BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

Man, that haircut can look really terrible at least when it's shaved on the sides like that. Oh there's an Odal rune too.

Kinda noticed a trend in these pics in that the white supremacists who show up to events in the Pacific Northwest look a bit different than the ones down South, who often seem more like Klan members, or former Klan. The PNW seem more paganistic, Euro-wannabees, etc.

I'm kinda Captain Obvious here but well

Montasque posted:

The Pacific North West breeds a special kind of person...



They think they came from Hyperborea now.

Homeless Friend posted:

https://twitter.com/evan7257/status/873601009070858241

lmao

Scent of Worf posted:

has this been posted?

https://twitter.com/wyatt_privilege/status/873957293502726144

lmao

Crowsbeak posted:

They know Robert E Howard didn't believe in any of the poo poo he wrote? Well beyond that big strong manly men ruled.

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

https://twitter.com/HannaReich/status/873606680143163392

Not a Step posted:

Texas... good?

*checks figures again*

No no, this just isn't adding up at all!

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

MAGA CHUDs correctly figured the Kekistani was going to make a joke of their very serious demonstration to protect the Sam Houston statue from a nonexistent effort to take it down

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

MAGA CHUDs correctly figured the Kekistani

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

Pro-tip: If u want to punch Nazis join the Oathkeepers then bounce them from ur rallies without police interference

It's stealth antifa they will never know

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/873991671284981760

Tik tok tik tok. Another ticking time bomb.

Jove posted:

I had a weird experience the other day.

I hate Milo Yiannapollis so much that I won't be bothered to google the cocksucker's (note: I'm am a proud practitioner and connisseur of fellatio; think "Deadwood") name to determine whether I correctly spelled it. I hate him so much that I would have to fight a strong compulsion to physically assault him if I ever "caught him outside". When I saw "I Am Not Your Negro", I watched it through gritted teeth and closed eyes half of the time, because of the anger; James Baldwin is pretty much my polestar for my thinking on race relations in America. J. Edgar Hoover had an FBI file on him. He was seen, by the American government, as an actual dangerous human being. We're talking matter vs. anti-matter here, basically.

I was having two drinks with two long time friends who are both aware of all of those facts. One is a gay white man who is getting his Ph. D at Yale and is married to a Google engineer; they live in Park Slope. The other is a straight, single Black woman of relatively recent Eritrean descent who works as a researcher with a well-known book publisher. I'm a gay Black man from the South whose stepfather was a Pentecostal pastor and I'm really excited for a job opportunity where I will literally be defending sex offenders daily as a substantial part of my practice.

At some point of in the conversation, my male friend states something to the effect of "The "liberal" response to Milo Fuckoppolois's apologia in defense of pedophilia and/or pederasty was, in itself, both homophobic and racist." My other friend agreed.

Of course, I didn't. At first, I was pretty much just like "gently caress THAT NIGGA*. If that's what it took to get conservatives to kick him off the island, I am all loving for it. He deserved it because he is a demon from the Abyss clothed in human flesh who should burn in an eternal goddamn car fire". The friend who made the initial statement stated that "part of the queer experience" includes "older men having sex with much younger men". I acknowledged that my first relationship constituted statutory rape but, like, I was going on 17 and other dude was 19. At that point, I thought I should look up That Cocksucker's actual statements to make sure I wasn't tilting at the wrong windmill. I tend to avoid any mention of him on the Internet because it raises my blood pressure and that poo poo runs in my family.

Anyway, when I learned that he advocated the rape of children as young as 13, my position became a bit more "AWWW HELLL NAAWW".

I admit that being a lawyer means that I can come across as aggressive when discussing diverging viewpoints with others, but I never make things "personal". That is, I don't attack the person, but I'm not afraid to be very incisive (e.g., "All legal scholars agree...", "You can't say that. You haven't read all legal scholars." "Okay. *Most* legal scholars agree..." You can't say that either. You literally cannot possible have read most legal scholarship. You can speak to what you have read, but you can't make expansive statements like that.").

I submit that arguing against such an apologia, or against the premise that pointing out its hideousness is somehow racist and homophobic, deserves aggressive arguments against either point.

The conversation devolved. I was told that I was "talking down" or "picking on" one or both of them and that I had no personal investment in the discussion (i.e., that I was more interested in scoring a "win"). I responded with the classic "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not sorry for a single thing I said." Except I literally said that.

We parted on a lighter note but I was still bothered when I got home. I remembered something: "Hold up. *I* was molested as a kid." And when I say remembered, I don't mean that I recovered a memory through deep hypnosis. It's just not something I regularly think about because it happened a long time ago and it wasn't my fault? I've told one of the two friends that fact before. And then I started thinking more.

How is that my friends, progressive as they strive to be, think that they can speak to me on the same level about this subject matter when they both occupy positions of relative privilege with regard to said subject matter, vis a vis me?

