in that they deny the legitimacy of the government, and we don't prosecute them for saying so. I think there is room to ask why disloyal speech should be considered a form of treason, or should be inherently prosecutable or beyond protection. The German government could presumably still go after the Reichsburgers for disregarding laws related to action, or for acting against the government, if they choose to take it that far.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
The kaffir oppress the faithful with their own existence.free thoughtpolice wrote:They are mushrikeen that commit shirk by worshiping Issa as if he were coequal with Allah. That makes Allah very angry, and what makes Allah angry makes his followers angry, and they are commanded to do Allah's will.gurugeorge wrote:I look forward to an analysis of how the Copts have been stealing oil and bombing Muslims.Shatterface wrote:Happy Palm Sunday
Egypt church bombings: At least 43 killed in two explosions targeting Christians on Palm Sunday
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... html%3Famp
Do you want to deny them their right to follow their religion? :pray:
-
- .
- Posts: 2649
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Tigzy wrote:If anyone's on Minds, you can find me there as @Tigzy.
It's a bit of a right-wing echo chamber at the moment, but despite that I'm finding it pretty okay - better than Gab as a Twitter alternative, at least. I like the fact that folks can boost their posts to all and sundry, so you can often find amusing and unexpected gems in your newsfeed. There's a lot of Alex Jones style tinfoilhattery there at the moment, but if it grows - and I hope it does, because it looks a genuinely viable alternative to twitter - then that aspect should, in time, be watered down a bit.
But yeah, I'm finding Minds pretty enjoyable. Twitter is just annoying now - I'm getting pretty fed up of seeing the more interesting folks there continually getting suspended and banned.
I wouldn't call it a right wing echo chamber but I agree the sight looks pretty good, I'll give you a follow mate, if you want to follow back you can find me @shoutinghorse. Not that I've posted anything yet, just getting a feel as to how it all works.
I'm with you re twitter, I think it'll die soon enough if they keep banning people. Not sure if Gab will take off if I'm honest.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
I find your refusal to rationally approach the argument of the rational justifications of Holocaust Denial Laws, and your propensity to attribute nefarious intent to anyone who criticizes them rather baffling.Aneris wrote:My point was that some other topic in a fearmongering fashion was used (again) as a "hook" to lead to a different subject, as you see here. If Alt Righters, Reichsbürger and Neo-Nazis -- usual subjects -- want to have a go at anti-Nazi laws, they can discuss this as long as they want. I just want no part in it.
Noam Chomsky, hardly a nazi or a Reichsbürger, and certainly not a holocaust denier, wrote this about the Robert Faurisson case:
Faurisson was convicted of "incitement to hatred" in 1979 and again in 2006. I think that Chomsky's defense of Faurisson's free speech is a textbook defense of Enlightenment values, and that while Faurisson's arguments are wrong and vile he should have been allowed to express them. I think this applies to German laws on Holocaust Denial as well. At the very least, engaging in a discourse on holocaust denial laws isn't something that should be left only to nazis or other unsavory parties.Noam Chomsky wrote:I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall Voltaire's famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." [...] Many writers find it scandalous that I should support the right of free expression for Faurisson without carefully analyzing his work, a strange doctrine which, if adopted, would effectively block defense of civil rights for unpopular views. [...]
It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Thanks, dawg. I lost two goats as well who used to climb up my front steps each day for treats. Shitty month.Service Dog wrote:Captain, Matt-- rough news, about your animals.
You both went the full-distance with them. good job.
Funny how we're the side of the 'Schism' that lacks 'empathy', yet the Pit is filled with so many animal lovers.
-
- .
- Posts: 8652
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Many people, including Aneris, admit that strains of feminism today have developed into dogmas which threaten free society, if/when they are allowed influence. For example the meme 'Believe the accusers'/'women never lie about rape' being used to suspend due process for accused men. "Under a patriarchy, no women can freely consent, so all sex with men is rape"#KillAllMen etc.
Imagine if Feminism were thus deemed an "unconstitutional organization" and all of Feminism's propaganda & symbols-- after 1919, when women were granted the right to vote-- were banned, as per germany's ban on symbols: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafge ... ection_86a
That would leave all feminists in the same sunk boat-- whether each feminist had any individual ties to the bad parts of feminism. The feminists could either remain silent, or violate the ban, or confine themselves to pre-1919 feminist speech.
Under such a scenario, it would be poor form to point&laugh at the feminists who chose the third option, for being a bunch of fringe loons who think the year is 1918, as police kick down their doors & seize their communication devices.. There would be no way to discern whether they were truly-so-odd time-deniers, or reasonable people making the best of unreasonable limits on political speech.
Aneris is a reichsburger feminist who condemns reichsburger nationalists... not for their nationalism... but for their reichsburger-ism... the trait which Aneris shares.
The german laws have made it impossible to sort bonafide neonazis from free-thinkers who merely share silly cartoon memes. Aneris's solution is to raid 'em all, let Big Brother sort 'em out.
...and label anyone who objects an alt-right MRA American.
Imagine if Feminism were thus deemed an "unconstitutional organization" and all of Feminism's propaganda & symbols-- after 1919, when women were granted the right to vote-- were banned, as per germany's ban on symbols: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafge ... ection_86a
That would leave all feminists in the same sunk boat-- whether each feminist had any individual ties to the bad parts of feminism. The feminists could either remain silent, or violate the ban, or confine themselves to pre-1919 feminist speech.
Under such a scenario, it would be poor form to point&laugh at the feminists who chose the third option, for being a bunch of fringe loons who think the year is 1918, as police kick down their doors & seize their communication devices.. There would be no way to discern whether they were truly-so-odd time-deniers, or reasonable people making the best of unreasonable limits on political speech.
Aneris is a reichsburger feminist who condemns reichsburger nationalists... not for their nationalism... but for their reichsburger-ism... the trait which Aneris shares.
The german laws have made it impossible to sort bonafide neonazis from free-thinkers who merely share silly cartoon memes. Aneris's solution is to raid 'em all, let Big Brother sort 'em out.
