Demons DO enter your body through the anus, because the mixture of pain and pleasure caused by the immoral act of sodomy causes so much psychic confusion that a portal to your soul opens up in your anus for the demon to enter.
This is how demons get inside of everyone. They conflate pleasure with pain. They also conflate truth with untruth.
The anus is only ONE way that demons enter a human body, BUT IT IS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT ONES.
This is why so many of you have suffered from pedophilia and sodomy as children. The demons spread to you in this way, in the same way that vampirism spreads through bites.
Reject these homosexual demons and drive them out of your body. I implore you. The world will be a better place. I will forgive you if you expel the demons from your body and stop causing harm to the world around you.
This message is brought to you by truth and decency and concern for your well being as well as the well being of the world around, NOT "bigotry" or "ignorance".
I don't know, while I think currently nazis and the far right should probably be tolerated, it's only because they're such a fringe.
You can't actually debate fascists or extremists of any stripe tbh, it's completely pointless. There comes a time when they need to just be shut down. I'm a big fan of free speech, at the same time I'm fully aware of how dumb and easily bamboozled your average person is.
Like banning nazis from youtube was a great idea. Sometimes you have to protect people from themselves.
I agree that debating them is a waste of time, but what these people are arguing for is effectively a kind of debate - by attacking them in the public sphere and going to great lengths to try and shut them down, they're dignifying their supremely stupid ideas with a response that suggests they're something powerful and serious, a threat to the established order, instead of what they are in reality - maladjusted clown people.
If you expend huge amounts of effort trying to 'push back' against modern fascism you're mystifying it and imbuing it with a kind of power it absolutely does not have over the general population. By treating fascists as a grand threat to society, you're legitimising their efforts, as a grand threat to society is exactly what they want to be. They should be ignored and mocked like antivaxxers, flat earth people or any other bunch of fringe cranks. As soon as they see people getting upset about them, they're given hope that their strategy is starting to work.
If you expend huge amounts of effort trying to 'push back' against modern fascism you're mystifying it and imbuing it with a kind of power it absolutely does not have over the general population
To be clear, while I wouldn't go as far as to say we have a real fascist movement in the united states, the GOP base, as in the core, partisan base, is what I would consider a proto-fascist movement.
The things they are doing, the things they believe, the arguments they are making could be ripped right from the pages of the anatomy of fascism.
Furthermore, the general political climate is right. The gridlock, the polarization, the disregard for democratic norms. Things are a lot worse than people seem to realize, the length to which the GOP is willing to go to cling to power in face of shifting demographics is alarming.
The extreme gerrymandering, racial voter suppression, absurd smears in which they claim liberals are trying to execute babies after they're born, photo-shopping ISIS outfits onto democratic candidates. This has gone well beyond normal political fighting and reaching levels of extremism I didn't even think were possible in the US.
See, the thing is, though, racism is justified by a whole lot of data. You can't just ignore reality. You can say "I disagree with the premise that people who commit a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime are bad", but you can't say "there is no problematic race in the country." The question becomes whether we should allow a race to continue committing half the violence, or whether we should do something about them.
This reminds me of when feminists bring up male crime stats (in very misleading ways) to justify their extreme sexism.
The argument you just made can be used in relation to men, too. Except it's even worse, with men being something like 98% of the violent crime. Funny how that's never a concern for you guys though, yet race is.
Especially interesting, because as far as predictors for crime go, race is pretty far down the list, and gender is basically at the top. You've convinced me! We must deal with this crime problem, what do you suggest we do with the males?
You can't get rid of men because men are required to sustain human life. You can get rid of black people, because black people aren't important in any way, shape, or form. Not that I approve of violent genocide. Rather, I believe we ought to sterilize people who commit violent crimes, regardless of race.
I'm sorry, I don't see your logic. But like I said, if you want to deal with crime (and I just know you're a concerned citizen) you should fully endorse a lockdown on the male gender.
Funny how your arguments, when flipped back on you, all of the sudden are non buono. And no, I don't believe this stuff because I'm not a stupid rightoid. the point is, you'll use misleading statistics to attack entire groups of people, and when those same statistics are flipped back on you, all of the sudden they don't apply.
Hint: you don't care about crime. It's a convenient cover, a way for you to justify your pre-existing prejudice. You formed a view then set out looking for any evidence to justify it. In the same way the feminists did.
First off, that was my first comment in this thread.
And you wrote this like it was meant for someone else.
Pizza, I know that you know that even with crime pretty much gone because no moids, a foid only society would collapse without question. Do not try and pretend otherwise. We've seen your posts. We've seen your contempt that makes some incels blush.
You cannot say the same for a white or "non black" society. Full stop. Historically, they do better.
Who said kill? Confine, for the good of society. Wait a minute, I thought we were in this together?
