Jump to content

Welcome to Yugioh Card Maker Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Member Since 19 Feb 2013
Member ID: 659,748
Currently Using Personal Messenger
Offline Last Active 23 minutes ago

#7131776 James Fields Jr found guilty of first-degree murder

Posted by vla1ne on Yesterday, 11:24 PM

That doesn't apply to this case, he didn't try to kill them, he accidentally hit them. Malicious intent were the exact words used to define this case. That is blatantly false. Do your really think that he would not have been able to absolutely murder, or eternally cripple at least a dozen or so in a car that can go 0-60 in under ten seconds?  Also, you continue to ignore the illegal roadblock that heavily factors into this entire incident. Standing in the road when you shouldn't be, while blocking multiple paths out of the area illegally, generally increases the chance of getting hit by a car. Attacking a vehicle in the road, after they have already encountered hostile armed members of your group, is pretty much a perfect formula for at least one vehicle hitting a person. To say nothing of a group of people driving their way down the road, blocking off many cars ways of leaving. in fact, the car he hit was also stifled by the massive crowd that should not have been there. Remove the antifa factor from any protest involving right wing views, and the violence is all but guaranteed to drop to zero.

We've seen it in multiple areas, multiple times

Remove the alt-right from any protest that antifa's involved in, and the violence remains the same. See the problem with your analogy? One side increases the violence no matter where they jump in, the other only seems to have any violence at all when the already violent group jumps in. the beliefs of one side are clearly undesirable (i doubt anybody here agrees with any supremacist race argument) but the beleifs and actions of the other side, both are just as bad, if not worse than their opponents, as they take things to the next level. 


His beliefs alone didn't cause the actions, the actions of others also influenced this outcome. You are removing the autonomy from the people involved, with the exception of just one, and you only do so, because of your own bias. (and no, the same does not apply to me, i've already said my piece on his actions. I neither condone or support hitting people with cars, and I've already stated he does indeed deserve jailtime for them, intentional or not.)


I'll defend whomever i see fit to defend.

#7131691 James Fields Jr found guilty of first-degree murder

Posted by vla1ne on Yesterday, 12:11 AM

Keeping my own responses brief as well, first off, his political opinions, while relevant to the rally, do nothing for the actual case. It's virtue signaling at best, and ad hoc arguing at worst. Relating to the court case:


That professor is on record, on the day of the event, instructing people to block traffic, to create public disturbance, and generally cause trouble at what could have been, and what would have been, a rather peaceful protest on that day. In other words, dixon was completely in the wrong, no matter what fields did (this does not absolve fields, but again, it removes any argument of intent). It's been shown in court that fields had attempted to leave, and that he'd inputted directions into google maps to find out how he could, yet his options were blocked, by the commands of a particular professsor who had ZERO authority to block road traffic, and had no discernible reason to brandish a weapon in said roads towards vehicles yet he did so anyways, as his own post proudly proclaims. 


In short, this was not willful murder, this was manslaughter at best. His available actions were sealed off with established malicious intent, and while he deserves jailtime for the death of another person, his only real mistake was being afraid if the group of nutjobs who would willingly allow themselves to be hit by traffic, all so they can persecute a group of people who were doing no harm to them.

#7131654 James Fields Jr found guilty of first-degree murder

Posted by vla1ne on 12 December 2018 - 07:40 PM

Wonder what they're gonna sentence the guy who made fields drive off with

It's all good though, because the guy convicted was a white supremacist. Any and all actions relating to White Supremacists are automatically malicious. Proving intent? Nah, dude only went there to spew hatred and kill people. No need to look any deeper, because the guy was clearly evil from the get-go. It's not like any regular people were there as well, or like anybody who was there had disavowed the actions of the previous day.



Seriously though, Yeah, he deserves jailtime, can't even argue that. Regardless of reasons, he ended a life, and harmed multiple others. That said, stamping him with the title of "white supremacist with malicious intent" is not something that has even remotely been proven yet. We have ample reason to believe things had gotten far too hectic, and james may well have been placed into a state of panic by the inclusion of weaponry. Does that justify his actions? Not in the least, but it does negate the attempt to stamp intent where it does not belong. Involuntary manslaughter, 5-10 years, and call it a sentence. He's not some absolute villain. He's got no history of violent offenses. He's a guy that majorly fucked up, and while punishment is not even a question, his sentence should reflect the actual circumstances of the action, not the perceived image of it. That said, he's likely going to get the full book thrown at him, and that's about the saddest thing i can think of.

#7129276 Raidraptor - Call

Posted by vla1ne on 21 November 2018 - 12:13 AM

How reliable has it been for you to search pain lanius with force strix? It's a line of play I haven't seen before.

Frankly, I think that what it comes down to is that fuzzy lanous is the only truly powerful card that is lost by skipping out on the xenophobia, and it doesn't provide enough to justify losing all the other outside techs. These new cards do not only support a pure build, nor do they support it disproportionately over the logical mixed lists, so I don't think they should be considered as a factor for the two builds in comparison to each other.

