Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one
Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 5:01 am
Our Pauline has an opinion :lol:
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/
I don't know that it's the case, but I do suspect. The picture of the judge at the window, laughing at his arrest with the cops was kind of a tell. Police get orders from the government all the time, at least in the USA. The amount of latitude they have to deal with situations, to keep an eye on somebody, etc. Part of the reason TR supporters are so upset is because it looks like a set-up, especially with the cops giving assent to filming along the way. The timeline doesn't dissuade one from that theory, seems like a rush-job. If I were to bet on some level of government "interest" in giving him enough rope to hang himself, I don't know that I have many takers betting against.DrokkIt wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 12:56 amWhen you say 'government', do you mean 'police'/'the courts', or are you operating under the assumption this was a decision made in the actual government?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑I agree with everything you said but one thing-I think instead of playing into Islamophiles hands, it's a huge win for Robinson supporters. He's seen as unfairly persecuted. If he dies in prison, he's a martyr for the cause. Hell, even if he committed suicide, many people would be convinced it was a cover-up. It's a phenomenally bad move on the government's part without much of an upside. Being seen as heavy-handed on him and light on Muslims (I recall a recent video where Muslims were allowed to,pray in a park as a woman questioned police as to why it was allowed to proceed despite being very much against UK law) is shooting themselves in the foot.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Responding to Shatterface & Drokkit:
* Was TR's new offense a violation of an existing gag order on that rape gang trial, or merely a violation of these abso restrictions of his suspended sentence? Or both?
* After several days of certain individuals adamantly denying there was a reporting ban on TR's sentencing, it turns out there was very much a reporting ban;
* I don't think there's a 'conspiracy'. I noted that the judge in question frequently issues gag orders;
* Sanctimonious shits like SecretBarrister can mock people for believing 'conspiracy theories', but what reporting was done included details such as: the goatfuckers had already been convicted. SB then posts a 'gotcha' screen cap of the docket;
* I do think TR has been targeted by the legal system & powers-that-be for some time -- the same legal system and powers who've consistently coddled extremely odious moslem extremists and criminals;
* I'll bet dollars to donuts TR's solicitor was intentionally lied to about his pending release -- and it will be covered up in a pile of FUD;
* Note how TR's detractors always resort to ad hominem attacks instead of addressing his sometimes valid points and objections. Further, anyone who objects to the creeping Islamization of the UK, or decries the police coverups of the rape gangs, or objects to the heavy-handed suppressions of free speech, is instantly labeled 'right-wing' and racist';
* As I said earlier, TR's not the brightest bulb in the pack, but you all are stuck with him as the only public figure making a public fuss about the rape gang scandal and the general rise of toxic Islam. With this stunt, he's surely played right into the hands of the Islamophiles. But that in no way negates that odious & pervasive islamophilia.
They could have neutered TR by politely showing him the door, being seen as merciful. I am surprised more TR detractors aren't upset by the government making him into the cause du jour. The UK government has already badly lost the narrative war. And TR has a slew of new supporters on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond.
If it's the latter (and this seems to be the general narrative, not saying it's your view) then how do you know it's the case and what convinced you?
I don't get this either. The NFL is a brand, and the players damaged it by taking a knee. They were free to voice whatever opinion they had off the field, but they were doing it on their employer's time and using their employer's platform to amplify their views. If they had been punished for doing it in their free time, I would be upset. But using the game's broadcast and messing with ratings doesn't seem like a free-speech issue to me. If somebody is paying for your time, they get to set certain conditions on your behavior during that time. Or am I missing something?
I would be very upset if they were being punished for airing their views during their free time, but employers get to set standards. You can't wear "Fuck Our Customers" shirt to work. Unless you're a prostitute. Speaking of which, Steersman seems to have gone dark.
Who of us, specifically, are these 'so many', and what beliefs, exactly, do they 'share', and with whom?Shatterface wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 5:07 pmSome of us have defended free speech we find repellent on principle. Our defence of that freedom has rested on making a distinction between defending their right and endorsing their views. But that position is undermined when it becomes apparent that so many here share those beliefs.
Did anybody tell Gary Lineker that this poor 16 year old refugee wasn't as young as he claimed to be?