...and label anyone who objects an alt-right MRA American.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Very sorry to hear about Matt's horse and Captain's cat. You have my sympathies. :(
-
- .
- Posts: 8652
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Feminist History now the largest sub-field in academic History departments
http://m.torontosun.com/2017/04/08/the- ... jw-madness
http://m.torontosun.com/2017/04/08/the- ... jw-madness
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Last week, I had to put down my 35 yo arab gelding,"
It's terrible, the nature of the final act of love. But that's the compact.
Condolences.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
The enemy of my enema is my friend??feathers wrote:The heavens forbid that woman ever gets a child... they take 18 years to grow up versus 18 months.Brive1987 wrote:Also, Watson has declared jihad on puppies. Never again. She is only going to rescue adult dogs that are pre-bent to her will. She has also probably realised that Indy's head is growing at a slower rate to his body.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Enemas.jpgOn a completely related note. Has anyone got a surefire remedy for impacted stools that doesn't involve a GP's finger? Asking for a friend.
Don't mention it.
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
If you want to see a headdeskingly stupid example of radliberal apologia for islam check out exi5tentialist's comments in Anjuli's article here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/anjuli/2017 ... -liberals/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/anjuli/2017 ... -liberals/
The Quran is not Islam. The Quran is just dead text written by some dead people – I’m amazed that an intelligent atheist gives any credence to it at all. Islam, like any ideology, arises from living people: muslims and non-muslims according to their unique individual viewpoint. If you want to know what the various Islams are, why don’t you find out from all the living, breathing muslims in the world (no – not just SOME of them) and stop projecting your hate onto them through the prism of an out-of-date book that most of them project selective meanings onto anyway. Oh, you think meaning comes from a book? Think again. Meaning forms in, and is projected from, your own brain. This is neurology. Science. Read up on it.
-
- .
- Posts: 820
- Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
But these are not all the same thing. Libel and defamation relate to specific individuals who are harmfully libeled or defamed, incitement to violence is about the threat of actual violence directly arising from speech, and holocaust denial is an opinion.Aneris wrote:[...]while avoiding to make the case why libel, defamation, incitement to violence, and holocaust denial should be made legal.
Only the last is a free speech issue, and should be legal, as any opinion or viewpoint expressed by anyone, no matter how mean, nasty, unpleasant, wrongheaded, rhetorically "violent", etc., it may be. And other people are free to criticize, and call them idiots.
IOW, it's a matter for citizens to non-violently sort out amongst themselves, that the State ought to have no say in.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
So the Stockholm attacker had been rejected for asylum and should have been deported, but he went missing. Lots of political mileage in that development.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... 100255548/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... 100255548/
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
For those who think it certain that Assad was responsible for the recent gas attack it is probably worth reading this post by Mano Singham: https://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/20 ... b-someone/
Some extracts:
Some extracts:
When reports emerged on April 4 of what seems like a ghastly tragedy in Idlib, Syria, the key questions should have been: What exactly happened? Who were the victims? Who were the perpetrators? What was their motive? Was it a deliberate and targeted attack on the victims or had something gone badly awry? What should be the appropriate response? As with any investigation of deliberate killings, identifying means, opportunity, and motive become paramount. Means and opportunity exist for a wide variety of agents in the region, including the Syrian government and the ISIS-affiliated the rebels fighting against them. That leaves motive as a key discriminant.
As Ben Norton writes, independent sources have refrained from rushing to assign responsibility.
On April 4, an alleged chemical attack in Idlib killed dozens of civilians. The details around the incident are murky. Staffan de Mistura, the U.N. special envoy for Syria noted at a press conference after the attack, “We have not yet any official or reliable confirmation.”
Federica Mogherini, high representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy, likewise said, “We also do not have evidence at the moment.”
A statement by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons did not apportion blame and noted it “is in the process of gathering and analysing information.”
However, the U.S. government, which has spent billions over the past several years arming and training rebels committed to overthrowing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, immediately said the Syrian government had used chemical weapons, an accusation the Syrian and Russian governments denied.
Justin Raimondo reminds us of how little we know and how doubtful the sources of the meager knowledge we have of what happened.
I’ve pinned a tweet to the top of my Twitter profile, one that you might take as a sort of journalistic credo, and it says simply this: “Where’s the evidence?” So what’s the evidence that the Syrian military, on the brink of victory against both the Islamist rebels and their allies in ISIS and al-Qaeda – and days away from a conference that was to have decided Syria’s fate – used sarin gas against a village in the Idlib region?
The only such evidence is coming from the Syrian rebels, radical Islamists who are ideologically indistinguishable from ISIS and who have committed endless atrocities in their battle to overthrow Assad. They claim that dozens of children, women, and other civilians are the victims of a deliberate attack by Syrian government forces.
…
Phil Giraldi, a former intelligence official, tells our very own Scott Horton that the “military and intelligence personnel,” “intimately familiar” with the intelligence, say that the narrative that Assad or Russia did it is a “sham,” instead endorsing the Russian narrative that Assad’s forces had bombed a rebel storage facility containing some sort of chemical weapons.
…
One more thing: the airfield that was bombed is said to be the site of Assad’s store of sarin gas. Yet you’ll remember that Syria was supposed to have surrendered the entirety of its chemical weapons, and this was certified by the United Nations, the Russians, and the Obama administration. So what chemical weapons are we talking about?
Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton explain the murky situation that exists in Idlib and how Trump’s actions may have given the ISIS-allied forces such as Jabhat al-Nusra a new lease of life at a time when they were struggling to remain relevant.
The chemical attack occurred just as peace talks were beginning in Geneva, and with the Syrian army in a dominant position in the sixth year of a war fueled by outside powers.
The attacks threaten to reverse the political gains made by the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, leading to unrelenting bipartisan pressure for Donald Trump to authorize a bombing campaign targeting the Syrian government and its military.
For the al-Qaeda-allied rebels who were ousted from their stronghold in eastern Aleppo in December 2016, and whose gains in a recent series of offensives have been rapidly reversed, Western military intervention is the only hope.
Given its dominant position, why would the Syrian government authorize a chemical attack that was likely to trigger renewed calls for regime change? The answer remains elusive.
