Fenrick said:
Yes, that is definitely a misguided thing to do. However, don't confuse ignorance with malice. The people who do those things might even think they're being respectful. It is one thing to tell them they are wrong. That is fair enough. It is another to try to start a public shaming campaign or call them horrible people, which seems like all-too-common of a reaction.

I don't know, it seems like a valid reaction when they absolutely refuse to change their behavior in spite of knowing how disrespectful they're being, which is more often than not the case when people actually go as far as to get pissy about it. People shouldn't open with blasting people as being horrible, you're right, but that's not all that happens.

Fenrick said:
And the way to fix that isn't to just lash out at people who have had nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter how mean to another somebody was, there is no guilt by association here.

I mean if people go out of their way to avoid confronting their friends and family over bigotry in order to 'be nice' and 'avoid making waves' then they are, in fact, guilty. They may not be actively bigoted, but they're adding to the conception that it's okay to be a bigot. Passive bigotry is, in fact, a thing, and it's dangerous because it's what allows things to get to the point where any one person thinks the active bigotry is okay.

I'm not saying that makes lashing out at people who have nothing to do with anything okay. What I AM saying is that when you're surrounded by this much bullshit and by this many people who literally don't give a damn about you no matter how or how often or how well or how gently you explain shit, it can be difficult to tell the difference between malice and genuinely not knowing.

People who get all righteously indignant when a cop guns down an unarmed kid because the kid somehow made the cop feel unsafe, but then turn right around and say that assaulting people for words they use is completely okay and good... and then promptly block you for calling them out on their hypocrisy.

InannaEloah said:
People who get all righteously indignant when a cop guns down an unarmed kid because the kid somehow made the cop feel unsafe, but then turn right around and say that assaulting people for words they use is completely okay and good... and then promptly block you for calling them out on their hypocrisy.

I mean a trained professional who's supposed to know how to de-escalate a situation killing an unarmed kid is in no way similar to a random civilian person punching an outspoken Nazi spreading Nazi propoganda.

LumenSageAlexander said:
I mean, cultural appropriation is a thing. Any society that's gonna basically shove Native Americans into reservations and then flaunt their cultural symbols for 'fashion' is pulling a massive dick move. If you wouldn't wear War Medals you haven't earned, you really shouldn't go wearing a War Bonnet just for fashion.

You must really hate Japan, then.

LumenSageAlexander said:
You've got to understand that a lot of these people have gotten used to being completely ignored, having their experiences written off as bullshit, and having people who never had any interest in actually learning anything demand to have the most basic information about, as you call it, social improvement explained to them like one would speak to a toddler, only to be treated with very nearly violent backlash at the slightest hint of frustration.

Whether or not you think "social justice warriors" are bigoted or not, it's important to understand that they're coming from a place of extreme frustration with people who just don't have any interest in treating them like human beings.

That doesn't justify their bigotry.

You want frustrating? My childhood is was torturous. Always blamed for everything, always punished, never allowed to speak up, never offered any help. I still remember all the times I came back to class bloodied and bruised because a group of bullies thought it would be funny to tie me to a pole and throw cricket balls at me for 5 minutes straight and the teachers would do nothing to stop them or help me. Ever had a cricket ball thrown at you? They're as hard as rocks. I had to learn how to defend myself at school because no one else was going to, and learn how to endure all the abuse I copped at home.

Do you know what it's like to be denied help from both parents and teachers so many times that you simply stop asking because you know you the answer will always be no? No child should have to experience that.

I wasn't even allowed to go to the hospital when I sustained a near-fatal head injury. All I got was some disinfectant to stop it from turning septic and then told to walk it off, half unconscious and covered in blood. I still had to go to school the next day, obviously not healed up yet, and face the bullies yet again.

But let me guess: My experience doesn't count because I'm not black enough, right?

BlueDingo said:
That doesn't justify their bigotry.

Being unwilling to associate with people out of fear for your life and/or mental health is not the same thing as bigotry, and neither is exposing bigots so that other people don't let their guard down around said bigots.

BlueDingo said:
You want frustrating? My childhood is was torturous. Always blamed for everything, always punished, never allowed to speak up, never offered any help. I still remember all the times I came back to class bloodied and bruised because a group of bullies thought it would be funny to tie me to a pole and throw cricket balls at me for 5 minutes straight and the teachers would do nothing to stop them or help me.

A lot of similar experiences to my own childhood, actually. I did mention I was disabled, didn't I? A lot of kids LOVED to torture me because I wasn't the same as them. I didn't 'act right,' I didn't understand all the little unspoken rules because I was one of those people who needed clear instructions. So, yeah, I understand. I'm sure you're going to refuse to believe me, though, because I'm an "SJW" or whatever.

BlueDingo said:
Ever had a cricket ball thrown at you? They're as hard as rocks.

Ever had an actual rock the size of your head thrown at the back of your head? Ever had teachers actually refuse to do anything because they didn't see it happen?

BlueDingo said:
Do you know what it's like to be denied help from both parents and teachers so many times that you simply stop asking because you know you the answer will always be no?

Yes.

BlueDingo said:
I wasn't even allowed to go to the hospital when I sustained a near-fatal head injury. All I got was some disinfectant to stop it from turning septic and then told to walk it off, half unconscious and covered in blood. I still had to go to school the next day, obviously not healed up yet, and face the bullies yet again.