You believe crime justifies your prejudice, your racism. To remain logically consistent, you must also be sexist towards men, because they're guilty of crime at much higher rates than women are.
You can't have it one way without the other.
Either crime is a good enough reason to justify your prejudice and take action, or it isn't.
Weird how selective you are all of the sudden. I thought you just cared about society?
It's about proportion. Remove 13% of one country? No problem, there'd be no negative repercussions. Remove 3.5 billion people? You're in for some trouble.
Men are slightly less than 50% of the population and 99% of violent crime though, that's pretty disproportionate.
Someone that cares about society as much as you do, and understands why crime is bad, should have no issues with simply declaring men 2nd class citizens, preventing them from holding positions of power, and taking harsh steps to reduce the crime rate.
You know, for the good of society. You're sure coming up with a lot of excuses for someone that simply wants to reduce crime.
I'm not saying anything is bad! You made a valid argument, black people are guilty of crime at disproportionate rates, that means your racism and prejudice are completely justified.
I'm simply taking the next logical step, men are guilty of crime are vastly disproportionate rates, which means prejudice and sexism against men is completely justified.
I find it very interesting that, in one case, black people having higher crime rates justifies whatever you want, but men having much higher crime rates doesn't justify whatever the women want, or the feminists want.
Because black people aren't important and make up only a small portion of the population. Men, on the other hand, are important, and make up half of the world. You can end 50% of crime without any real repercussions, whereas eradicating men may end 99% of crime, but would have massive repercussions.
I see, so it's you that gets to decide who is important. Conveniently enough, the same metric you use to justify your racism and prejudice against others, can not be used to justify sexism and prejudice against you.
Funny how that works. I've proven what I sat out to prove here, so there's no need to continue.
It's common sense that defines that. Men have a 2:1 ratio of percentage of the population to crime committed, blacks have a nearly 5:1 ratio. Big difference, no? Men are also responsible for more than half of work that gets done on this Earth, black people in America, not so much.
It's ok, you've made your point. The very metric that justifies racism and prejudice against others can not be used to justify sexism and prejudice against yourself.
You'll keep digging, you'll keep coming up with arbitrary reasons that protect your own group, because that's easier and more convenient than accepting that your worldview is incoherent and based on nothing relevant.
When someone reveals themselves to be this inconsistent, there's nothing else to discuss.
I already stoutly defended by position and proved my logical consistency. You're basically going "nu-uh your argument is bad" without actually addressing it.
"I'm very logically consistent, also, crime rates justify my prejudice and racism against black people, but crime rates DO NOT justify sexism and prejudice against myself, here's my list of arbitrary reasons I've come up with to avoid admitting I'm a literal retard."
No one is going to take the time to read your long ass arguments. When the guy you are talking to is sitting around saying he wants to genocide people it would be helpful if you would report the comment because otherwise there is no chance other regular readers will report it.
See, the thing is, though, racism is justified by a whole lot of data.
Racism on the individual level is stupid, you can't apply statistical average differences on an individual level, it's a bad heuristic and you'll be burned for not treating people as individuals.
You can't just ignore reality. You can say "I disagree with the premise that people who commit a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime are bad", but you can't say "there is no problematic race in the country."
Applying collective guilt is the big stupid. By the same logic white people are naturally cruel slave owners even though only a small amount of them actually owned slaves and most white people oppose slavery.
There are countless other problems with your reasoning, such as belief that the biggest motivator in crime rate is race rather than the literally millions of other factors that go into that calculus.
It's actually really easy to debate fascists lol. Maybe not on the internet because debating anyone on the internet is hardly different than masterbation, but in person it's super easy. Smart people who know their shit don't become nazis(unless they're just pretending to be nazis to grift retards).
How exactly do you debate people that believe all truth is subjective and are primarily motivated by emotion?
Normally. Your description of fascists can be applied just as well to literally any group of humans. Humans rarely value truth and are primarily motivated by emotion
No it can't, not like fascists. Paxton sums it up:
The other “isms” were created in an era when politics was a gentleman’s business, conducted through protracted and learned parliamentary debate among educated men who appealed to each other’s reasons as well as their sentiments. The classical “isms” rested upon coherent philosophical systems laid out in the works of systematic thinkers. It seems only natural to explain them by examining their programs and the philosophy that underpinned them.
Fascism, by contrast, was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. The role programs and doctrine play in it is, on closer inspection, fundamentally unlike the role they play in conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. It has not been given intellectual underpinnings by any system builder, like Marx, or by any major critical intelligence, like Mill, Burke, or Tocqueville.69
In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms,” the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name. Fascism is “true” insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other peoples in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason. The first fascists were entirely frank about this.
