Recent posts by Jantonaitis on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What do we think of the Maine hermit?

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201409/the-last-true-hermit

Following his arrest, the court of public opinion was deeply divided. The man who wanted to live his life as invisibly as possible had become one of the most famous people in Maine. You could not walk into a bar in the Augusta area without stumbling into a debate about what should be done with Christopher Knight.

FOR

Some said that he must immediately be released from jail. Stealing cheese and bacon are not serious crimes. The man was apparently never violent. He didn’t carry a weapon. He’s an introvert, not a criminal. He clearly has no desire to be a part of our world. Let’s open a Kickstarter, get him enough cash for a few years’ worth of groceries, and allow him to go back to the woods. Some people were willing to let him live on their land, rent-free.

AGAINST

Others countered that it wasn’t the physical items he robbed that made his crimes so disturbing—he stole hundreds of people’s peace of mind. Their sense of security. How were they supposed to know Knight wasn’t armed and dangerous? Even a single break-in can be punishable by a ten-year sentence. If Knight really wanted to live in the woods, he should’ve done so on public lands, hunting and fishing for food. He’s nothing but a lazy man and a thief times a thousand. Lock him up in the state penitentiary.

I lean more towards the critics, personally.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Originally posted by MrBobNamg:

Why are you all arguing anyhow? Modern Feminism = femdom =! Egalitarian Feminism.
There you go, now stop trying to convince everyone blogging about wanting to castrate every man on Earth for no real justification ‘feminism’.

Actually I should probably add more CWC to my post to accommodate the blue ballers who are air balling all over this court with a revision:
wanting to castrate every man on Earth for no real justification is TRUE AND HONEST ‘feminism’.

Speaking of…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Buy Registered Fake Passport,Drivers license,Id cards,etc

Darth Vader here,

We spoke on Kongregate. When can you have my documents ready? I have to be on the forest moon of Endor by next week. The Emperor is preparing a final blow against the Rebellion.

May the Force make you strong,

Darth Vader
Master of Evil
*
Hello friend,
I can have my team start the production right away just get back to
me with the following details please,

Where are you located
How soon do you need this Document ?
What Kind of Document do you really need ?
Do you need any other document ?

Kindly let me know if you agree with my terms and conditions so

that our team should start working on that immediately . But if you are
not okay with that let me know as well . Please email us your phone
number for easy communication .

Thanks
Management
*
I am currently on my master’s newly rebuilt death star.

There will be a substantial reward for the one who delivers my documents nowish.

You are as clumsy as you are stupid. My instructions are listed here: http://www.kongregate.com/forums/9-serious-discussion/topics/428127-buy-registered-fake-passport-drivers-license-id-cards-etc?page=1#posts-8385532

Also I want 20 000 galactic credits too.

My number is 1-866-808-8407

I MUST obey my master and your terms and conditions.

Darth Vader
Master of Evil

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Buy Registered Fake Passport,Drivers license,Id cards,etc

This sounds completely legitimate. I’d like a passport reading ‘Darth Vader’. I’ll need matching credit cards for InterGalactic Banking Clan and 10,000 galactic credits. I sent you an email.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Feminism isn’t a science. Nothing in the social sciences are ‘real’ sciences.

What I see here are people asserting their own opinions for divergences, and ignoring other possibilities.

The same could be said of your viewpoints. Your arguments for nature are insubstantial. The link you gave points out that both are necessary attributes, but imo doesn’t show how nature strongly influences preference in jobs or relationships, which third-wavers argue is mainly owed to nurture [edit: I wrote nature by error]. You’re free to argue that, of course, but i’d like some indication that you understand that article isn’t simply saying ‘nature and nurture are equally important for reasons’.

I’m aware you know about discrimination. The difference imo isn’t ‘feminist statistics’ but rather deliberate versus subconscious sexism. I had an example of this but it’s lousy so I’ll try to think of something better.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

I wonder why I should bother to do your homework for you when you have not refuted the points I made to you in my last post or answered the questions addressed to you therein.
I will oblige this time with a quick google search: 1, 2, 3, 4

Johnny did a pretty good job. If I explain in exacting detail why your links don’t help your argument, will you drop the attitude?

1) This points out there’s a discrepancy. It doesn’t show WHY that exists. ‘Of their own volition’ is unproven. Certainly Meghan would rather enjoy her job than make money, but is she representative of all women? If she is, is loving your job particular to women? Why are there more women in the arts than men?