Was ANY fucking kid from our generation ever allowed to take a personal day because they didn't want to get assaulted and bullied? I mean this is a slightly rhetorical question, but I'm also genuinely curious if anyone ever got to stay home out of fear for their lives and safety.

I sure didn't.

BlueDingo said:
But let me guess: My experience doesn't count because I'm not black enough, right?

It does absolutely count and no child should ever have to go through that shit.

But no amount of bullying can counterbalance another person's experiences. No matter how much shit you or I went through, it doesn't allow us to discount the experiences of other people.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at by asking that question, to be honest.

LumenSageAlexander said:
I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at by asking that question, to be honest.

Because there are entire movements of people who would answer "yes" to that question and say I deserved all of it.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Was ANY fucking kid from our generation ever allowed to take a personal day because they didn't want to get assaulted and bullied? I mean this is a slightly rhetorical question, but I'm also genuinely curious if anyone ever got to stay home out of fear for their lives and safety.

They did if they were sick or injured.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Ever had an actual rock the size of your head thrown at the back of your head? Ever had teachers actually refuse to do anything because they didn't see it happen?

I bet it hurts as much as being catapulted head first into a brick wall.

Listen, the 'social justice warrior' group, as it's referred to, has plenty of flaws. I know, I'm in it. If I seem overly defensive of those flaws it's because I deal with a lot of people who come from the exact opposite end of the spectrum; People who argue specifically to wear my spirit down or make me angry, or people who for whatever reason actually openly believe in fascist, racist, bigoted rhetoric. I've even dealt with people 'satirically' insulting it with the most ridiculous rhetoric possible (such as that eating mexican food is cultural appropriation, which it's not) and somehow being BELIEVED as GENUINE discussion by people who proudly tout themselves as anti-SJWs.

I don't doubt that there are people who would tell you you deserved it at all and I'm sorry you dealt with that bullshit.

I'm just angry because a lot of the people who are affected by this shit are my friends and family and loved ones and I'm actually terrified right now by the shit I read in the news lately, for myself as well as for them.

And still there are people who want to make the shit I'm A) terrified of, or B) neurologically crippled by into a punchline.

(for the record, I hate the term 'Social Justice Warrior' because it implies a lack of party balance; We need Tanks, Healers, Nukers, Mezzers and Buffers just as badly as we need DPS.)

LumenSageAlexander said:
(for the record, I hate the term 'Social Justice Warrior' because it implies a lack of party balance; We need Tanks, Healers, Nukers, Mezzers and Buffers just as badly as we need DPS.)

it's unfortunate but i've only rarely ever heard good things about SJWs and the social justice movement. it's far FAR more common to hear bad things about that movement and why they really are a problem.

if it's not SJWs going on about how free speech is actually hate speech, it's SJWs trying to stop racism in schools...by teaching kids (even in grade school or earlier) how to BE racist by segregating the classes based on skin color then rewarding one color while denying the other(s) of said reward. as well as trying to turn white people (all the way up through college) into self-hating, anti-white white adults who act, and are no better than infants, who keeping wanting a white genocide all the while going on about how multiculturalism is such a great thing despite it not working that well at all.

europe seems pretty "multicultural" these days, why not see how it works for them?

and that's just that one movement alone. that's not even touching on the likes of BLM, third-wave feminism, and others.

why in the world would you ever want to be part of such a problematic movement? or...assuming theres anything worth mentioning, what good have SJWs actually done since being spawned from tumblr and set loose upon the world?

LumenSageAlexander said:
I mean a trained professional who's supposed to know how to de-escalate a situation killing an unarmed kid is in no way similar to a random civilian person punching an outspoken Nazi spreading Nazi propoganda.

Oh yeah, like that makes it totally okay to BREAK THE LAW because their words offend you.

NO, IT IS NOT OKAY!!!!!! I'm sick of people who act like violence toward people who say words is somehow a good thing. That Nazi has EVERY FUCKING RIGHT TO SPEAK HIS MIND EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE IT. You can disagree with him all you want, and you can fucking hate his guts all you want, but you DO NOT GET TO BEAT HIM UP.

InannaEloah said:
Oh yeah, like that makes it totally okay to BREAK THE LAW because their words offend you.

NO, IT IS NOT OKAY!!!!!! I'm sick of people who act like violence toward people who say words is somehow a good thing. That Nazi has EVERY FUCKING RIGHT TO SPEAK HIS MIND EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE IT. You can disagree with him all you want, and you can fucking hate his guts all you want, but you DO NOT GET TO BEAT HIM UP.

Kinda reminds me of this.

treos said:
it's unfortunate but i've only rarely ever heard good things about SJWs and the social justice movement. it's far FAR more common to hear bad things about that movement and why they really are a problem.

if it's not SJWs going on about how free speech is actually hate speech, it's SJWs trying to stop racism in schools...by teaching kids (even in grade school or earlier) how to BE racist by segregating the classes based on skin color then rewarding one color while denying the other(s) of said reward. as well as trying to turn white people (all the way up through college) into self-hating, anti-white white adults who act, and are no better than infants, who keeping wanting a white genocide all the while going on about how multiculturalism is such a great thing despite it not working that well at all.

europe seems pretty "multicultural" these days, why not see how it works for them?

and that's just that one movement alone. that's not even touching on the likes of BLM, third-wave feminism, and others.

why in the world would you ever want to be part of such a problematic movement? or...assuming theres anything worth mentioning, what good have SJWs actually done since being spawned from tumblr and set loose upon the world?