We [Fascists] don’t think ideology is a problem that is resolved in such a way that truth is seated on a throne. But, in that case, does fighting for an ideology mean fighting for mere appearances? No doubt, unless one considers it according to its unique and efficacious psychological-historical value. The truth of an ideology lies in its capacity to set in motion our capacity for ideals and action. Its truth is absolute insofar as, living within us, it suffices to exhaust those capacities.
The truth was whatever permitted the new fascist man (and woman) to dominate others, and whatever made the chosen people triumph.
Fascism rested not upon the truth of its doctrine but upon the leader’s mystical union with the historic destiny of his people, a notion related to romanticist ideas of national historic flowering and of individual artistic or spiritual genius, though fascism otherwise denied romanticism’s exaltation of unfettered personal creativity.71 The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experience sensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity, historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a vast collective enterprise; the gratification of submerging oneself in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination. Fascism’s deliberate replacement of reasoned debate with immediate sensual experience transformed politics, as the exiled German cultural critic Walter Benjamin was the first to point out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate fascist aesthetic experience, Benjamin warned in 1936, was war.
I'm so glad you're back because watching you post is like watching ratchet public freakout videos. It's both morbidly fascinating and it makes me feel better about myself.
It's like they're willfully ignorant of what Popper said.
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.
He was all about the "marketplace of ideas" that the lefties quoting him hate.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Chapotards: we should join antifa and punch anyone on the right
it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument
Lmao I wonder who this applies too? The people that have pages or racial IQ data, or the people that spam "post hog"?
God I hate their insufferable "the ONLY solution proven to be effective fighting Nazis is violence and murder. We NEED to exterminate these menaces to society and anyone protecting them in ANY WAY is a bootlicker fascist sympathizer" talk.
Not necessarily because it's wrong (though it is), but because they're all pussies who don't actually act on that, at least not to the extent that they should be.
If these neo-Nazis are a genuine and immediate existential threat to the safety of themselves and their loved ones, the logical response is to kill them. Like, get a gun, go to their rallies, and shoot them all. Gun down every Nazi in the streets with mob justice until there are none left and the immediate existential threat is purged.
I don't support that, but it is what logically follows from their arguments.
And yet what they actually mean by "violently resisting the Nazi takeover of America" is playing dressup, breaking a few store windows, milkshaking a few politicians, shouting at police, and if they're feeling really spicy then maybe clubbing a Nazi or two over the head with some nearby object and then running away.
Come on guys, if the Nazis are as big a threat as you say, then you shouldn't be merely punching them, you should be trying to break their skulls open! I realize none of you are strong enough to do that, but you should at least try, if for no other reason than for the sake of being logically consistent!
Right? It's like Christians who go "well I don't really care what you believe in." Personally, I like those kinds of religious people because they're not annoying but according to their beliefs, anyone that they don't get onboard with the program is going to be tortured for all of eternity. If you truly believe that, why would you ever waste time doing anything but trying to convert people?
If these neo-Nazis are a genuine and immediate existential threat to the safety of the posters and their loved ones, the logical response is to kill them. Like, get a gun, go to their rallies, and shoot them all. Gun down every Nazi in the streets with mob justice until there are none left and the immediate existential threat is purged.
I haven’t actually thought of it like that before (not that I didn’t think the whole thing was stupid to begin with).
That being said, all they would have to do to prove their convictions is leave the country, which most of these people still haven’t done.
God I hate their insufferable "the ONLY solution proven to be effective fighting Nazis is violence and murder. We NEED to exterminate these menaces to society and anyone protecting them in ANY WAY is a bootlicker fascist sympathizer" talk.
I can't wait for the day some bored history student generations removed from all this has to read these comments I imagine they'll get quite the ironic chuckle
If these neo-Nazis are a genuine and immediate existential threat to the safety of the posters and their loved ones, the logical response is to kill them.
I'd argue that fleeing with their family would also be an option
Like, get a gun, go to their rallies, and shoot them all. Gun down every Nazi in the streets with mob justice until there are none left and the immediate existential threat is purged.
That is what would be done were Nazis an actual threat to anyone
And yet what they actually mean by "violently resisting the Nazi takeover of America" is playing dressup, breaking a few store windows, milkshaking a few politicians, shouting at police, and if they're feeling really spicy then maybe clubbing a Nazi or two over the head with some nearby object and then running away.
Don't forget declaring themselves heroes the revolution
It gets better, his retardation is nearing terminal velocity.
Me
Are you fucking serious 😂 They’re making sure this doesn’t turn into a riot. Would you say that the ACLU is a Neo-Nazi organization because they defended the KKK’s right to free speech?
Person of alternative cognitive capacity
That is literally protecting hate speech, yes. But here's the difference: the ACLU has a history of supporting minorities, whereas the police have a history of harassing and murdering minorities.
