Dont kill people. Unless they're nazis. Kill them.
This is why if Fields is found guilty on the hate crime charges, I am perfectly okay with him receiving the death penalty.
- Dad likes this
Jump to content
Posted by Phantom Roxas on 12 December 2018 - 04:22 PM
Inappropriate comments like this are what turned the last thread into such an unpleasant mess, so I’ll only ask this once: Knock it off.
The outcome was a forgone conclusion from the start. The left and their cowardly republican lap dogs wanted a scalp, and they went for the low hanging fruit.
World will have one less Nazi on the bright side, but the person he killed was no saint
Posted by Phantom Roxas on 03 November 2018 - 11:25 AM
Because "greater good" means different things to different people, and their greater good happens to run counter to yours. I'm by no means saying it's equally valid, or even close to being so, but I am asking you to understand why they think the way they do so you and others can start to understand just why political violence does more harm than good, instead of just being opposed to it as an arbitrary moral position.
And by "not understanding empathy," I mean the fact that you seem to think empathizing automatically means feeling sorry for them. It doesn't. You can feel greater contempt for people you empathize with. It has nothing to do with sympathy.
They have established that they think the way they do because they believe that Jews are somehow oppressing white people. I understand why they think the way they do, and I disagree with them. This is not some arbitrary moral position.
Yes, political violence does more harm than good. And yet when they actually murder someone in cold blood, Winter turns it right around and says that citing Heather Heyer is somehow "shilling." It is frustrating trying to point out that harm because Winter condemns the understanding you are asking for. Though I really shouldn't expect any better for someone who has constantly asked for my state to get invaded and bombed. He asks for political violence all the time, and it is genuinely frightening to me.
You're right I can feel greater contempt for people to empathize with. However, your initial responses seemed to be suggesting that I did not understand empathy because I showed that contempt, which is why I took your comment to mean that empathy had to mean feeling sorry for them in this case.
I'll give an example pertinent to the situation so you can see what I'm talking about.
Many people on every side hate the mainstream media. Some blame corporations, some blame liberals, some blame the Jews, and some blame any combination of the above. Can you really say that the actual problem is with the people who blame the Jews? Or is the media itself the biggest problem here? You can blame prejudices for leading people to their conclusions, sure, but the media itself is the universally agreed-upon problem, so what use is there in targeting the people who actually blame the Jews? It's counterintuitive. If the media was no longer such a huge problem, one of the things that could use to convince others that Jews/liberals/etc were the problem could no longer be used to support their case. In other words, targeting the media instead of the alt-right means that you can actually slow down the spread of their ideology.
Meanwhile, primarily targeting the alt-right feeds into the victim narrative that can be used to sway others to their side. Just look at Winter, someone we've seen slowly adopt alt-right talking points in real time (whether he realizes it or not) because people keep giving the alt-right, him, and his side fuel for their victim narrative, making them seem more sympathetic. It'll still be his fault if he takes that plunge just like it's my fault for me being close to doing so, but it's something your side probably could've stopped by actually going after the right targets instead of him and what he believes (and will likely believe) in.
The media is by no means universally agreed to be the problem. When Trump makes attacks on the media, there is a split between people who agree with him, and others still who point out that Trump's attacks on the free press are the problem. For those people, the blame shifts over to Trump, which destroys the idea that there could be any consensus that the media is the problem.
That said, I do understand your point that targeting the alt-right supports their narrative. However, I don't think that my side could've prevented the victim narrative by going over the "right" targets. Going back to your point about the media, think a bit more deeply. "Mainstream media" is still fairly broad. What outlets in the media are the greatest offenders? One relevant example that comes to mind would be Breitbart, a media outlet where Milo was a senior editor, that heavily promoted white supremacist and alt-right talking points, and was co-founded by Steve Bannon, who was also the former chief strategist for Trump.
I apologize if this seems like I'm trying to dismiss you. My intention here is to continue the position that I've been arguing from while trying to build on your examples. You say that my side could have prevented the fuel for the alt-right's victim narrative if we focused on the right targets. You also gave the mainstream media as an example of a far more appropriate target that people should be focusing on. The way I see it, these are not two separate targets, where people are focusing on one more than they should be focusing on the other. It's that they are both symptomatic of an even larger problem; specifically, the alt-right's influence on mainstream media. Rather than trying to delegate the focus between two different targets, challenge where they overlap. That may sound like a cop-out answer, but basically I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone to address what both you and I think are the greater problems here.
Posted by Phantom Roxas on 01 November 2018 - 11:00 AM
Yeah I'm gonna give this one a hard disagree. You can't dickride the constitution on everything else and then go and ignore part of it because of immigrant hysteria.
Thank you. Regardless of whatever position one may hold regarding immigration, ignoring an amendment so blatantly is absolutely not the way to go about it. It makes the Constitution look like something to be cherry-picked only when it suits Trump's whims, when even he is not above the Constitution.
Posted by Phantom Roxas on 30 October 2018 - 09:54 AM
The man decided to debate a black supremacist, and peacefully did so. He's already got more peaceful resolutions under his belt than antifa, and he's somehow banned from more places as well. He's banned for his views, while antifa is allowed to roam the campus with baseball bats attacking anybody who might be a nazi. I expect nothing less from universities at this point.