If that's how you see Social Justice, Black Lives Matter, and Feminism, then I don't know what to tell you. We're seeing things completely differently. I mean, I don't know what you're basing your view of what schools are like on personally, but just as an example:

Black Lives Matter, as a movement, gets a lot of flak because people see it as trying to say that black lives matter MORE than any other? I'm not sure if that's what you think they're saying (I'll be honest, if I were a betting man, I'd bet it was, because that's about where 75% of the malice I've seen directed towards it comes from), but the reality is that the entire point of saying Black Lives Matter is acknowledging that black people are disproportionately targeted by police officers over other people. Saying Black Lives Matter is supposed to say just that - that black people matter TOO. Not that they're better than anyone else, but that they deserve the same protection and human respect as anyone else, and that if they're being attacked, people ought to treat it as seriously as they would anyone else.

It's saying "LOOK AT ME," yes, but when you can't trust authority at all and authority is actually terrifying to you on a basic level, you need to get attention from elsewhere.

You talk like tumblr is some madcap place full of gibbering lunatics, but a lot of the coverage we got ABOUT the things happening to black people by police were distributed by people livestreaming and directing people to livestreams via tumblr; Social media was literally the only coverage that the 'riots' in various places got. And I don't know what you were told about those places by mainstream news, but I saw a lot of police militarism and brutality, people being shot directly with gas canisters (which are actually VERY HARD and meant to be fired not into PEOPLE but at the GROUND near CROWDS because it's the GAS that does its job, not the PROJECTILE, and the PROJECTILE is actually very easy to do serious damage to someone with), policemen approaching people with weapons brandished and an absolute lack of trigger discipline, etc. If tumblr seems scary, it's because a lot of people who inhabit it are ANGRY because they grow up experiencing terrible things and they get to SEE things a lot of people, to be honest, gloss over.

And that's JUST in defense of Black Lives Matter. I don't care to get into the rest of it right now because I'm emotionally exhausted at the moment. But believe you me, I have plenty to say in defense of 'third wave feminism' and social justice in general as well.

Yes, people who talk about social justice have failings, but in a lot of cases these are very young people just coming to terms with exactly how wrong things are after being essentially programmed to accept being treated like garbage, so yeah. That said, while you may be seeing different parts of the movement than me, from my perspective, the majority things I've heard sound, honestly, pretty basic, and not radical at all.

InannaEloah said:
Oh yeah, like that makes it totally okay to BREAK THE LAW because their words offend you.

NO, IT IS NOT OKAY!!!!!! I'm sick of people who act like violence toward people who say words is somehow a good thing. That Nazi has EVERY FUCKING RIGHT TO SPEAK HIS MIND EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE IT. You can disagree with him all you want, and you can fucking hate his guts all you want, but you DO NOT GET TO BEAT HIM UP.

Yell all you want, but this is a guy that's literally endorsing the murder of people like me and people I love for things we never had any control over. I'm not going to show any sympathy for him getting knocked on his ass (if we're speaking about Richard Spencer). An openly recruiting Nazi is NOT the same thing as some black kid just going about his day, and I don't care if it makes me seem 'as bad as him' to you.

If you're speaking about the OTHER nazi who got 'assaulted' (read: shoved lightly after actively instigating), the guy literally said "Hitler did nothing wrong" after tricking a Jewish man (Shia LeBouf is Jewish) into taking a selfy with him. I would shove a person getting into my personal space under false pretenses who believed that people like me deserved to die, too.

Nuance is a thing. Extenuating circumstances are a thing. Freedom of Speech inherently has limitations when certain circumstances are at play.

This is the last I'm going to say on the matter for now though because I'm aware the rule about political discussions exists and this is getting into territory where I can't really defend my viewpoints without getting pretty heavily into politics.

I just

The world makes me very angry, but apparently not for the same reasons as a lot of you.

I'll leave it at that because I don't want to start a flame war and also because, again, I'm getting emotionally exhausted.

I've said my piece, I've made my peace, take it how you will.

I just really needed to vent.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Yell all you want, but this is a guy that's literally endorsing the murder of people like me and people I love for things we never had any control over. I'm not going to show any sympathy for him getting knocked on his ass (if we're speaking about Richard Spencer). An openly recruiting Nazi is NOT the same thing as some black kid just going about his day, and I don't care if it makes me seem 'as bad as him' to you.

Dude, he is fully within his rights to speak his mind, even if it is something that makes you upset or uncomfortable. Him being a nazi is NOT A LEGITIMATE REASON TO PHYSICALLY ASSAULT HIM. That is the law, you don't get to ignore the law just because he has an unpopular opinion.

People like you who think words alone should be enough to justify violence are the problem. He is not the problem here. You are the problem here. You and everyone like you who thinks that freedom of speech needs to be fucking dismantled because "OMFG, someone said something I don't like."

No, if it's wrong for a cop to murder an innocent person, it's wrong for you to assault someone for having an opinion that you don't agree with. What he believes in is completely irrelevant. The moment you become violent toward him is the moment YOU become the criminal.

