|
Lumpy the Cook posted:You are brutally stupid.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 19:18
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
A Deacon posted:This is it right here. Just look at Richard Spencer. He did a nazi salute with a loving martini and it got wall-to-wall worldwide coverage for a week. His organization doesn't even have 100 members. Don't tell me these people aren't consciously using the idiocy of the leftist media to promote their own platforms. Yes. And the key thing to understand is that ~HuffPo~ (and same for basically all other internet news sites) isn't a liberal outlet, it's an outlet that makes money off liberals and generating hype because some basically irrelevant dick said a racism is good business even though it unnecessarily magnifies the message. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:It's not that the group was dominant i terms of their numbers, to be clear. They were, and I really mean this, maybe 20 people in a group of thousands. It was that they posted literally 100s of times a day, in every thread we posted, such that you could no longer read the content we normally posted. At one point, somebody registered 3-4 accounts to just Longcat.jpg in every discussion until we agreed to engage with points he had pulled from angryharry.com. It was dominant in that it shut down all discussion for a couple of days until the technology for Facebook caught up and I could boot them. That's because jobless basement dwellers with lovely opinions and a misplaced sense of priority are the only people with the time and inclination to literally stay up six nights in a row to call someone an idiot on the internet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Well, yes. But if "dominant" means "taking up the bulk of discussion," then, welp... ok i'll just write two bots to simultaneously poo poo out 500 pro minority posts per second on stormfront extolling the virtues of the urban black muslim gay single mom and 500 posts per second in your feminist facebook group about how all feminists are ugly unwashed butch lesbos with an overabundance of body hair and/or beta cucks in need of a good redpilling. that way i dominate both the left and right wing discussion
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Trolls on Stormfront shutting down discussion is not exactly a common thing, though. Any niche group contains infiltrators and people trying to lock out conversation via subterfuge or spam, but it is considerably easier to execute in circumstances in which the evasion of bigotry is the objective of the community. So you're essentially saying that there are less liberals who can be bothered to go on a 72 hour mtn dew and cheeto powered shitposting spree in their mom's basement than there are right wingers who can be bothered to go on a 72 hour mtn dew and cheeto powered shitposting spree in their mom's basement.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:wrong That liberals can make good convincing arguments or that liberals tend to be idiot cheerleaders? Rogue0071 posted:As a Trotskyist, I would like to point out that while most US Trotskyists would agree that Sanders isn't a socialist (it's not really a contestable point if you're using a Marxist definition of socialism) WSWS/the SEP are an ultraleft fringe group that no one really likes whose main claim to fame is a conspiracy theory that the US SWP was complicit in Trotsky's assassination. I wouldn't call them "the major Trotskyist organization in the US" - insofar as that's a meaningful term it probably best describes Socialist Alternative. Are you a bad enough Trot to bcome the president?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
There is no war but class war, between the class of the nerd and the class of the overly well-adjusted normie scum.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:The unfuckable loser hate brigade may not be that numerous, but they're online 24/7 and angry enough to post nonstop, so they punch above their weight. and boy, is that a heavy weight
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:These statements are harmful and our fault. "Our" as in American society and the idea of masculinity itself judging a man's worth by their sexual partners. They don't excuse misogyny and especially racism (seriously, what the hell?), but they're a prime source for the stewing resentment and anger. If you're living in a basement (because you're a dumb gently caress who can't get his life in order and who's too incompetent to even flip burgers) and have never hosed (because you're a revolting piece of poo poo wearing a fedora no human being would touch with a ten foot pole, not because you don't want to) then yes, you're an unfuckable loser and a life failure. A life failure who would get professional help and basic income in a fairer society perhaps, but still a life failure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Judging men by how many women they have hosed is so sexist to both genders I don't know where to begin. Plenty of great guys have a decidedly non-epic sex life for whatever reason. This sort of misandristic/misogynistic message is what gets these socially-hopeless guys to get so twisted and nasty. They realise that a man is judged on his worth by how many women he has hosed, which in their case is 0. This causes them to both hate themselves and women for being the gatekeepers of male worth. A toxic stew that is the root of the rise of the alt-right. Men, please knock off judging your socially-hopeless brothers on how many women they have hosed, and we will all be much happier. if you choose to tear yourself up over how you can't get out of your lovely basement and nobody wants to gently caress you and then keep trying (very badly) and failing (also very badly) then you are objectively bad at life as defined by yourself, even if those criteria might not be good criteria
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yeah, commodifying basic human needs is the way forward. See also: countries with legal prostitution that aren't disproportionately terrible to women.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The issue isn't really the concept of a poor minority being less privileged than a poor white, its more that: This. To a person who doesn't spend their day worrying about social injustices, "privileged" means "is a rich gently caress with a Lambo parked in front of dad's 10000 sqft holiday home", not "slightly less oppressed than some other poor fuckers".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:The reason that Group A is treated very badly is because Group B controls all the resources and freedoms in the equation. You're acting as if institutional racism and patriarchy just popped into existence, apropos of nothing, and white men magically ascended to the top of the pile. not getting shat on, a literal zero sum game
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You've had this explained to you many times and you aren't getting it. How you meant it doesn't matter if you can't say it without being a condescending prick. You may not (consciously) think that poor whites are just trailer trash who deserve to be shat on, but you sure as hell are saying things that imply it. If you don't get that you're bad at communication.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
It is truly a signifier of a niggardly temperament to hold such opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:What do you suggest as an alternative, then? I think we've established that at least a meaningful percentage of the people offended by the term would be offended by any other term that means the same thing. We can't reasonably keep coming up with new words to avoid the inevitable co-opting and corrupting of progressive language, nor do I think we should abandon the idea of challenging people to consider their perspective when proposing social ideas. Actually debating honestly (you know, against the points and not the person, even if you think the person raising them is a raging rear end in a top hat), or straight-up saying you don't want to debate raging assholes because they're not worth debating in the first place. Both are better than saying "check you're privilege conservatailures  ". The first is more civilised and doesn't make you a smug rear end in a top hat who alienates people who are still forming their opinions while the second one is more honest and doesn't make you a smug rear end in a top hat who alienates people who are still forming their opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 22:55
|
|