This is interesting.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
I don't know that it's the case, but I do suspect. The picture of the judge at the window, laughing at his arrest with the cops was kind of a tell. Police get orders from the government all the time, at least in the USA. The amount of latitude they have to deal with situations, to keep an eye on somebody, etc. Part of the reason TR supporters are so upset is because it looks like a set-up, especially with the cops giving assent to filming along the way. The timeline doesn't dissuade one from that theory, seems like a rush-job. If I were to bet on some level of government "interest" in giving him enough rope to hang himself, I don't know that I have many takers betting against.
The man seems to stir up an (to me) odd amount of passion in otherwise rational people. Twitter seems far crazier than usual over him, and that's a high bar. People who can dispassionately discuss all number of things suddenly becoming very angry.
Nah cause it has nothing to do with vaping.
That's actually a very valid point Dokkit, I would add though that those same lazy politicians who automatically see Robinson's supporters as violent 'football hooligan' type thugs are equally as lazy in not identifying those same and very real traits in the feral left.DrokkIt wrote: ↑ And that the reactionary cult around him looks like the mainstream fears of yobs personified and this will literally make it harder to deal with because it's waaaaay easier for lazy politicians to now just characterise the entire movement at violent hooligans who think laws don't apply to them.
At bit of strawmanning, but let's address them directly.DrokkIt wrote: ↑ In my view a big part of why TR supporters are upset IS, as you say, because "it looks like a setup". But it's also because it confirms a conspiratorial narrative mythology which I'm going to try and outline as best I understand it (note: I am not attributing this to you, or anyone here in particular. But I would say you and many seem *sympathetic* to it):
1: The government are pro-islam (any number of terms are used for this- islamophiles, globalists, cucks etc) Argument A
2: Tommy Robinson is against islam (he actually vacillates on this a fair bit, sometimes the message seems a lot more 'against corruption', other times it's shades of white genocide). Argument B
3: The government hate TR and will use any reason to punish him. Argument C
4: The pro-islam government are suppressing normal people from speaking up about this issue. Argument D
Those seem to be the common threads, I've been following this on a number of social media and In my view this narrative has won and has the most widespread support. However I do think it primarily appeals to the emotional content around the issue, and has become wildly a-factual at this point.
Because it's a loose matrix of viewpoints that isn't predicated upon very solid evidence it's hard to address, one can call in question the logic of one argument but the focus will then simply shift to another point - the furore around this doesn't play defence to it's claims.
For example, if we take Argument A then we could ask if this were the case, why are muslim extremists considerably over-represented in prison?. Using A as a predictive model (as all good positions on reality ought to be) then would we expect this as an outcome?
Argument C is self-negating, they let him off this exact same thing previously so clearly demonstrated restraint in dealing with him. He has a well-publicised history with the police and will be well-known to them; moreover this will cause them to be more suspicious of him. It's also very foundational to C that this sentence has come from high authority. This may be the case, but neither of us knows this and I see no good objective reason to assume it. The police are more than capable of being prejudiced against someone they have dealt with previously, to whit their current actions does not require them to have been ordered. Doesn't make it impossible, or even unlikely, but we don't know it's true. It's dangerous to base core reasoning for a position on an unverified assumption.
With argument D we see a rhetorical sleight of hand- there is no way TR is an 'ordinary person' in this context; my fb feed is full of people attacking islam with not even a community strike as punishment let alone a euro-commie death squad kicking the door in.
I would agree with argument B: TR devotes a considerable amount of time to opposing islam in the uk. However this does not make him a shining moral knight who is above criticism and even moreso not above common law. Anyone paying attention to my appraisal of TR would see that I think he is counter-productive precisely for this kind of thing. It looks a like a big moment, and maybe it is, but it's a moment that will cause as many divisions as it heals.
None of this means I think that the police ideally ought to focus on TR above grooming gangs. Not does it mean I think he's a nasty piece of shit hahahah get in jail. I am simply of the view that his behaviour sought self-edification and ideological purity above support of his own stated goals. And that the reactionary cult around him looks like the mainstream fears of yobs personified and this will literally make it harder to deal with because it's waaaaay easier for lazy politicians to now just characterise the entire movement at violent hooligans who think laws don't apply to them.
An undesirable outcome.