Stop ignoring reality just because it inconveniences you or offends you. You are required to not hit someone even if they say you're the devil and eat babies and all that nasty shit. Words are not a justification for violence.

Gunna be honest, real annoyed at my body right now.

Why did you have to get sick on me? Is all this coughing fun to you? You thought a fever would be a jolly good time? I can't believe you've done this!

InannaEloah said:
Dude, he is fully within his rights to speak his mind, even if it is something that makes you upset or uncomfortable. Him being a nazi is NOT A LEGITIMATE REASON TO PHYSICALLY ASSAULT HIM. That is the law, you don't get to ignore the law just because he has an unpopular opinion.

People like you who think words alone should be enough to justify violence are the problem. He is not the problem here. You are the problem here. You and everyone like you who thinks that freedom of speech needs to be fucking dismantled because "OMFG, someone said something I don't like."

No, if it's wrong for a cop to murder an innocent person, it's wrong for you to assault someone for having an opinion that you don't agree with. What he believes in is completely irrelevant. The moment you become violent toward him is the moment YOU become the criminal.

Stop ignoring reality just because it inconveniences you or offends you. You are required to not hit someone even if they say you're the devil and eat babies and all that nasty shit. Words are not a justification for violence.

Okay, I lied. Gonna just say this one last thing:

It's not that he thinks I'm evil. It's not even that he believes I DESERVE to die. It's a BASIC TENET OF HIS BELIEFS as a LITERAL ACTUAL NAZI that people like me NEED TO BE EXTERMINATED. By that logic the very fact he is out there spouting his bullshit is literally the same as the promise of future violence.

Talking shit about people is one thing, but if someone comes out onto the street and basically says they intend to come back some time in the future with a gun and kill people, if you told me you'd just completely ignore that and let it happen, then YOU'RE in the wrong.

Shooting down innocent black kids is wrong. And it's also MILES away from being anywhere near comparable with this shit.

Now I'm done for real. Promise. Pinkie swear.

Bye.

LumenSageAlexander said:
rant in defense of BLM

1. BLM might get less flak if they were to stop rioting (what the mainstream media calls "protesting") and destroying things and setting things on fire and otherwise causing problems.

2. "but the reality is that the entire point of saying Black Lives Matter is acknowledging that black people are disproportionately targeted by police officers over other people."

fact: black people commit a disproportionately higher number of crimes among their own ethnic group (black-on-black crimes) compared to most other ethnic groups.

that in turn leads to a disproportionate amount of black people getting targeted by the police. but you better not mention that around them or they'll do everything they can to shift the blame to white people.

and 3. when was it that a BLM rioter said, and i quote: "We cannot cohabitate with white people!'

i think the majority reply to that was "we'll buy you a ticket to wherever you want to go." or something similar.

gangs, drugs, murder, rape, etc., etc.... maybe if they would stop blaming other people for their problems and work to cleanup and prevent crimes from happening and stop killing each other they wouldn't have so many problems. instead we get them blaming white people for their problems, demanding that we pay reparations to them for things our ancestors did (uh, i have absolutely NO reason to give someone money for what happened long before i was even born. that ain't happening ever.), and rioting and generally making a huge mess of things.

i guess what makes me most angry about movements like this is the fact that, for all the good things they claim to stand for, they really just go around causing a lot of problems instead. and when called out on those problems, you tend to just get anger, hatred, profanity, and it's generally smarter to simply avoid them outright if you don't have a good way of fighting back and defending yourself.
------------------------------------
with feminism you have feminists (the actual feminists, not the more well known feminazis) who are for women's rights. well, ask a feminist these days "can you tell me what rights men have that women don't?" and let the onslaught of hateful verbal and/or physical abuse commence.

actually, it's more about female superiority than equal rights (egalitarianism) these days. that and misogyny, the denying of the existence of misandry while they prove it exists and is very real with their actions, fighting MRAs (oh, heaven forbid someone tries to fight for or even dare to speak about men's rights. >.>), and in the words of the worlds favorite feminist: "Everything is sexist, and it is your job to point it out."

i wonder if they'll ever be able to successfully release that documentary, The Red Pill , without feminists attacking every attempt at a release at a theatre. well, iirc they said they'd release it online eventually so it can be seen once that happens if nothing else. regardless of how much loud, noisy, hatred it gets.

Why can't we all just get along?

Free to play games with 461582443049-09-192408436789467234 x10^3453456820478 microtransations that are still in "Early Access" after 4 years.

BlueDingo said:
You want frustrating? My childhood is was torturous. Always blamed for everything, always punished, never allowed to speak up, never offered any help. I still remember all the times I came back to class bloodied and bruised because a group of bullies thought it would be funny to tie me to a pole and throw cricket balls at me for 5 minutes straight and the teachers would do nothing to stop them or help me. Ever had a cricket ball thrown at you? They're as hard as rocks. I had to learn how to defend myself at school because no one else was going to, and learn how to endure all the abuse I copped at home.

Do you know what it's like to be denied help from both parents and teachers so many times that you simply stop asking because you know you the answer will always be no? No child should have to experience that.

I wasn't even allowed to go to the hospital when I sustained a near-fatal head injury. All I got was some disinfectant to stop it from turning septic and then told to walk it off, half unconscious and covered in blood. I still had to go to school the next day, obviously not healed up yet, and face the bullies yet again.

Where the hell did you grow up?