2) Introduction, third paragraph: innate gender differences for choosing a degree are nonsensical. Fourth paragraph: women may choose an arts major simply to get a degree, or in the mistaken belief that their arts major will land them a job. This disqualifies the ‘men like money, women like fun’ canard, but let’s keep going. Eighth paragraph: men from other cultures have a stronger motivation to seek a job that pays well than white people. in section 6 it posits that women don’t go into engineering or math jobs because of ‘female-specific attributes’. I have no idea what this means but it also notes that such attributes may be shaped by parents who fear discrimination if their child goes into a fiekd not known for female representation.

3) points out that teachers/male colleagues may be hostile towards women entering their field of knowledge. Also that female-unfriendly workplaces [ie. academia] may deter women, and academic scientists both male and female may not hire them based on gender stereotypes. This link in particular is the opposite of your argument.

4) Argues that women choose their job because they want a fun job versus a profitable one. AGAIN – no explanation why.

I have already shown that men and women make different choices when it comes to college degrees. I think the fact that men and women have biological differences that translate to differences in behavior is obvious to everybody here but you.

Yes but you haven’t shown why that happens, or disproven my claim [and that of 3rd wave feminism] that it’s from societal constructs based on male dominance, ie. nurture, not nature as Johnny has pointed out. You know what would prove that assumption wrong? showing how women are not only neurologically different from men but the resulting differences in behaviours extends to career preference. Figure that out, you got me beat.

What should I call it then, if not modern feminism? I’m open to suggestions.

Radfem [radical feminist] works.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

^thanks Karma I didn’t see his post.

@Derpaderp

Disclaimer: I like porn, including all the kinds I mentioned [well, not bukkake, that shit’s fucked up]. I’m not denying the existence of BDSM culture, or saying it’s morally wrong. Hell, I agree with Kinsey – refusing to jerk off is unnatural. the gov’t shouldn’t interfere in the bedrooms of the nation, etc

What I am saying is that porn contributes to rape culture and can have an unpleasant effect on one’s view of women. It reinforces the 19th century idea that women are primarily sexual beings, and it does so in a rather expansive way.

Name your tropes: Office [including secretary and boss], school [student and teacher], baby-sitter, wife’s friend [infidelity], wife-sharing, cuckoldry [particularly interracial], quasi-incestual [mom’s friend, wife’s mom, GF and her mom duo, sister’s friend, step-sister, step-mom, step-daughter, twincest, friend’s mom], rape-y [sleep/surprise sex, taxi / hitchhikers, landlords, prison, blackmail – amusingly for finding porn pics on the internet, young girl vs older man, maids/servants, minority victimizations, drunk girls, clubbin’ girls, need money fast, transit gropes, drugs – mainly russian], exercise [personal trainers, joggers, yoga, massage], service jobs [clothing retail, fast-food including pizza delivery, waitresses, car wash], acts [anal, deepthroat, DP, cumface, creampie], voyeurism [camgirls, ex-GFs, gloryholes], bizarre/humiliation [pingpong shows, clowns, furries, hentai, photoshop, vegetable, bestiality] and sure, dominance [bosses, military superiors, principals, rich girls, MILFs,].

The trick with dominance in most porn is that it’s actually a role-reversal: rich bitch gets fucked by the gardener, son’s friend takes advantage of nubile but naive mom, etc. There is, of course fem-dom, but it’s a niche. Everything I just listed is mainstream, and can actually be found together on one site. Rather totalising, is it? I’m sure some subbie girls do get off on the types listed above…but that is also a niche. It’s intended for cis guys, preferably white.

Addendum: characterization of minorities: Darkies [blacks and latinas] have big asses and big tits and correspondingly like anal and titjobs, whites like hair-pulling [especially with pigtails] and BJs [especially kneeling on wood / cement], asians find any kind of sex painful so are often shown in doggystyle for maximum coverage. Arabs and E. Indians are virtually unknown in the West, and I’ve only seen one native and she was depicted as a streetwalker.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

The existence of gender roles in the past in no way debunks what I said. The statistical differences in career choice and behavior between men and women is well established.
Statistically women will make different career choices than men of their own volition.

Tradition lives on in the present.

Since those statistics are rather fundamental to your argument, i’d like to see a link.