…
Whole thing worth a readWhat is extraordinary is that this attack was launched within a day of reports of the deaths, even before any investigation had been carried out or evidence presented about what the attack involved and who was behind it.
Major news networks have demonstrated a similar lack of skepticism when it comes to reporting on other issues about Syria. Ambiguous “activists” and rebel groups committed to overthrowing the Syrian government, some of them linked to al-Qaeda, are often cited as sources in media reports.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is perhaps the leading source for information, and is frequently described by media outlets as a “monitoring group.” Yet even the New York Times, which often draws from SOHR’s claims, has acknowledged that it “is virtually a one-man band” run out of the home of a man in a small town in England who has not been to Syria in more than a decade.
Likewise, major news networks like CNN have repeatedly cited Bilal Abdul Kareem, a propagandist for extremist jihadists militias in Syria who has embedded himself with al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, as a supposed independent observer of the war.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
"If you want to see a headdeskingly stupid example of radliberal apologia for islam check out exi5tentialist's comments in Anjuli's article here:"
Another good example is Sophia Sadek in the comments over at Hemant Mehta's bit on the age of enlightenment being over in Europe. Good grief.
CaughUpLockedOut
Another good example is Sophia Sadek in the comments over at Hemant Mehta's bit on the age of enlightenment being over in Europe. Good grief.
CaughUpLockedOut
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
For those who have lost pets recently my commiserations - know how this feels. Have not been able to have one for many years as with my commute (1hr door to door) and hours I wouldn't have time to treat it as should be treated. This is my loss.
Also have any of the Doctors on here have any experience or advice they wish to give regarding spinal column stimulators as I being given a trial later this year to see if this will help my hand pain. I am being referred also to a specialist in small fibre neuropathy to see if this is a cause here also. Happy to take a pm if you do not want to post.
Also have any of the Doctors on here have any experience or advice they wish to give regarding spinal column stimulators as I being given a trial later this year to see if this will help my hand pain. I am being referred also to a specialist in small fibre neuropathy to see if this is a cause here also. Happy to take a pm if you do not want to post.
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Mano Singham is a marxist America hater that uses as his sources bullshit hyper left websites like alternet and Russian propaganda outlets like RT as his sources. He buys into any story that paints the US as the ultimate and only evil in the world and swallows any source whole that confirms his bias.Whole thing worth a read
-
- .
- Posts: 2649
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Seeing as YouTube is dying on its arse with the recent decision to demonetise or ban all the interesting channels, here's Dave Cullen's intro to VIDME .. I have a feeling this along with MINDS will become the two big movers in the next couple of years. Very similar to YT but with a nice easy and voluntary payment scheme.
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
I suppose that you just happened to slip while standing on the stool hanging curtains, and one of the upturned legs somehow managed to slip in.Brive1987 wrote:On a completely related note. Has anyone got a surefire remedy for impacted stools that doesn't involve a GP's finger? Asking for a friend.
Pervert.
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
OTOH, this one knocks it out of the park:free thoughtpolice wrote:If you want to see a headdeskingly stupid example of radliberal apologia for islam check out exi5tentialist's comments in Anjuli's article here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/anjuli/2017 ... -liberals/
bluerizlagirl wrote: 2017-04-09 at 14:12
With all due respect, you are missing the point. As one famous atheist said, “It’s not a phobia if you know why you don’t like something.” If you had actually read the Qur’an, you would oppose the pernicious ideology contained within it with every decent bone in your body.
Islam means literally, “Cowering in abject terror”. Men cowering in abject terror before God, women cowering in abject terror before men, and non-Muslims cowering in abject terror before Muslims.
The Qur’an calls for war against anyone who is not a Muslim — including anyone who interprets the Qur’an as not calling for war against non-Muslims. They might tolerate small groups of “Gentlemen of the Book” — Christians and Jews — living in ghettos with restricted rights. If anyone is being un-Islamic, it is the moderates who are ignoring the less-palatable parts of the Qur’an that call for the violent destruction or subjugation of non-Muslims.
Meanwhile, the message, “God is pissed off at the decadent behaviour of non-believers, drinking, having non-procreative sex and treating women like human beings, and he wants you to help Him stop it all!” gets peddled to suggestible young people, who switch off their brains and lap it up.
Islam is a highly prescriptive, toxic ideology that manages to mix religion and politics, and the world would be an objectively better place if nobody followed it. Now, just to make this as clear as I can, I (and I presume, Anjuli) am not calling for individual Muslim to be harmed. But belief in the Qur’an, and its capricious, bullying, misogynistic psychopath of a God, needs to be eradicated. It helps nobody, and harms too many to be useful. The values that all religions hold in common with atheism are human values, and can be derived from first principles.
How actually to bring about the end of Islam is the £64 000 question. There are some addictive drugs whose mechanism of dependence is such that sudden discontinuation of use can actually be harmful or even fatal. Just expecting people to stop believing in Islam, when their neighbours are commanded to kill apostates, almost certainly is not going to work …..
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Have you Pitters heard about Marvel Comics latest woe?
https://heatst.com/entertainment/marvel ... eferences/
I don't read comic, but I have read about Marvel going all "SJW". I have NO sympathy.
PS: this artist is a fucking prick. Doesn't he realise the tradition is to hide penises in the artwork, not Islamist messages.
https://heatst.com/entertainment/marvel ... eferences/
I don't read comic, but I have read about Marvel going all "SJW". I have NO sympathy.
PS: this artist is a fucking prick. Doesn't he realise the tradition is to hide penises in the artwork, not Islamist messages.
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
[youtube][/youtube]KiwiInOz wrote:I suppose that you just happened to slip while standing on the stool hanging curtains, and one of the upturned legs somehow managed to slip in.Brive1987 wrote:On a completely related note. Has anyone got a surefire remedy for impacted stools that doesn't involve a GP's finger? Asking for a friend.
Pervert.
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Since the "deep rifts" began, isn't it amazing how many "progressives" are now double-teaming with Islamists and the enablers of Islam, to protect that ideology from any sort of criticism.