Clearly, the UK govt, police, judicial system, et al., not to mention the press, preferentially and favorably treat moslems, while cracking down hard on anti-islamic speech.1: The government are pro-islam (any number of terms are used for this- islamophiles, globalists, cucks etc) Argument A
TR is against the corrosive effects of islamization, and also against the coddling of islamicists. Both are very real. Nawaz, Murray, et al. are speaking eloquently against these -- but to a limited audience. TR is the only one out there trying to spark a populist movement. More the pity that he's so flawed in character, and I agree with you that he may have done more harm than good at this point. But give him due credit for having the courage to get out there, and shame on everyone else who remains silent.2: Tommy Robinson is against islam .... Argument B
Douglas Murray has recently addressed this far better than I could here. The govt react to the secondary response to their policy, rather than recalibrate that policy. (cf. Brexit.) The govt realize they are sitting on a powder keg, and their response is to stifle anti-islamic sentiment by any means necessary. My guess is, they hope convictions in these grooming gang trials will appease the 'mob', and a decade of ignoring mass rape on a grand scale for PC reasons can then be swept under the rug for good.3: The government hate TR and will use any reason to punish him. Argument C
You ignore the power of a chilling effect on free speech. Make an example of TR, have your police dept's loudly announce that they will be scouring online communications for hate speech, and countless others will self-censor.4: The pro-islam government are suppressing normal people from speaking up about this issue. Argument D
With argument D we see a rhetorical sleight of hand- there is no way TR is an 'ordinary person' in this context; my fb feed is full of people attacking islam with not even a community strike as punishment let alone a euro-commie death squad kicking the door in.
I'll hazard we've found a solid point of agreement here. Our media is shit; it's shit and so far from objective it's unreal. I don't think it's always leftist- for example in the press (huge chunk of the media) one can argue that rightwing perspectives prevail. However in all cases the way they report is appalling.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑That's actually a very valid point Dokkit, I would add though that those same lazy politicians who automatically see Robinson's supporters as violent 'football hooligan' type thugs are equally as lazy in not identifying those same and very real traits in the feral left.DrokkIt wrote: ↑ And that the reactionary cult around him looks like the mainstream fears of yobs personified and this will literally make it harder to deal with because it's waaaaay easier for lazy politicians to now just characterise the entire movement at violent hooligans who think laws don't apply to them.
The recent demonstration outside number 10 is a prime example of what I mean, if you watch the footage the most violent thing these 'football hooligan's' did was half a dozen or so attempted to clime the gates of Downing St. (rather pathetically I might add) and were quickly subdued and even called out for being prattish idiots by the majority there. All the evidence shows that the vast majority of people who have been supporting him lately are everyday law abiding citizens and not violent thugs. Counter that with left wing demo's we've seen over the years where real nasty violent acts that not only have our lazy politicians failed to condemn but many actively encourage (see John McDonnell.)
And don't get me started on our (UK) fucking useless lying bastard spineless media. :x
Is there any standard of trying to represent a nebulous set of arguments that you will not characterise as 'strawmanning'? I made it very clear that this was to the best of my understanding and not a representation of things said here.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑At bit of strawmanning, but let's address them directly.DrokkIt wrote: ↑ In my view a big part of why TR supporters are upset IS, as you say, because "it looks like a setup". But it's also because it confirms a conspiratorial narrative mythology which I'm going to try and outline as best I understand it (note: I am not attributing this to you, or anyone here in particular. But I would say you and many seem *sympathetic* to it):
1: The government are pro-islam (any number of terms are used for this- islamophiles, globalists, cucks etc) Argument A
2: Tommy Robinson is against islam (he actually vacillates on this a fair bit, sometimes the message seems a lot more 'against corruption', other times it's shades of white genocide). Argument B
3: The government hate TR and will use any reason to punish him. Argument C
4: The pro-islam government are suppressing normal people from speaking up about this issue. Argument D
Those seem to be the common threads, I've been following this on a number of social media and In my view this narrative has won and has the most widespread support. However I do think it primarily appeals to the emotional content around the issue, and has become wildly a-factual at this point.
Because it's a loose matrix of viewpoints that isn't predicated upon very solid evidence it's hard to address, one can call in question the logic of one argument but the focus will then simply shift to another point - the furore around this doesn't play defence to it's claims.
For example, if we take Argument A then we could ask if this were the case, why are muslim extremists considerably over-represented in prison?. Using A as a predictive model (as all good positions on reality ought to be) then would we expect this as an outcome?
