Milo is a British citizen... does he even need a visa? I thought citizens of the Commonwealth could travel freely between other Commonwealth countries? Maybe that's how it used to be?
I love Milo but his whole shtick is to cause as much controversy as possible and then feed off of the media attention that it garners him. Really, the best possible way to deal with the guy is just to ignore him and let him go about his business without giving him attention. Berkeley didn't learn that lesson and now Australia seems to be taking the bait...
Nah we had far to many chavy backpackers who committed crimes against Australia like drinking warm beer now they need a visa and have to scull an ice cold schooner before we let them in.
Yea sorry about that snow is such a novelty to Australians we flock to it like moths to a bug zapper.. it's only going to get worse too you are legalising the weeds.. you are going to get over run I'd advocate stronger imgration laws specificlly targeting the bogan menace.
I'm somewhat surprised that u/botchlings is black tbh. Explains him randomly capitalising Nouns when he gets agitated though: probably comes from some formerly Dutch controlled African country.
The angry intolerance of all dissent and the refusal to discuss any sort of nuance on this topic has left me pretty disappointed with the r/australia, but if you think that means it is going to affect my "vote" you misunderstand my point.
I don't know how familiar you are with the Australian situation on the Same Sex Marriage issue, but the government (in their "wisdom") decided to give the voters of Australia a say in a non-binding plebiscite.
Despite appearances in r/Australia, Australian people are still allowed to have their own opinions. Even to have some have reservations on the matter.
I think the doubters would be better dealt with "You're mistaken because reasons X, Y and Z" rather than just saying "YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE A BIGOT! KILL YOURSELF!" , but that seems too hard for many YES advocates and they're doing themselves more harm than good from the perspective of somebody who is actually sympathetic to their basic goals.
This ultra-aggressive approach (if anything) is only scaring the fence-sitters into the conservative camp.
It would be a serious shame if the rabid minority ruined things for a generally pretty tolerant society who have been somewhat held back by a spineless government.
M8, how do you even argue with someone that's anti-gay marriage?
The only reason anyone is anti-gay marriage is due to religion. Religious values are terminal, there is no debate that convinces them they are wrong.
This is why religion needs to be completely kept out of government.
A quote from Goldwater in the US:
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
True. A better way to explain it might be "values," however this turn is generally also terminal. Not that there shouldn't be a conversation but the expectation should probably be that it will be futile.
because the strongest advocates for it here are shitty people who will try to push further and start going on about tranny kids like they already have
the fact that we have civil law that covers every practical aspect of marriage means that its not actually an important issue and is just another way for people to virtue signal, and i dont want to give an inch to progressives that think its funny to make kids wear dresses to spite some politician
it would benefit faggy sjw types infinitely more than actual gay people and so a lot of people that are aware of the issues reject it
because the strongest advocates for it here are shitty people who will try to push further and start going on about tranny kids like they already have
Lol? So is this a slippery slope fallacy or what?
the fact that we have civil law that covers every practical aspect of marriage means that its not actually an important issue and is just another way for people to virtue signal, and i dont want to give an inch to progressives that think its funny to make kids wear dresses to spite some politician
Again, stop using SJWs to shield your anti-civil rights stances. You failed to provide a single rational reason for your stance other than "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SJWS."
so what just ignore terrible people with terrible ideas trying to gain influence? i feel like if "alt right" types proposed a law that seemed nice but would allow them more power over minorities youd be opposed regardless of what the initial law was, because duh
American civil rights movement
yes its so analogous because while they had fire hoses and attack dogs set on them for wanting to drink at a water fountain and vote, gay people have to deal with not being able to have a glitzy official ceremony and have to make do with a glitzy non official one that conveys all the exact same rights
You're missing the point dude. Before all that violence took place, the anti camp insisted that blacks and whites were "separate but equal" and claimed it was fine black people were denied service in certain areas, because they could get them in others.
The point is you can't claim people are equal if they aren't actually equal, in every way possible. It wasn't a big deal for those black people to walk around the corner and use the "blacks" fountain, but they sure as hell weren't equal if they couldn't use the same fountain the whites were using, now were they?
The argument for gay marriage isn't that civil unions are different, the US had civil unions as well. It's that "separate but equal" is not actually equality.
and claimed it was fine black people were denied service in certain areas, because they could get them in others.
yeah so clearly the context is wildly different because a technicality is all thats being denied
ultimately wed just say "yeah whatever have that technicality", but people dont trust the advocates of changing the law to stop there because of what theyve already tried to do in other areas
and because its not really an issue of rights, people feel its not really a big deal to say no if it stops shitty people getting their way on other issues
its effectively a choice between "support a feel good law that doesnt do much, plus pedos get a leg up in the school system" and "dont pass a feel good law that doesnt do much, potentially piss a few people off, but deny pedos"
its a matter of priority
The point is you can't claim people are equal if they aren't actually equal, in every way possible.
being a bit pedantic there
the "blacks" fountain
cmon thats a bit disingenuous and insulting to black people dont you think
the US had civil unions as well
theyre different here, they do all the financial stuff and visitation rights and next of kin etc etc ie all the benefits of marriage
"No, some opinions are not valid, as in they are not worth considering or debating or even entertaining.
Someone's pro-choice (dog-whistle for baby murder, folks) opinion is one of those. That person is entitled to that opinion, but it shouldn't be considered relevant by anyone."
I'm startin' to like ya, lass. Show me more of your echo chamber ways!
See, the difference is, your anti-choice position also falls under the "opinion not worth considering" because you have no right to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their body.
As for the rest of this, it's hilarious mental gymnastics.
