|
Mo_Steel posted:
Jeeze, that guy shouldn't choke hold him like that. He probably can't breath.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Some terrorists* *and some innocents I, too, hold the United States government to the same standards as a terrorist organization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:46
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:
If you don't support using terrorist methods to stop terrorists from using terrorist methods, you are a terrorist. Edit: Including using terrorist tactics on people who are not technically terrorists.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:
Isn't it okay to be outraged by both? We try to do the right thing and avoid killing innocent people and compromising the moral high ground though, which is what makes the torture outrageous, but it's a comparative outrage. Obviously the actual murder of innocent people is more outrageous. Oh wait, we do that? Well, bragging about it is more outrageous obviously. Oh certain elements within the US brag about that too. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Sometimes I wonder why the CIA bothers hiding this information. There's clearly a vocal segment of the US public that's enthusiastically in favor of torturing people on the flimsiest pretenses, it's not like we're morally opposed to it as a nation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:Sometimes I wonder why the CIA bothers hiding this information. There's clearly a vocal segment of the US public that's enthusiastically in favor of torturing people on the flimsiest pretenses, it's not like we're morally opposed to it as a nation. I can't speak for this case specifically, but I know there's an exemption for declassification that's literally "our allies might get mad at us if they had proof we did this". EDIT: Or at least there was when I was working on a program that had to handle classification headers on field activity logs in '02.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:I can't speak for this case specifically, but I know there's an exemption for declassification that's literally "our allies might get mad at us if they had proof we did this". Britain is currently refusing to acknowledge its black site use and ER compliance, despite them being well known matters of record, on the open basis that "It'll upset America." There was a cab driver from Brum that spent time in gitmo because he unknowingly gave a lift to the wrong person. I think he was waterboarded? He tried to sue the government and the judge ruled that the torture definitely took place and Britain definitely was involved in his illegal rendition and detention, but that he would not allow damages or require any admission of guilt on the basis of "damaging our security relationship with America" or something very similar. It's almost like every single intelligence service is a bunch of over-funded worthless psychopaths who are chatting delusional bollocks, or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Britain is currently refusing to acknowledge its black site use and ER compliance, despite them being well known matters of record, on the open basis that "It'll upset America." Or that the Government as a whole has discovered a really easy way of getting out of facing up to its responsibilities, both moral and financial. I'd almost prefer the "Intelligence agencies as pantomime villain" option but deep down I know it's literally some civil servant here has just got a pat on the head for saving HMG a couple of million quid in compensation deals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Or that the Government as a whole has discovered a really easy way of getting out of facing up to its responsibilities, both moral and financial. I'd almost prefer the "Intelligence agencies as pantomime villain" option but deep down I know it's literally some civil servant here has just got a pat on the head for saving HMG a couple of million quid in compensation deals. I don't think they're pantomine villains, I think they're utterly inept and attempting to constantly cover their own tracks. Even Thatcher thought mi5 were full of poo poo (and she knew they had never done anything useful).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Torture all Irishmen who might have IRA sympathies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I don't think they're pantomine villains, I think they're utterly inept and attempting to constantly cover their own tracks. Even Thatcher thought mi5 were full of poo poo (and she knew they had never done anything useful). The Thick of It spinoff about the wacky going-ons of Mi5 back in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Does anyone else follow comment sections as often as I do? Every article I feel is discussing something that can be construed as "social justice", I jump right to the comments first and I am never surprised to find a bunch of people complaining about how the topic is handled poorly or how the writers/publication in question need to stop pushing a "SJW-agenda". That term (SJW) gets thrown around a lot, to the point where its lost all meaning, and there seems to be a really massive pushback against anything talking about inequality/privilege/racism/sexism/you name it. Around when did this start happening? When did it become uncool to talk about inequality? Were people initially against these concepts quiet until a larger voice started speaking out against them? The pushback seems to be against some invisible, completely ineffective, yet insanely powerful "TUMBLR" crowd that I'm sure most people have never even interacted with (outside of image macros and select comments), considering the strawman TUMBLR feminist is just that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