Argument C is self-negating, they let him off this exact same thing previously so clearly demonstrated restraint in dealing with him. He has a well-publicised history with the police and will be well-known to them; moreover this will cause them to be more suspicious of him. It's also very foundational to C that this sentence has come from high authority. This may be the case, but neither of us knows this and I see no good objective reason to assume it. The police are more than capable of being prejudiced against someone they have dealt with previously, to whit their current actions does not require them to have been ordered. Doesn't make it impossible, or even unlikely, but we don't know it's true. It's dangerous to base core reasoning for a position on an unverified assumption.
With argument D we see a rhetorical sleight of hand- there is no way TR is an 'ordinary person' in this context; my fb feed is full of people attacking islam with not even a community strike as punishment let alone a euro-commie death squad kicking the door in.
I would agree with argument B: TR devotes a considerable amount of time to opposing islam in the uk. However this does not make him a shining moral knight who is above criticism and even moreso not above common law. Anyone paying attention to my appraisal of TR would see that I think he is counter-productive precisely for this kind of thing. It looks a like a big moment, and maybe it is, but it's a moment that will cause as many divisions as it heals.
None of this means I think that the police ideally ought to focus on TR above grooming gangs. Not does it mean I think he's a nasty piece of shit hahahah get in jail. I am simply of the view that his behaviour sought self-edification and ideological purity above support of his own stated goals. And that the reactionary cult around him looks like the mainstream fears of yobs personified and this will literally make it harder to deal with because it's waaaaay easier for lazy politicians to now just characterise the entire movement at violent hooligans who think laws don't apply to them.
An undesirable outcome.
Clearly, the UK govt, police, judicial system, et al., not to mention the press, preferentially and favorably treat moslems, while cracking down hard on anti-islamic speech.1: The government are pro-islam (any number of terms are used for this- islamophiles, globalists, cucks etc) Argument A
Compare:
* TR's drumhead sentencing, vs. the moslem child rapist given a suspended sentence because he says he didn't know it was illegal in the UK to fuck a 14 year-old;
* Police harassing TR at Speaker's Corner, vs. police shielding moslems engaged in illegal public prayer in Hyde Park;
* Lauren Southern arrested for handing out 'Allah is gay' flyers, vs. moslems carrying 'Sharia for UK' and 'Behead All Blasphemers' placards allowed to march through the streets.
TR is against the corrosive effects of islamization, and also against the coddling of islamicists. Both are very real. Nawaz, Murray, et al. are speaking eloquently against these -- but to a limited audience. TR is the only one out there trying to spark a populist movement. More the pity that he's so flawed in character, and I agree with you that he may have done more harm than good at this point. But give him due credit for having the courage to get out there, and shame on everyone else who remains silent.2: Tommy Robinson is against islam .... Argument B
Douglas Murray has recently addressed this far better than I could here. The govt react to the secondary response to their policy, rather than recalibrate that policy. (cf. Brexit.) The govt realize they are sitting on a powder keg, and their response is to stifle anti-islamic sentiment by any means necessary. My guess is, they hope convictions in these grooming gang trials will appease the 'mob', and a decade of ignoring mass rape on a grand scale for PC reasons can then be swept under the rug for good.3: The government hate TR and will use any reason to punish him. Argument C
You ignore the power of a chilling effect on free speech. Make an example of TR, have your police dept's loudly announce that they will be scouring online communications for hate speech, and countless others will self-censor.4: The pro-islam government are suppressing normal people from speaking up about this issue. Argument D
With argument D we see a rhetorical sleight of hand- there is no way TR is an 'ordinary person' in this context; my fb feed is full of people attacking islam with not even a community strike as punishment let alone a euro-commie death squad kicking the door in.
Note well that in the UK, it is a crime to make utterances that merely upset or "cause alarm", and people have been arrested for:
* teaching your dog the nazi salute;
* quoting Churchill on Islam (watch out, Steerz!)
* labeling Mohammed a "warlord"
* calling Allah 'gay'
* declaring homosexuality a 'sin'
and investigated by the police for referring to sweaty Glaswegians as "sweaty Glaswegians".
Theresa May introduced "extremism disruption orders" to penalize those who, among other things, fail to show proper "respect for minorities". Were Comrade Corbyn to gain power, you can be certain that refusal to publicly assert that 'transwomen are women. period' would be a punishable offense.