How the fuck were they part of any movement concerning secularism, humanism, or liberalism. These Marxist cunts should fuck and die.
How the fuck were they part of any movement concerning secularism, humanism, or liberalism. These Marxist cunts should fuck and die.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
You mean, go out with a bang, like suicide bombers or something? :mrgreen:CommanderTuvok wrote: These Marxist cunts should fuck and die.
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
As long as they do that well away from anybody else....that is fine and dandy by me.Tigzy wrote:You mean, go out with a bang, like suicide bombers or something? :mrgreen:CommanderTuvok wrote: These Marxist cunts should fuck and die.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Years ago when I first started keeping up with regressives, I remember proposing the team-up with Islamists as a tipping point into full crazy, half in jest. It was an off-the-cuff statement on my part. A caricature. I didn't really think any group wanting their message to spread would willingly discredit themselves before the public like that. Islam's hatred of outside groups & mistreatment of women was too obvious of a political mismatch for any self-defined liberal. If pressed, I would've bet money that this would never happen as a larger trend.CommanderTuvok wrote:Since the "deep rifts" began, isn't it amazing how many "progressives" are now double-teaming with Islamists and the enablers of Islam, to protect that ideology from any sort of criticism.
How the fuck were they part of any movement concerning secularism, humanism, or liberalism. These Marxist cunts should fuck and die.
My mistaken assumption was the idea that a political movement would necessarily monitor the pulse of the public & adjust their message accordingly. It seems like common sense. I don't think regressives do this. They seem to exist in a self-reinforcing echo chamber & have lost contact with the opinions of the normal people living outside of their bubble. They don't understand that they AREN'T the wider public. They've checked out.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
This is my main objection to suicide bombers. I really don't like their decision to go out like that, but I'm willing to swallow my misgivings out of respect for their culture. I just wish they would do it at a respectful distance from nonparticipants.CommanderTuvok wrote:As long as they do that well away from anybody else....that is fine and dandy by me.Tigzy wrote:You mean, go out with a bang, like suicide bombers or something? :mrgreen:CommanderTuvok wrote: These Marxist cunts should fuck and die.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
I'd love to know the name of the shelter that turned her down. I'd give them a donation and kudos for doing the right thing.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Were Brive or anyone to compile the tweets & sundry evidence documenting Indy's tortured existence, I would hand deliver them to the local animal rescue next time I'm down there.Brive1987 wrote:Watson and PZ are doing their trib over the Orac / Cpt Kirk ding-dong.
What strikes me, as always, is the zealous zeal with which Watson berates people for not accepting a schooling. The irony is palpable.
Also, Watson has declared jihad on puppies. Never again. She is only going to rescue adult dogs that are pre-bent to her will. She has also probably realised that Indy's head is growing at a slower rate to his body.
Your friend needs to be tubed with water & mineral oil.On a completely related note. Has anyone got a surefire remedy for impacted stools that doesn't involve a GP's finger? Asking for a friend.
I'd also love to know the name of the shelter that gave him to her. I'm assuming it's the one she 'volunteered' at, and I'm assuming Paramore hooked her up. One of you with Twitters can ask Ashley how she feels about dogs being adopted into inappropriate homes to momentarily satiate a narcissists need for attention on social media.
-
- .
- Posts: 820
- Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Minds is quite good, I'm sure Vidme is a good alternative too.shoutinghorse wrote:Seeing as YouTube is dying on its arse with the recent decision to demonetise or ban all the interesting channels, here's Dave Cullen's intro to VIDME .. I have a feeling this along with MINDS will become the two big movers in the next couple of years. Very similar to YT but with a nice easy and voluntary payment scheme.
It's hard to say where this is all going to lead. On the one hand, there's the grinning skull of Myspace to remind us all how ephemeral popular web thingies can be; on the other hand, it does seem to take some sort of mysterious "tipping point" for the masses to move to another major platform, and I'm not sure we've reached that yet. Hopefully we will, hopefully the net evolution will move on.
The trouble is that, while you can't stop the signal, the censorship moves by the big players are just going to balkanize discussion in the meantime. The virtue of Youtube was the crossover between different points of view on the same platform, the fact that it wasn't an echo-chamber. If all the alt-righters and disaffected liberals move to Minds and Vidme, then those will become more like echo chambers, and Youtube/Twitter, etc., will be teddy-bear-filled echo chambers for the regressives.
I think a better search engine than Google might do a lot to relieve the pressure by cutting the ground out from under the Google empire's feet - but I don't know to what degree that's possible, whether Google is the best possible to be programmed by man or not. Tech heads ...?
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
I think you have that backwards: The enema of my enemies is my friend.Oglebart wrote:The enemy of my enema is my friend??
-
- .
- Posts: 2649
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
She didn't get the puppy from a shelter, she says she found him on a CragsList ad and that the couple who had him couldn't look after him anymore because of their living situation. Make of that what you will.ERV wrote: I'd love to know the name of the shelter that turned her down. I'd give them a donation and kudos for doing the right thing.
I'd also love to know the name of the shelter that gave him to her. I'm assuming it's the one she 'volunteered' at, and I'm assuming Paramore hooked her up. One of you with Twitters can ask Ashley how she feels about dogs being adopted into inappropriate homes to momentarily satiate a narcissists need for attention on social media.
When she tried to get a dog from a shelter the reason she gave for being refused was that her apartment was too small and not at ground floor level, her new apartment is even smaller from what I can gather plus 2nd floor so she would have known she would have been refused again. So the irresponsible bitch goes out & gets a puppy anyway in the knowledge that HER living situation is also unsuitable.
(H/T to Brive)
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Nobody asserted they are the same thing. The argument was there are laws in place already, and a new law proposal seeks to apply the norms in such laws to content to social media, hence “prosecutable content”. Prosecutable content includes stuff from libel to holocaust denial in Germany, at present. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about it. This is the situation. It's a fact. There is no ought, should, wishing or wanting or even discussion. It just the description how the situation is.gurugeorge wrote:But these are not all the same thing. Libel and defamation relate to specific individuals who are harmfully libeled or defamed, incitement to violence is about the threat of actual violence directly arising from speech, and holocaust denial is an opinion.Aneris wrote:[...]while avoiding to make the case why libel, defamation, incitement to violence, and holocaust denial should be made legal.