> As for the rest of this, it's hilarious mental gymnastics.
No argument there, you're a natural at it from the looks of it. Keep up the good work, but maybe save the seriousposting for some other circlejerk sub, let's keep this one focused on the shitty bussy-related memes.
Speaking of seriousposting (and assuming you're not shitposting, in which case - haha made me seriouspost),
> your anti-choice position
Not surprised you think that's my actual position, and not just a demonstration of the retardedness of your "argument".
If I madlib your "argument" to support Nazi death squads, will you think that's my actual position too? Mayocide maybe? Mandatory rape for all PoC pan-trans-gender-fluid-queer immigrant refugee rape survivor helpless children?
How absurd does this ad absurdum need to get before you realize I'm mocking your substance-free appeals to emotion by demonstrating they don't sound out of place from the mouth of your average religious dogma zealot?
How does it make you feel that strong supporters of gay marriage (me) think you're a major part of the problem, that you're what's making it worse for non-het folks by making enemies of the people on the fence?
Besides the obvious anti-queer hardliners, smug scum like you is the second factor for slowing down the move to equal treatment of people, regardless of sexual preferences. By playing Thought Police and painting anybody with an unsanctioned thought that deviates from the dogma-they-must-believe homophobic, retardecoughignorant, literally Shitler, you're just making it easier for people on the fence to lean to the other side.
"Gee, I'm not sure about this gay marriage thing, I'm concerned about X, Y, Z"
"THAT'S AN INVALID OPINION, IT'S NOT ALLOWED, YOU WOULD ONLY QUESTION ANY OF IT IF YOU'RE A BIGOTED RELIGIOUS HOMOPHOBE RARGARBL"
"Hm, the 'GOD HATES FAGS' folks are retarded, but this is kind of insulting. Maybe those folks that keep yammering about crazy SJWs are not so out there."
Congrats, lass - you're an active, direct cause for making society a bit less queer-tolerant and a bit more divisive on an issue where we need to unite with as many people as we can in places where it's still an issue. Hope yer proud.
If I madlib your "argument" to support Nazi death squads, will you think that's my actual position too? Mayocide maybe? Mandatory rape for all PoC pan-trans-gender-fluid-queer immigrant refugee rape survivor helpless children?
Can you reword this in english?
How absurd does this ad absurdum need to get before you realize I'm mocking your substance-free appeals to emotion by demonstrating they don't sound out of place from the mouth of your average religious dogma zealot?
You sure seem to love throwing out these fallacies you don't really understand.
How does what I said differ? Because what I'm saying isn't based on a dogmatic religion. It's based on the basic principles of human rights for which the western world stands.
My argument isn't an appeal to emotion - it's an appeal to human rights. The only people guilty of an emotional appeal = the anti-choice crowd, which is why most of their propaganda involves the "dead baby" bullshit and it's why Keefe tried to smear PP with a fake video.
Not only is nothing I said an appeal to emotion - it has a supreme court ruling backing it.
How does it make you feel that strong supporters of gay marriage (me) think you're a major part of the problem, that you're what's making it worse for non-het folks by making enemies of the people on the fence?
Yes, it's the people that refuse to entertain religious bullshit in relation to gay marriage that are holding back progress, not the people that seem to be under the impression they have a say in who another person can marry.
Besides the obvious anti-queer hardliners, smug scum like you is the second factor for slowing down the move to equal treatment of people, regardless of sexual preferences. By playing Thought Police and painting anybody with an unsanctioned thought that deviates from the dogma-they-must-believe homophobic, retardecoughignorant, literally Shitler, you're just making it easier for people on the fence to lean to the other side.
Yeah, you can keep recycling the same bullshit arguments anti-civil rights movements have been making for a hundred years.
You realize this is the same type of shit people were saying during the civil rights movement in an effort to shut minorities up?
In a poll, whites were asked whether the NFL players kneeling in protest during the national anthem are helping or hurting the cause of racial justice. No fewer than 85 percent said they are hurting it.
Clearly, this offense to the anthem and the American flag is the worst possible way to change minds. Blacks need to find a less divisive means to register their discontent.
Oh, wait. I’ve got that wrong. Those figures don’t come from a new poll. They come from a survey taken in 1966 asking whites whether “the demonstrations by Negroes on civil rights have helped more or hurt more in the advancement of Negro rights.”
Only 15 percent of whites surveyed thought those peaceful protests would advance the cause of integration and equality. Martin Luther King Jr. and his nonviolent methods are honored even by conservatives today, but in 1967, half of whites said he was harming blacks, with only 36 percent disagreeing.
In many respects, the country has changed a lot since then — partly because of those unpopular demonstrations. What has not changed is that whites generally resent organized efforts by African-Americans to raise grievances and seek change. Last year, a Reuters poll found that 63 percent of whites disapproved of NFL players kneeling during the anthem — compared with 17 percent of blacks.
> U: Yes, it's the people that refuse to entertain religious bullshit in relation to gay marriage that are holding back progress, not <meeee>
> ME: Besides the obvious anti-queer hardliners, smug scum like you is the second factor for slowing down the move to equal treatment
Great reading comprehension you got there. Guess I shouldn't expect more from a religious nutter.
>What has not changed is that whites generally resent organized efforts by <group> to raise grievances and seek change.
Who said anything about being against that? The topic was your retarded dogmatic (hell, I'd say religious) absolutism, thought policing and the harms of polarization for minorities' situation.
Guess on some deep level you realize your approach is causing more harm than good, so it's time to resort to deflection and changing the topic again, huh? Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, innit?