The UK is plummeting rapidly into a PC-driven tyrannical police state. The treatment of TR is just the tip of the iceberg, and to fixate on his admittedly at times stupid behavior, is to miss the looming danger.
But...but... a great Canadian scholar says white genocide is a real thing at least in Canada. No not Steersman, Faith Goldy. :ugeek:All the "we are being replaced" and "white genocide" stuff is too rich for my blood, I prefer my wacky internet conspiracies to be of the lizard-people variety. I have heard TR use this very line "we are being replaced" in an interview, and a recent one. Due to this evidence I suspect he is susceptible to this way of thinking, and that kind of group-based hackneyed phenomenology is everything I'm against. Whoever's gob it comes out of.
My guess is there isn't a gag order on that particular trial and that the photographer in question didn't have a court order for filming near courthouses.These I believe are all part of the same gang that Tommy Robinson was reporting on but tried at a different West Yorkshire court.
It stops people from seeing the real problem because it's so immediately easy to waive it away.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Drokkit wrote:But...but... a great Canadian scholar says white genocide is a real thing at least in Canada. No not Steersman, Faith Goldy. :ugeek:All the "we are being replaced" and "white genocide" stuff is too rich for my blood, I prefer my wacky internet conspiracies to be of the lizard-people variety. I have heard TR use this very line "we are being replaced" in an interview, and a recent one. Due to this evidence I suspect he is susceptible to this way of thinking, and that kind of group-based hackneyed phenomenology is everything I'm against. Whoever's gob it comes out of.
I'm with you on this. Tommy Robinson does his own cause more damage than good. His base may think he's a free speech martyr but a lot of moderates want nothing to do with his cause because acts like a goon and looks like he isn't far removed from the Stormer bunch.
Maybe because that is from April 2017, BEFORE any postponement order was in place , and the reporting at the time, outside the court, unlike TRshoutinghorse wrote: ↑ These I believe are all part of the same gang that Tommy Robinson was reporting on but tried at a different West Yorkshire court.
[Worth noting for our colonial friends that Huddersfield is part of the Kirklees district of West Yorks and only 20 miles from Leeds.]
Question for you; do you consider yourself a brown person? While I wasn't paying attention, people of mid-east extraction became brown people. People have objected to Sacha Cohen, Jake Gyllenhaal, and DiCaprio playing Persians in movies. I'm not seeing it. Does anyone with a mono brow and a Semitic nose now count as a "brown person?" I get it where Paskitanis are concerned but I've met tons ofTurks, Iranians and Lebanese and they all looked white to me.AndrewV69 wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 8:18 pmerm ... my exposure to arabic is the Lebanese/Syrian when I was a kiddie so I dunno. Perhaps it is a an acceptable form where he is from. Perhaps it was shortened for western purposes?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 7:57 pmSo I have a friend (a few years out of contact) named Mohammed Abdu. He's from Ethopia, black as midnight. Did he get a bum name because racism?AndrewV69 wrote: ↑BTW you know Abdul means slave/servant? No proper Muslim would go by that name. Abdullah (slave to Allah) is much more likely. Given his roots, I would also expect bin to be used instead of ibn but seeing as he already has a double barrelled english name who knows? Also you have saddled him with two first names.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 1:18 pmShatterface wrote:
That sounds like scurrilous rumor passed around by libtards trying to get the UK to drop the death penalty.
I hear that last night in prison he reverted to islam and has changed his name to Muhammad Abdul ibn Chav.
Abdullah al-Chav is the name I would guess to be more appropriate if you wanted to say he was of the "Chav". If you wanted to imply dynasty it would be Abdullah Al Chav.
But if you were going to do that I would expect a bin Tomas in there or something like that. So you would wind up with Abdullah bin Tomas Al Chav.
Perhaps it was originally Mohammed Abdu Hamid or something like that?
Anyway people, just because I know some arabic does not make me an expert. Far fome it.