Only the last is a free speech issue, and should be legal, as any opinion or viewpoint expressed by anyone, no matter how mean, nasty, unpleasant, wrongheaded, rhetorically "violent", etc., it may be. And other people are free to criticize, and call them idiots.
IOW, it's a matter for citizens to non-violently sort out amongst themselves, that the State ought to have no say in.
People who want to criticise these laws can cut the mustard in any way they want, argue about it any way they want, argue with Kirbmarc about it, or Steers, or their barber. I don't care. That's otherwise an excellent example how narrative functions. You just keep going unperturbed. In the end, it came exactly as expected: some fakery is used as a hook, and now you can't help to argue about holocaust laws. And that was the point: if such people want to criticize that, they should be honest enough and make a video about that: how they dislike the holocaust law, or libel laws, or whatever it is they find such terrible that they can't stand that it is being deleted on social media (in Germany). However, “hate speech” as understood in SJW campus context are NOT part of the laws.
I'm not even thinking everything was alright with what is being proposed; only that this situation was presented by certain YouTubers in a misleading and deceptive manner to further an Alt Right agenda. How they are, wittingly or not, in line with that agenda is not only demonstrated by their Trump-support, or by repeating Russian propaganda, but also through inviting a Reichsbürger to their stream as a crown witness of sorts. In that sense, it is also unimportant whether Chomsky also criticized the Holocaust Denial Laws …
I am only refusing the motte and bailey maneuvre. That's all. At present, this seems to interest “unsavory parties” the most, and as explained pages ago, there is nothing to gain for politicians to have a go at it. My discussion was about narrative of youtubers, which is by now even in my eyes in Far Right and identitarian waters. I once (only a few short months ago ) defended them on RationalWiki against assertions they were all sorts of things, and was convinced at the time they were grossly misrepresented. This changed (mainly with the election of Trump). It now looks like that people further a decidedly anti-european, identitarian and far right nationalistic agenda. One time it's about this, one time about that: but the theme is always the same.Kirbmarc wrote:I find your refusal to rationally approach the argument of the rational justifications of Holocaust Denial Laws, and your propensity to attribute nefarious intent to anyone who criticizes them rather baffling.Aneris wrote:My point was that some other topic in a fearmongering fashion was used (again) as a "hook" to lead to a different subject, as you see here. If Alt Righters, Reichsbürger and Neo-Nazis -- usual subjects -- want to have a go at anti-Nazi laws, they can discuss this as long as they want. I just want no part in it.
Noam Chomsky, hardly a nazi or a Reichsbürger, and certainly not a holocaust denier, wrote this about the Robert Faurisson case:
<Chomsky Quotation>
Faurisson was convicted of "incitement to hatred" in 1979 and again in 2006. I think that Chomsky's defense of Faurisson's free speech is a textbook defense of Enlightenment values, and that while Faurisson's arguments are wrong and vile he should have been allowed to express them. I think this applies to German laws on Holocaust Denial as well. At the very least, engaging in a discourse on holocaust denial laws isn't something that should be left only to nazis or other unsavory parties.
-
- .
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:47 am
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/j ... 68/8430174KiwiInOz wrote:John Clarke, aka Fred Dagg, is brilliant.MarcusAu wrote:Obligatory:KiwiInOz wrote:
I can tell you that Kiwis call them Gumboots. Redbands were the footwear of choice at Massey University.
[im.g]http://www.poppetclothing.co.nz/assets/ ... square.jpg[/img]
[youtube][/youtube]
Here he is explaining the Australian energy market to Brian Dawe.
[youtube][/youtube]
Going to miss his and Brian Dawe's interviews :cry:
Pseudomonas
-
- .
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:47 am
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Absolutely! Lovely stuff.MarcusAu wrote:Speaking of which - have you tried...Pseudomonas wrote:Speaking of whom... Last night, I was innocently watching theBrive1987 wrote:Watson and PZ are doing their trib over the Orac / Cpt Kirk ding-dong.HistoryHitler Channel (Aus), when who should pop up but Watson - weirdly in a doco called 'Evil Genius' (she was a pundit, not the subject) opining on the US serial killer H H Holmes. All I can say about her performance is that Ape+lust captures her perfectly.
15 pints of dodgy real ale?Brive1987 wrote:On a completely related note. Has anyone got a surefire remedy for impacted stools that doesn't involve a GP's finger? Asking for a friend.
Pseudomonas
http://res.cloudinary.com/ratebeer/imag ... r_4139.jpg
Pseudomonas
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Did the livestream suggest that this was any different? Did they say that the lasws applied to social media were new, special laws?Aneris wrote:Nobody asserted they are the same thing. The argument was there are laws in place already, and a new law proposal seeks to apply the norms in such laws to content to social media, hence “prosecutable content”. Prosecutable content includes stuff from libel to holocaust denial in Germany, at present. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about it. This is the situation. It's a fact. There is no ought, should, wishing or wanting or even discussion. It just the description how the situation is.
What, exactly, is the "fakery" used as a hook? Did the people in the livestream categorically assert that "hate speech" German laws are exactly the same of SJW campus rules? Isn't it possible to criticize "hate speech" laws in general?People who want to criticise these laws can cut the mustard in any way they want, argue about it any way they want, argue with Kirbmarc about it, or Steers, or their barber. I don't care. That's otherwise an excellent example how narrative functions. You just keep going unperturbed. In the end, it came exactly as expected: some fakery is used as a hook, and now you can't help to argue about holocaust laws. And that was the point: if such people want to criticize that, they should be honest enough and make a video about that: how they dislike the holocaust law, or libel laws, or whatever it is they find such terrible that they can't stand that it is being deleted on social media (in Germany). However, “hate speech” as understood in SJW campus context are NOT part of the laws.