"SJW" was originally used to distinguish between people actually advocating social justice issues, and the rabid tumblr subcultures that will tell Indian people that they can't wear hindu clothes because their skin is too light or tear you apart for claiming that "bunny" isn't a gender. It didn't take very long for the MRA crowds to lump feminism in the latter category, nor homophobes with gay acceptance, transphobes with trans acceptance, etc. So it sprung up not long after the crazy tumblr people became common knowledge, is my guess.Spangly A posted:Britain is currently refusing to acknowledge its black site use and ER compliance, despite them being well known matters of record, on the open basis that "It'll upset America." Do you have a good source on this? I'd love to toss this in the face of anyone who thinks torture can be even remotely justified.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:Around when did this start happening? When did it become uncool to talk about inequality? Were people initially against these concepts quiet until a larger voice started speaking out against them? The pushback seems to be against some invisible, completely ineffective, yet insanely powerful "TUMBLR" crowd that I'm sure most people have never even interacted with (outside of image macros and select comments), considering the strawman TUMBLR feminist is just that. Furries existed, 4chan decided to troll them on their newest home site (tumblr) with a profile with such lines as "19 Genderless Physically Caucasian Transn*er. ( yes I can say this because I am not white mentally)" and " what is a post limit and how do I stop it from oppressing me" in the vein of otherkin posts and titp. Then other Channing tantrumers used it as a "look guys they're really nuts feminism is bad k" and idiots rolled with it because of course the stupid name and hatred of minority groups was always there, it just needed an excuse. StealthArcher fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jan 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
I want to point out that talking about inequality has almost always been considered uncool in the mainstream. There have been a handful of times when there were pivotal enough events that you could actually bridge this topic in the mainstream, but the vast majority of the time its an unpopular subject no one wants to talk about. No one wants to hear about how their country is lovely to its most vulnerable members, or how children and families suffer under a grinding boot of oppression, whatever form it takes. In pretty much any movement on inequality, conservatives (and by this I mean people content with the status quo, not purely the republican/political right wing) are happy to try and paper over activism by papering it over with the most ridiculous or dismissable portrayal they can muster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I want to point out that talking about inequality has almost always been considered uncool in the mainstream. There have been a handful of times when there were pivotal enough events that you could actually bridge this topic in the mainstream, but the vast majority of the time its an unpopular subject no one wants to talk about. No one wants to hear about how their country is lovely to its most vulnerable members, or how children and families suffer under a grinding boot of oppression, whatever form it takes. http://m.theweek.com/article/index/247790/12-cruel-anti-suffragette-cartoons
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
This is all the same guy, an old fraternity brother of mine.    after all the times he's posted "If you don't like X about your job just get a new one" I want to tell him that if he doesn't like paying his insurance premium just quit that job and find one with an employer that pays 100% of the premium.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:Does anyone else follow comment sections as often as I do? Every article I feel is discussing something that can be construed as "social justice", I jump right to the comments first and I am never surprised to find a bunch of people complaining about how the topic is handled poorly or how the writers/publication in question need to stop pushing a "SJW-agenda". That term (SJW) gets thrown around a lot, to the point where its lost all meaning, and there seems to be a really massive pushback against anything talking about inequality/privilege/racism/sexism/you name it. America is a country of wanna-be warrior man-children desperately searching for their war
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
I sometimes wonder if things were more civilized when we could ship useless young men off to die bloodily on some foreign battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
I don't think this guy knows what a high deductible is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:"SJW" was originally used to distinguish between people actually advocating social justice issues, and the rabid tumblr subcultures that will tell Indian people that they can't wear hindu clothes because their skin is too light or tear you apart for claiming that "bunny" isn't a gender. It didn't take very long for the MRA crowds to lump feminism in the latter category, nor homophobes with gay acceptance, transphobes with trans acceptance, etc. So it sprung up not long after the crazy tumblr people became common knowledge, is my guess. I don't know that I've ever seen it used that way. First time I ever encountered it was it being used against me for deigning to talk positively about feminism on the internet. When asked people always claim they're talking about folks who are appropriating SJ language for attention on Tumblr, but the term always seems to come up when folks are being upset about entirely reasonable things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Scruff McGruff posted:This is all the same guy, an old fraternity brother of mine. Wait, but if the liberals can't see racism against white people, why did they found the KKK then?  If racism against whites were such a problem, why isn't he singing their praises and joining them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:Does anyone else follow comment sections as often as I do? Every article I feel is discussing something that can be construed as "social justice", I jump right to the comments first and I am never surprised to find a bunch of people complaining about how the topic is handled poorly or how the writers/publication in question need to stop pushing a "SJW-agenda". That term (SJW) gets thrown around a lot, to the point where its lost all meaning, and there seems to be a really massive pushback against anything talking about inequality/privilege/racism/sexism/you name it. You're posting in a thread whose sole purpose is to intentionally make yourself angry. Does it really surprise you other people do the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:
I do! (loving hell so many edits) Here! e; ee; that's because I got the wrong person. I can't keep track of all these torture fuckup legal actions. It is now fixed. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
My personal favorite stuff to see is the retrograde morality poo poo aimed at women, trying to help them be better Christian wives or whatever. It always boils down to "be a submissive domestic fuckdoll, and be grateful for the chance." Some examples through that link. There's like three separate articles along those lines on that site alone, and they're all getting passed around a ton lately among people I know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Emron posted:My personal favorite stuff to see is the retrograde morality poo poo aimed at women, trying to help them be better Christian wives or whatever. Yeah, she tries to spin it (poorly) that it's a mutual thing between both spouses but every time it's her conceding to the demands of her husband. No doubt the list for a man would be: 1. Breadwinner 2. Stoic emotional rock to tame the weaker female sex
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Emron posted:My personal favorite stuff to see is the retrograde morality poo poo aimed at women, trying to help them be better Christian wives or whatever. Ahaha I like number 4. Make sure to be super hot. Always, Even after kids and everything else. Remain sexually attractive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Scruff McGruff posted:This is all the same guy, an old fraternity brother of mine. Ask if he is familiar with the axiom "If you're reading it, it's for you."
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Emron posted:My personal favorite stuff to see is the retrograde morality poo poo aimed at women, trying to help them be better Christian wives or whatever. Don't kinkshame. I remember long ago on some IRC channel we were reading a website where submissive Christian women were talking about how they were bad and their husband was forced to punish them with such poorly disguised glee, that it is clear that it was a dom-sub, sado-maso relationship. I wonder if there are Christian-friendly BDSM club trying to encourage such couples to be safer about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Well DUH, otherwise as a wife you are useless if you're not pretty! Every time one of the rear end in a top hat conservatives on my Facebook feed posts up images of beheaded white people "THIS IS WHY WE TORTURE, LIBERALS!" poo poo, I wish I had some gif making skill to pull together a Ramsey Snow little animation of when he's torturing Theon. "So which body part do you need the least? .....please is not a body part." "If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." Oh who am I kidding, lots of people jerk it to those scenes in Game of Thrones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Well DUH, otherwise as a wife you are useless if you're not pretty! Just flip it on them and post the torture report and say "THIS IS WHY WE BEHEAD, AMERICANS!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Well DUH, otherwise as a wife you are useless if you're not pretty! I'm picturing Scalia or Allen West telling all their friends abou the sexy scenes in Game of Thrones, only to find out they were talking about the scene with the Tickler and the rat bucket.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Oh loving Christ!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
But the right to bear arms must not be infringed! Why do they hate the second amendment?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Holy crap, LL101 has quite the provenance. Can't wait to see what they use in 100 years for a "Look at how backwards people were in the early 2000s" listicle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Farrok posted:Holy crap, LL101 has quite the provenance. Can't wait to see what they use in 100 years for a "Look at how backwards people were in the early 2000s" listicle. A little place called Something Awful Dot Com. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Chimera-gui posted:Oh loving Christ! Fixed
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:But the right to bear arms must not be infringed! Why do they hate the second amendment? What was I supposed to do, vote for McCain? He can't even lift his arms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Don't kinkshame. The thing about that is that, among the sort of sects that talk a lot about sex, they might encourage a relationship with a dominant husband and a submissive wife, but never the other way around. If they heard about a wife tying up or whipping her husband, they'd consider that deviant and against God-given gender roles. The principle at issue is not healthy sexuality but strict gender roles above all else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Don't kinkshame. I think the whole point of it is more to cover up rampant domestic abuse and wrap it in a nice, cuddly, God's Law wrapper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:37
|
|