Keep at it lass, I bet you're sleeping really tight at night, thinking your polarizing garbage isn't making it worse for the non-het crowd. Every time you read about another gay couple being beat up, you can proudly deny contributing to that.
Meanwhile I'll be showing skinheads and homophobes that fags ain't always cunts, finding common ground with them ("does it matter to you that they gargle cocks behind closed doors, or is it constantly being painted bigot, homophobe, scum without any discussion that gets you angry?"), and doing my part to make this world slightly less shitty.
Now this adversarial stance is all good and outragey, but let me switch to a "we should be on the same team" seriousposting gear for a moment, cuz I see a sliver of hope in your post, what with actually addressing violent-vs-nonviolent approaches near the end there.
Mate, dehumanizing the outgroup is all good and dandy to reinforce beliefs in the ingroup. And make the outgroup hate your guts and anything related more, coincidentally. But we're working with a spectrum of anti-to-pro queer worldviews here, not a binary "GOD HATES FAGS" and "equality for all" separation. You're trying to shift the Overton window towards your end, the extremists on the other side are doing the same.
But there's a very large segment of the population, that anonymously and spoken to one-on-one, would be somewhere between those extremes. And these, believe it or not, are actual humans (crazy, I know). With reasons for why they hold certain beliefs. Most of them think of themselves as the good guys. Guess what, you can reach a lot of them, if you sit down one on one (or in a sufficiently tight group to not trigger insecurity/embarrassment defenses), have a chat and try to understand where they come from. Explicitly avoiding triggering their defense mode by, for example, saying that only a bigot could be against gay marriage or something. Show them you want to understand, without judgement, what's on their mind in those scenarios - and kinda compare notes, if you will. From there, you can gradually try to expand what they find acceptable. For example,
Would you mind if yer best mate was secretly a poof, and never made advances towards anyone straight?
Yes, aight, which parts exactly? Nah, aight, what if it was the milkman? <...> Random person on the street? <...>
Well if said gay mate makes an advance on accident? I'd go "Nah mate, don't swing that way", they'd go "Sorry mate, hope this don't change anything", have a beer and continue as normal, ya know? Plus they'd be a great source for better UsoGay jokes to poke at yer other mates and gross em out, lemme tell ya!
And so on. Boom, one less person to join the gay bash.
Of course this is the best case scenario and won't work for all. Big time sink too, working person by person. Then again, if two people you've affected then turn and affect two other people (geometric progression and shit)...
And you have folks that hate on dem gays for ideological reasons. Straight to the hot topic - neo nazis! Or more realistically, folks that use their arguments (subhuman, etc). One can find which parts of the ideology attract them (ethnic purity? Jews did this? Fucking western countries fucking us over, we'll show them?), and gain trust by finding common ground
> To be fair, certain social systems work better in high-trust, highly homogeneous societies - take a look at Norway's <insert example here>!
> Yeah, plenty of the financial industry has Jews all up its ass, but them niggas got an education-uber-alles culture going on, and <insert history about persecution, group only being allowed to usury that shit up, no other way to make a living> so that's why - also, even if we gas 'em, we gon' get another bunch of wankers on the same spot, and they ain't gonna help us any more either. <...>).
Using that trust, you can get them to apply logic to the ideology bits that are iffy and we're interested in.
> Yeah, Aryan Ubermensch and all that, but didya know about honorary Aryans? Japs, Slavs, etc. Let's get realpolitik up in this bitch, X got to be Ubermensch because they were allies, Y (same ethnic group as X) didn't cuz they were supporting the cunts on the other side. Note that supposedly Hitler didn't wanna "gaza al le jews", just get them out of his Lebensraum and supposedly (fuck if I know for certain) he supported Zionism and Israel as a way to do that, but shit hit the fan and shit.
> So what if the gay Untermensch shit was just to get the folks that ain't OK with em to support him? Like Hillary and the black voting block, or Trump and the black voting block, or <...>
> Sure, ya ain't getting kids out of a gay couple with current tech, but who gives a fuck - get em to take care of some of them orphans.
> Gays ain't masculine and associating with them can lose ya respect from others? Brah, let me introduce ya to masc4masc (or not), but shit, turns out they got a whole spectrum from ultra-macho to the ultra-fem ones, "1 man is manly, 2 man is manlier" (I keed, I keed), and hell, they can be the faggiest of fags but that don't mean you have to associate with em - one can just let the folks be, oblig. disclaimer for the in-your-face cunts, regardless of orientation. Hell, someone says "yer not beating up this poof? What are ya, some kind of fag?", you can hit em with "Ya insecure brah? Maybe a bit closeted, so ya need to prove yer macho man by beating up this harmless fag?"
Et cetera. Key being, put people on the defensive and you won't get to them. Sure it's gonna be a tall order to turn end-of-the-spectrum extremists away from their dogmatic beliefs, but it's not black and white - there's plenty of low hanging fruit outside of the loud extremist minorities on both sides. Hell, even with his slightly more adversarial approach compared to my pussy-footing above, Daryl Davis (black guy) turned 200 KKK folks away from racism, and helped dismantle the Maryland branch.
In sociology and social psychology, an ingroup is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an outgroup is a social group with which an individual does not identify. For example, people may find it psychologically meaningful to view themselves according to their race, culture, gender, age or religion. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.
Outside of people seeking violence or truly nasty creeps I don't see reasons to block people from traveling. Most of the world can be more awful than Milo.