That is: Friend 1, you may be queer, but you're still a white male and white men are generally terrible. Also, you're married to a fellow Yale Ph. D Google engineer and you live in Park Slope. Friend 2: You're a black woman and, got drat, I know that is hard. But it's just generally hard being black and you have the benefit of, at the very least, a) not having your relationship be seen as aberrant, more often than not, b) finding a suitable mate in the first place, and 3) not literally living with the threat of death when you have sex, without having to take HIV medication on a daily basis to prevent possible infection.

Like, the more I think about this, the worse I feel. I feel disgusted, in a word.

So, basically, is this argument something that people have espoused in a way that holds water? Outside of directly insulting my interlocutors, in what way could I have been the "bad guy" in this situation? Should I think less of these people, if they actually believe that argument?

*Don't touch my loving hair, don't police my loving speech. Code-switching, motherfucka, ever hear of it?

Darkman Fanpage posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_BQfQMHvDs

what about the memes?

Darkman Fanpage posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_BQfQMHvDs

what about the memes?

Jove posted:

I had a weird experience the other day.

I hate Milo Yiannapollis so much that I won't be bothered to google the cocksucker's (note: I'm am a proud practitioner and connisseur of fellatio; think "Deadwood") name to determine whether I correctly spelled it. I hate him so much that I would have to fight a strong compulsion to physically assault him if I ever "caught him outside". When I saw "I Am Not Your Negro", I watched it through gritted teeth and closed eyes half of the time, because of the anger; James Baldwin is pretty much my polestar for my thinking on race relations in America. J. Edgar Hoover had an FBI file on him. He was seen, by the American government, as an actual dangerous human being. We're talking matter vs. anti-matter here, basically.

I was having two drinks with two long time friends who are both aware of all of those facts. One is a gay white man who is getting his Ph. D at Yale and is married to a Google engineer; they live in Park Slope. The other is a straight, single Black woman of relatively recent Eritrean descent who works as a researcher with a well-known book publisher. I'm a gay Black man from the South whose stepfather was a Pentecostal pastor and I'm really excited for a job opportunity where I will literally be defending sex offenders daily as a substantial part of my practice.

At some point of in the conversation, my male friend states something to the effect of "The "liberal" response to Milo Fuckoppolois's apologia in defense of pedophilia and/or pederasty was, in itself, both homophobic and racist." My other friend agreed.

Of course, I didn't. At first, I was pretty much just like "gently caress THAT NIGGA*. If that's what it took to get conservatives to kick him off the island, I am all loving for it. He deserved it because he is a demon from the Abyss clothed in human flesh who should burn in an eternal goddamn car fire". The friend who made the initial statement stated that "part of the queer experience" includes "older men having sex with much younger men". I acknowledged that my first relationship constituted statutory rape but, like, I was going on 17 and other dude was 19. At that point, I thought I should look up That Cocksucker's actual statements to make sure I wasn't tilting at the wrong windmill. I tend to avoid any mention of him on the Internet because it raises my blood pressure and that poo poo runs in my family.

Anyway, when I learned that he advocated the rape of children as young as 13, my position became a bit more "AWWW HELLL NAAWW".

I admit that being a lawyer means that I can come across as aggressive when discussing diverging viewpoints with others, but I never make things "personal". That is, I don't attack the person, but I'm not afraid to be very incisive (e.g., "All legal scholars agree...", "You can't say that. You haven't read all legal scholars." "Okay. *Most* legal scholars agree..." You can't say that either. You literally cannot possible have read most legal scholarship. You can speak to what you have read, but you can't make expansive statements like that.").

I submit that arguing against such an apologia, or against the premise that pointing out its hideousness is somehow racist and homophobic, deserves aggressive arguments against either point.

The conversation devolved. I was told that I was "talking down" or "picking on" one or both of them and that I had no personal investment in the discussion (i.e., that I was more interested in scoring a "win"). I responded with the classic "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not sorry for a single thing I said." Except I literally said that.

We parted on a lighter note but I was still bothered when I got home. I remembered something: "Hold up. *I* was molested as a kid." And when I say remembered, I don't mean that I recovered a memory through deep hypnosis. It's just not something I regularly think about because it happened a long time ago and it wasn't my fault? I've told one of the two friends that fact before. And then I started thinking more.

How is that my friends, progressive as they strive to be, think that they can speak to me on the same level about this subject matter when they both occupy positions of relative privilege with regard to said subject matter, vis a vis me?

That is: Friend 1, you may be queer, but you're still a white male and white men are generally terrible. Also, you're married to a fellow Yale Ph. D Google engineer and you live in Park Slope. Friend 2: You're a black woman and, got drat, I know that is hard. But it's just generally hard being black and you have the benefit of, at the very least, a) not having your relationship be seen as aberrant, more often than not, b) finding a suitable mate in the first place, and 3) not literally living with the threat of death when you have sex, without having to take HIV medication on a daily basis to prevent possible infection.

Like, the more I think about this, the worse I feel. I feel disgusted, in a word.

So, basically, is this argument something that people have espoused in a way that holds water? Outside of directly insulting my interlocutors, in what way could I have been the "bad guy" in this situation? Should I think less of these people, if they actually believe that argument?

*Don't touch my loving hair, don't police my loving speech. Code-switching, motherfucka, ever hear of it?