Do I consider myself a "brown" person? Nope. Internally I tend to identify as white(ish). But I know I am not white because I have brown(ish) skin and a unibrow.katamari Damassi wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 11:19 amQuestion for you; do you consider yourself a brown person? While I wasn't paying attention, people of mid-east extraction became brown people. People have objected to Sacha Cohen, Jake Gyllenhaal, and DiCaprio playing Persians in movies. I'm not seeing it. Does anyone with a mono brow and a Semitic nose now count as a "brown person?" I get it where Paskitanis are concerned but I've met tons ofTurks, Iranians and Lebanese and they all looked white to me.AndrewV69 wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 8:18 pmerm ... my exposure to arabic is the Lebanese/Syrian when I was a kiddie so I dunno. Perhaps it is a an acceptable form where he is from. Perhaps it was shortened for western purposes?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 7:57 pmSo I have a friend (a few years out of contact) named Mohammed Abdu. He's from Ethopia, black as midnight. Did he get a bum name because racism?AndrewV69 wrote: ↑BTW you know Abdul means slave/servant? No proper Muslim would go by that name. Abdullah (slave to Allah) is much more likely. Given his roots, I would also expect bin to be used instead of ibn but seeing as he already has a double barrelled english name who knows? Also you have saddled him with two first names.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 1:18 pmShatterface wrote:
That sounds like scurrilous rumor passed around by libtards trying to get the UK to drop the death penalty.
I hear that last night in prison he reverted to islam and has changed his name to Muhammad Abdul ibn Chav.
Abdullah al-Chav is the name I would guess to be more appropriate if you wanted to say he was of the "Chav". If you wanted to imply dynasty it would be Abdullah Al Chav.
But if you were going to do that I would expect a bin Tomas in there or something like that. So you would wind up with Abdullah bin Tomas Al Chav.
Perhaps it was originally Mohammed Abdu Hamid or something like that?
Anyway people, just because I know some arabic does not make me an expert. Far fome it.
Yet his 'court order' wasn't for filming near courthouses, it was for filming on courthouse property (the steps) and not to call them "Muslim Rapists/Pedos" which he was very careful not to do without prefixing with "alleged" The only time in his live stream that he really said the phrase was when talking about past cases.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ shoutinghorse:My guess is there isn't a gag order on that particular trial and that the photographer in question didn't have a court order for filming near courthouses.These I believe are all part of the same gang that Tommy Robinson was reporting on but tried at a different West Yorkshire court.
First part, fair point, although it does rather highlight the inconsistencies within the judicial system, why did one trial have reporting restriction when the other not, even though they are all part of or at least aligned with to the same towns rape gangs.InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑ Maybe because that is from April 2017, BEFORE any postponement order was in place , and the reporting at the time, outside the court, unlike TR
did not refer to the defendants as "Muslim paedoes and rapists".
The 'ish' doesn't really matter - you've been grandfathered in.
He joined the BNP and claimed he didn't know they didn't like black people. If he's not a racist he's a retard.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 12:49 amI have heard him admit many times that he has a chequered history. The difference between him and an SJW is rather obvious in that he is addressing an actual issue and puts himself on the line whatever you might think of his tactics. As for him being a racist I'd like to see some evidence of that. How on earth does a prior legitimate arrest negate the existence of a political effort to intimidate him? You seem awfully confident in your ability to read the man's mind and know his motives.Shatterface wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 5:14 pmIncidentally, Robinson did time for assaulting a police officer before he began his 'political' career so I don't buy the idea that the law has been harsh on him because of his politics. If you don't want the police to pay attention to you don't beat up a cop. If you don't want the courts to pay attention to you don't commit contempt of court.
Something tells me those are the wrong boots to fly around in a helicopter in. I see problems quickly exiting the aircraft and running if required. I'd suggest something rugged with more ankle support but nothing that would limit her agility.Old_ones wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 2:59 amI agree. You want a real woman with a real gun, here you go:
http://kirstenjoyweiss.com/wp-content/u ... resize.jpg
She even knows how to use that thing.
On a side note, isn't Faith dishonering her race by shooting a zionist gun like a Tavor? Weren't there any guns that represent white culture for her to pose with?
I still haven’t seen a take down of her empirical argument. Last time we rumbled we left it at you not liking what she didn’t say and your comment that the future can’t be predicted from current trends. Because *something* will change.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Drokkit wrote:But...but... a great Canadian scholar says white genocide is a real thing at least in Canada. No not Steersman, Faith Goldy. :ugeek:All the "we are being replaced" and "white genocide" stuff is too rich for my blood, I prefer my wacky internet conspiracies to be of the lizard-people variety. I have heard TR use this very line "we are being replaced" in an interview, and a recent one. Due to this evidence I suspect he is susceptible to this way of thinking, and that kind of group-based hackneyed phenomenology is everything I'm against. Whoever's gob it comes out of.