'Hey we're a bunch of numales from melbourne but if we awkwardly call each other cunt and mate the 'seppos' (literally never heard this in real life) will think we're true blue croc-ee-dile hunters!' - /r/Australia
I said it before and I'll say it again /r/Australia is by a large margin the worst country related subreddit out there, even worse than Canada. It's almost laughable how unrepresentative the sub is of Australia as a whole, more like /r/Brunswick (if everything bad about Portland was shoved into a suburb, for you Burgers).
The mods are good, but the users are just fucking godawful.
/r/Europe is probably the best (setting the bar in the mud but whatever): good mods and a good mix of users with different opinions, not some echo chamber where people just jerk each other off constantly.
Holy shit agreed!
I remember when I first stumbled upon that sub and couldn't believe the amount of fuckwits in there. It's like the absolute dregs in Melbourne all congregate in that sub
/u/captainthirsty, I know what you're feeling. I can sense your smugness from the other side of the world. You just posted The paradox of tolerance like every faggot who doesn't have a clue nor has ever read Popper beside that fucking comic that gets reposted every 7 minutes on facebook or whatever social media you use. You feel smart, you have the fucking silver bullet for (((racist bigots))). You've just outsmarted everyone just by posting a wikipedia page and you perceive yourself as some sort of scholar.
Well guess what, the Paradox of Tolerance DOESN'T FUCKING WORK IF YOU CLAIM THAT EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH (Including a SODOMITE DEGENERATE JEW WHO OPENLY BRAGS ABOUT HAVING HIS ANUS RAVAGED BY MELANIN ENRICHED INDIVIDUALS WITH ABSURDLY SIZED GENITALIA) IS AN INTOLERANT BIGOT FASCIST.
Stop being a fucking faggot (more than Milo at least) and go back to studying what fascism is even was, because everytime I read you aussies in /r/australia posting shit like this it makes me desire Mad Max was real and not some sci-fi flick starring Mel Gibson. And if you're too young to understand what does this mean, I mean that Skincancerlandstralia should be glassed.
72 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-10-06
Your condescending, contradictory bullshit isn't attractive to anyone except your frothing, basement-dwelling, virgin army.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 DeadMenDontGetDoxxed 2017-10-06
Ah, I see you post regularly on /r/australia.
1 bareballzthebitch 2017-10-06
Everyone should get married a few times. Depriving gays from a messy expensive divorce was a travesty of justice.
1 aksdfkjjlkj 2017-10-06
Nah m80, no women involved in the divorce, so none of the usual rape happening, just a civilized parting of ways.
I mean, gays are totally unlike women, there's hardly any drama, just /r/askgaybr...
ok, I can't finish that one with a straight face.
But I can definitely finish with a straight(ened out) colon, if ya know what I mean. Eh? Eh?
1 Greasy_Slot 2017-10-06
How can you reconcile saying all gays will go to hell but not letting them get married?
1 Gil-Gandel 2017-10-06
True, as long as they're going to hell then it's only fair they have some idea what to expect when they get there.
1 FulfilledOxyuranus 2017-10-06
I like how they give absolutely no sympathy for his molestation.
1 Nechaev 2017-10-06
As far as they're concerned he was the molester.
1 incineratechicken 2017-10-06
I honestly would not put it past him, he was a wily one.
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
but its good to hate him because he might associate with people i dont like! my hatred is righteous!
1 pvijay187 2017-10-06
Probably because he thinks molestation is a good idea.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-10-06
I think its a good idea. If the molester is Rihanna, and the molestee is me.
1 pvijay187 2017-10-06
Only if Rihanna is a 350 pound male prisoner.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-10-06
I don't think she is.
1 pvijay187 2017-10-06
The singer isn't but your cellmate will be your Rihanna anytime
1 grungebot5000 2017-10-06
if you don’t support same sex marriage you’re a bigot
1 grungebot5000 2017-10-06
it’s 2013 ffs get with the times oldman
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-10-06
Actually, if you think there are distinct sexes that can be the "same", YOU are the bigot.
1 House_Bitch 2017-10-06
I was waiting for this to be posted here.
1 botchlings 2017-10-06
Milo is a British citizen... does he even need a visa? I thought citizens of the Commonwealth could travel freely between other Commonwealth countries? Maybe that's how it used to be?
I love Milo but his whole shtick is to cause as much controversy as possible and then feed off of the media attention that it garners him. Really, the best possible way to deal with the guy is just to ignore him and let him go about his business without giving him attention. Berkeley didn't learn that lesson and now Australia seems to be taking the bait...
1 wtfuxlolwut 2017-10-06
Nah we had far to many chavy backpackers who committed crimes against Australia like drinking warm beer now they need a visa and have to scull an ice cold schooner before we let them in.
1 SupaDupaFlyAccount 2017-10-06
We did the same in Canada cuz you Aussies were shitting up our ski resorts.
1 wtfuxlolwut 2017-10-06
Yea sorry about that snow is such a novelty to Australians we flock to it like moths to a bug zapper.. it's only going to get worse too you are legalising the weeds.. you are going to get over run I'd advocate stronger imgration laws specificlly targeting the bogan menace.
1 GhostFaceShiller 2017-10-06
The UK still allows Australians free access as they're the only immigrants willing to serve alcohol in defiance of Sharia Law.
1 glmox 2017-10-06
why am i not surprised
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-10-06
I'm somewhat surprised that u/botchlings is black tbh. Explains him randomly capitalising Nouns when he gets agitated though: probably comes from some formerly Dutch controlled African country.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-10-06
Woah! Really?
1 Imgur_Lurker 2017-10-06
I just thought he did it for the same reason I do, to bother people.
-Uncle Samuel
1 Think_Once 2017-10-06
No. Only commonwealth countries with a white majority population have visa free travel. The rest ain't right, because they ain't white.