-Me
Are you fucking daft? Judging by this photo these cops seem to have a history of fucking being minorities and supporting LGBT rights. Do you see anything besides uniforms? Also just because you think hate speech is free speech doesn’t mean you’re a Nazi.
My main is ehlee0133 if you wanna see for yourself
Are there still people fooled that the USA is a civilized country?
The police is hosting literal Nazi's during a pridemarch. No Western country would do such a thing.
"REEEEEEE THE PIGS WONT LET US BEAT EACH OTHER WITH ROCKS WE TRULY LIVE IN A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY"
You found one soygoy on the Alt right and that changes what? These guys will still crush the heads of most Antifa on the concrete if it were to come to a fair fight without police involved.
There is a lot of crying nazis like him on the alt-right. The alt-right pretends to be tough on the Internet but the truth is they are a bunch of cowards. Those guys wouldn't last a day against protestors without police protection.
Is there actually anything more pathetic than Portland mayos? Look at these fucking dweebs. Look how they seethe that Reddit is not the singular source of all political activity. Imagine if they had to exist in a civil society in which various rights and privileges were enforced by agents of the State, even when they disagreed with the sentiments (however retarded) expounded by said others?
126 comments
1 AutoModerator 2019-06-10
do not comment or vote in linked threads
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 KingRuler07 2019-06-10
The master race can't go around promoting their genocide ideology without police protection. SAD!
1 SnapshillBot 2019-06-10
ALL of you have literal demons inside of you.
Demons DO enter your body through the anus, because the mixture of pain and pleasure caused by the immoral act of sodomy causes so much psychic confusion that a portal to your soul opens up in your anus for the demon to enter.
This is how demons get inside of everyone. They conflate pleasure with pain. They also conflate truth with untruth.
The anus is only ONE way that demons enter a human body, BUT IT IS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT ONES.
This is why so many of you have suffered from pedophilia and sodomy as children. The demons spread to you in this way, in the same way that vampirism spreads through bites.
Reject these homosexual demons and drive them out of your body. I implore you. The world will be a better place. I will forgive you if you expel the demons from your body and stop causing harm to the world around you.
This message is brought to you by truth and decency and concern for your well being as well as the well being of the world around, NOT "bigotry" or "ignorance".
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 Rentokill_boy 2019-06-10
not this nonsense again
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
I don't know, while I think currently nazis and the far right should probably be tolerated, it's only because they're such a fringe.
You can't actually debate fascists or extremists of any stripe tbh, it's completely pointless. There comes a time when they need to just be shut down. I'm a big fan of free speech, at the same time I'm fully aware of how dumb and easily bamboozled your average person is.
Like banning nazis from youtube was a great idea. Sometimes you have to protect people from themselves.
1 Rentokill_boy 2019-06-10
I agree that debating them is a waste of time, but what these people are arguing for is effectively a kind of debate - by attacking them in the public sphere and going to great lengths to try and shut them down, they're dignifying their supremely stupid ideas with a response that suggests they're something powerful and serious, a threat to the established order, instead of what they are in reality - maladjusted clown people.
If you expend huge amounts of effort trying to 'push back' against modern fascism you're mystifying it and imbuing it with a kind of power it absolutely does not have over the general population. By treating fascists as a grand threat to society, you're legitimising their efforts, as a grand threat to society is exactly what they want to be. They should be ignored and mocked like antivaxxers, flat earth people or any other bunch of fringe cranks. As soon as they see people getting upset about them, they're given hope that their strategy is starting to work.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
To be clear, while I wouldn't go as far as to say we have a real fascist movement in the united states, the GOP base, as in the core, partisan base, is what I would consider a proto-fascist movement.
The things they are doing, the things they believe, the arguments they are making could be ripped right from the pages of the anatomy of fascism.
Furthermore, the general political climate is right. The gridlock, the polarization, the disregard for democratic norms. Things are a lot worse than people seem to realize, the length to which the GOP is willing to go to cling to power in face of shifting demographics is alarming.
The extreme gerrymandering, racial voter suppression, absurd smears in which they claim liberals are trying to execute babies after they're born, photo-shopping ISIS outfits onto democratic candidates. This has gone well beyond normal political fighting and reaching levels of extremism I didn't even think were possible in the US.
1 Mayos_side 2019-06-10
That's all well and good but I wanted to know if ITA for slutshaming my cat who's in heat right now.
1 Kellere31 2019-06-10
Wait you arent Longpostbot.
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
See, the thing is, though, racism is justified by a whole lot of data. You can't just ignore reality. You can say "I disagree with the premise that people who commit a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime are bad", but you can't say "there is no problematic race in the country." The question becomes whether we should allow a race to continue committing half the violence, or whether we should do something about them.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
This reminds me of when feminists bring up male crime stats (in very misleading ways) to justify their extreme sexism.