I'm with you on this. Tommy Robinson does his own cause more damage than good. His base may think he's a free speech martyr but a lot of moderates want nothing to do with his cause because acts like a goon and looks like he isn't far removed from the Stormer bunch.
She's a former Olympic marksman who does trick shots. She isn't pretending to be part of some anti-immigrant paramilitary group like Goldy is, so the footware is probably just fine.Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑Something tells me those are the wrong boots to fly around in a helicopter in. I see problems quickly exiting the aircraft and running if required. I'd suggest something rugged with more ankle support but nothing that would limit her agility.Old_ones wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 2:59 amI agree. You want a real woman with a real gun, here you go:
http://kirstenjoyweiss.com/wp-content/u ... resize.jpg
She even knows how to use that thing.
On a side note, isn't Faith dishonering her race by shooting a zionist gun like a Tavor? Weren't there any guns that represent white culture for her to pose with?
Has nothing to with her being a member of a paramilitary group or not. Has to do with jumping out, leaping out, running away from a crashing / crashed helicopter trying not to get entangled in skids or trip in potholes or unable to climb out of ditches.Old_ones wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 1:09 pmShe's a former Olympic marksman who does trick shots. She isn't pretending to be part of some anti-immigrant paramilitary group like Goldy is, so the footware is probably just fine.Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑
Something tells me those are the wrong boots to fly around in a helicopter in. I see problems quickly exiting the aircraft and running if required. I'd suggest something rugged with more ankle support but nothing that would limit her agility.
"Rugged with ankle support", you say?Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑Something tells me those are the wrong boots to fly around in a helicopter in. I see problems quickly exiting the aircraft and running if required. I'd suggest something rugged with more ankle support but nothing that would limit her agility.Old_ones wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 2:59 amI agree. You want a real woman with a real gun, here you go:
http://kirstenjoyweiss.com/wp-content/u ... resize.jpg
She even knows how to use that thing.
On a side note, isn't Faith dishonering her race by shooting a zionist gun like a Tavor? Weren't there any guns that represent white culture for her to pose with?
You were defending Goldy's use of white genocide and said that if I were a scholar I would understand that it was really an accurate appraisal of the Canadian situation. I didn't say that I objected to the word replacement and in fact didn't dispute that it was happening.You are not coming impressing me with your argument. What term do you prefer to “replacement” ? Would displacement, change over, becoming an ethnic echo, planned accelerated transition all work better for you?
Lovely meme. I imagine Life of Brian is now totally trans-haram, given the question of Loretta's fetus.
Dog whistle blown.Similarly controversial commentator, Milo Yiannopoulos, toured Australia in December last year and he was slapped with a $50,000 bill for heavily police presence after clashes ending in arrest and injury. We expect similar protests at Southern's talks, if her visa isn't cancelled.
I'm just commenting on the optics that her clique like to create. You have Goldy posing with a Tavor, you have Southern and Pettibone going to the alps to ride around in a "Defend Europe" convoy (I honestly thought Goldy was part of that, but I'm not interested enough in your Nazi bimbo fetish to keep close tabs on what these fungible twats are doing). They like to put on a show of being militant, just like Antifa does.
And Bear, I was explaining Faith’s use of ‘Genocide’, while acknowledged hyperbole, actually is a viable usage. Largely because the term, by literal definition, doesn’t mean anything in particular. It was a learning moment for you that apparently went unlearnt.
I was agreeing with Drokkit that some attention whores like Tommy Robinson do their own cause more harm than good by over the top behavior, similar to the way Goldy turns off people that are concerned about the immigration and demographic patterns by using the same sort of language as the Stormer crew like white genocide, libtard, cuck, JQ,..
BTW, Ophelia has a WINTER VAGINA, all year, every year....
You are saying it isn't bullshit to say that white genocide is happening and I am saying that I think your pet kangaroo must have kicked you in the head.
Saying there isn't a specific secret doctrine whereby the British government is seeking to replace us with muslims is not the same as saying therefore immigration is inherently good.