Never said he was a good person. I said he cares more about people than antifa does.Even with the domestic violence charge he STILL cares more about people than antifa does. One innocent person harmed by him, vs dozens on the antifa side. my point stands. like him or not, he's not leading in body count, and he's fully capapble of peaceful debate (and has done so numerous times), he's a shit person, who's still leagues ahead of antifa on the morality scale.
Okay, seriously, "black supremacist"? Explain to me how the heck that guy was a "black supremacist"?
You seem to be conflating general opposition to white supremacy with Antifa. Richard Spencer is a Nazi, and he also participated in Unite the Right, which did result in murder. He's banned for his views because they explicitly advocate for murder, genocide, and slavery. This isn't about attacking people who "might" be Nazis. This is about pushing back against people who are Nazis. You should expecting nothing less from universities, because banning Nazis is the appropriate course of action.
I don't know, not really super into labels
I don't particularly like roxas, and I certainly don't like his views, but we've been able to keep a decent convo going without mod interference. How about just leaving our section to us. If it's "toxic" to you, I got a solution, don't visit it and post in it!
You never really posted there, not frequently atleast. Roxas and Wharheit were the resident leftists in debates with Jesse and Speedroid occasionally coming in. If you're pissed that it's spilling out of debates, warn the shit out of that. It shouldn't happen and I'm guilty. But I don't see why a bunch of people who can't be bothered to post in debates wanna tell us how to run it
I can post several other examples from this thread alone. Proto's use of "fascist" is hardly any different from the utter disdain with which you constantly use "leftist", so you can stop pretending that you're not into labels.
Posted by Phantom Roxas on 24 October 2018 - 10:13 PM
I think "Debates" works fine as it is. Adding "and Political Discussion" seems redundant, when quite frankly that's all that Debates generally seems to be used for these days.
If anything, it could stand to be made into its own section, rather than a sub-section of General. Keep it in other, and update the description from "A place for debates and controversial topics" to "A place for debates and controversial topics, such as politics."
A common issue is that some threads are started in General, and are often (But not always) moved to Debates. In the cases with the status bar, there are basically too different dynamics. Either someone posts a status which would be better served as the topic for a thread in Debates, or someone makes a status referring to an ongoing thread in Debates. Given the past threads about controversial statuses, it's already been well established what content is more appropriate for Debates than the status bar.
If there are going to be new warning policies, it might be better to design them so that they build on those rules for the status bar, as well as reiterate the rules for Debates.
Posted by Phantom Roxas on 24 October 2018 - 12:17 AM
Well no, like I can't fully speak for val1ne, but both him and I so far don't really care about Proto's ad hom for example. It just comes with the territory and you're better off just not letting it get under your skin. Val1ne, as far as I saw, didn't say people can't not say they're trans? Did he?
Proto's ad hom is certainly out of line, but I think that you and vla1ne are having your own discussion with Proto, which I'd rather not involve myself in, so I've been limiting my responses solely to what vla1ne has been saying to me. As you said, it is better not letting vla1ne's comments getting under my skin.
vla1ne didn't go so far as to say that people can't (Or can't not? Not sure if that double negative was intentional or a typo, but I think my point will be consistent regardless) say they're trans, so much as even if they do state that they're transgender or whatever their preferred pronouns will be, he'll just "cut through the bullshit and call them he or she", which to me is more that he's disregarding their statements and presenting himself as speaking more closely to the truth than they are. It just seems rather... arrogant, for lack of a better word.
Posted by Phantom Roxas on 18 October 2018 - 12:46 AM
Putting aside California specifically, I'm frankly not all that sympathetic to Comcast's plight here. The net neutrality repeal was handled in a completely underhanded manner, and had more to do with Ajit Pai's own personal ambitions and association with Verizon than any reasonable purpose that could benefit the country in any way. It was just a money grab, and nothing more.
Just look at how Verizon throttled a fire department during a wildfire. The repeal allows companies like Verizon to do that "legally", so if this law can prevent a company like Comcast from throttling customers, then the problem isn't with California proposing this new law. It just means that Comcast is complaining that they can't get away with something that's already pretty scummy in the first place.
Given how much money Comcast blew on those bidding wars against Disney, Comcast has generally been blowing all their money to begin with, so it's their own fault they've incurred a massive amount of debt. Don't blame the law when you can't pay off a debt that you have only yourself to blame for.
Posted by Phantom Roxas on 24 September 2018 - 06:52 PM
being vulnerable to hand traps doesn't make cards bad, especially when they essentially force the activation.
Exactly. "This card can be negated by a card specifically designed to negate it, therefore it sucks" is a fairly weak critique. As pointed out, there are other plays you can still make, but this can still successfully bait your opponent. If your opponent decides to negate this, you've at least managed to make them waste an activation while ideally minimizing the net cost to yourself.
Posted by Phantom Roxas on 18 September 2018 - 09:53 PM
The Unicron Trilogy was probably my favorite continuity, though I seriously doubt it's aged very well, mostly due to the dub and animation both being extremely rushed. Armada is pretty good, though Energon is... very mixed. I'm aware it has a reputation as the single worst show of the franchise, but I feel like that's a bit harsh.
Cybertron, though, is a pretty great finale to that trilogy. It can be fairly standalone if you just want to skip to Cybertron, mostly because Studio Gonzo didn't realize that it was supposed to be a continuity of Armada and Energon.
And thanks to the Unicron Trilogy, Hot Shot is one of my favorite Transformers. Bumblebee who?
Starscream is the actual best, though.