At the end of the day, I'd argue that from a competitive (or at the very least attempting to use a given deck to the best of its capacity, which even many casual players strive for) standpoint, it doesn't matter if the new cards make a pure build less terrible, as it is still the objectively more effective way to build the deck.

oof, Was thinking singing while typing pain lanius. Meant to say nest searches pain lanius. That was my bad.


The Link, while mostly triggering off of Xyz effects, doesn't need them to do crazy stuff. On the other hand, the R7 kinda thrives in the pure build. It doesn't restrict non pure builds, but ED space is really tight in the deck, so the more RR's you have in there, the bigger a threat the R7 becomes, as it can throw out the appropriate birb for the situation, and gains additional attacks based on it's RR materials, which the pure build would give it more often than any other build. which increases the OTK power it has, and allows it to do more both on field and in death.


I'm in agreement that non pure (or at least not absolutely pure) builds are better overall right now in the tcg. My point though, is that call is a stronger card the purer your build, and the two cards mentioned (wise and R7) make the pure build capable of being run with peak efficiency. Keep in mind, i'm discussing this in the context of a pure build, which, while arguably a more casual means of play, remains a form of deckbuilding that can indeed be perfected. Some people actually take pride in running decks as purely as possible, and making them competitive. I have this habit for some of my decks as well. In non pure builds call is pretty much not an option (except that one crazy bastard who topped a year or so back running call in his deck). but in pure builds, call is an incredible card, and is arguably essential in maxing out the power of the pure deck. Not trampling on hybrid builds or anything, just saying that RR-call has to be optimally considered if you plan on running it. Thus, the only build that it can be optimally considered in, is the pure build, where the restrictions don't limit it so much. You can use tools like allure to boost consistency anyways in either build.

#7126715 Political Violence

Posted by vla1ne on 02 November 2018 - 06:06 AM

alright, lot's happened, but starting from square one: just a heads up, I rushed this one out, and some of the quote parameters screwed up, so i'll be trying to separate them properly via lines

Seriously? The dude created Vice. He knows that broadly, broadcasting yourself as something we've literally gone to war against while claiming to be "pro-American" isn't good for business so he's trying to avoid the title while holding rather openly racist views. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Also, pray tell how white nationalists plan to actually expel every single  minority from America without resorting to violence and how I should differentiate them in the slightest? Like picture what an actual white nationalist American rule would look like, then attempt to differentiate that with what the Nazis wanted.

What do you expect we're just gonna borrow enough money to PAY every black, brown, yellow, jewish and red person to leave? Nah. There's no feasible price for sending citizens back to a shithole. So basically they're totalitarians that advocate for the extermination of everyone who's not white, that's Nazi shit. No reason to play by their name games.

He's a white nationalist, authoritarian, antisemite. The fuck else do you need a swaztika tattoo? If you're gonna play this game literally nobody besides people who rock the hammer and sickles are communists.
Gonna drop the Spencer shit because it's falling under viewpoint arguing and that's not gonna be productive for this already wall of text discussion. I don't judge people by their skin color, gender, sex or really anything besides being disingenious or lying. Also I'm not talking about this video when I said he made a video about "10 Things I Hate About Jews". Just merely, context for you to understand the full picture, the link below shows what he said before he censored himself to "Israel" after realizing that this video might get him in some bad water



That's not a mark against him. Vice has some rather left and right leaning coverage. in fact, is among the more fair reporting sites, which lends more credence to my own points than to yours. That said, I will repeat it, he is not a white supremacist, and this is one of the issues i have with your own viewpoint. He doesn't fit inside your organized political bubble, so you, among others, decide to call him something he is not. fact is, he's not a white supremacist. Fact is, you have not even attempted to understand where he is coming from, and fact is, you don't even want to. Drop the topic. seriously. you're blatantly wrong.


What in the hell are you even on about here? I've explained it multiple times. he is not. he is only being painted as such because he's a white man speaking out against people who advocate racism against white men. end of story. you are viewpoint arguing for Gavin as well. he is nothing like Spencer, yet you attempt to place them in the same league. they might not hate each other, but they both disagree. stop it. it's disingenuous. and I have seen no argument for it that doesn't boil down to "He's a white supremascist only because he doesn't agree with me"


Yeah, again, that's people being fucking stupid. Let me explain something to you, left wing people do not like him, and they take his views out of context. Israeli news, the most likely place to be offended, caught on to the joke. the only people who didn't, are the people who make a living off of getting outraged.




seriously, drop it, you're just plain wrong here.





Which is why you linked a video of Antifa by a guy who's whole video catalogue is just him provoking leftist protestors and continue to represent them solely as a violent mob when there have been far more non-violent rallies with dudes with black masks then not. Because you care so much about representing ideas fairly right? Even the most violent Antifa protest has about as many arrests as a rowdy football game (with about the same amount of violent crimes because we don't kill people). Yet, what do you choose to defend so vehemently? The racist guy because he wears a suit and he's conservative.  

Freedom of speech doesn't give you the freedom to not get punished for what you say and it doesn't even grant you an audience so to speak. You have your freedom to speak what you want, you don't have control over the audience, the protestors have every right to freely scream at your reporter dude yet you don't seem too inclined to dignify theirs yet when a guy comes with a suit and starts calling black people monkeys you immediately start thinking "what if there's more to this, obviously the media's crucifying him, this can't be true."