1 GhostFaceShiller 2017-10-06
The UK still allows Australians free access as they're the only immigrants willing to serve alcohol in defiance of Sharia Law.
1 TheGhostOfRichPiana 2017-10-06
lol it's crazy how unrepresentative of Australians r/Australia is.
1 Nechaev 2017-10-06
If I thought it was indicative of Australia I'd almost be considering changing my mind on this psuedo-referendum.
t's been completely overrun with fanatical
SJWsSSM agenda pushers lately.Obviously a Jewish Homosexual race-mixer is completely unwelcome in The Land of the Super-Tolerant™ (if he has unapproved opinions).
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
I don't know m8, I don't think anyone that believes other people shouldn't be allowed to get married deserves tolerance.
Don't assault them or anything, but let's not pretend that's a valid opinion.
1 Nechaev 2017-10-06
The angry intolerance of all dissent and the refusal to discuss any sort of nuance on this topic has left me pretty disappointed with the r/australia, but if you think that means it is going to affect my "vote" you misunderstand my point.
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
But this isn't something that should be discussed. This isn't an issue where both sides are on equal footing or have an equal opinion.
If someone actually believes that gay marriage is up for debate they're just a moron.
1 Nechaev 2017-10-06
I don't know how familiar you are with the Australian situation on the Same Sex Marriage issue, but the government (in their "wisdom") decided to give the voters of Australia a say in a non-binding plebiscite.
Despite appearances in r/Australia, Australian people are still allowed to have their own opinions. Even to have some have reservations on the matter.
I think the doubters would be better dealt with "You're mistaken because reasons X, Y and Z" rather than just saying "YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE A BIGOT! KILL YOURSELF!" , but that seems too hard for many YES advocates and they're doing themselves more harm than good from the perspective of somebody who is actually sympathetic to their basic goals.
This ultra-aggressive approach (if anything) is only scaring the fence-sitters into the conservative camp.
It would be a serious shame if the rabid minority ruined things for a generally pretty tolerant society who have been somewhat held back by a spineless government.
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
M8, how do you even argue with someone that's anti-gay marriage?
The only reason anyone is anti-gay marriage is due to religion. Religious values are terminal, there is no debate that convinces them they are wrong.
This is why religion needs to be completely kept out of government.
A quote from Goldwater in the US:
1 Barrrcode 2017-10-06
That's just not true.
1 WithoutAComma 2017-10-06
True. A better way to explain it might be "values," however this turn is generally also terminal. Not that there shouldn't be a conversation but the expectation should probably be that it will be futile.
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
Give me a single rational reason as to why someone would be anti-gay marriage if not for religion.
1 Barrrcode 2017-10-06
Do a little bit of thinking on the origins of marriage, and the world that brought it about. Come on, it's not that hard. But in a little effort.
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
Marriage has been around for a long ass time. Not sure what the origins of marriage has to do with gay marriage today.
Still waiting for you to provide a single rational reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't involve religion.
You failed to do so in this comment.
1 Barrrcode 2017-10-06
Have you not heard of arranged marriages?
Stop being a lazy cunt and demanding knowledge be spoon-fed to you. If you want answers, go search.
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
I'll take that as "I can't come up with a single rational reason."
1 Barrrcode 2017-10-06
I gave you one. Your argument from ignorance is not exactly a good start for you.
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
No, you didn't. What you did do was say "but come on the origins of marriage" as if that's in any way relevant to today.
I'll give you one more reply before I dismiss you:
Give me a single rational reason to be against gay marriage that does not involve religion.
1 I-need-MAYO 2017-10-06
Yeah, don't debate, so only anti-SSM voices get heard. Smart.
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
There is no debate to be had because the anti-gay marriage crowd has no rational or sane reason to be against gay marriage.
What about this is it you guys aren't grasping? They have literally no argument that can be considered.
1 ajskfjhkjh_alt 2017-10-06
Ooh, lemme try this one, hun.
"There is no debate to be had because the anti-segregation crowd has no rational or sane reason to be against segregation.
What about this is it you guys aren't grasping? They have literally no argument that can be considered.
It's like when retards say you should debate commies as if communism or Marxism operate on reason or facts.
There seems to be a real problem with people, especially internet retards just not understanding how these ideologies work."
Great madlib pasta for arguing against anything without presenting relevant - or, let's be honest here, any - arguments. Proud of ya, m8.
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
lol i got banned for "homophobia" after arguing that voting no doesnt necessarily make you a piece of shit because a lot of the advocates were suspect
1 Nechaev 2017-10-06
r/TrueAustralia is kind of quiet, but at least you won't get banned for bullshit reasons like that.
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
did you know gay marriage in australia is irrelevant because civic partnership laws let unmarried couples enjoy the same benefits
did you also know the main people pushing for this vote and spreading propaganda are pieces of shit and that its fun to spite them
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
If it's irrelevant, why do you care? Why not just let them get married?
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
because the strongest advocates for it here are shitty people who will try to push further and start going on about tranny kids like they already have
the fact that we have civil law that covers every practical aspect of marriage means that its not actually an important issue and is just another way for people to virtue signal, and i dont want to give an inch to progressives that think its funny to make kids wear dresses to spite some politician
it would benefit faggy sjw types infinitely more than actual gay people and so a lot of people that are aware of the issues reject it
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
Lol? So is this a slippery slope fallacy or what?
Sounds an awful lot like "separate but equal."
