DualJay

i was hoping for admin abuse stories

but no, it was just weab garbage

[USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST DESU]

9 hours ago, Guy923 said:

Regardless I don't think anyone who's penned articles like these should be given a fuckin' chance

 

-snip-

He didn't write those articles. Here are the articles he has written and published on Breitbart (CTRL+F "women"). I believe most of those were written by Milo (presumably, Milo Yanopolus or however it's spelled). 

Many people believe in giving a platform to all views in support of free speech, even if they disagree with those views. His allowing such articles (assuming he's even the one with the final say) is not damning.

1 hour ago, Work Friend Cretler said:

you know what, you're right. im going to give trump a chance. maybe he is not the racist sexist idiot hes been claiming to be for the entire election. maybe hes a reasonable guy, that would in no way hire a white supremacist as his chief strategist

 

 

oh...

This makes it seem like he's not an actual racist, but just a good ol' fashioned political crony. Can't say for sure, though - but from the handful of articles I read on the guy, it seems like he's just an opportunist.

16 minutes ago, Verumae said:

first of all, I didn't expect you to actually try to make an argument, so congratulations on that I suppose. with that said, what you've put forth is hardly an argument -- the three elements of your thesis do not in any way contradict anything anyone here has said and they don't seem to support a conclusion that is particularly relevant to this discussion. nobody is trying to figure out how this happened -- we had two shit candidates and a surplus of ignorance along with a malfunctioning electoral college. to have expected a better result would be unreasonable, but that doesn't change the fact that this outcome is absolutely undesirable. to address the only actual contentions you've made:

The only thing that matters now is how this happened. Any other argument is irrelevant to the truth of the situation - it's too late to change it. If we don't like what happened, we need to analyze why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again. Also, the argument moved a fair bit while I was away today, so the post was responding to an older point.

Quote

hillary clinton is not a leftist. she is a strict centrist, more or less identical to the president we've had for the last eight years (and I won't try to say whether that's a good thing or not -- it's not relevant), hence the endorsement and the support from the "establishment" (members of which tend to benefit from stability). prior to obama, we had george W, whom hillary resembles to a much greater extent than does trump. and before that, we had bill clinton, and I'm sure you can figure out which of the two (hillary or trump) he is closer to ideologically. hillary clinton routinely flip flops on key controversial issues to stay closest to the zeitgeist and the core of the democratic and independent voting bases. she is not an extreme candidate because up until a week ago, nobody thought a candidate so far detached from generally held american beliefs would have any chance of winning the presidency. you ever think there's a reason why hillary clinton never talked about "change"?

 

I'm not saying that hillary was a good candidate (I didn't vote for her), but there are only two words that explain why she didn't win the presidency: "emails" and "benghazi". it had nothing to do with radical ideologies of any sort that would have put the country into turmoil.

Her precise poltical views don't matter too much - she's not charismatic/forceful enough to make people care about her views. All that mattered was that she was a democrat. The two words are both "corruption", which is part of the liberal image that makes it intolerable to the right.

Quote

trump is not moderate. he more or less does meet the criteria for an actual fascist. fascism is notoriously tricky to define, but let's consider some of its core tenets: authoritarianism (check, see: law and order), cult of personality (check, see: "god emperor), militarism (check, see: syria, china), nationalism (check, see: "america first"), demagoguery (check, see: "Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential Campaign"). I find it odd that you mention gay conversions when later on in your post you acknowledge that his pick for VP is outspoken in his support of that idea. and if society is a pendulum, then how would a shift to the left (by which I assume you mean the election of hillary clinton) somehow result in the election of an even further left-leaning candidate? the sequence of george HW to bill clinton to george W to obama -- that's a pendulum. the election of donald trump is a child swatting at the pendulum after it knocks him down when he stands in its path. again, it's okay to not like hillary clinton as a candidate, but to pretend that she is somehow more extreme than trump is completely delusional, and I can almost assure you that both of them would openly disagree with that assessment.