As listed before, he doesn't say how he hates jews in that video, he talks about it in another one that he re-titled 10 Reasons Why I Hate Israel.

I'm not looking for reasons to attack people, I'm stating what I already know about someone and proving that his influence is incredibly harmful for me personally and many others. I'm not labeling everyone a Nazi, I've never called you a Nazi once, I've never called Polaris a Nazi once, I didn't even call Melkor a Nazi I called him a fascist sympathizer because of the quote below. I'm just calling the white nationalist antisemetic authoritarian who believes that the holocaust is greatly exaggerated and that some "unknown forces" are controlling the media in order to make white people feel bad and go extinct.
Woo. He said he was joking later in that same conversation you're quoting me from but apparently that's all anyone needs to say to convince you that they're not something.
Funny how you link a hilariously partisan man who's job appears only to aggrievate protestors in order to make this comparison.




They aren't arrested because the city is on their side. Take a look at Portland, where they blatantly obstruct traffic laws, cause property damage, and attack anybody who disagrees. If you call the cops not breaking them up, fair and balanced, then we have polar opposite views on the subject. You've been proven wrong on the Gaving thing already, leave it alone. Again, i don't support the proud boys. but unlike antifa, their entire shtick is that don't start the violence, they finish it. I still condemn them for seeking violence. but they are leagues better than the group that seeks and starts the violence. end of story.


it also doesn't give others the right to attack you. and the spirit of freedom of speech is an actual concept, that discourages attacking or "punishing" people. they don't have control over the audience, but unlike you and antifa, they know it already. they don't break into leftist rallies ant attack people, or try to get leftist rallies shut down half as often as antifa and other leftist groups. your side is the one attempting to control hte audience. days ago, they attempted to shut down a speech by Milo. When has Milo done that to them? he hasn't, because he has a better grasp of freedom of speech than they do. Don't project your views onto the left, you've advocated speech control in this very thread, you don't get to then attempt and project it onto your opponent.


And I've already BTFO'd that argument using the most Jewish site possible.


Yeah you are. You're taking  the views of others FAR out of context, and then claiming your warped opinion is justification for punishing those you disagree with. Stop it.



he may be partisan, but he is not violent, nor does he attempt, at any point to be violent. that's why i use him, to prove that point. no matter the opposing view, violence isn't the way to oppose it. debate is. could have used a leftist to push that point, but that's somewhat hard to find right now.



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 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.


He advocated blacks needing their own safe spaces within the nation, among other parallels to Spencer, and has been known to promote violence against whites. arguably, that places him under the black supremacist label. i don't care too much to argue the label though. I could easily be wrong about what label he fits under, as it's been a while since i've seen the debate, and the debate itself seems to have been scrubbed from youtube, while google's hiding the site i used to find it last time(gonna try searching via bing later on after work, but likely same problem will occur),  


he's not a nazi, he's a white supremacist. the two are related, but not the same. unite the right was not a violent event inherently, it just had the misfortune of actual white supremacists appearing to screw everything up. very few people actually liked the way that event went down, as it ruined the optics for both sides, on both sides. you can argue back, but when you support attacking, as many here have, you are on another level of disagreement. not it's not. universities were once places you could encounter and debate opposing views, while understanding the opposing points. if they ban that ability, then they they fail themselves and their students.


I use leftist to describe leftist. notice i don't address people who's views don't seem to paint them as such. If you aren't a leftist, then please tell me as much and i'll retract the statement. 

#7125985 Political Violence

Posted by vla1ne on 29 October 2018 - 01:34 PM

Incorrect. I stand against it as well. I simply don't need violence to do so. (if swung on first, i will definitely fight back, but till then, words are words). More racists have been converted through compassion and discourse than through violence. So i take that route first, as it's the most effective. In fact, just three days ago, i had a discussion about it with two ethno-nationalists online. Both thought they held the same correct views, but upon having a proper (long as hell) discussion, i managed to bring one round to my side, to reach an agreement on the topic (The other was a lost cause, but that's life).  That would not happen if i just went in screaming "you're both racists and need to die!". You can only change minds through nuance and debate. Some won't change, but far more will.

#7125973 Political Violence

Posted by vla1ne on 29 October 2018 - 01:25 PM

As long as Antifa is beating the fuck out of racists then I have no issue with them. No, I won't change my mind. Not if they kill a racist either. That's just one less racist in the world.

And if you can sympathize with the racists, you can get your ass beat too. I don't care what color you are. No tolerance for intolerance.

You wanted extreme? Here you go. I will NOT change my mind on that.

Then we disagree fundamentally. 

#7125970 Delete Debates

Posted by vla1ne on 29 October 2018 - 01:22 PM


But that aside, since the matter did come up in the other discussion regarding changes, do you all want Debates to be its own separate area outside of General or keep it as-is?

Where it is now looks fine to me. People who don't like it don't have to see it every day, people who participate still know where it is. Changing the location wouldn't do anything for those of us who participate, while it would likely further annoy those who don't. 