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
no because the same people are already advocating it and have been doing it for months
they want to use gay marriage as a springboard for their weird unpopular sjw ideas, because they cant pass them on their own merit
emphasis on the word "equal"
its almost as though theres no real issue to bitch about
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
In case you didn't know, "separate but equal" was the rallying cry of the anti-civil rights movement in America.
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
no shit except the context is completely different because actual rights were at stake then, equal actually applies here
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
Lol, nah dude. If this wasn't a big deal as you claim, you'd not care. But you do care, because you're a homophobic piece of trash.
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
you cant give sjws an inch, gay people will have to deal with not having a fancy reception if thats what it takes
otherwise i wouldnt even care because its ultimately just a political gesture
thats not homophobia lol its pragmatism
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
I don't care about your extremism and your "DAE SJWS XD."
Stop using SJWs as a shield for your ignorance and your anti-civil rights stances.
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
"i dont understand your motivation so ill call you a bigot"
"heres my motivation"
"omg i dont care"
i dont have anti civil rights stances what are you even talking about
pretty sure ive already explained this
and for someone thats ignorant i sure have to explain a lot of stuff to you
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
Again, stop using SJWs to shield your anti-civil rights stances. You failed to provide a single rational reason for your stance other than "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SJWS."
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
so what just ignore terrible people with terrible ideas trying to gain influence? i feel like if "alt right" types proposed a law that seemed nice but would allow them more power over minorities youd be opposed regardless of what the initial law was, because duh
yes its so analogous because while they had fire hoses and attack dogs set on them for wanting to drink at a water fountain and vote, gay people have to deal with not being able to have a glitzy official ceremony and have to make do with a glitzy non official one that conveys all the exact same rights
its identical
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
You're missing the point dude. Before all that violence took place, the anti camp insisted that blacks and whites were "separate but equal" and claimed it was fine black people were denied service in certain areas, because they could get them in others.
The point is you can't claim people are equal if they aren't actually equal, in every way possible. It wasn't a big deal for those black people to walk around the corner and use the "blacks" fountain, but they sure as hell weren't equal if they couldn't use the same fountain the whites were using, now were they?
The argument for gay marriage isn't that civil unions are different, the US had civil unions as well. It's that "separate but equal" is not actually equality.
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
yeah so clearly the context is wildly different because a technicality is all thats being denied
ultimately wed just say "yeah whatever have that technicality", but people dont trust the advocates of changing the law to stop there because of what theyve already tried to do in other areas
and because its not really an issue of rights, people feel its not really a big deal to say no if it stops shitty people getting their way on other issues
its effectively a choice between "support a feel good law that doesnt do much, plus pedos get a leg up in the school system" and "dont pass a feel good law that doesnt do much, potentially piss a few people off, but deny pedos"
its a matter of priority
being a bit pedantic there
cmon thats a bit disingenuous and insulting to black people dont you think
theyre different here, they do all the financial stuff and visitation rights and next of kin etc etc ie all the benefits of marriage
1 Kekistanian9005 2017-10-06
Can I marry my daughter then?
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
I don't care what 2 consenting adults do. It isn't my business, friendo.
1 JohnTheOrc 2017-10-06
The slide continues
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
Slide into what?
1 JohnTheOrc 2017-10-06
The abyss, shill
Also, fuck you for seeing that before I edited. Now I have to change it back.
1 Kekistanian9005 2017-10-06
I knew you had that dereneracy deep down inside you!
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
breaking news pizzashill likes incest
1 DontTrustRedditors 2017-10-06
All opinions are valid opinions. That's literally what separates the realm of fact, from the realm of opinions.
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
No, some opinions are not valid, as in they are not worth considering or debating or even entertaining.
Someone's anti-gay marriage opinion is one of those. That person is entitled to that opinion, but it shouldn't be considered relevant by anyone.
1 ajskfjhkjh_alt 2017-10-06
I'm seeing a pattern here.
"No, some opinions are not valid, as in they are not worth considering or debating or even entertaining.
Someone's pro-choice (dog-whistle for baby murder, folks) opinion is one of those. That person is entitled to that opinion, but it shouldn't be considered relevant by anyone."
I'm startin' to like ya, lass. Show me more of your echo chamber ways!
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
See, the difference is, your anti-choice position also falls under the "opinion not worth considering" because you have no right to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their body.
As for the rest of this, it's hilarious mental gymnastics.
1 ajskfjhkjh_alt 2017-10-06
> As for the rest of this, it's hilarious mental gymnastics.
No argument there, you're a natural at it from the looks of it. Keep up the good work, but maybe save the seriousposting for some other circlejerk sub, let's keep this one focused on the shitty bussy-related memes.
Speaking of seriousposting (and assuming you're not shitposting, in which case - haha made me seriouspost),
> your anti-choice position
Not surprised you think that's my actual position, and not just a demonstration of the retardedness of your "argument".
If I madlib your "argument" to support Nazi death squads, will you think that's my actual position too? Mayocide maybe? Mandatory rape for all PoC pan-trans-gender-fluid-queer immigrant refugee rape survivor helpless children?
How absurd does this ad absurdum need to get before you realize I'm mocking your substance-free appeals to emotion by demonstrating they don't sound out of place from the mouth of your average religious dogma zealot?
How does it make you feel that strong supporters of gay marriage (me) think you're a major part of the problem, that you're what's making it worse for non-het folks by making enemies of the people on the fence?
Besides the obvious anti-queer hardliners, smug scum like you is the second factor for slowing down the move to equal treatment of people, regardless of sexual preferences. By playing Thought Police and painting anybody with an unsanctioned thought that deviates from the dogma-they-must-believe homophobic, retardecoughignorant, literally Shitler, you're just making it easier for people on the fence to lean to the other side.