Corniscopic said:
Where the hell did you grow up?

Being an American born and raised I can assure you the only thing that's really unusual about this is the extent of the injuries inflicted and maybe the fact he was forced to go to school with them the next day. Everything else - the violent bullying, teachers and staff and even parents laughing it off, and the severe lack of trust it instills - is pretty standard fare for growing up anywhere in the American school system.

It's not okay at all, but in spite of how terrible it is, it's normal.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Being an American born and raised I can assure you the only thing that's really unusual about this is the extent of the injuries inflicted and maybe the fact he was forced to go to school with them the next day. Everything else - the violent bullying, teachers and staff and even parents laughing it off, and the severe lack of trust it instills - is pretty standard fare for growing up anywhere in the American school system.

It's not okay at all, but in spite of how terrible it is, it's normal.

I'm an American and grew up in Texas. The most I ever suffered and/or saw was verbal bullying. Anything else was quickly stamped out, if it even happened in the first place.

Corniscopic said:
I'm an American and grew up in Texas. The most I ever suffered and/or saw was verbal bullying. Anything else was quickly stamped out, if it even happened in the first place.

Let me be the first to say I'm happy for you, then. I meant it when I agreed with BlueDingo - nobody should have to go through that shit.

Corniscopic said:
I'm an American and grew up in Texas. The most I ever suffered and/or saw was verbal bullying. Anything else was quickly stamped out, if it even happened in the first place.

My school had plenty of bullies. I really don't think anyone's anecdotal school experience is all that valid to assess the overall level of bullying that goes on in the States. Some kids get picked on and see it as a huge problem, some kids never get picked on and wonder what all the fuss is about.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Okay, I lied. Gonna just say this one last thing:

It's not that he thinks I'm evil. It's not even that he believes I DESERVE to die. It's a BASIC TENET OF HIS BELIEFS as a LITERAL ACTUAL NAZI that people like me NEED TO BE EXTERMINATED. By that logic the very fact he is out there spouting his bullshit is literally the same as the promise of future violence.

Words. Do. Not. Justify. Violence.

Get that through your head. His words by themselves do NOT make harming him okay. You don't get to assault somebody over words.

This is reality. Stop ignoring reality. Reality is that when you sucker punch a nazi, you are committing a CRIME. YOU are violating the law, it is NOT okay.

Scream "anti-seminitsm" all you want, it is NOT OKAY to hit people for saying words. You being a Jew (or whatever the hell else you are that angers the guy) does not make it okay for you to hit a Nazi over his words. You are not held to a different standard than every other human being on planet Earth. "God's Chosen People" still have to obey the same laws that everybody else has to.

You are not exempt from your obligation to not hit another person over words they speak or opinions that they hold. You are still required to treat them like people, and if you go to jail for assaulting them, then good. That is what you deserve.

Corniscopic said:
Where the hell did you grow up?

Australia.

InannaEloah said:
Words. Do. Not. Justify. Violence.

Get that through your head. His words by themselves do NOT make harming him okay. You don't get to assault somebody over words.

This is reality. Stop ignoring reality. Reality is that when you sucker punch a nazi, you are committing a CRIME. YOU are violating the law, it is NOT okay.

Scream "anti-seminitsm" all you want, it is NOT OKAY to hit people for saying words. You being a Jew (or whatever the hell else you are that angers the guy) does not make it okay for you to hit a Nazi over his words. You are not held to a different standard than every other human being on planet Earth. "God's Chosen People" still have to obey the same laws that everybody else has to.

You are not exempt from your obligation to not hit another person over words they speak or opinions that they hold. You are still required to treat them like people, and if you go to jail for assaulting them, then good. That is what you deserve.

agreed, aside from those few restriction like inciting violence, freedom of speech doesn't end at peoples feelings. nor does it give anyone permission to physically assault whosoever happens to be exercising that freedom regardless of what they might be saying.

even if it's a nazi talking negatively about jews. that doesn't give the jews in question the right to physically assault said nazi.

o_O why do people from certain religions like to act as if they're exempt from things such as criticism and mockery? be you a jew or muslim, your religion and/or history doesn't make you exempt from those things.

treos said:
o_O why do people from certain religions like to act as if they're exempt from things such as criticism and mockery? be you a jew or muslim, your religion and/or history doesn't make you exempt from those things.

It doesn't stop them, though.

Movies where someone says "the (blank) was inside you all along). It's overused.

BlueDingo said:
It doesn't stop them, though.

-_- got an article minus a paywall? hmmm... scratch that, looks like this site doesn't block archive.is. :) i know some news sites manage to make it so that attempting to archive a news article result in the paywall being archived instead. might want to watch out for that. o_O i still wonder how they manage to do that.

"Lawyer Clive Evatt yesterday told Judge Balla his client could not reveal her face to any man outside her family — for religious reasons.

Judge Balla said Ms Elzahed could have the court closed while she gave evidence or she could go to another room and give evidence via video link.

Mr Evatt declined both options because the mostly male legal counsels for both sides would still be able to see his client’s face.