The argument you just made can be used in relation to men, too. Except it's even worse, with men being something like 98% of the violent crime. Funny how that's never a concern for you guys though, yet race is.
Especially interesting, because as far as predictors for crime go, race is pretty far down the list, and gender is basically at the top. You've convinced me! We must deal with this crime problem, what do you suggest we do with the males?
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
You can't get rid of men because men are required to sustain human life. You can get rid of black people, because black people aren't important in any way, shape, or form. Not that I approve of violent genocide. Rather, I believe we ought to sterilize people who commit violent crimes, regardless of race.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
No they aren't. You could simply remove the vast majority of men and store semen, and sustain human life forever, and keep men away from society.
You could solve the crime issue overnight.
surely someone that's simply interested in fighting crime will fully endorse this.
Or is using statistics in a misleading way only valid when it's directed at black people, and not your own group?
1 eva_remastered 2019-06-10
Crime issue solved overnight but society collapses anyways because gussy.
I know you unironically believe this too.
Society would not collapse if it happened to nogs.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
I'm sorry, I don't see your logic. But like I said, if you want to deal with crime (and I just know you're a concerned citizen) you should fully endorse a lockdown on the male gender.
Funny how your arguments, when flipped back on you, all of the sudden are non buono. And no, I don't believe this stuff because I'm not a stupid rightoid. the point is, you'll use misleading statistics to attack entire groups of people, and when those same statistics are flipped back on you, all of the sudden they don't apply.
Hint: you don't care about crime. It's a convenient cover, a way for you to justify your pre-existing prejudice. You formed a view then set out looking for any evidence to justify it. In the same way the feminists did.
1 eva_remastered 2019-06-10
First off, that was my first comment in this thread.
And you wrote this like it was meant for someone else.
Pizza, I know that you know that even with crime pretty much gone because no moids, a foid only society would collapse without question. Do not try and pretend otherwise. We've seen your posts. We've seen your contempt that makes some incels blush.
You cannot say the same for a white or "non black" society. Full stop. Historically, they do better.
0 yangpede 2019-06-10
Do you have some citation that proves a "female dominated society" would collapse, or?
5 eva_remastered 2019-06-10
Hahahahahahaha come on dude
2 yangpede 2019-06-10
Do you not have any? Seems like a bold prediction to make without any supporting evidence.
4 eva_remastered 2019-06-10
lol stop i'm gonna rupture my gut if i laff anymore
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-10
Yeah, but that was because the patriarchy loomed over the entire project tho.
2 DownvotersNeedToDie 2019-06-10
These are the kinda replies you get when universities don’t teach you how to critically think.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
Do you have any?
2 Tzar-Romulus 2019-06-10
There you go.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
Solid argument.
1 eva_remastered 2019-06-10
this but unironically
1 employee10038080 2019-06-10
The foids bleed once a month and get irrationally angry
1 JustLions 2019-06-10
This video explains it quite succinctly.
https://youtu.be/J6oTIjvw_-8
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2019-06-10
Go outside and see
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
"Saying we should get rid of one small but majorly problematic group is totally the same as saying we should kill half the species."
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
Who said kill? Confine, for the good of society. Wait a minute, I thought we were in this together?
You believe crime justifies your prejudice, your racism. To remain logically consistent, you must also be sexist towards men, because they're guilty of crime at much higher rates than women are.
You can't have it one way without the other.
Either crime is a good enough reason to justify your prejudice and take action, or it isn't.
Weird how selective you are all of the sudden. I thought you just cared about society?
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
It's about proportion. Remove 13% of one country? No problem, there'd be no negative repercussions. Remove 3.5 billion people? You're in for some trouble.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
Men are slightly less than 50% of the population and 99% of violent crime though, that's pretty disproportionate.
Someone that cares about society as much as you do, and understands why crime is bad, should have no issues with simply declaring men 2nd class citizens, preventing them from holding positions of power, and taking harsh steps to reduce the crime rate.
You know, for the good of society. You're sure coming up with a lot of excuses for someone that simply wants to reduce crime.
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
You're really trying hard to say "duhhh racism bad because TV said so."
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
I'm not saying anything is bad! You made a valid argument, black people are guilty of crime at disproportionate rates, that means your racism and prejudice are completely justified.
I'm simply taking the next logical step, men are guilty of crime are vastly disproportionate rates, which means prejudice and sexism against men is completely justified.
I find it very interesting that, in one case, black people having higher crime rates justifies whatever you want, but men having much higher crime rates doesn't justify whatever the women want, or the feminists want.