"Gee, I'm not sure about this gay marriage thing, I'm concerned about X, Y, Z"
"THAT'S AN INVALID OPINION, IT'S NOT ALLOWED, YOU WOULD ONLY QUESTION ANY OF IT IF YOU'RE A BIGOTED RELIGIOUS HOMOPHOBE RARGARBL"
"Hm, the 'GOD HATES FAGS' folks are retarded, but this is kind of insulting. Maybe those folks that keep yammering about crazy SJWs are not so out there."
Congrats, lass - you're an active, direct cause for making society a bit less queer-tolerant and a bit more divisive on an issue where we need to unite with as many people as we can in places where it's still an issue. Hope yer proud.
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
Can you reword this in english?
You sure seem to love throwing out these fallacies you don't really understand.
How does what I said differ? Because what I'm saying isn't based on a dogmatic religion. It's based on the basic principles of human rights for which the western world stands.
My argument isn't an appeal to emotion - it's an appeal to human rights. The only people guilty of an emotional appeal = the anti-choice crowd, which is why most of their propaganda involves the "dead baby" bullshit and it's why Keefe tried to smear PP with a fake video.
Not only is nothing I said an appeal to emotion - it has a supreme court ruling backing it.
Yes, it's the people that refuse to entertain religious bullshit in relation to gay marriage that are holding back progress, not the people that seem to be under the impression they have a say in who another person can marry.
Yeah, you can keep recycling the same bullshit arguments anti-civil rights movements have been making for a hundred years.
You realize this is the same type of shit people were saying during the civil rights movement in an effort to shut minorities up?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-whites-nfl-anthem-protests-20170927-story.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3D
1 ajskfjhkjh_alt 2017-10-06
> U: Yes, it's the people that refuse to entertain religious bullshit in relation to gay marriage that are holding back progress, not <meeee>
> ME: Besides the obvious anti-queer hardliners, smug scum like you is the second factor for slowing down the move to equal treatment
Great reading comprehension you got there. Guess I shouldn't expect more from a religious nutter.
>What has not changed is that whites generally resent organized efforts by <group> to raise grievances and seek change.
Who said anything about being against that? The topic was your retarded dogmatic (hell, I'd say religious) absolutism, thought policing and the harms of polarization for minorities' situation.
Guess on some deep level you realize your approach is causing more harm than good, so it's time to resort to deflection and changing the topic again, huh? Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, innit?
Keep at it lass, I bet you're sleeping really tight at night, thinking your polarizing garbage isn't making it worse for the non-het crowd. Every time you read about another gay couple being beat up, you can proudly deny contributing to that.
Meanwhile I'll be showing skinheads and homophobes that fags ain't always cunts, finding common ground with them ("does it matter to you that they gargle cocks behind closed doors, or is it constantly being painted bigot, homophobe, scum without any discussion that gets you angry?"), and doing my part to make this world slightly less shitty.
Now this adversarial stance is all good and outragey, but let me switch to a "we should be on the same team" seriousposting gear for a moment, cuz I see a sliver of hope in your post, what with actually addressing violent-vs-nonviolent approaches near the end there.
Mate, dehumanizing the outgroup is all good and dandy to reinforce beliefs in the ingroup. And make the outgroup hate your guts and anything related more, coincidentally. But we're working with a spectrum of anti-to-pro queer worldviews here, not a binary "GOD HATES FAGS" and "equality for all" separation. You're trying to shift the Overton window towards your end, the extremists on the other side are doing the same.
But there's a very large segment of the population, that anonymously and spoken to one-on-one, would be somewhere between those extremes. And these, believe it or not, are actual humans (crazy, I know). With reasons for why they hold certain beliefs. Most of them think of themselves as the good guys. Guess what, you can reach a lot of them, if you sit down one on one (or in a sufficiently tight group to not trigger insecurity/embarrassment defenses), have a chat and try to understand where they come from. Explicitly avoiding triggering their defense mode by, for example, saying that only a bigot could be against gay marriage or something. Show them you want to understand, without judgement, what's on their mind in those scenarios - and kinda compare notes, if you will. From there, you can gradually try to expand what they find acceptable. For example,
And so on. Boom, one less person to join the gay bash.
Of course this is the best case scenario and won't work for all. Big time sink too, working person by person. Then again, if two people you've affected then turn and affect two other people (geometric progression and shit)...
And you have folks that hate on dem gays for ideological reasons. Straight to the hot topic - neo nazis! Or more realistically, folks that use their arguments (subhuman, etc). One can find which parts of the ideology attract them (ethnic purity? Jews did this? Fucking western countries fucking us over, we'll show them?), and gain trust by finding common ground
> To be fair, certain social systems work better in high-trust, highly homogeneous societies - take a look at Norway's <insert example here>!
> Yeah, plenty of the financial industry has Jews all up its ass, but them niggas got an education-uber-alles culture going on, and <insert history about persecution, group only being allowed to usury that shit up, no other way to make a living> so that's why - also, even if we gas 'em, we gon' get another bunch of wankers on the same spot, and they ain't gonna help us any more either. <...>).
Using that trust, you can get them to apply logic to the ideology bits that are iffy and we're interested in.
> Yeah, Aryan Ubermensch and all that, but didya know about honorary Aryans? Japs, Slavs, etc. Let's get realpolitik up in this bitch, X got to be Ubermensch because they were allies, Y (same ethnic group as X) didn't cuz they were supporting the cunts on the other side. Note that supposedly Hitler didn't wanna "gaza al le jews", just get them out of his Lebensraum and supposedly (fuck if I know for certain) he supported Zionism and Israel as a way to do that, but shit hit the fan and shit.