Ms Elzahed also ­refused to stand for Judge Balla when the judicial officer entered and exited the court."

sorry, lady (the one who refused to remove the burqa), but if you travel to another country you are subject to and have to follow that countries laws as long as you are staying there. and if you refuse to adhere to said laws for any reason (religious or otherwise) then that's entirely on you as it's a choice you made.

i'm pretty sure that would apply to what country she originally came from as well.

it's not so much she "couldn't" show her face as it is she "wouldn't".

treos said:
-_- got an article minus a paywall? hmmm... scratch that, looks like this site doesn't block archive.is. :) i know some news sites manage to make it so that attempting to archive a news article result in the paywall being archived instead. might want to watch out for that. o_O i still wonder how they manage to do that.

It didn't paywall when I first clicked on it... Try googling "woman refuses to remove burqa in court".

Weird, clicking the link in google works fine while clicking it here hits the paywall...

BlueDingo said:
It didn't paywall when I first clicked on it... Try googling "woman refuses to remove burqa in court".

Weird, clicking the link in google works fine while clicking it here hits the paywall...

perhaps it's a regional thing?

Dyrone said:
My school had plenty of bullies. I really don't think anyone's anecdotal school experience is all that valid to assess the overall level of bullying that goes on in the States. Some kids get picked on and see it as a huge problem, some kids never get picked on and wonder what all the fuss is about.

Yeah but, there's a huge difference between getting picked on and being tied up and having cricket balls thrown at you.

BlueDingo said:
Australia.

And now it all makes sense. Everything there wants to kill you!

Corniscopic said:
And now it all makes sense. Everything there wants to kill you!

A very memeable statement, but it's not as bad as you think. Sure, we have snakes, spiders, emus, cassowaries, sharks, crocodiles, eagles, magpies, platypuses, kangaroos, dingoes, jellyfish, tassie devils, drop bears and bogans that will try to kill you when you're swimming, hiking or sleeping, but not all animals are deadly. Frilled-neck lizards, sugar gliders, rosellas and fairy penguins aren't so bad...

BlueDingo said:
A very memeable statement, but it's not as bad as you think. Sure, we have snakes, spiders, emus, cassowaries, sharks, crocodiles, eagles, magpies, platypuses, kangaroos, dingoes, jellyfish, tassie devils, drop bears and bogans that will try to kill you when you're swimming, hiking or sleeping, but not all animals are deadly. Frilled-neck lizards, sugar gliders, rosellas and fairy penguins aren't so bad...

Somehow the videos from australia i've seen make even rabbits and mice look dangerous xD

Bozar said:
Somehow the videos from australia i've seen make even rabbits and mice look dangerous xD

They're the ones that get you in your sleep. Them and possums.

BlueDingo said:
A very memeable statement, but it's not as bad as you think. Sure, we have snakes, spiders, emus, cassowaries, sharks, crocodiles, eagles, magpies, platypuses, kangaroos, dingoes, jellyfish, tassie devils, drop bears and bogans that will try to kill you when you're swimming, hiking or sleeping, but not all animals are deadly. Frilled-neck lizards, sugar gliders, rosellas and fairy penguins aren't so bad...

what about the giant monster spiders you've told me about? those things are HUGE!

treos said:
what about the giant monster spiders you've told me about? those things are HUGE!

Which one, huntsman or goliath?

BlueDingo said:
Which one, huntsman or goliath?

both and goodness, that goliath is a monster of a spider. O_O

treos said:
both and goodness, that goliath is a monster of a spider. O_O

Luckily, you won't find that one or the giant huntsman here. Regular huntsmans (huntsmen?) are bad enough, especially when you wake up in the morning and the first thing you see is this bastard on the ceiliing.

1: When people leave cupboards, drier doors, washer doors, etc open.

2: When people complain even after you've given them the advice they asked for.

3: Seeing people mistype things as they're being typed (yet I don't seem to care when I see comments and whatnot, only if I'm seeing someone typing something.)

4: When people go out of their way to make another person's way of life their problem. It's a waste of time, don't do it.

5: When people are stuck in their ways, and can't step back to look at the bigger picture. There's no room for personal growth if you're so focused on "sticking to your guns."

The fact that my damn upload keeps failing with a "could not communicate with the website" Really?

Drivers from DC.

Fenrick said:
Drivers from DC.

Do they do burnouts and doughnuts in front of your house?

BlueDingo said:
Do they do burnouts and doughnuts in front of your house?

They drive like grandmas and there are millions of the bastards

Fenrick said:
They drive like grandmas and there are millions of the bastards

Hoons are worse. They drive like maniacs and screech their tyres outside my bedroom window at 2:00 in the morning.

Fenrick said:
Drivers from DC.

Drivers from Oregon.

When your neighbors decide to play their subwoofers at 12 am. Like, do you not know the meaning of common courtesy to not play a) loud music and b) heavy vibrations at night?

Furrin_Gok said:
When your neighbors decide to play their subwoofers at 12 am. Like, do you not know the meaning of common courtesy to not play a) loud music and b) heavy vibrations at night?

Especially when they have a shitbox and you can hear it vibrating from over 10 metres away.

BlueDingo said:
Especially when they're driving a shitbox and you can hear the car itself vibrating from over 10 metres away.

Nothing to do with cars. They like to throw night parties inside, which would be fine if they just didn't play headache inducing subs at night, when your average person is going to be trying to sleep.

Furrin_Gok said:
Nothing to do with cars. They like to throw night parties inside, which would be fine if they just didn't play headache inducing subs at night, when your average person is going to be trying to sleep.