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
Because your "argument" is simple hyperbole. Face it, you're brainwashed.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
It's not hyperbole. You aren't answering my question.
If black people having higher crime rates can justify your racism and prejudice, why do male crime rates not justify sexism and prejudice towards you?
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
Because black people aren't important and make up only a small portion of the population. Men, on the other hand, are important, and make up half of the world. You can end 50% of crime without any real repercussions, whereas eradicating men may end 99% of crime, but would have massive repercussions.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
I see, so it's you that gets to decide who is important. Conveniently enough, the same metric you use to justify your racism and prejudice against others, can not be used to justify sexism and prejudice against you.
Funny how that works. I've proven what I sat out to prove here, so there's no need to continue.
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
It's common sense that defines that. Men have a 2:1 ratio of percentage of the population to crime committed, blacks have a nearly 5:1 ratio. Big difference, no? Men are also responsible for more than half of work that gets done on this Earth, black people in America, not so much.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
It's ok, you've made your point. The very metric that justifies racism and prejudice against others can not be used to justify sexism and prejudice against yourself.
You'll keep digging, you'll keep coming up with arbitrary reasons that protect your own group, because that's easier and more convenient than accepting that your worldview is incoherent and based on nothing relevant.
When someone reveals themselves to be this inconsistent, there's nothing else to discuss.
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
I already stoutly defended by position and proved my logical consistency. You're basically going "nu-uh your argument is bad" without actually addressing it.
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
Yes, your very logically consistent argument of "crime rates justify discrimination against them, but not me."
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
"An argument having any nuance whatsoever immediately invalidates it."
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
"I'm very logically consistent, also, crime rates justify my prejudice and racism against black people, but crime rates DO NOT justify sexism and prejudice against myself, here's my list of arbitrary reasons I've come up with to avoid admitting I'm a literal retard."
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
"Suggesting we remove 390,000 people from the gene pool is the same thing as suggesting we remove 3.5 billion people from the gene pool."
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
of course! Crime metrics mean racism and prejudice against blacks are justified, but not sexism and prejudice against you.
Convenient, I say. You can make up as many arbitrary reasons as you want, we both know what happened here.
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
Whatever you have to say to keep the wool over your eyes, kiddo.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-06-10
No one is going to take the time to read your long ass arguments. When the guy you are talking to is sitting around saying he wants to genocide people it would be helpful if you would report the comment because otherwise there is no chance other regular readers will report it.
1 aqouta 2019-06-10
Racism on the individual level is stupid, you can't apply statistical average differences on an individual level, it's a bad heuristic and you'll be burned for not treating people as individuals.
Applying collective guilt is the big stupid. By the same logic white people are naturally cruel slave owners even though only a small amount of them actually owned slaves and most white people oppose slavery.
There are countless other problems with your reasoning, such as belief that the biggest motivator in crime rate is race rather than the literally millions of other factors that go into that calculus.
1 CLITORIS_CRONCHER 2019-06-10
I agree with you on the individual level.
1 employee10038080 2019-06-10
Hey dumbass, don't try to debate pizzashill. You'll just make him horny
1 Rentokill_boy 2019-06-10
don't kinkshame me fucker
1 FreedomToDrill 2019-06-10
shut the fuck up
1 employee10038080 2019-06-10
tldr
1 YesChancellor 2019-06-10
Holy shit can you make a point in under 200 words?
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
The point was pretty clear, if you're having a hard time I can suggest something to maybe help you.
http://www.readingrockets.org/teaching/reading-basics/comprehension
1 aqouta 2019-06-10
It's actually really easy to debate fascists lol. Maybe not on the internet because debating anyone on the internet is hardly different than masterbation, but in person it's super easy. Smart people who know their shit don't become nazis(unless they're just pretending to be nazis to grift retards).
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
If you think you can debate fascists, you don't actually know what fascism is. And also, tons of smart people get roped into fascist movements.
1 FreedomToDrill 2019-06-10
So you were talking about progressives all along
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
No, we're talking about fascists.
1 Kellere31 2019-06-10
Musollini did nothing wrong Pizza.
1 ineedmorealts 2019-06-10
Normally. Your description of fascists can be applied just as well to literally any group of humans. Humans rarely value truth and are primarily motivated by emotion
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
No it can't, not like fascists. Paxton sums it up:
Fascism is not like any other ideology.
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-10
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/038/094/0a1.jpg
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 wwaalleess 2019-06-10
Baste
1 ineedmorealts 2019-06-10
That's insane hyperbole which stop you from having an unbiased view
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
That's a general understanding of fascism, as found in many respected books.
just because you have no formal education on the subject, doesn't mean I'm biased or hyperbolic.
1 ineedmorealts 2019-06-10
That's a bold claim.