> So what if the gay Untermensch shit was just to get the folks that ain't OK with em to support him? Like Hillary and the black voting block, or Trump and the black voting block, or <...>
> Sure, ya ain't getting kids out of a gay couple with current tech, but who gives a fuck - get em to take care of some of them orphans.
> Gays ain't masculine and associating with them can lose ya respect from others? Brah, let me introduce ya to masc4masc (or not), but shit, turns out they got a whole spectrum from ultra-macho to the ultra-fem ones, "1 man is manly, 2 man is manlier" (I keed, I keed), and hell, they can be the faggiest of fags but that don't mean you have to associate with em - one can just let the folks be, oblig. disclaimer for the in-your-face cunts, regardless of orientation. Hell, someone says "yer not beating up this poof? What are ya, some kind of fag?", you can hit em with "Ya insecure brah? Maybe a bit closeted, so ya need to prove yer macho man by beating up this harmless fag?"
Et cetera. Key being, put people on the defensive and you won't get to them. Sure it's gonna be a tall order to turn end-of-the-spectrum extremists away from their dogmatic beliefs, but it's not black and white - there's plenty of low hanging fruit outside of the loud extremist minorities on both sides. Hell, even with his slightly more adversarial approach compared to my pussy-footing above, Daryl Davis (black guy) turned 200 KKK folks away from racism, and helped dismantle the Maryland branch.
Bah, getting tired of seriousposting. Autism out.
1 WikiTextBot 2017-10-06
Ingroups and outgroups
In sociology and social psychology, an ingroup is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an outgroup is a social group with which an individual does not identify. For example, people may find it psychologically meaningful to view themselves according to their race, culture, gender, age or religion. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.27
1 pizzashill 2017-10-06
This is the largest, most incoherent wall of text I've ever seen.
1 ajskfjhkjh_alt 2017-10-06
Guess you're a lost cause then. Have fun going through life and fucking shit up for non-hetero folks.
1 Neronoah 2017-10-06
Outside of people seeking violence or truly nasty creeps I don't see reasons to block people from traveling. Most of the world can be more awful than Milo.
1 wtfuxlolwut 2017-10-06
This is gonna be good one
1 darth_stroyer 2017-10-06
'Hey we're a bunch of numales from melbourne but if we awkwardly call each other cunt and mate the 'seppos' (literally never heard this in real life) will think we're true blue croc-ee-dile hunters!' - /r/Australia
1 Thulean-Dragon 2017-10-06
I said it before and I'll say it again /r/Australia is by a large margin the worst country related subreddit out there, even worse than Canada. It's almost laughable how unrepresentative the sub is of Australia as a whole, more like /r/Brunswick (if everything bad about Portland was shoved into a suburb, for you Burgers).
The mods are good, but the users are just fucking godawful.
1 darth_stroyer 2017-10-06
Always felt it was like that. Don't visit any others so I have no idea. Honestly I'd be down to crowdfund their execution.
1 Thulean-Dragon 2017-10-06
/r/Europe is probably the best (setting the bar in the mud but whatever): good mods and a good mix of users with different opinions, not some echo chamber where people just jerk each other off constantly.
Reminds me of /int/ with mild bantz.
1 DrBoloneTren 2017-10-06
Holy shit agreed! I remember when I first stumbled upon that sub and couldn't believe the amount of fuckwits in there. It's like the absolute dregs in Melbourne all congregate in that sub
1 el_Di4blo 2017-10-06
Has anyone actually heard seppos in real life? I've lived here for 20 years and I've only found it on reddit.
1 darth_stroyer 2017-10-06
I've only heard yank
1 Tony_AbbottPBUH 2017-10-06
yeah me old man says it
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
seppos is an oooooolld term and was used more around rougher communities, its rhyming slang for septic tank and that rhymes with yank
but most of the guys in /r/australia wouldnt dare say cunt irl for fear of misogyny
1 LadyVetinari 2017-10-06
/u/captainpriapism what are your thought hon?
1 captainpriapism 2017-10-06
"oh hes a nazi fascist bigot, ban him from everywhere!" they say as he flails his arms around doing gay ass mannerisms talking about black dicks
the reaction to him is disproportionate
1 aggressiveshitpost 2017-10-06
/u/captainthirsty, I know what you're feeling. I can sense your smugness from the other side of the world. You just posted The paradox of tolerance like every faggot who doesn't have a clue nor has ever read Popper beside that fucking comic that gets reposted every 7 minutes on facebook or whatever social media you use. You feel smart, you have the fucking silver bullet for (((racist bigots))). You've just outsmarted everyone just by posting a wikipedia page and you perceive yourself as some sort of scholar.
Well guess what, the Paradox of Tolerance DOESN'T FUCKING WORK IF YOU CLAIM THAT EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH (Including a SODOMITE DEGENERATE JEW WHO OPENLY BRAGS ABOUT HAVING HIS ANUS RAVAGED BY MELANIN ENRICHED INDIVIDUALS WITH ABSURDLY SIZED GENITALIA) IS AN INTOLERANT BIGOT FASCIST.
Stop being a fucking faggot (more than Milo at least) and go back to studying what fascism is even was, because everytime I read you aussies in /r/australia posting shit like this it makes me desire Mad Max was real and not some sci-fi flick starring Mel Gibson. And if you're too young to understand what does this mean, I mean that Skincancerlandstralia should be glassed.
1 captainthirsty 2017-10-06
r u ok man?