Anybody with a rudamentary understanding of psychology, neurology, or simply common sense knows that statistically men and women make different choices and have different behaviors. Equal opportunity should lead to an inequality in the job market unless you believe that the only difference between men and women are their genitals. If you do believe that, then you are at odds with science.

Consider me ignorant. Please explain, with corroborating links. FYI I’m going to go over any links you post very carefully so do be sure they back up your claim. While we’re on this subject, I trust you’re aware women may join the US military in combat roles, and in Canada are allowed to serve equally with men with no hedging. Meaning that the argument that women can’t be as physically strong as men is sexist, not science. Western Europeans have the same standards.

On the other hand modern day feminists aim to use government intervention to equalize the genders through quotas and other such advantages. This does violate equal opportunity.

You know, I think i’m tired of seeing of seeing this term bandied. You don’t like labels but you’ll freely use this one on anyone but a 1st wave feminist. Your link disagrees with you:


they 1st wavewished to obtain political and social equality with men, equal pay, access to higher education and professional work, as well as wanting to change laws regarding marriage, divorce, property and custody of children. However their most important aim of the movement was to obtain women’s suffrage…The second wave of feminism was focused primarily on improving social and economic conditions for women. Gale Radford, member of the Women’s Electoral Lobby in the 1970’s stated that the second wave came about because there was still “overt discrimination against women in education, employment, employment conditions, virtually no childcare or family planning clinics, you could not advertise contraceptives, abortion was illegal, obtaining finance practically impossible…the list was endless” (Hoepper; et al, 2005: 197-218). The aims of the second wave were much like those of the first wave, such as obtaining equal pay, equal opportunity for education and employment, as women were finally being encouraged into the workforce but only as unskilled workers; access to maternity leave and suitable child-minding facilities, as well as an end to sexism. For “it was sexism, they [second wave feminists] believed, which had traditionally stereotyped women as weak, passive, emotional and, in short, inferior to men” (Cowie; et al, 1996: 248-258).

Meaning that 1st wavers achieved voting rights…and that’s it. They aspired to more but didn’t get it. They needed the second wave to achieve that, and it was done mainly through lobbying. They achieved economic goals [kinda], but not social goals, ie dismantling rape culture, which is why we have a third wave, not because ‘modern-day feminists’ are pitiful whiners. I can’t help but note that many 1st wavers, like Nelly McClung, were white racists, that multi-race feminism didn’t start until the second wave, and that power feminism, whose signature argument is: “we don’t need to be victims; we’ve already achieved enough for women” was started by two white women, Judith Wolf and Katie Roiphe.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bombing Of Gaza

I don’t know why you’re so resistant to this, when it seems I’m think right along the same lines as moderate Muslims in the actual regions! It’s like your just here to be in a fight, or you’ll do anything to see Israel be required by popular outside demand to put up with weekly rocket fire from Gaza… which I find absurd.

Funny how you can’t name any of these ‘moderate muslims’ who think like you. Yes it IS absurd, which is why I have consistently qualified my criticism of Israel and made clear my opposition to Hamas. Got any more strawmen?

@Ung

I see no good evidence that Nasser [he’s the only Egyptian leader that fits] was a Nazi. He was likened to Hitler during the Suez crisis, he was an autocrat nationalist and socialist, but not a national socialist. You’re correct about the MB but that works against Nasser – apart from not being an Islamist, he persecuted the MB pretty heavily.

Islamism doesn’t inherently require shari’a to form state law, and much of what i’ve seen in places like Indonesia puts it on par with Torah law in Israel, with an emphasis on family law. Even then, there are exceptions. Gay marriage is legal in Israel…but Orthodox tradition holds primacy over marriage law. How to explain the contradiction? It is the same reason that assuming religious people are scripture on legs is reductionist thinking.

Next, I can only think of two examples of totalitarian shari’a: Afghanistan under the Taliban and Saudi Arabia, both of which are more the product of tribalism than religion. Iran is a candidate but there are issues complicating that. For example, by law, women must wear hijabs. Iranian women respond by creating hijab fancy-dress stores. Call me an apologist, but wouldn’t fascists shut such places down?