Where I am, you're more likely to hear people playing loud music from the subwoofer in their car. The problem is, a lot of them have really poor quality cars (ie. shitboxes) that vibrate badly when the windows are up. It makes them sound like they're gonna fall apart.

The sheer number of people I've met who think it's hypocritical to preach tolerance and to not respect bigotry gets me pretty riled up.

The idea itself pisses me off, too.

LumenSageAlexander said:
The sheer number of people I've met who think it's hypocritical to preach tolerance and to not respect bigotry gets me pretty riled up.

The idea itself pisses me off, too.

The sheer number of people I've met who refuse to acknowledge a reality that inconveniences them and who use that inconvenience as a justification to break the law.

InannaEloah said:
The sheer number of people I've met who refuse to acknowledge a reality that inconveniences them and who use that inconvenience as a justification to break the law.

While we're on the topic, the number of people who think that the law is the ultimate, infallible arbiter of justice and morality also irks me.

LumenSageAlexander said:
While we're on the topic, the number of people who think that the law is the ultimate, infallible arbiter of justice and morality also irks me.

Are you suggesting the law is not the arbiter of justice?

BlueDingo said:
Are you suggesting the law is not the arbiter of justice?

I'm suggesting it's not perfect and acting as though breaking the law is, in itself, inherently somehow evil is ludicrous.

Especially given that civil disobedience is a legal term, a legitimate thing, and considered a civic duty in certain circumstances.

LumenSageAlexander said:
I'm suggesting it's not perfect and acting as though breaking the law is, in itself, inherently somehow evil is ludicrous.

Especially given that civil disobedience is a legal term, a legitimate thing, and considered a civic duty in certain circumstances.

And which laws do you want to break?

BlueDingo said:
And which laws do you want to break?

First off, none spring directly to mind. I was just trying to get Inanna to stop throwing around 'breaking the law' as if it were inherently an insult. It's not. The law protects peace and order, not necessarily justice.

Secondly, don't equate my not feeling especially beholden to the law with the idea I'm a criminal.

LumenSageAlexander said:
First off, none spring directly to mind.

So the desire is there.

LumenSageAlexander said:
I was just trying to get Inanna to stop throwing around 'breaking the law' as if it were inherently an insult. It's not. The law protects peace and order, not necessarily justice.

Being allowed to get away with breaking the law is an insult to those who value fairness.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Secondly, don't equate my not feeling especially beholden to the law with the idea I'm a criminal.

A criminal is not someone who wants to break the law. A criminal is someone who does break the law.

BlueDingo said:
So the desire is there.

Not desire. Willingness. Big difference.

I'm not looking/waiting for an excuse. But I'm not willing to follow an unjust law, either.

BlueDingo said:
Being allowed to get away with breaking the law is an insult to those who value fairness.

That really depends on the law. There are plenty of unfair laws, past and present.

BlueDingo said:
A criminal is not someone who wants to break the law. A criminal is someone who does break the law.

Glad we agree on that.

LumenSageAlexander said:
I'm not looking/waiting for an excuse. But I'm not willing to follow an unjust law, either.

That really depends on the law. There are plenty of unfair laws, past and present.

And which present laws do you consider unjust?

While we're on the subject, justice itself. It's a myth that people use to excuse vengeance, mostly revenge by proxy. There's no such thing, morals or not. There never will be. People who claim to be justice itself are representing a work of fiction.

BlueDingo said:
And which present laws do you consider unjust?

I really don't want to get into discussing politics in-depth right now.

I'm venting.

kamimatsu said:
While we're on the subject, justice itself. It's a myth that people use to excuse vengeance, mostly revenge by proxy. There's no such thing, morals or not. There never will be. People who claim to be justice itself are representing a work of fiction.

I used to believe the same thing, but that's just a particularly dark interpretation of the word justice.

It'd be more accurate for me to use the word 'equity', but I'm just using the word to be a simple explanation for the concept of law and legality not being equivalent to morality.

LumenSageAlexander said:
I really don't want to get into discussing politics in-depth right now.

I'm venting.

We're not discussing politics. We're discussing laws.

BlueDingo said:
We're not discussing politics. We're discussing laws.

And any law I would bring up as an example would very possibly start this discussion down a path of 'social justice' and such, which is usually what people mean when they say 'no politics'.

And there's rules against that in the forum.

I know that's ironic considering the topic of discussion right now, but I don't feel like getting banned by the admins or some shit over a vent.

So, what about the laws that declare that the police have the right to act upon a threat? Attacking a person for talking is illegal, but if they're actually talking about going out and hurting or killing people (It's important that they say that they or "their group" will be doing it. Saying it will happen, in general, does not count), especially if you can catch it on recording, can be reported for action. While you may see some laws as unfair, it is because you want to act against them, but we have other laws which balance it out, and dedicated enforces to uphold the balance, as without assigned enforcers we would have chaos and people on both sides claiming they have the law on th eir side.

Furrin_Gok said:
So, what about the laws that declare that the police have the right to act upon a threat? Attacking a person for talking is illegal, but if they're actually talking about going out and hurting or killing people (It's important that they say that they or "their group" will be doing it. Saying it will happen, in general, does not count), especially if you can catch it on recording, can be reported for action. While you may see some laws as unfair, it is because you want to act against them, but we have other laws which balance it out, and dedicated enforces to uphold the balance, as without assigned enforcers we would have chaos and people on both sides claiming they have the law on th eir side.