Trump is a better politician than anyone (myself included) expected - he played the role that gets him elected, which was hyper anti-establishment. In his interviews, he is much less extreme and primarily seems concerned with state's rights to choose. He is also become more moderate and less hardline now that's he's been elected - recently, he said he spoke with the Chinese president (minister?) and said there was great mutual respect and a desire to work together.

As to Pence - I strongly believe he was a deliberate anti-assassination pick. Anyone who wants Trump dead will find Pence intolerable. I don't think Trump genuinely agrees with his opinions. 

Quote

and now we get to the insults. I'm sorry that you have such a simplistic and reductive view of politics but my concerns with trump come not from consumption of fearmongering media, but from a thorough and acute understanding of trump's beliefs, plans, and policies. I don't give a fuck whether the people who voted for him are literal KKK members or just disaffected moderates who wanted to shake things up. they voted for somebody grossly and wholly unfit to lead this country into anything but chaos. the republican party as a whole -- or at least its representation in congress and now the presidency -- is composed of obstructionist, ignorant, anti-democratic fools and I will never respect nor support them, regardless of how uninformed you think I am. and given that you at least somewhat recognize the faults in their party (or at least with their presidential candidate), I think there's a good chance you'll feel the same way within a month of the new congress convening and the new president issuing his first executive order.

As I said, I doubt his actual beliefs, plans, and policies are reflected in his speeches. I expect them to all be much more moderate than he lets on. If this is the case, that would indicate a greater degree of political savvy than at first apparent.  I expect that you're being sensational in saying that he is wholly unfit to lead and is a surefire route to chaos.

I also agree that the general political machine is rotten to its core on both sides, but without a united American people willing to reach a middle ground, that will never change. Reaching that state of unity is all that matters.

But who can say for sure? Maybe you're right. And for what it's worth - I apologize about the idiot and tumblr argument comments, they did not contribute to the conversation.

On 11/14/2016 at 9:31 PM, Verumae said:

that's what I thought ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I will commend you for recognizing that your most prudent choice here is to sit on the sidelines and to sling insults given that you don't seem to understand what the adults here are talking about

 

seeing as your petulance is largely inconsequential to me, I'd just like to offer a bit of advice should you reconsider and attempt to enlighten us with your superior intelligence and argumentative ability: if you come at the king, you'd better not miss

Fine, fine. Here's my argument: (1) No matter what the establishment is, some people will dislike it. (2) People tend to group with like-minded individuals. (3) People with more extreme views tend to be more involved and outspoken, because they will typically be more passionate about either change or the lack thereof.

By 1, 2, and 3, people will group into factions that are represented to un- and semi-informed outsiders by the most extreme members of that faction. Currently, that's "anti-free-speech bleeding-heart America-hating corrupt socialist cucks" for the democrats and "bigoted racist backwards corporate-owned poor-hating fascist warmongers" for the republicans. Obviously, this is a simplification on both parts. 

This caused the current party divide, and made an individual like Trump inevitable. The average person sees the other side as intolerable because they see the extremes - the radfem SJWS, the Westboros, the KKK, extreme branches of BLM, etc. This prevents compromise. When their is no compromise, when the nation changes it will change radically towards one direction or the other - and when there is compromise, people don't hear about it. This is because outrage sells papers/gets views/farms clicks. Compromise does not, typically, produce outrage. Thus, people only (or mostly) hear about the intolerableness of the other side.

Culture moves in a pendulum - and the farther it swings one way, the farther it swings back. Everyone is a reactionary. Thus, when right-leaning citizens see the "anti-free-speech bleeding-heart America-hating corrupt socialist cucks", they rally and push back - and must support whoever can stop that opposition, which will tend to be an extreme, passionate individual. This is because the more anti-establishment, where the establishment is the current perception of the culture, the more votes they will gather from people who dislike the current culture and the opposition. 