  • Yui likes this

#7125950 Political Violence

Posted by vla1ne on 29 October 2018 - 12:06 PM

...Ok, starting slowly.

If your line of ratonilizing the presence of a group of people who have threatened (publicly) the safety of innocents, and have (there's plenty of proud boys on camera who have beaten people up if you bother to look) started fights is because they "respect personal space", then this argument is moot.

I can respect your personal space and still put a bullet between your eyes. That's a piss poor argument and you know it.

"Racist or not" those proud boys won't give a fuck about your personal space because you're a black man in America. That's factually true. But as long as you respect them for their views and tolerate their intolerance, maybe they'll kill you last.

Self defense, and initiating violence are two different things. In this case, the proud boys were the victims.

 there's plenty of antifa members on camera also beating up and harassing innocent people, damaging property, and causing civil unrest (blocking roads in the most busy section of the city, with no legal permissions at all). my statement was that in this case, the proud boys did nothing wrong. I'm allied with neither side, but one group is clearly the bigger piece of shit in this instance.


No you can't. If i throw a rock, is that respecting personal space? No. Neither is a bullet. that said, proud boys are known for popping shit, but they don't really attack people who haven't swung first.


You are so wrong i can't even figure out how you came to that conclusion.

My Dude, there are Black, White, Asian, Latino, and all manner of other races in the proud boys. but just watch this to get my point.

I can link you to quite a few black proud boys. I may not support the group, but they aren't a criminal organization like antifa. Antifa attacks everybody, while proud boys swing on only those who swing first. (they welcome it in fact) The main people the proud boys are fucking up are the antifa members, because antifa always swings first. 




White supremacist Richard Spencer is banned from University of Virginia for his role in Unite the Right, and his wife is divorcing him after years of domestic abuse, including choking her and breaking her jaw while she was four months pregnant with their daughter.


And this is someone who "cares about people"?

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.



Saying "people wear Obama attire now" when the shock value and media anger regarding him has died down incredibly hard is an incredibly bad argument. Give the Maga cap 8-10 years and see how many people actually care about it. It's like someone wearing a Reagan/Bush shirt or some shit. Like their policies were traumatic to a lot of people, but it was a long enough time ago, and media hasn't covered it soon enough that it doesn't feel like a real, active threat. And give me the police stats because you guys are pretty bad at the whole sources thing.


They respect personal space because they have the luxury of being able to have a viewpoint that isn't out of line with the ones that this country was founded upon. If you believe that you can "just debate" white nationalists then you have no idea about how the concept of racism works. It's not something logical that someone can just think about and not be racist anymore in most cases, it doesn't make sense, it's like trying to curb someone else from a religion. And even if racism was something comparable to say, an economic policy and these people ran off of statistics and fact instead of presuppositions and anecdote. There is a lot of proof that the debate format doesn't actually "change minds" at all. I don't do this for you or Melkor to stop being conservative, I do this mostly out of entertainment and so kids or young adults looking at this website don't immediately see your view as "normal" or something that's informed in the slightest.


When someone gets their entire money stream by being a racist piece of garbage, even if they're convinced to not be a racist piece of garbage I don't think that they can just walk away and admit "hey I lost I'm a liberal now". No! That's straight up shooting themselves in the foot in terms of power, donors and everything. Since these people are by the books capitalistic and since they've developed their whole platform and success off of being racist, they literally have no incentive to change their ways. And in order to maintain that success they'll do whatever it takes to maintain the rage that surrounds them.


Whenever you see someone who caters to a mostly conservative audience like Ben Shapiro stating something that is even remotely critical "If your immediate thoughts about the bombs is 'FALSE FLAG' you're delusional" and you look at the comments you see a massive amount of anger and backlash. The same with Jordan Peterson when he mentioned that the most powerful move for the Republican Congress to do as a result of the Kavanaugh controversy would be to just elect another candidate. Their comments got absolutely flooded with comments about how upset their fanbase is. Meanwhile, Candace Owens reaffirming that there was "No way that the bomber was a conservative." even after being proven directly wrong STILL remains to be one of her most popular tweets. People don't care about facts, they care about getting their assumptions justified by popular figures regardless of how many numbers get fudged or how tinted the lenses are.


The Proud Boys already have their "foots in the door" ideologically, heavy players in the Republican scene have already showed sympathy to them. https://thinkprogres...s-0fab787e0ddc/ Nelson Dias is the chairman of the the republican party in Miami and he was the one who organized this event. Gavin, who is the leader of the Proud Boys literally created Vice. He is VERY good at marketing and seeming "cool" to hide his white supremacist views. If left to themselves do you really think its farfetched to say that they would be able to influence politicians if gone unchecked given that he already has? Would Nelson Dias even know they were white supremacists if not for the brawl that drew it wide open?


EDIT: https://thehill.com/...tic-slur-before




But hey both sides! Nazis didn't do anything wrong right? Totally nonviolent, that group. Fuck Antifa right bros?




Keep debating about Antifa when a white supremacist shot two black grandparents in a church, this week, saw a white guy, said "Whites don't kill whites" and went on with this day.