And we're (sort of) back to the source of the major disagreement between Inanna and I, with this.

I don't see any problem with the police acting upon a threat, as long as that action is arrest or the application of proper force, with lethal force as a LAST resort, as it's supposed to be. I won't say that I TRUST the police to apply proper force anymore after some of the things I've seen and read, but the judicious use of force to subjugate someone who's resisting arrest for threatening to go out and hurt, much less kill, people is a thing I fully understand and agree with in theory.

The major source of the disagreement between Inanna and I is that I think the police should already be arresting people like Richard Spencer under that logic, because the rhetoric he's spreading is based on the belief system that not only should people like me die (or at least 'be removed'), but that his group should be the ones to 'remove' us.

And I also believe that if the police fail to arrest people who spread that rhetoric (especially when they've gone on record as talking about ethnic cleansing as part of their agenda, regardless of whether they're out on the street talking about that bit right now at that specific time), then civilians taking that person away from their public forum is perfectly acceptable.

TL;DR Richard Spencer is inciting violence and that's illegal and, in my opinion, perfectly understandable grounds to punch him.

LumenSageAlexander said:
And we're (sort of) back to the source of the major disagreement between Inanna and I, with this.

I don't see any problem with the police acting upon a threat, as long as that action is arrest or the application of proper force, with lethal force as a LAST resort, as it's supposed to be. I won't say that I TRUST the police to apply proper force anymore after some of the things I've seen and read, but the judicious use of force to subjugate someone who's resisting arrest for threatening to go out and hurt, much less kill, people is a thing I fully understand and agree with in theory.

The major source of the disagreement between Inanna and I is that I think the police should already be arresting people like Richard Spencer under that logic, because the rhetoric he's spreading is based on the belief system that not only should people like me die (or at least 'be removed'), but that his group should be the ones to 'remove' us.

And I also believe that if the police fail to arrest people who spread that rhetoric (especially when they've gone on record as talking about ethnic cleansing as part of their agenda, regardless of whether they're out on the street talking about that bit right now at that specific time), then civilians taking that person away from their public forum is perfectly acceptable.

TL;DR Richard Spencer is inciting violence and that's illegal and, in my opinion, perfectly understandable grounds to punch him.

I agree that police should act upon current and obvious threats of the sort, but...

Spencer has defended their conduct, stating that the Nazi salute was given in a spirit of "irony and exuberance".

Ironic and satire are real things. Some actions cannot be punished because of this, though his quoting of them and the request of "ethical cleansing" should be punished by enforcers. The police failing to act upon such things is a sign of corruption, I think, which is something to be looked into.

Again, though, it is not our place to enforce laws in place of police. You have a right to speak out against him, but why not also protest the inactivity of the police on the matter?

Furrin_Gok said:
we have other laws which balance it out, and dedicated enforces to uphold the balance, as without assigned enforcers we would have chaos and people on both sides claiming they have the law on their side.

I'm imagining an entire nation of Judge Dredds right now.

Furrin_Gok said:
I agree that police should act upon current and obvious threats of the sort, but...
Ironic and satire are real things. Some actions cannot be punished because of this, though his quoting of them and the request of "ethical cleansing" should be punished by enforcers. The police failing to act upon such things is a sign of corruption, I think, which is something to be looked into.

"Satire" is supposed to be the idea of ironically taking something to its logical extreme as a method of showing how flawed and, at worst, terrible or even terrifying an idea is. There's a major difference between actual satire (for example, The Colbert Report) and regurgitating actual bigoted rhetoric without the slightest indicator of irony. It IS the responsibility of the person using satire as a mechanism to demonstrate that it is, in fact, satire. If they're failing badly enough that they're actually mobilizing the people they're attempting to deconstruct, then at the very least they should take a long, hard look at their script and try to fix their material.

Furrin_Gok said:
Again, though, it is not our place to enforce laws in place of police. You have a right to speak out against him, but why not also protest the inactivity of the police on the matter?

Primarily because protesting about police misconduct isn't getting anything done. It hasn't gotten anything done in a long time. People have been politely asking for police reform for a long time, now.

Of course, the media has chosen to brand most of those protests as riots.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Of course, the media has chosen to brand most of those protests as riots.

It is a riot when they're running around smashing things.

BlueDingo said:
It is a riot when they're running around smashing things.

You're right, it is. And that's not what happened.

It would take me a while to find them again, but I have seen photographs of Cripps and Bloods ignoring their differences and working together to SAFEGUARD stores from looters specifically because they knew that such conduct would only delegitimize their message.

Edit: To be fair, I can't really bring myself to condemn riots even if what had happened in those protests HAD been riots. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., a riot is the language of the unheard.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Edit: To be fair, I can't really bring myself to condemn riots even if what had happened in those protests HAD been riots.

Then you also don't have a problem with disturbing the peace, violence and vandalism.

BlueDingo said:
Then you also don't have a problem with disturbing the peace, violence and vandalism.

I do have a problem with them in normal circumstances.

But it's increasingly hard for me to hold it against them as they continue to be subject to police brutality for bullshit reasons with no sign of consequences and no end in sight.

At some point people need to acknowledge that this is no better than a lack of law enforcement.

Peace and order without fairness and compassion is hollow and not something we should aspire to as a society.