So by inviting a Reichsbürger they invalidate any point which they might make about "hate speech" laws?I'm not even thinking everything was alright with what is being proposed; only that this situation was presented by certain YouTubers in a misleading and deceptive manner to further an Alt Right agenda. How they are, wittingly or not, in line with that agenda is not only demonstrated by their Trump-support, or by repeating Russian propaganda, but also through inviting a Reichsbürger to their stream as a crown witness of sorts. In that sense, it is also unimportant whether Chomsky also criticized the Holocaust Denial Laws …
Which narrative? Which motte and bailey maneuvre? Did the people in the livestream categorically assert that the German laws which they think are illiberal are exactly the same as SJW campus rules?Aneris wrote:I am only refusing the motte and bailey maneuvre. That's all. At present, this seems to interest “unsavory parties” the most, and as explained pages ago, there is nothing to gain for politicians to have a go at it. My discussion was about narrative of youtubers, which is by now even in my eyes in Far Right and identitarian waters. I once (only a few short months ago ) defended them on RationalWiki against assertions they were all sorts of things, and was convinced at the time they were grossly misrepresented. This changed (mainly with the election of Trump). It now looks like that people further a decidedly anti-european, identitarian and far right nationalistic agenda. One time it's about this, one time about that: but the theme is always the same.
Also is criticizing the European Union or German "hate speech" laws automatically a "far right nationalistic agenda"? Does Sargon support identitarian ideas or rather simply nationalism and support for national rather than international institutions (which isn't necessarily based on identitarian ideas)?
I'm not always agreeing with Sargon, mind, and I have called him out for his double standards (for example treating Pizzagate somewhat seriously while treating the Trump Piss Dossier as ridiculous from the get go). But asserting he's supporting a "far right" nationalistic agenda just because he's not on board with German "hate speech" laws and yes, invited the "Reichsburger" to his livestream looks like a smear. Is Noam Chomsky also supporting a "far right" agenda in defending the freedom of speech of holocaust deniers?
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Regressives love islam because it's "the religion of brown people" (which is false by the way, but let's not get truth in the way of a good dogma). Regressives see "brown people" as an indistinct identitarian blob. Many of them are as ignorant and prejudiced as actual racists, they don't educate themselves on the issues they talk about, they simply reverse the polarity from "brown people bad" to "brown people good". They don't understand the differences between muslims and sikh (just like racists who attack both) or between Salafi and Ahmadi, or between Muslim conservatives who pretend to be liberal (like Linda "Saudi Arabia rocks" Sarsour) and genuine reformers (Maajid Nawaz), and so attack the genuine reformers through guilt by association (like in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or of Nawaz himself) or as "traitors" of the "great collective of brown people" since they see the cultural fight only between themselves and "the racist whites".Easy J wrote:Years ago when I first started keeping up with regressives, I remember proposing the team-up with Islamists as a tipping point into full crazy, half in jest. It was an off-the-cuff statement on my part. A caricature. I didn't really think any group wanting their message to spread would willingly discredit themselves before the public like that. Islam's hatred of outside groups & mistreatment of women was too obvious of a political mismatch for any self-defined liberal. If pressed, I would've bet money that this would never happen as a larger trend.CommanderTuvok wrote:Since the "deep rifts" began, isn't it amazing how many "progressives" are now double-teaming with Islamists and the enablers of Islam, to protect that ideology from any sort of criticism.
How the fuck were they part of any movement concerning secularism, humanism, or liberalism. These Marxist cunts should fuck and die.
My mistaken assumption was the idea that a political movement would necessarily monitor the pulse of the public & adjust their message accordingly. It seems like common sense. I don't think regressives do this. They seem to exist in a self-reinforcing echo chamber & have lost contact with the opinions of the normal people living outside of their bubble. They don't understand that they AREN'T the wider public. They've checked out.
Ultimately many regressives are actually deeply racist*, only in a superficially benevolent, condescending way ("it's their identity, the poor souls can't help it and promoting those who truly want to change is a betrayal to their true identity") rather than in an openly malevolent way ("it's their identity, the crazy bastards can't help it, and those who want to change are surely lying").
*Not just about islam: Gilell for example is deeply racist about German people of African-American ancestry, which she think should be integrated in "black culture", as if their ancestry is what matters most to their cultural and personal identity.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Let's change this a bit:free thoughtpolice wrote:If you want to see a headdeskingly stupid example of radliberal apologia for islam check out exi5tentialist's comments in Anjuli's article here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/anjuli/2017 ... -liberals/
The Quran is not Islam. The Quran is just dead text written by some dead people – I’m amazed that an intelligent atheist gives any credence to it at all. Islam, like any ideology, arises from living people: muslims and non-muslims according to their unique individual viewpoint. If you want to know what the various Islams are, why don’t you find out from all the living, breathing muslims in the world (no – not just SOME of them) and stop projecting your hate onto them through the prism of an out-of-date book that most of them project selective meanings onto anyway. Oh, you think meaning comes from a book? Think again. Meaning forms in, and is projected from, your own brain. This is neurology. Science. Read up on it.
"Why are you hating all the nazis, you naziphobic piece of shit?"Nazism isn't the Mein Kampf. The Mein Kampf is just dead text written by some dead people – I’m amazed that an intelligent atheist gives any credence to it at all. Nazism, like any ideology, arises from living people: nazis and non-nazis according to their unique individual viewpoint. If you want to know what the various nazisms are, why don’t you find out from all the living, breathing nazis in the world (no – not just SOME of them) and stop projecting your hate onto them through the prism of an out-of-date book that most of them project selective meanings onto anyway. Oh, you think meaning comes from a book? Think again. Meaning forms in, and is projected from, your own brain. This is neurology. Science. Read up on it
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Me too. He was an absolutely brilliant satirist. :cry:Pseudomonas wrote:quote="KiwiInOz"]John Clarke, aka Fred Dagg, is brilliant.MarcusAu wrote:Obligatory:KiwiInOz wrote:
I can tell you that Kiwis call them Gumboots. Redbands were the footwear of choice at Massey University.
[im.g]http://www.poppetclothing.co.nz/assets/ ... square.jpg[/img]
[youtube][/youtube]
Here he is explaining the Australian energy market to Brian Dawe.