Keep debating about Antifa when your president's reaction to someone opening fire on a synagogue for entirely anti-semetic reasons with an assault rifle and injuring three fully armed policemen is that "If they had more protection the results would've been better."






Keep debating about some fucks in masks who haven't killed anyone when you have Trump-loving maniacs literally mailing bombs to political dissenders.


And all of the above? Same week.


I'm done debating ya'll. Warn me if you want. I've got nothing more to say.


It’s a bad argument because you didn’t even read it. I said people were wearing it since he went into office. Not after he left (they do, but that wasn’t my statement) but as he was running. I saw people wearing it proudly everywhere in the news and in real life. Not just at rallies, but at home as well. People were selling shirts on the streets, in the stores, it was wall to wall coverage of people who proudly wore “change" shirts and not one person being kicked out of a store or beaten by an angry protest mob. Go back and read, your post here applies to nothing I said.


Yeah, freedom of speech, and the balls to defend it. Oh? You can’t just debate white nationalists? Then what about the black supremacist that debated him? No violence, all discussion. That statement was dead before you ever posted it.  I agree, you can’t immediately change people’s minds completely on most things like this, but you can make them rethink it, chipping away one step at a time, and there’s actual groups that do that, and guess what, they do it through debate. Comparing it to religion is just beautiful, because atheists often start out on one end of the theist spectrum, and become atheists over time as they debate the ideas. You are proving my point quite well in fact. You can’t beat it into them. That only entrenches them deeper; you use reason, logic, and human compassion. I’m center actually. Not conservative. Ask melkor or anybody else on the site, I debate as much with the left as with the right, the left just has things that I disagree with right now.


Yeah they can. Important people on all sides have changed their minds on many a topic. This would be no different. It may take a while, but it could easily happen. …Who exactly are “these people”? What you’re currently attempting is called a strawman argument. You’re attributing whatever you like to “these people” and attempting to use those attributes to form an argument. Stop it. It’s not helping your argument.


There may have be backlash, but the right’s open to actual arguments. There are disagreements, and there is backlash, but there are points to be made, and there are debates to be held. many people on the right  and center debate each other. People have opposing views, and the debate among them is how they work those views out. For example, the backlash against Peterson was for the same reasons I posted in the kananaugh thread, which, need I remind you, nobody had even one solid argument against. Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land, and the spirit of the nation. With no evidence, we do not throw people under the bus. therefore we do not remove a candidate on empty claims. Peterson apparently forgot that, and got BTFO’d like everybody else. The opposition to the bomber being republican is due to the timing, the placement, and the schematics. Nobody has yet to explain why a trump supporter would send out 11+ bombs, arriving within days of each other all by courier, mere weeks before the election when it could hurt the republicans the absolute most (he’s stupid is the only argument I’ve heard, and that just doesn’t really do it for me). I don’t much care about his views though. Sure he can be a trump supporter. Doesn’t mean he speaks for me, other trump supporters, or trump himself.


I mean, there are black, Asian, jewish, Spanish, and all other manner of people in the proud boys, all across the globe, if the proud boys are racist, then they’re really, really shitty racists.


He’s also extremely anti trump, and used twitter and facebook to express his hatred of trump and his hatred of jews. (only gab got blamed though, which is strange to me) So I don’t see what you’re getting at here. He was a horrible person? Fine, I agree. And yeah, fuck antifa AND that guy. I don’t have to exclude one to say fuck the other.


Yes, I shall keep debating antifa, because nothing about debating antifa prevents me from calling out white supremacists. Both are shitty kinds of people, and I don’t mind calling them shitty people.


They’ve hospitalized hundreds, the only reason there’s no deaths is because their weak little soy bodies can’t do enough damage.


Also, are you serious? The link you use states in no uncertain terms, that the people involved in the vigil to mourn the dead, turned the formerly apolitical, respectful vigil into a political attack on trump well before he even said anything bad about them. In fact, he said nothing bad at all relating to them. He didn’t say fuck the victims, he didn’t say all jews must die. he was 100% courteous, respectful, and honorable. You posted a flat out example of trump derangement syndrome, thinking it’s an argument against trump? Not only that, but you take one single line out of an entire timeline of trump being a proper leader, and attempt to make it sound sinister. Where’s you quote of all the times in the very same argument you linked where trump blatantly condemned this, and all other political and non-political violence. Where’s your quotes of him calling this event, and events like it acts of pure evil. You might have missed them all in your dive for the absolute worst possible thing you could fine, which is hilariously enough, you being fake outraged at trump calling for better protection of religious establishments. Nothing about this shooting was political, until the people who hate trump decided it was. Everybody agrees it was a horrible act, everybody agrees that the criminal is a shit person, yet the second you get to trump proposing a future defense against events like this, you decide that’s somehow wrong? That’s cool.


Yep, same week, two weeks before elections, such surprises. Much coincidence. A trump supporter and an anti-trumpet (also anti Semite) decide to commit crimes, the trumpet sends dud bombs towards people they believe to be anti-trump, the anti-semetic-never-trumpet decides to shoot up a synagogue that they might believe to believe to be pro trump. The trumpet has zero victims, the media blames trump, the anti-trumpet has multiple fatalities, the media blames trump. Perfect  logic right there.


but by all means. by your own words, we're done here.