This is why Trump (who I highly doubt will be a good president) was inevitable, and maybe a good thing to happen. Had any left-leaning politician been elected, the pushback would have been even stronger, and we could have got an actual fascist who would try for gay conversions or whatever - or the extreme leftists would have taken over and abolished free speech. Both the hyper-extremes are bad, so it is better to fluctuate between relatively moderate to somewhat extreme (Trump) individuals of the two parties.

People were sick and tired of the left (or rather, its visible extremities), so they went right. In a few years, the opposite will happen. Maybe the average will shift slowly (and it's looking like the average is shifting left), but drastic shifts that society is not ready for will bring only chaos. This is why I think Trump was a better option than Hillary.

And now we get to why I think you're being* stupid. And not just you - anyone who buys into the lie that the party is composed entirely or mostly of the extreme and visible individuals and groups we see. That is the reason we have the chaos, the riots, the fear. And those lead to further extremes - and the risk of individuals like Pence, who I believe is utterly intolerable (primarily due to his support of the suicide-factory conversion camps).

People need to see beyond that. They need to realize that most people are not well-represented by the vocal extremists in their party. I doubt this will happen unless there is a drastic shift in how the media approaches reporting and how we consume news or a major move away from the two-party system/political parties in general.

--------------

And a note towards what Raison's been saying. At first I didn't respond because I thought he was memeing, but now I think he's serious, so I'll talk towards it. Racial divides do not create the issue - cultural ones do. Diversity is a good thing and a bad thing - good because it can lead to greater understanding and cooperation in the long term, but bad because it creates cultural conflicts (which are often violent) in the short term. Look at Japan - ultra homogeneous, low crime. For the bad effects, look at inner city America, which is rife with conflict between impoverished black and white americans.

I don't think there is any need to preserve white leadership, but I do think there is a need to preserve traditional American freedom and equality focused leadership. This could be black leaders, this could be Hispanic leaders, it could just still be white leaders - what matters is that they're American leaders.

--------------

*Being is temporary in this case. I act stupid all the time. Everyone does. And everyone can change that, or at least try to.

29 minutes ago, Verumae said:

how much validation do you get from having not participated in one of the most clear-cut and one-sided arguments in history?

 

No, Verumae. Don't be an idiot. It's like a tumblr argument because nobody on either side is acting remotely reasonable, and both people are committing ad hominems and building strawmen. C'mon, all of you guys (except maybe you, Verumae) are better than this.

It's like watching a tumblr argument.

28 minutes ago, Work Friend Cretler said:

again, you voted for a rapist.

You can say that if the courts find him guilty of something. Remember "Jackie" and Mattress Girl?

Just now, Stackbabbin' Bumscags said:

And yet I live in the portion of the US where anti-LGBT+ sentiment is the highest.
That 55% nation-wide acceptance of same-sex marriage means jack shit, especially since I live in an area where there are about 3 different churches within 1 mile of my house, and expanding the radius to even 5 miles, the number increases to 7 churches.

Count of churches means nothing, dude. I live in a religious part of Texas and have been to a lot of religious functions involving multiple local churches, and not once has there been any sentiment promoting violence against LGBTs.

2 minutes ago, Rynjin said:

Your thoughts are frankly fucking stupid.

Rynjin, c'mon man. Take it back a few notches. It's fair to be upset, but the personal attacks aren't necessary.

16 minutes ago, Rynjin said:

Race related crime has already significantly increased.

I can't find any numbers to support it. I'm not saying they're not there - I may just not be able to find them or be using the wrong terms (mostly searches along the line "race crime increase election"). Could you give me a link?

8 minutes ago, Stackbabbin' Bumscags said:

When I was in middle school and hadn't even really figured out my own sexuality, I had kids calling me queer and faggot in the hallways.
Kids I never even talked to, some I never even had classes with.
I had my own physical safety threatened multiple times during that period.

Call me paranoid all you want, but it's justified.