[youtube][/youtube]/quote]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/j ... 68/8430174
Going to miss his and Brian Dawe's interviews :cry:
Pseudomonas
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
In lighter news:
"Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the wokest of them all?"
"Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the wokest of them all?"
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
How do these people like exist
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Some possible counter-evidence to Aneris' idea that Sargon supports a "far right" nationalistic agenda: he's very critical of Geert Wilders, especially of his illiberal Qu'ran ban.
I think that Sargon is center-right/right-wing libertarian by now (the "reformation of the left" ship has sailed long ago, he now supports conservative/right-libertarian thinkers like Thomas Sowell) but calling him as supporting a "far right" agenda only for not supporting the EU (a political stance common among conservatives and even a discrete number of left-wing supporters in the UK) and for disliking "hate speech" laws (a libertarian position, as shown by Chomsky, who's a left-libertarian) is unwarranted.
I think that Sargon is center-right/right-wing libertarian by now (the "reformation of the left" ship has sailed long ago, he now supports conservative/right-libertarian thinkers like Thomas Sowell) but calling him as supporting a "far right" agenda only for not supporting the EU (a political stance common among conservatives and even a discrete number of left-wing supporters in the UK) and for disliking "hate speech" laws (a libertarian position, as shown by Chomsky, who's a left-libertarian) is unwarranted.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Despite their mental inadequacies, they are still capable of obtaining food, shelter and clothing.rayshul wrote:How do these people like exist
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Many of them are minors or in education, so their parents support them. Others are married and have their spouses supporting them. Those who get a job presumably get one where thinking what they think isn't an issue.deLurch wrote:Despite their mental inadequacies, they are still capable of obtaining food, shelter and clothing.rayshul wrote:How do these people like exist
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
I remember him talking about coming over to the UK and observing 60s 'Satire Boom' then (ie things like Beyond the Fringe and the That Was the Week That Was, as well as Monty Python etc) - he then came back to NZ (and later Australia) and did his own thing.KiwiInOz wrote:
Me too. He was an absolutely brilliant satirist. :cry:
RIP to Mr Clarke, we will most likely not see his like again...although there is some precedent for JC's returning.
-
- .
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Witchcraft is black now.Kirbmarc wrote:In lighter news:
Yet burn a black person at the stake and you are a racist.
You just can't win with some people.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
I can see Aneris's point, but then I'm used to seeing innocuous shit blown to absurd proportions by conservatives. You would not believe how much mail my grandmother receives on a daily basis from Republican groups warning her about the next horrible thing the UN or Obama (even after he stopped being President this shit continued) is about to do and how only your dollars can stop it so will that be check or money order?
And it's fairly obvious taking a look at places like kotakuinaction that there are some Alex Jones types taking advantage of the general anti-SJW tilt to peddle the same shit they've always peddled. The issue is not that people like Sargon are themselves hard-righters or even that they're acknowledging the legitimate arguments of the right. That's fine. The issue is that every so often they're a little too generous to people who don't deserve it. And the best medicine is skepticism and analysis, not headline or hashtag panic.
And it's fairly obvious taking a look at places like kotakuinaction that there are some Alex Jones types taking advantage of the general anti-SJW tilt to peddle the same shit they've always peddled. The issue is not that people like Sargon are themselves hard-righters or even that they're acknowledging the legitimate arguments of the right. That's fine. The issue is that every so often they're a little too generous to people who don't deserve it. And the best medicine is skepticism and analysis, not headline or hashtag panic.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
By the way Euro-skepticism is growing in many countries, not just on the right side of the aisle. In Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal Euro-skepticism is actually widespread among grassroot left-wing parties (Syriza, Podemos) or "catch-all" populist parties (the Italian Five Star Movement).
One of the reasons for widespread Euro-skepticism is that European austerity rules are damaging the economy of the "PIIGS", especially of Greece, Spain and Italy, by putting too many obstacles to traditional left-wing economy decisions, like raising wages or government spending to bail out those who possess government bonds, or to traditional decisions of countries with high debts, like devaluing their currency. The European institutions privilege actions like forcing the weaker economies to privatize government assets, which is traditionally a right-wing decision. The "weak" economies are also forced not to raise wages in order to comply with austerity rules and to deregulate the job market with negative effects on the unions.
"Strong" economies like Germany, on the other hand, aren't forced to adoptive inflation measures to balance out their surplus, and the benefits they've received from a common European market, like a market for their products which out-compete those of the "weak" economies, aren't balanced out by demands to adhere to the same rules of other countries. Germany, for example, isn't called out for not wanting to pool bank risks with other countries, even though they benefit from the common market.
People in "weak" economies have seen the power of their salaries fall with the Euro, and the alternatives have been migrating to Germany (many Italians and Greek have done this) or elsewhere (the Italian educated classes have often moved the US, UK or Australia, many Italian working-class people work in Switzerland). Meanwhile Germany has been looking for even cheaper sources of labor, first in Eastern Europe than by favoring Middle Eastern immigration. Blue-collar workers from weaker Mediterranean countries are unhappy with having their job prospects abroad curtailed by cheaper labor from the Eastern Europe, and Eastern European blue-collar workers are also upset with mass immigration from the Middle East and Africa, whose immigrants out-compete them in the job market and whose immigration is supported by tax money redistributed by what is perceived to be an out-of-touch European élite which works to ensure the interests of big lobbies, especially German lobbies.
Right-wing populism isn't the only source of troubles with Europe. There are structural problems with the EU, which people like Angela Merkel are all too happy to overlook since they benefit her country/lobbyists, while blaming everything on Russia and right-wing populism avoids facing uncomfortable questions.
One of the reasons for widespread Euro-skepticism is that European austerity rules are damaging the economy of the "PIIGS", especially of Greece, Spain and Italy, by putting too many obstacles to traditional left-wing economy decisions, like raising wages or government spending to bail out those who possess government bonds, or to traditional decisions of countries with high debts, like devaluing their currency. The European institutions privilege actions like forcing the weaker economies to privatize government assets, which is traditionally a right-wing decision. The "weak" economies are also forced not to raise wages in order to comply with austerity rules and to deregulate the job market with negative effects on the unions.