I’m not saying islamism is compatible with democracy – check out Terak Fateh’s Chasing a mirage for a good criticism of that idea, but there is good reason for me to be skeptical of islamofascism as a thing. I asked one of my devout muslim friends for an opinion on this and he likened it instead to feudalism, which is also a backwards system, but doesn’t carry the same imprecision as fascism as an accurate description of Islamism.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

As a departing shot, I would like to say that I am proud of my ability to communicate complex ideas. I have written two published books, with one of those titles having sold more than 14,000 copies over the course of two editions. I have several dozen magazine articles written, and have more than 20 years in professional communications. I have won several awards and frequently speak at national conferences.

Today I have a professional task to seek outcomes that literally save lives. I walk the talk as a nonviolent person. I have nothing to prove here.

The nature and tone of this conversation is not, in my estimation, participated by those seeking to investigate important ideas. As far as I can tell it is instead a stomping ground for the argumentative.

So, I leave you to the conversation and the room. It’s been… well… it’s been a waste of my time.

Man, I like your posts in other threads but…seriously? This is the internet. Your IRL accomplishments are unverifiable so why bring them up? But, supposing you’re taken at your word, c’mon. I know a fair bit about professional communications [ie rhetoric] myself. It can certainly be used to express complex ideas – or to obfuscate simple ones. Investigating important ideas is difficult when one’s interlocutor is deliberately trying to avoid investigation into his own beliefs. You don’t HAVE to share, but you should’ve made it clear you just wanted to provoke discussion [provoke in a neutral sense]. Finally, imo a rhetorician should always take something useful from a discussion even if it didn’t go the way you hoped.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

The particular paragraph of mine that you called a strawman did not even mention modern feminists. I was explaining my own position. There is no strawman there. I think that many strippers would take offense to somebody who called their profession degrading.

I’m sure they would but having a vagina doesn’t make you a feminist. In context to the rest of your post it sure sounded like you were referring to modern feminists but ok.

Why indeed – finding out why should be the subject of research. I do not deny that discrimination exists. What I do reject is the assumption that discrimination is the primary factor at play for every divergence between men and women in the job force.

And how would you go about researching it? Do a survey? If discrimination is subconscious employers would be unaware. Yes, it’s an assumption but it beats any other theory.

I never excused discrimination. I introduced myself as a first wave feminist. I believe in equal opportunity.
I never denied discrimination. Discrimination will happen wherever there is a biased individual in power. That does not mean that every difference between men and women can be attributed to discrimination. Discrimination is one of many factors.
As I explained in my first post here, what I am against is not equal opportunity – it is political lobbying for government intervention to forcefully equalize an unquantifiable amount of ‘discrimination’. There is a huge difference between equal opportunity and equalizing.

Yeah…everybody’s biased. That’s kinda the point behind 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. Sexism comes from gender constructs built up over time by a given society. Meaning that in order to rectify these attitudes, you need to do both grassroots education and top-down policy change otherwise discrimination will continue. You can do all the seminars you want, and businesses will continue to do what is cost-effective unless you tie their hands.

That doesn’t mean quotas for women in construction or guys in wheelchairs as firefighters, and I dare you to find examples where gov’t intervention created those results. No, not every difference in the sexes is discrimination but sexist attitudes are far-reaching in every society including the West. I would say rather that if you’re treated differently because of sex difference and the reason isn’t immediately obvious [like dividing restrooms by sex], it’s sexism.

That assertion has been challenged.

I don’t have a subscription to WSJ, do you? If so, copypasta it here.


Your rape scenario had absolutely nothing to do with what I said, which was simply: “I dislike when feminists rage at video game characters that do not conform to their image of what a woman should be.” I was speaking about the personality and attributes female characters.

Frankly, I have no problem with “sexy times with a collar”, “objectivization”, or any such behaviors from an in game character because I recognize that character as an individual with their own preferences and not a representative of womankind. So what if the character is a masochist? Why should we restrict the personalities and behaviors of female characters to conform to what a minority of feminists want?

I mentioned depictions of female roles but let’s talk about the bolded part for a second – does this view of yours extend outside of videogames? Are you cool with porn? After all women in porn aren’t representative of women everywhere right? Oh and there’s men in porn too, of course. Do you know the major difference between male and female pornstar behaviours [in straight porn]? women in porn are generally submissive and vulnerable, which is why schoolgirls, kneeling BJs, MILFs, bukkake and uh, I think the industry term is ‘nonconsent/reluctance’ are so popular. it’s a power trip, and male pornstars reflect that supremacist mentality. But hey, like videogames it’s just fantasy, so no harm done, right?