#7125263 Trump Administration Plans To Define Gender As What You Are Born As, Rolling...

Posted by vla1ne on 24 October 2018 - 06:49 PM

I'd like to throw in some food for thought.
When my hair was longer I'd often be called ma'am and such especially by older people.
Should I not correct them? Am I forcing people to do something when asking them to call me male?
And how is that different from a trans person wanting to be called a certain gender?

If you want to, sure. If you request it, then that's fine, and that's well within your rights. If they say no, that's their choice, and well within their rights. In fact, as an anecdote, i went back in my statuses to find this gem: so... turns out half the residents at my job think i'm a female... make of that what you will.

 I've dealt with the same thing, and while some people corrected themselves, others never have, and still to this day think i'm a girl. do i get upset about it? No, that's just how life is.

I treat it like religion. I'm not religious, and i don't subscribe to theistic beliefs. If somebody else does, then i will not rag on them for it, but i also don't want them trying to make me call them some strange ass pronoun. I'm liable to go along with it for a bit if it's basic "he" and "she" swapping, i don't always mind playing along, since i to do something similar for dementia and Alzheimer patients on a regular basis, but when it goes from he and she to zim zier and all the other reindeer, that's when i'm more likely to treat it like preaching and just walk off quietly. 



I've linked the stats proving that trans discrimination is an issue, it's got more then what I've stated. Getting rid of protections when those stats exist is bad and wrong especially with a vice president that supports conversion therapy.

I don't keep a lot of attention on sports but I know that the Olympic standard is that it's based off sex. If that's not the case for a majority of sports I disagree with it but it has nothing to do with the law. These sort of rules change entirely based off the organization.

I'll concede the retirement home thing because I dont know enough about the field that 5 years of experience wont make due for.

Sure, do you believe that if I, a black man. Get employed by someone and they call me a nigger every day but do nothing else, should I be able to sue him? If its really about being able to say whatever you want. Just every day instead of using my name, says nigger even after I've corrected him.

supporting it and enforcing it are two different things, and while discrimination is a thing, it does not negate the statement i made. every single race, gender, sexual preference, ect. can be, (and most have been) discriminated against. doesn't make it any less illegal, or any less liable for lawsuits.


Personally, while i don't condone it, I can't say i don't find it hilarious.


Nigger's not a biological sex. I have white friends who call me nigger cause we know each other well enough to joke about that. If they don't know you though and they're calling you nigger, then that's just weird. and more than likely racist. Can you sue them? Probably, but overall "that nigger's over there" is a vastly different context than just saying "he's over there" one is a blatant exception to the standard rule, the other is applying the standard rule to somebody who doesn't want the rule applied to them. The two really don't correlate. Personally, i wouldn't sue them, i'd just roast the shit out of them on sight, but you do you it's a reasonable enough option.




Nothing you have said suggests you're fine with what people call themselves. You called their preferences bullshit, position yourself as more correct, and when you tell them "No", you are presenting your disagreement with their gender identity as though you were speaking fact. That is exactly what it means to obligate people to deal with your feelings. If you didn't care, you wouldn't insist on "correcting" them and telling them "No, I'm going to call you this." You want them to just deal with you outright ignoring their preferences. How does that make you in any way better than them?

Quote even one time that I've said you cannot call yourself, whatever you like. The only thing I've said, is that you don't get to tell me what to call you. In fact, i don't even care what people call me. My stance from the beginning has been that the new ruling in question will neither dehumanize, nor disenfranchise trans people, and laws that force people to play nice with their words are little more than semi-thought policing that couldn't stand for 5 seconds under freedom of speech.

#7125086 Trump Administration Plans To Define Gender As What You Are Born As, Rolling...

Posted by vla1ne on 23 October 2018 - 06:54 PM

"I don't feel like dealing with people's preferences" makes it sound like that's somehow a bigger burden than it actually is. No one is being "forced" to play by anyone else's "rules", nor are they "shoving it in your face."
The idea that there are only two genders has been proven false. As scientific study has advanced over the years, it's more properly understood to be a broad spectrum, not a simple binary.
"I don't feel like dealing with it" isn't about being rational. It's about choosing to ignore modern science, so Proto is correct in stating that the primary reason to misgender someone is simply because of discrimination. 


Never said it's a burden of any magnitude, i simply am not the type to play along. I'll call you your name, and refer to you by your sex. your assumed gender is irrelevant to me.


There can be however many genders you like. There are only two sexes. (male and female). As such, there are only two relevant genders. The rest are either mythical bollocks (like dragon kin) or paid DLC (trans surgery).


It's me telling you i'm not playing along. If you're a man, i'm calling you he. If you're a woman, i'm calling you she. If you've had the trans surgery, then i'll call you whichever one you transferred to. It's that simple.



You're hitting me with the "what discrimination"? Well, they have a far higher chance of being bullied to the point of killing themselves, 25% mentioned losing a job for refusing to confirm to gender norms, they're nearly four times as likely to be in poverty, and around 90% have said that they've experienced some sort of transgender-based discrimination. 