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

https://twitter.com/sadladbukharin/status/873923135057395712

https://twitter.com/ItsTonyNow/status/873925537546334209

KomradeX posted:

Who plans on going sailing?

Jove posted:

I had a weird experience the other day.

I hate Milo Yiannapollis so much that I won't be bothered to google the cocksucker's (note: I'm am a proud practitioner and connisseur of fellatio; think "Deadwood") name to determine whether I correctly spelled it. I hate him so much that I would have to fight a strong compulsion to physically assault him if I ever "caught him outside". When I saw "I Am Not Your Negro", I watched it through gritted teeth and closed eyes half of the time, because of the anger; James Baldwin is pretty much my polestar for my thinking on race relations in America. J. Edgar Hoover had an FBI file on him. He was seen, by the American government, as an actual dangerous human being. We're talking matter vs. anti-matter here, basically.

I was having two drinks with two long time friends who are both aware of all of those facts. One is a gay white man who is getting his Ph. D at Yale and is married to a Google engineer; they live in Park Slope. The other is a straight, single Black woman of relatively recent Eritrean descent who works as a researcher with a well-known book publisher. I'm a gay Black man from the South whose stepfather was a Pentecostal pastor and I'm really excited for a job opportunity where I will literally be defending sex offenders daily as a substantial part of my practice.

At some point of in the conversation, my male friend states something to the effect of "The "liberal" response to Milo Fuckoppolois's apologia in defense of pedophilia and/or pederasty was, in itself, both homophobic and racist." My other friend agreed.

Of course, I didn't. At first, I was pretty much just like "gently caress THAT NIGGA*. If that's what it took to get conservatives to kick him off the island, I am all loving for it. He deserved it because he is a demon from the Abyss clothed in human flesh who should burn in an eternal goddamn car fire". The friend who made the initial statement stated that "part of the queer experience" includes "older men having sex with much younger men". I acknowledged that my first relationship constituted statutory rape but, like, I was going on 17 and other dude was 19. At that point, I thought I should look up That Cocksucker's actual statements to make sure I wasn't tilting at the wrong windmill. I tend to avoid any mention of him on the Internet because it raises my blood pressure and that poo poo runs in my family.

Anyway, when I learned that he advocated the rape of children as young as 13, my position became a bit more "AWWW HELLL NAAWW".

I admit that being a lawyer means that I can come across as aggressive when discussing diverging viewpoints with others, but I never make things "personal". That is, I don't attack the person, but I'm not afraid to be very incisive (e.g., "All legal scholars agree...", "You can't say that. You haven't read all legal scholars." "Okay. *Most* legal scholars agree..." You can't say that either. You literally cannot possible have read most legal scholarship. You can speak to what you have read, but you can't make expansive statements like that.").

I submit that arguing against such an apologia, or against the premise that pointing out its hideousness is somehow racist and homophobic, deserves aggressive arguments against either point.

The conversation devolved. I was told that I was "talking down" or "picking on" one or both of them and that I had no personal investment in the discussion (i.e., that I was more interested in scoring a "win"). I responded with the classic "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not sorry for a single thing I said." Except I literally said that.

We parted on a lighter note but I was still bothered when I got home. I remembered something: "Hold up. *I* was molested as a kid." And when I say remembered, I don't mean that I recovered a memory through deep hypnosis. It's just not something I regularly think about because it happened a long time ago and it wasn't my fault? I've told one of the two friends that fact before. And then I started thinking more.

How is that my friends, progressive as they strive to be, think that they can speak to me on the same level about this subject matter when they both occupy positions of relative privilege with regard to said subject matter, vis a vis me?

That is: Friend 1, you may be queer, but you're still a white male and white men are generally terrible. Also, you're married to a fellow Yale Ph. D Google engineer and you live in Park Slope. Friend 2: You're a black woman and, got drat, I know that is hard. But it's just generally hard being black and you have the benefit of, at the very least, a) not having your relationship be seen as aberrant, more often than not, b) finding a suitable mate in the first place, and 3) not literally living with the threat of death when you have sex, without having to take HIV medication on a daily basis to prevent possible infection.

Like, the more I think about this, the worse I feel. I feel disgusted, in a word.

So, basically, is this argument something that people have espoused in a way that holds water? Outside of directly insulting my interlocutors, in what way could I have been the "bad guy" in this situation? Should I think less of these people, if they actually believe that argument?

*Don't touch my loving hair, don't police my loving speech. Code-switching, motherfucka, ever hear of it?

Hand Knit posted:

What were these? The second account's been suspended.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

KomradeX posted:

So because we're all on SA I'm going to assume most of know that E3 (the videogame industry tradeshow) is going on right now and Bethesda released a trailer for a new Wolfenstine game. Apparently some of the internet Nazis are upset that a game made the Nazis the badguys

http://www.dorkly.com/post/83711/nazi-pissboys-are-crying-over-a-new-game-where-you-murder-nazis

Is this a bigger thing among these idiots or is it only the dumbest of the dumb?

Darkman Fanpage posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_BQfQMHvDs

what about the memes?