You might want to play the Baldur’s Gate series. It’s an old game, but still one of the best RPGs around. A female character in that game can be just as strong as a male character and there is a great deal of dialogue and choices.


BioWare made both games. In general their older games are less sexist, though I’ve noticed even with games I really love, like NWN2 or the expansion MOTB there’s alot of hackneyed stereotypes floating around. There are strong female characters in TOR too – Vette’s great once you free her – but the sexist bits are pretty noticeable. As with porn, it caters to audience interest. I’ve heard this alot from players: the only reason I’ll make a female PC is to have something nice to look at while leveling

Incidentally, I did a little research: power feminism isn’t 1st wave feminism. It was conceptualized by one of the major 3rd wavers, Naomi Wolf. That lobbying you spoke against? It’s central to PF.

check this out too

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

In the beta I’m told you could hear Vette crying on the ship, and if the story continued to progress in that direction she’d walk out an airlock.

There’s another storyline featuring a male/female sith who enslaves a giant maleish monster NPC, and that class can also electrocute the slave in convos. There’s no romance or creepy stockholm syndrome involved but I guess it’s similar.

One rather glaring problem associated with gendered agency in that game is that male PC’s have 3 more romance options than female PCs. There’s no SGRs either which would have solved the problem. Also several of the romances are between sith/jedi PCs and their apprentices…who are ALL young girls. I could keep going but you get the idea. It’s not just how women are depicted, it’s their roles.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

No offense but I privately warned you that this is an AX thread [even if it’s not in the title] and that if you were uncomfortable with being put on the spot to respond to a hypothetical scenario you should not continue it. People are frustrated by your responses because they’re evasive. And while I initially sympathized with your position, this

2. Given the abstract nature of the conditions of the scenario, my abstract answer is that I would not kill my son’s would-be murderer.
3. I would not “prefer” that my son die over his would-be murderer (as karma suggested)
4. I would not choose the murderer’s life over my son’s (as biguglyorc suggested)

is semantic claptrap. If you are a committed pacifist then you do indeed make a preference choice towards the murderer’s life [even if he kills your son] versus being forced to take his life to save another. The word as it’s used doesn’t connote your personal feelings, merely your choice informed by ideals.

This is it: I would not kill someone for any reason.


Yes and I’m a deist which is all well and good, but in the past when i’ve been challenged to explain my preference versus atheism or theism it has quickly been made apparent that I hadn’t thought a great deal about the philosophy behind it. That’s fine with me; my reasoning for that belief isn’t particularly robust but it suits me, just as absolutist pacifism may suit you. But nowadays I avoid bringing that belief into the forum because I’m aware that my take on it won’t stand up to methodical criticism. Similarly, Orc [ and the rest…even karma] isn’t distorting your pacifism. They’re pointing out that it’s simplistic.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:

I would not expect a woman to have equal opportunity if she applied to an ad requesting a male stripper. I would not expect a man to have equal opportunity if he applied to an ad as a hooters waitress.

Strawman. Modern feminists don’t object to these jobs because of equal rights but because they are inherently objectifiable and degrading.

I take issue with many modern feminists, because they seem to go well beyond equal opportunity. Modern feminism seems to have shifted from equal opportunity to enforcing equality. These are two very different things. Many modern feminists will assume that a male dominated job field means discrimination is at play. I do not agree with this.

There are some fields that are obviously male dominated because those jobs require more heavy lifting – such as construction jobs. I won’t talk about these because the reason why they are male dominated is obvious. An example of a male dominated field that is not so obvious is computer programming. I think that women are quite capable of programming and I know there are many good female programmers out there. So, is it discrimination? I don’t think that can be assumed. I think that men and women will statistically gravitate towards different careers.

Yes but WHY do they that? Is it because men are generally rational and women are generally emotional ie. intrinsic gender traits? Or is it because those are societal constructs that pigeonhole men and women according to traditional gender attributes? Discrimination needn’t be a conscious act by a bigoted employer.

When I say that men and women statistically diverge on careers please note that I am not saying that all men and all women want different things. What I am saying is that if you take 100,000 women and 100,000 men and ask them what they want to do with their life, I would assert that far more men would say “computer programmer” and far more women would say “teacher”.