"You're too broke for a car" is a shitty comparison to make. They can afford it, this is in the direction of enacting policies that will unnecessarily make it far more costly to do something that solves their gender dysphoria. The comparison between health care coverage and the car is so garbage like. This is a really shitty argument. Would you argue that if a drug addict's premiums for care went off due to not being covered by healthcare they should "work for" being able to go to rehab? Should a suicidal person have to "work for" anti-depressants? Should someone who's dying from AIDS or diabetes need to "work for" their medication to live when they're rendered incredibly weak? Seriously?

I'm against any bullies that much is well agreed upon. If they refuse to fill out the form on a job application properly for the sake of breaking gender norms, then that's not the jobs fault. just register as your sex and get over it. Tell 25% of them to properly fill the job forms out and you'd solve a third of that issue. You can tell them to sue if they're being discriminated against and have even one trace of a case.


Place the trans condition in the mental health issues box where it belongs and you can fund the sex change medication all you like under the same conditions as mental health. Problem solved.




I mean sure but if you're hired by someone and they keep hitting you with the "hey fatass", "you giant piece of lard" "why don't you take off a few pounds, fatty" then hey, that should be counting as harassment right?


You call them by their name, sure, instead of fatass, retard, or ugly, other nouns that you could easily use to express both your disgust and make them feel like shit. But, you don't do that because you're not an asshole. 


I'm sorry I gotta do this but since Winter keeps referencing shit that doesn't go down in California I straight up don't trust what you debate folk have to say about it, so I'm gonna need to hit you with the "SOURCE OR GTFO".


Yes, which gives them MORE scrutiny to be torn apart and discouraged and probably shat on instead of people picking on trans people which is something that is mental and is straight up not a choice. Unless you fellas are gonna take down all the shit that's optional that murders you that the media pushes, I don't want to hear about someone doing something that prevents them from killing themselves out of hatred from their own body as "unhealthy".


Their "biological sex"? What're you doing just grabbing everyone by their junk the second you walk past them? I didn't know 45th had this much impact over the common conservative.

If you're calling yourself a skinny little fairy when you weigh 300 pound, it might be tempting.


...There's a lot to unpack there, i'm just not gonna touch it because it's not worth the trouble.


Both are possible, both have happened. and Californian laws do not yet prevent them from happening again.


I don't pick on people for mental issues (at least not without reason). Nor do I attempt to police what people do with their lives. I simply tell them to not force their world views upon me. the law does the same. Luckily, at this point, the law now does the same. It steps entirely out of the gender debacle, and goes straight by sex. (it still bans discrimination based upon sex/gender, it just doesn't try to do anything more than that) 


Not playing that game. You know what i mean. If you're a guy, you're a guy. If you're a girl, you're a girl. If I can't tell, then your new name is Ruka and i'm cool with traps.

#7122719 [SAST] Time Loss

Posted by vla1ne on 11 October 2018 - 08:33 PM

this card really feels like KOJ is mocking america's new time rules.

#7122041 Rachel Mitchell statement on Brett Kavenaugh hearing. Detailing her opinion o...

Posted by vla1ne on 07 October 2018 - 08:32 PM

Ford is unable to live at home due to death threats, but sure, take shallow potshots at her as if this was all just some desperate bid for money.


Nothing "proves" that this case was just a farce. What point is there in her trying to pursue this when the GOP not once gave a damn about whether or not her claims were true when they wanted to rush Kavanaugh through confirmation, all the while playing the victim of Democrats "obstructing" them, when Mitch McConnell barely waited an hour after Scalia's death before bragging to Obama that he would not allow him to fill the vacant seat, then blocked Merrick Garland out of pure spite?


But no, it's Kavanaugh who was being "lynched". The GOP is far too eager to block Democrats every chance they get, but cry about being the victims whenever they're hit with even the slightest inconvenience.

Yknow who else is under constant death threats? Brett. You know who has no evidence to back their claim? All of his accusers. That wasn't a potshot, so much as it was pointing out that the person/ people who gained the most off of this were his accusers. and pointing out the fact that the main one, had an insane amount to gain off of said allegations.


Yes, something does. Did you not read anything that i typed over the past few posts? Starting things off; Innocent until proven guilty. Brett is assumed innocent, until proven guilty. Hell no crime is even assumed to have occurred until you can prove the event in question happened (spoiler, not a single accuser could do even that much). all claimed witnesses, for all cases, claimed no memories of any such party (again, in a court of law, which is the only place any of this matters, that is the exact same value, as saying it never happened). in other words, no evidence, no actual date, and he has ample evidednce and witnesses backing every claim he made. so yes, this was entirely a farce.


Yes, it IS him being lynched. you continuously ignore the absolute fact, that there is A B S O L U T E L Y  N O  E V I D E N C E  O F  G U I L T. Please, burn that into your mind. Because until you have evidence of guilt, or even of a crime having occured, he is nothing more than an innocent man, who's name has been dragged through the mud. i have asked this since the first page, do you have evidence of guilt? If not, then you have no case, and 7 FBI investigations and a senate hearing later, there has yet to be any evidence, at all, of any crime, much less any evidence worth calling in a guilty verdict. 