So? Just because they are respected doesn't men their right. What a lazy way of thinking
You've not one brought up education, all you've talked about is respect. Hardly an academic response
1 yangpede 2019-06-10
Lmao, that was a quote from Robert Paxton btw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Paxton
It's an opinion shared by many academics that study fascism. This is just insane, you very clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
1 ineedmorealts 2019-06-10
I know.
You mean academics find their own field of study special compared to others? So what?
No I just disagree with you
Yea I have poor langue skills and rely on spellcheck and rereading to be even vaguely understood
I feel this quote speaks for it's self when offered against you
1 ineedmorealts 2019-06-10
Which I unironically feel is a noble cause
1 aqouta 2019-06-10
I'm sure if nazis had any actual money then a list of their phone numbers would be of great value to scammers.
1 ryandanegayin 2019-06-10
Dude reading lmao
1 dramasexual 2019-06-10
I'm so glad you're back because watching you post is like watching ratchet public freakout videos. It's both morbidly fascinating and it makes me feel better about myself.
1 NormanImmanuel 2019-06-10
>be Popper
>be ace epistemologist
>call out Freud and Marx for the hacks they are
>a hundred years later the same people you dunked on misconstrue a quote of yours to push their agenda
Is there a worse fate?
2 big_papa_stiffy 2019-06-10
they never even read the shit they quote, popper specifically said it was to stop actual violence
like if groups are beating you up then you shouldnt tolerate it for no reason
also he called it a paradox which they seem to skip entirely over
1 Intensely_Accurate 2019-06-10
Being a reddit user.
1 urmomgay2269 2019-06-10
Can confirm
1 ryandanegayin 2019-06-10
I was the failure of a human being.
1 aqouta 2019-06-10
He could have been a janny
1 Ultrashitposter 2019-06-10
Being a philosopher of science
1 MinerHornet 2019-06-10
Hey, did you know there is a subreddit for fans of Popper? Check out /r/popperpigs
1 NormanImmanuel 2019-06-10
Not gonna lie, friend, you almost had me.
1 eva_remastered 2019-06-10
they are unironically the worst, whiniest sub on reddit
1 employee10038080 2019-06-10
It's like they're willfully ignorant of what Popper said.
He was all about the "marketplace of ideas" that the lefties quoting him hate.
1 nsfwcelebnsfw 2019-06-10
Chapotards: we should join antifa and punch anyone on the right
1 employee10038080 2019-06-10
Lmao I wonder who this applies too? The people that have pages or racial IQ data, or the people that spam "post hog"?
1 aqouta 2019-06-10
Both are equally retarded and unable to debate effectively.
1 employee10038080 2019-06-10
Yet another case of the horseshoe. I was just saying the the MDEgenerates are prepared to debate, even though their points are retarded.
1 BIGFAGABLOCKCHAIN 2019-06-10
Can't blame them for debating to the highest capacity they can.
1 SJCards 2019-06-10
Literally imprison anyone who isn't a radical centrist.
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-10
I think it applies to youtube banning people for naughtythought and deplatforming so no conversation can take place.
Source: MDEgenerate who is prepared to debate, even though my ideas are retarded.
1 elephantofdoom 2019-06-10
Its like the same idiots who quote Machiavelli without ever reading anything he wrote. Or people who quote Marx without reading anything he wrote.
Actually, I think that websites that provide quotes without context are destroying our democracy.
1 employee10038080 2019-06-10
Imagine still supporting democracy
1 elephantofdoom 2019-06-10
Once we perfect genetic engineering we can simply create the perfect line of kings, until then we are stuck with it.
1 aqouta 2019-06-10
The perfect society is actually one that is run by democracy but secretly does exactly the opposite of what the public votes on.
1 employee10038080 2019-06-10
Huh, never thought about that. You've convinced me. I'm back on the democracy train.
1 TheFerrret 2019-06-10
I disagree, enlightened monarchy is the only viable system.
1 employee10038080 2019-06-10
Explain
1 TheColdTurtle 2019-06-10
They are redditers, of course they don't read into things.
1 headasplodes 2019-06-10
Their illiteracy is almost as offensive as their brain-dead take.
1 AutoModerator 2019-06-10
There'll be less actual content when 90% of the sub is banned though retard. Shitty metaposts will become 80% of the posts here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 e-guy 2019-06-10
God I hate their insufferable "the ONLY solution proven to be effective fighting Nazis is violence and murder. We NEED to exterminate these menaces to society and anyone protecting them in ANY WAY is a bootlicker fascist sympathizer" talk.
Not necessarily because it's wrong (though it is), but because they're all pussies who don't actually act on that, at least not to the extent that they should be.
If these neo-Nazis are a genuine and immediate existential threat to the safety of themselves and their loved ones, the logical response is to kill them. Like, get a gun, go to their rallies, and shoot them all. Gun down every Nazi in the streets with mob justice until there are none left and the immediate existential threat is purged.