You're, what, 23? Middle school for you would have been in 2006. According to Pew, approval for gay marriage was at 35% for then. It's swapped now - 55% for. That's marriage, mind you, so that doesn't include groups who don't think gay marriage is acceptable but would never harm a soul - such as more liberal Muslims or moderate traditional Christians. (I couldn't find statistics on general acceptance of homosexuality and so on.) The majority is on your side. 

Also, middle schoolers are assholes.

--------------

Also, Corvette has a very legitimate point. Do make sure you know how to use it, though, or you're putting yourself at risk.

5 minutes ago, Stackbabbin' Bumscags said:

"Don't let fear control you"
That's easy to say when you don't have a target painted on your forehead and back.

I have to go grocery shopping tomorrow, and I'm pretty nervous about going out, what with living in the middle of the bible belt.

Are people going to read your mind and detect that you're gay? Hell, even if you go with your boyfriend and hold his hand and kiss him in public, do you think anyone's going to hurt you? Most people aren't deranged enough to actually hurt someone except in self-defense.

Okay, it might be a little bit more dangerous. But there's always chaos and crime when any societal upset happens, and I doubt this will be more severe than any other. 

And please, everyone, stop with the backhanded identity politics. We all know they're bullshit.

4 minutes ago, Guy923 said:

The last thing I'll say is, well yeah. Maybe for you. But I guarantee you there are people who have already lost their lives indirectly just because of this guy becoming president. Hate crimes went up by 80% when Brexit happened. It'll be worse here.

 

Already read about 3 shootouts in the last 2 days, one half an hour from where I live. People are dying and will die as a result of a racist president emboldening the other racists in the country. They have their initiative and people will suffer. But it's okay, because life'll go on for you I guess. It's not the end of the world for you maybe, but a lot of LGBT people, and minorities in general are terrified out of their fucking minds.

 

The only reason I'm not afraid to leave my own god damn house is because I live in an extremely Hispanic dense area. If I were in any bible belt state I would not step out of my god damn house out of fear. So there you go. We'll keep moving forward, but at what cost.

Is there any definite link between those shootouts and the election? I don't tend to follow shooting news because it just makes me feel sick. And don't let fear control you - wait for things to happen. Every democratic victory, people buy guns because they're gonna get taken away, and they never do. Hopefully, this will be the same way. Maybe not - I might be wrong - but I don't think there will be a statistically significant rise in race- or sexuality-related violent crime.

4 hours ago, Guy923 said:

-big image snip-

C'mon, man. This is 90% fear baiting set up by someone at Texas State, either a left-wing person trying to "start a conversation" or an alt-right moron trolling people. An online search shows nothing (though, granted, that could be because it's new - yet to spread, if you've posted it anywhere else).

EDIT: And as to Trump - he was inevitable. Not "him", exactly, but someone intolerable to the other side. When mainstream culture leans right, a far-left counterculture will inevitably appear. The same will occur if the culture leans right. See the hippies And honestly? I think better Trump than the next guy, because the next guy will be farther right, maybe way, way farther right. And maybe he'd be smarter, more aggressive, and more charismatic. And maybe then we'd be in deep, deep, trouble.

I am a republican. I supported Gary Johnson to get Libertarian some presence on the ballot, because I could not ethically support Trump. Trump won. We keep moving forward.

The pendulum swings. Life goes on.

1 minute ago, Stackbabbin' Bumscags said:

The government is completely dominated by the Republican party.
They have a majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and Trump has won the election.

I'm actually afraid.

Don't be, dude. Look at overwhelming media reactions whenever a celeb comes out as gay or trans. Vast majority support. There's no risk of gulags.

Trump has won.

Trump has won. 

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

we trump now?

new jawntrawn muzac video

good timing on the halloween theme mods :^)

New Jawntrawn

that's pretty dope

i might be totally wrong but i feel like some sorta greens around the trumpet might be nice?

l4d2 advanced cold stream, phase 2, literally makes my butt clench

don't forget to buy the rest of the skyrim dlc if you want the ultimate edition