#7122027 Rachel Mitchell statement on Brett Kavenaugh hearing. Detailing her opinion o...

Posted by vla1ne on 07 October 2018 - 06:55 PM

well, it turns out ford, and the rest of the accusers have dropped all allegations and backed away from the playing field. Ford having gained a cool million off of her allegations alone, to say nothing of the book deals, television spots, and other lucrative deals behind the curtain. 


i believe it's safe to say, this case (and all other brett related cases) have been proven to be a through and through farce, to claim it as your civic duty, and then drop them on the spot, tells me you have never held any strong convictions relating to the event in the first place. (and no, her appearing at the hearing does not count, she was under subpoena to make it after attempting to avoid the case on monday, and claiming (using ignorance as defense) that she had not understood their meaning when they said that they would go to her if she was so afraid of flying.


any closing comments?



Also, cow, while i agree that the second comment was out of line, winter used the first statement (regarding dad) not as an attack, but as a comparison. arguably, he was claiming that dad had been deceived, but it doesn't fall under the category of ad hominem to use a name in an example, otherwise my own comment about winter raping me that sounds about as wrong in text as i thought it would would be subject to the same punishment would it not?

#7121800 Rachel Mitchell statement on Brett Kavenaugh hearing. Detailing her opinion o...

Posted by vla1ne on 05 October 2018 - 05:48 PM



She made an assertion that he did something, and has 0 evidence. Everybody else related to said assertion, denies said assertion. Brett has produced physical evidence of exactly where he was via multiple planners written 36 years ago (before any of this would have even been a concept). As such, he has evidence of where he was, why he was there, and who was there with him. She does not. That ties this into multiple things, but I’m plopping it here up front because it’s something that stands well enough on it’s own, and I’d rather not have to write it out entirely into everything I’m about to say.


Self defense? Her best friend said she remembers no such party. Now unless her best friend actually hates her guts, I’d say she would be at least as credible as ford (whether or not we go by word alone, the word of all potentially involved parties hold the same weight.). And to address your statement, no, we are not just taking words at face value. What we are doing, Is taking every testimony, and placing them against each other to see which one would hold more weight overall, adding evidence where possible. Were we to right now, pass judgement based on claims alone, she would be outnumbered literally everybody to one. In other words, were we to go by words alone, her argument would be DoA. There is absolutely nobody who was supposedly at that party, who says those events, much less that party, ever occurred. (her friend says she wants to believe her, but can't recall any such party, and clearly states she never met brett, so as far as value in any court, that's the equivalent of "It never happened") So on words alone, she loses flat out, but it gets worse.


We are also taking actual recorded documents and events into account, and factoring them in to back the words spoken. Her fear of flying was never mentioned to anybody, and she literally flies multiple times a year for pleasure trips. Not sure about you, but nobody I know who fears something, is going to go out of their way to obtain a profession that requires them to deal with that fear on a regular basis, or take trips that require them to fly to and from their location, for hours. The safeway was opened well after she claims to have met him there, thus that encounter could not have happened within her timeframe. And the door has literal construction record proving she lied about even that. I took nothing about the story at face value. She was asked if she ever coached, or was coached on taking polygraphs, she said no, and her boyfriend came out and said she coached a friend, and on top of that, she wrote a paper on recovering, and creating memories, AKA the most basic fuel for falsifying polygraphs. No psychology professor worth their degree hasn’t had at least one thing to do in a polygraph related field. Yet she claims sh has never been coached, given advice, or coached or given advice for one. Both claims would normally negate each other, but the fact that she wrote a paper on one of the main topics related to faking a polygraph, lends quite a bit of credence to her ex boyfriend’s claim. When there’s that much wrong with just the basics of your story, and then your word, aka your only remaining weapon, is shot down by everybody else involved, including your best friend, and then whomever drove her home, never stepping forward? What is there about that that has been taken solely at face value, the entire picture is literally there in plain ink. There’s nothing to assume. At this point, her story, is nowhere near credible. Plausible, yes, it could very well have happened, but it is no longer anything resembling credible.


Continuing on though, there’s even more to dismantle, dozens of people from Kavanaghs’ high school years have come out corroborating his claims on the jargon in his planner (boofing, his high school alcohol habits, the devil’s triangle drinking game, the yearbook itself, ect, they backed him on all of it). In other words, once more, whether taken at face value or not, the words of Brett Kavenagh would easily outweigh those who insinuate sinister intent into his planner, and his planner is once more, as solid as evidence gets.


In summary, her word is outweighed, her evidence is nonexistent, and her story, while plausible, is not credible. On the flip side, his word is backed by dozens of people, hundreds if you span it across cases, his evidence is solid and paints the exact picture that he has always presented himself within, and his denial holds the force of the entire legal system (AKA “Innocent until proven guilty”) behind it. There is nothing about this case, that is in ford’s favor at all, and swathes of evidence and testimony in favor of brett. It’s that simple. There’s plenty of decent reasons to not like him, or to oppose his nomination, but there are no evidence based reasons, to believe her story over kavenaughs, and even if you go on words alone, his story wins by a blowout of at least 50-1.