I don't support that, but it is what logically follows from their arguments.
And yet what they actually mean by "violently resisting the Nazi takeover of America" is playing dressup, breaking a few store windows, milkshaking a few politicians, shouting at police, and if they're feeling really spicy then maybe clubbing a Nazi or two over the head with some nearby object and then running away.
Come on guys, if the Nazis are as big a threat as you say, then you shouldn't be merely punching them, you should be trying to break their skulls open! I realize none of you are strong enough to do that, but you should at least try, if for no other reason than for the sake of being logically consistent!
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-10
If only you could put that energy into your relationships
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 york_york_york 2019-06-10
Right? It's like Christians who go "well I don't really care what you believe in." Personally, I like those kinds of religious people because they're not annoying but according to their beliefs, anyone that they don't get onboard with the program is going to be tortured for all of eternity. If you truly believe that, why would you ever waste time doing anything but trying to convert people?
1 911roofer 2019-06-10
Because I suck at it.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2019-06-10
As an answer, it follows that "I really don't care if you go to hell or not" if you're a stranger.
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2019-06-10
I haven’t actually thought of it like that before (not that I didn’t think the whole thing was stupid to begin with).
That being said, all they would have to do to prove their convictions is leave the country, which most of these people still haven’t done.
1 Day_of_the_COPE 2019-06-10
You know how fucked you get for shooting a undercover fed lol
1 ineedmorealts 2019-06-10
I can't wait for the day some bored history student generations removed from all this has to read these comments I imagine they'll get quite the ironic chuckle
I'd argue that fleeing with their family would also be an option
That is what would be done were Nazis an actual threat to anyone
Don't forget declaring themselves heroes the revolution
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-10
That degree finally paying off
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 dramanot 2019-06-10
Me on that thread literally 10 minutes ago
Some fucking retard responds word for word
1 Stenwalden 2019-06-10
You know, their job? Working truly is a fucking alien concept to these people.
1 dramanot 2019-06-10
It gets better, his retardation is nearing terminal velocity.
-Me
Are you fucking daft? Judging by this photo these cops seem to have a history of fucking being minorities and supporting LGBT rights. Do you see anything besides uniforms? Also just because you think hate speech is free speech doesn’t mean you’re a Nazi.
My main is ehlee0133 if you wanna see for yourself
1 calciumhypochlorite 2019-06-10
Please do not conflate people with these bugmen.
1 Stenwalden 2019-06-10
"REEEEEEE THE PIGS WONT LET US BEAT EACH OTHER WITH ROCKS WE TRULY LIVE IN A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY"
I fucking loathe these people
1 Kellere31 2019-06-10
The Police is the only thing that keeps Nazis from killing these guys. How can they be so fucking stupid.
1 KingRuler07 2019-06-10
The police keep crying Nazis like this guy from killing people? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/crying-nazi-barred-from-virginia-after-pleading-guilty-to-assault-during-charlottesville-rally/2018/07/20/164480a4-8c5f-11e8-81bf-28c7cd96bbc2_story.html?utm_term=.93ff84b99d35
1 KingRuler07 2019-06-10
Crying Nazis like this guy can kill people? Give me a break. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/crying-nazi-barred-from-virginia-after-pleading-guilty-to-assault-during-charlottesville-rally/2018/07/20/164480a4-8c5f-11e8-81bf-28c7cd96bbc2_story.html?utm_term=.93ff84b99d35
1 Kellere31 2019-06-10
You found one soygoy on the Alt right and that changes what? These guys will still crush the heads of most Antifa on the concrete if it were to come to a fair fight without police involved.
1 KingRuler07 2019-06-10
There is a lot of crying nazis like him on the alt-right. The alt-right pretends to be tough on the Internet but the truth is they are a bunch of cowards. Those guys wouldn't last a day against protestors without police protection.
1 BlastMyBussy 2019-06-10
I don't know if that sub is full of literal children or delusional adults. Either way they make Nazis look good just by being opposed to them.
1 ryandanegayin 2019-06-10
I swear to fucking god, these people truly have nothing to fucking complain about in their lives.
1 lyridsreign 2019-06-10
Political violence against people they don't like: ToLeRaNcE MuSt bE InToLeRaNt Of InToLeRaNcE!!!!!!!!
Political violence against them: REE
1 SJCards 2019-06-10
Is there actually anything more pathetic than Portland mayos? Look at these fucking dweebs. Look how they seethe that Reddit is not the singular source of all political activity. Imagine if they had to exist in a civil society in which various rights and privileges were enforced by agents of the State, even when they disagreed with the sentiments (however retarded) expounded by said others?