Again, why?

I take issue when I see the government try to enforce equality by mandating X amount of women in a job field. I think that the one that gets the job should be the one that is best for the job, period. If that happens to be mostly men, then so be it. If it happens to be mostly women, then so be it. When the government steps in what they do is create unequal opportunity. Hypothetically if a woman is given advantages by the government to help her become a programmer in place of a man because there are fewer women in the field, then I see that as a violation of equal opportunity. It assumes discrimination which has not been proven or quantified, and punishes a man that is unrelated to the source of the alleged discrimination by giving her preferential treatment over him.

Given the range of assumptions you use to excuse discrimination I don’t know what sort of evidence you’d require. Are men discriminated against for entering female dominated professions? Definitely socially. Financially? Women still get paid less and have less chance of advancement than males.

On a side note, I dislike when feminists rage at video game characters that do not conform to their image of what a woman should be. I would not identify myself with any part of that kind of feminism, which seems to be more about control than freedom.

Yeah women should quit bitching. Just because videogames tend to depict female characters as big-titted / slavegirl eyecandy for predominantly male players doesn’t mean…oh wait. Incidentally, I played the storyline that article references. You can romance Vette even after you’ve shocked her a bunch of times. At one point near the end <Spoiler!> she’ll come up to you with her old shock collar and suggest sexy times with it. So? big deal, right? Well, as another player put it:

The implications for a Lightsider aren’t that bad: maybe Vette just wants to reenact being rescued from slavery? Maybe she’s just a little kinky? For a Darksider though, the whole thing smacks of Stockholm Syndrome which kinda poisons the entire romance for, well, normal people. Unfortunately, BioWare is the same company that decided to make Vette a pristine virgin in her last cutscene.

Oh, and there’s another scene where you find out her sister is a slave too and the game gives you three options: 1) Buy her freedom 2) refuse 3) “sample the goods beforehand”. You take a big affection hit from raping her sister, but you can still romance her and she’ll even thank you for ‘rescuing’ her sister. This isn’t GTA IV, it’s a pg-13 star wars game.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

A friend of mine on another site said something that may be relevant to the thread:

I see that there’s a small backlash of complaint in my newsfeed against “demonizing” the police as an institution, based on the fact that officers kill unarmed persons of colour at an alarming rate. But listen: the ultimate “cherry picking of evidence about the police” is referring to your own privileged experiences with them— and then issuing a blanket decree that because your experiences are positive, “most police officers are good.”

Listen: I’ve had frequent positive experiences with police officers who I felt to be genuine and well-meaning in the space of our interactions. But I still recognize that the natures of individual police officers have little to zero effect on the harm that the police can inflict on individuals, because of their very position in society and their function in capitalism where they hold a legal and (as of yet) almost entirely unaccountable monopoly on force.

And let’s look at my experiences for a moment: I’m a white, mature-looking, ‘straight-acting,’ almost totally normal-looking, educated-sounding, probably-middle-class person with English as my first language. I tend to put police officers at ease just on that basis. Even if they don’t want to be nice, they suspect they’re talking to a law student, or someone with a lawyer relative— somebody with power. Somebody asked me once “what’s it like being white” and I answered, “I can chuckle along with a police officer’s dumb jokes, all ‘haw haw buddy’-like, and be treated really nicely almost all of the time.” Cause that to me is somewhere up in the top three differences that manifest for you when you’re white.

So please, fellow workers who happen to be white, when you are issuing blanket approval of the police based on your own experience, know that you are citing the starkest difference in our lived experiences that white privilege gives us, and using that as evidence that’s supposed to mean something. Maybe consider that the officer who is nice to you (for all you know) may turn around and be jaw-droppingly vicious to someone else who doesn’t look like you. And when that someone else complains, or that dead person’s relatives complain, the experience will be, for some reason usually involving racism, their fault, even if what they have experienced is murder. Open your eyes to experiences that aren’t yours, and reflect on that for a moment. Maybe recognize that the frequency of those situations represents a problem that people are awakening to and doing something about.
- Rob C.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Methinks the lady protests too much.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

In fact, as a "bleeding-heart liberal (Jan sees me as a “hippy”), I strongly advocate these social mandates. A big part of the solution is a more rational distribution of wealth. A much greater chance of someone stealing a TV set when they already have one and could likely be killed trying to get one; or at best, serve time in jail and have a record that severely limits many opportunities…esp for a young man.