"Strong" economies like Germany, on the other hand, aren't forced to adoptive inflation measures to balance out their surplus, and the benefits they've received from a common European market, like a market for their products which out-compete those of the "weak" economies, aren't balanced out by demands to adhere to the same rules of other countries. Germany, for example, isn't called out for not wanting to pool bank risks with other countries, even though they benefit from the common market.
People in "weak" economies have seen the power of their salaries fall with the Euro, and the alternatives have been migrating to Germany (many Italians and Greek have done this) or elsewhere (the Italian educated classes have often moved the US, UK or Australia, many Italian working-class people work in Switzerland). Meanwhile Germany has been looking for even cheaper sources of labor, first in Eastern Europe than by favoring Middle Eastern immigration. Blue-collar workers from weaker Mediterranean countries are unhappy with having their job prospects abroad curtailed by cheaper labor from the Eastern Europe, and Eastern European blue-collar workers are also upset with mass immigration from the Middle East and Africa, whose immigrants out-compete them in the job market and whose immigration is supported by tax money redistributed by what is perceived to be an out-of-touch European élite which works to ensure the interests of big lobbies, especially German lobbies.
Right-wing populism isn't the only source of troubles with Europe. There are structural problems with the EU, which people like Angela Merkel are all too happy to overlook since they benefit her country/lobbyists, while blaming everything on Russia and right-wing populism avoids facing uncomfortable questions.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
I recall Wataon claimed the dogs real owners lived put of a car. She gloated a bit before having to fall back on ESP to justify her suboptimal conditions. The car probably gave the little guy greater freedom than he's had for months
I'll bet $5 that he hasn't tasted fresh meat since hitting kibble-kingdom.
I'll bet $5 that he hasn't tasted fresh meat since hitting kibble-kingdom.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
I can understand and agree with that, and I agree that Sargon is at times very un-skeptical towards certain right-wing ideas, like in the case of PizzaGate, which he didn't support but to which he did reply with a rather un-skeptical video about "The Reality of Child Trafficking Rings", where he mixed actual news with the paintings of a woman with many mental issues, which haven't been connected to any real child abuse case.Sunder wrote:I can see Aneris's point, but then I'm used to seeing innocuous shit blown to absurd proportions by conservatives. You would not believe how much mail my grandmother receives on a daily basis from Republican groups warning her about the next horrible thing the UN or Obama (even after he stopped being President this shit continued) is about to do and how only your dollars can stop it so will that be check or money order?
And it's fairly obvious taking a look at places like kotakuinaction that there are some Alex Jones types taking advantage of the general anti-SJW tilt to peddle the same shit they've always peddled. The issue is not that people like Sargon are themselves hard-righters or even that they're acknowledging the legitimate arguments of the right. That's fine. The issue is that every so often they're a little too generous to people who don't deserve it. And the best medicine is skepticism and analysis, not headline or hashtag panic.
However I fail to see why the livestream in question adopted any "trickery" or "motte and bailey". No one in the livestream asserted that German laws on "hate speech" were exactly the same as SJW campus rules (if they did, and I don't remember, feel free to correct me).
Aneris' main points of contention seems to be that Sargon and the others in the livestream (Kraut and Tea and Dave) invited a Reichsburger to discuss "hate speech" laws and that those laws aren't new laws but simply an extension of existent laws. I don't think that the simple act of inviting someone who might have some ideas means endorsing their ideas, and I can't remember any point in the livestream where anyone asserted that the laws were new, special laws (again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
What I contest is Aneris' claim that there's no interest in discussing the legitimacy of "hate speech" laws from anyone other than extrem right-wingers, which is false, as (for example) Noam Chomsky's defense of Faurisson's free speech rights has shown. I'm also wary of Aneris' implication that anyone who is uncomfortable with curtailing freedom of speech to holocaust deniers is an alt-righter at best.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
It's a distinction without a difference once the burning has finished.Shatterface wrote:
Witchcraft is black now.
Yet burn a black person at the stake and you are a racist.
You just can't win with some people.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Let's not pretend it only goes one way though. That's basically what SJWs do, for example.Sunder wrote:I can see Aneris's point, but then I'm used to seeing innocuous shit blown to absurd proportions by conservatives.
-
- .
- Posts: 2649
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Brive1987 wrote:I recall Wataon claimed the dogs real owners lived put of a car. She gloated a bit before having to fall back on ESP to justify her suboptimal conditions. The car probably gave the little guy greater freedom than he's had for months
I'll bet $5 that he hasn't tasted fresh meat since hitting kibble-kingdom.
Kind of makes sense now as to why he jumped from a moving car, it probably brought back memories of happier times and the poor little thing got excited.
Plotting the next escape plan.
http://i.imgur.com/1orLH9q.png
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
I just spit on my computerShatterface wrote:Witchcraft is black now.Kirbmarc wrote:In lighter news:
Yet burn a black person at the stake and you are a racist.
You just can't win with some people.
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
I actually felt bad posting a pic of my dog legs and balls to the sky.
So here, just to balance the equation.
http://i.imgur.com/aPxAZ2r.jpg
So here, just to balance the equation.
http://i.imgur.com/aPxAZ2r.jpg
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
There may be more to it than that. That just might have been the straw on the camel's back that showed she was not ready.
But on the flip side, she has one job to do.
But on the flip side, she has one job to do.
-
- .
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:47 am
Re: Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!
Lovely piece on him by Robyn Williams, presenter of the ABC's 'The Science Show':MarcusAu wrote:I remember him talking about coming over to the UK and observing 60s 'Satire Boom' then (ie things like Beyond the Fringe and the That Was the Week That Was, as well as Monty Python etc) - he then came back to NZ (and later Australia) and did his own thing.KiwiInOz wrote:
Me too. He was an absolutely brilliant satirist. :cry:
RIP to Mr Clarke, we will most likely not see his like again...although there is some precedent for JC's returning.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/j ... ce/8431090
Pseudomonas