Well, that was before you defended Ferguson police from the angry black people. That, and in this thread, bragging about how you fought in Vietnam, makes me wonder if Jhco snuck onto your account. You guys live together, right? Should tell him off.

However, it is you that created a persona of me that presents me as a blood-thirsty guy who purposely goes out looking for ppl to kill. You have consistently done this.


:)
I didn’t know who the Carr brothers were before this thread, but tbh, I still don’t really care. Just because it happened where you live doesn’t it make it objectively traumatic and the worst thing ever to me. Do you know who Mark Twitchell is? No? OMG he’s such a bad baddie, the next clifford olson [don’t know that one either?], etc etc. Oh did I mention he’s from Edmonton? And therefore directly relevant to me? Just like your Wichita killers are relevant to you? But y’know, I still don’t have murder fantasies about him or insist that everyone else agree they’d kill him in some hypothetical “save the day” scenario.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

And if I were to call you a ‘liberal extremist’ or a ‘radical democrat’ you’d be cool with it? Or would you not think of them as fearmongering superlatives?

No your link doesn’t agree. It uses the term ‘absolute pacifist’.

An absolute pacifist is generally described by the British Broadcasting Corporation as one who believes that human life is so valuable, that a human should never be killed and war should never be conducted, even in self-defense. The principle is described as difficult to abide by consistently, due to violence not being available as a tool to aid a person who is being harmed or killed. It is further claimed that such a pacifist could logically argue that violence leads to more undesirable results than non-violence.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

I am saddened that someone who considers himself to be an extreme, radical pacifist stoops to indulge in using my form of pacifism to hyperbolize that I enjoy killing and look very hard to find ways to do so. At best, one might say this behavior is a form of: I won’t fight you; but I will behave in a manner that is clearly trying to pick one. I certainly wouldn’t send such an antagonistic pacifist to engage in peace talks to either end or prevent a war.

There is no such thing as a ‘radical’ or ‘extremist’ pacifist you imbecile. There’s nothing overly complicated about his position – you simply don’t agree with it [fine] so you think that entitles you to malign him an incompetent idiot [not fine].

Well, I will agree that he’s come off as an idiot in this thread…but only because he’s stuck around this long responding to your twaddle.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

I’m confused. Why is the forum hippy pandering to the police?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

He said MJ. If it was laced with something else, that would also show up in the system.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bombing Of Gaza

The rhetoric is antisemitic, the facts on the ground are not. The mufti of Jerusalem is the one and only example of direct nazi influence in the area. Hamas is supplied primarily by Iran who is power-playing Israel. Ahmadinejad has been replaced. I know of very few mujahideen in the OT because they are mostly sunni and hamas is shi’a. Zionists have killed plenty of civilians with increasingly indiscriminate means – like artillery fire. Also, read that link in my last post. Finally the 2005 unilateral withdrawal was not a peace deal, and there were several problems with Oslo and Camp David, the major one being lack of guaranteed borders. That still doesn’t make them nazis.

but SURE! I’m the one glossing over history! I’m the one smearing an entire cultural region with a label that is unarguably shallow and one-sided!

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

The Islamofascist argument [which usually begins with the mufti of Jerusalem and then skips like 50 years of pan-Arabism] is just as much anti-semitism as labelling the Israelis Nazis.

Wait, what’s anti semitic about suggesting a cultural transfer from Euro Anti-Semitic rhetoric to the Middle East? I mean, I do that. And are we using the definition of Semitic that includes arabs? It’s kind of a weasely word. And is the Fascism here referring to Fascism, or The Nazi’s specifically? I think there’s a good case for equating Islamic political thought with Fascism, especially Italian style.

Feel free to make that case with reference to actual islamists. Unless you’ve boned up on this subject since the last time we discussed it, I’ll save us both some time and say you aint got shit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

I guess I haven’t said it in caps yet: I’M NOT SOCIALIST. Also NOT AMERICAN. But as a disinterested observer I have to wonder how you think r-libertarianism would work with a large population if socialism doesn’t work.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

He got shot in the head and the arm according to the autopsy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bombing Of Gaza

Did you read the part where I EXPLICITLY condemned nazi comparisons for Israel? It would only be the third time i’ve said it, so I can see why you’d miss it.